Visits to Fields of Battle, in England, of the Fifteenth Century / to which are added, some miscellaneous tracts and papers upon archæological subjects
Date: 2018-10-21T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Great Britain -- History -- Wars of the Roses; 1455-1485; Battlefields -- England

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Visits to Fields of Battle, in England, of the Fifteenth Century

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Visits to Fields of Battle, in England, of the Fifteenth Century

Author: Richard Brooke

Release date: October 21, 2018 [eBook #58147]

Language: English

Credits: Transcribed from the 1857 John Russell Smith edition by David Price. Many thanks to the Bodleian / British Library for the scans of the book

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VISITS TO FIELDS OF BATTLE, IN ENGLAND, OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY ***

Transcribed from the 1857 John Russell Smith edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org  Many thanks to the Bodleian / British Library for the scans of the book.

VISITS
TO
FIELDS OF BATTLE,
IN
ENGLAND,
OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY;

TO WHICH ARE ADDED,
SOME MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS AND PAPERS UPON
ARCHÆOLOGICAL SUBJECTS.

BY
RICHARD BROOKE, ESQ., F.S.A.

LONDON:
JOHN RUSSELL SMITH,
36, SOHO SQUARE.
LIVERPOOL:
J. MAWDSLEY AND SON, CASTLE STREET.
M DCCC LVII.

London; F. Pickton, Printer, Perry’s Place, 29, Oxford Street

PREFACE.

In the course of the fifteenth century, England experienced, in a lamentable degree, the sad effects of internal discord, and the miseries caused by the conflicts of adverse factions.

It is scarcely possible, for historians to point out, in the annals of any country in Europe, in the feudal ages, deeds of violence and bloodshed, of a more appalling nature, than those which the chroniclers have recorded, as having occurred in England, during the period which intervened between the years 1400 and 1500—a period memorable for the sanguinary wars of York and Lancaster.  During the continuance of those disastrous conflicts, thousands of brave men perished in arms, the axe of the executioner was seldom idle, great numbers of the nobility and gentry lost their lives in the field or upon the scaffold, property was usurped in consequence of wholesale confiscations, numberless innocent lives were sacrificed, and many happy homes were outraged.

This misery was the result of contests for a crown, which perhaps neither of the claimants merited, nor does it appear, that it was of great importance to the nation, which of the rival competitors wore it.

Of those destructive wars, the battle of Shrewsbury in the reign of Henry IV., in 1403, may be considered in some degree as the first; because it was the earliest attempt by an appeal to arms, to remove from the throne a monarch of the House of Lancaster; [v] and the last was the battle of Stoke, fought in 1487, in the reign of Henry VII.; that of Bosworth, in which, by the death of Richard III., the Plantagenet dynasty terminated, being often erroneously called the last; but, although the latter certainly placed the House of Tudor upon the throne, the crown was secured to it by the battle of Stoke, when the partisans of the House of York, under John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, made their final but unsuccessful appeal to arms, in hopes of regaining the ascendency, which that party had formerly enjoyed.

These sanguinary conflicts are usually called the Wars of the Roses, from the circumstance, that the supporters of the House of York assumed the badge or device of the White Rose, and those of Lancaster the Red Rose.

It has been remarked with great truth, by Sir John Fenn, the antiquary, [vi1] in adverting to that disastrous period, “That our own kingdom has fewer authentic records of the transactions, during the reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., than of any other later period of our history, is a truth known to and lamented by every man of historical knowledge.”

He ascribes the deficiency of information, amongst other causes, to the invention of printing; which at first sight appears to be a paradox, because such an invention seems to be calculated to favour universal knowledge:—“At the beginning of the art of printing, those who practised it, were solicitous to perpetuate things already committed to writing, relative to past times, and past occurrences, not regarding recent transactions as of equal consequence.  This art likewise probably prevented the writers of manuscripts from multiplying their copies; they foreseeing that the new invention would in time, supply a sufficient number, at a much less price, by which means, the value of their manual labour would be greatly diminished.” [vi2]

Notwithstanding, however, the scanty nature of the historical accounts handed down to us, some information of value has reached us; and the fields of battle, and the positions of the hostile armies, may in several instances, be clearly identified, after a perusal of the statements of the old chroniclers, and a comparison of their descriptions with the present aspect of the localities where the battles were fought.

Having felt a considerable degree of interest in the occurrences of those stirring and extraordinary times, I have repeatedly visited the scenes of action; and, by carefully comparing the statements of the old writers, the actual appearance of the fields, and the traditions of the neighbourhood, I have obtained strong confirmation, in several instances, of the accuracy of the accounts which have been handed down to us; and have derived great pleasure from visiting and exploring the various localities, and obtaining information from persons in the vicinity.

The results of my visits were committed to writing, in a series of papers, [vii] of which copies, or the principal parts, will be found in the following pages.  Some historical matters will also be introduced, in such instances as tend to elucidate any important event, which immediately preceded or had a direct relation to any of the battles.

It is much to be regretted, that in the majority of historical works, describing the events of this country in the fifteenth century, whenever the exploits of any noblemen or warriors, or the talents or skill of any men of eminence, are mentioned, the authors, from some cause or other, very rarely give any information of much value relative to the individuals whose actions they are describing; but as few readers can reflect upon the surprising events of that period without feeling a considerable degree of interest in the warlike and distinguished personages, who were the principal actors in those stirring and eventful times, there will be found in the notes to this work, some explanatory and biographical particulars [viii] of the princes, nobles, and eminent persons, whose actions and conduct are noticed in it.

In the following publication will also be found some other papers and tracts, principally of an archæological nature, written at various times, as the subjects came under my notice; and as they may possibly interest, in some degree, the class of readers who take pleasure in pursuits of that description, I have been induced to add them to the present collection.

In committing this work to the press, it will be a source of gratification to the Author, if his humble exertions shall be, in some degree, instrumental in elucidating any events hitherto imperfectly known, in solving any difficulties which may have suggested themselves, or in confirming the statements of the old historical writers of this country.

RICHARD BROOKE.

12th March, 1857.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Chap. I.

The Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury

1

II.

,,      ,,       ,,     Blore Heath

21

III.

,,      ,,       ,,     Northampton

39

IV.

,,      ,,       ,,     Wakefield

53

V.

,,      ,,       ,,     Mortimer’s Cross

67

VI.

,,      ,,       ,,     Towton

81

VII.

,,      ,,       ,,     Tewkesbury

131

VIII.

,,      ,,       ,,     Bosworth

157

IX.

,,      ,,       ,,     Stoke

177

,,      ,,       ,,     Evesham

203

,,      ,,       ,,     Barnet

205

X.

The General Use of Firearms by the English, in the Fifteenth Century

213

XI.

The ancient Family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, of Cheshire

245

XII.

Wilmslow Church, in Cheshire

253

XIII.

Handford Hall and Cheadle Church, in Cheshire

267

XIV.

Part 1.  The Office of Keeper of the Royal Menagerie in the reign of Edward IV.

283

Part 2.  The probable period of the Extinction of Wolves in England

287

Appendix No. I.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 1st Edward IV., passed in 1461

301

II.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 14th Edward IV., passed in 1475

308

III.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 1st Henry VII., passed in 1485

309

IV.

Proclamation for enforcing Order and Discipline, and Extract from a Journal of the March and Proceedings of Henry VII., previously to the Battle of Stoke

310

V.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 3rd Henry VII., passed in 1487

315

VI.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 11th Henry VII., passed against Lord Lovel in 1495

317

VII.

Letter from William Cooper, Esq., Clerk of the Parliament of 9th August, 1737

318

ILLUSTRATIONS.

CHAPTER I.

THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
SHREWSBURY. [1a]

“After him came spurring hard
A gentleman almost forspent with speed,
That stopp’d by me to breathe his bloodied horse:
He ask’d the way to Chester; and of him
I did demand, what news from Shrewsbury.
He told me, that rebellion had ill luck,
And that you Harry Percy’s spur was cold.”

Shakespeare’s Henry IV. part ii. act 1, scene 1.

Twice in the year 1851, and once in each of the five succeeding years, [1b] I visited the field of the celebrated Battle of Shrewsbury, and also the church erected there by King Henry the Fourth.  It is called Battlefield Church, and owes its erection to Henry’s gratitude for, and desire to commemorate, the victory which he obtained in 1403, over the insurgent forces commanded by Henry Percy, usually called Hotspur, the son of Henry Percy, the first Earl of Northumberland [1c] of that surname, and by the earl’s brother, Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester. [2a]

The field of battle has also occasionally been called the Battle of Berwick Field, of Bull Field, and of Hussee Field: the two former appellations being taken from the names of neighbouring places, at or near which, Percy’s army is said to have been, prior to the battle; and the latter from an ancient family owning the lands where the battle took place, [2b] and it is now called Battlefield.

It lies about three miles and a quarter, in a north-westwardly direction, from Shrewsbury, contiguous to the turnpike road, of which one fork or continuation leads in one direction by Prees and Whitchurch, towards Cheshire, and another towards Hodnet, and Market Drayton.  From that road there is also another road which turns off to the eastward, towards Staffordshire.  Those circumstances may be material, with reference to endeavouring to ascertain the line of march of the insurgent forces when they advanced towards Shrewsbury.

In 1403, a confederacy was entered into between the Earl of Northumberland, the Earl of Worcester, Henry Percy (called Hotspur), Owen Glendowr, and others, for an insurrection [3a] against Henry IV.  In order to prevent its being interfered with by incursions from the Scotch, and probably also in order to have a valiant and useful confederate, Archibald Earl Douglas, who had been taken prisoner at the battle of Hallidown Hill in 1402, was liberated by Percy on condition of his engaging to join in the enterprise, and was allowed to go home, from whence he returned with a select party of his own men.  The Earl of Northumberland was unwell, and remained at Berwick; but his son Henry Percy commenced his march towards Cheshire, where he expected to be reinforced by the gentlemen of that county, who had always been attached to the memory of Richard II., and he was not disappointed in that respect.  Percy, with Earl Douglas and a great army, departed out of the northern parts, leaving his (Percy’s) father sick, and came to Stafford, where his uncle the Earl of Worcester and he met, [3b] and increased their forces by all the means they could devise; from thence they proceeded towards Wales, expecting there additional aid and reinforcements. [3b]

Not any of the old annalists or chroniclers give us information as to the exact line of march, which Percy and his forces pursued from the north into Shropshire.  From the circumstance of the confederates being stated to have issued a proclamation, in which they asserted that Richard II. was alive at Chester, [4a] and invited his partisans to meet in arms in that city; [4a] and from the reinforcements which the confederates obtained from Cheshire, it might perhaps be inferred that they entered Staffordshire from Cheshire, by the Whitchurch and Prees road; but on the other hand, if Percy marched, as we are told he did, with his army to Stafford, and was there joined by the Earl of Worcester [4b] and his forces, it is tolerably clear that the insurgent army must have entered Shropshire on its eastward side, in marching towards Shrewsbury; and it has been suggested, with much appearance of probability, that they entered the county through Newport, by High Ercall and Haghmond Hill. [4c]  In either case, it is certain that they advanced to Shrewsbury, and arrived there some time on the 19th of July, but too late to get possession of the town; and in marching from the north (as the river encompasses the town nearly on three sides), it is tolerably certain, that they advanced in order to attack it at the north or Castle Gate.  Henry IV. had assembled an army against the Welsh, and was with it at Burton-upon-Trent, when he heard of the confederates’ hostile movements; and by the Earl of Dunbar’s advice, immediately marched towards Shrewsbury.  He was at Burton-upon-Trent on the 16th of July, [4d] and on the 17th at Lichfield, [4e] from whence he would probably take the Watling Street Road, and after arriving at Shrewsbury, he would naturally enter it over the Abbey Bridge. [4f]  He succeeded in getting possession of the town a few hours before Percy’s arrival, who is said to have reached the Castle Foregate on the evening of July 19th.  This judicious course was of the utmost importance to the success of Henry’s cause, as by it he secured the passage of the Severn, and prevented Owen Glendowr, who had advanced with his forces to Oswestry, from crossing the river and effecting a junction with Percy.  Henry had scarcely entered Shrewsbury, when he was apprized by his scouts that the confederate forces, with banners displayed, were advancing towards him, and were so courageous and bold, that their light cavalry had begun to skirmish with his troops; upon which he marched out, and encamped without the east gate of the town, [5a] and offered battle to his enemies. [5b]

Percy, who had prepared to have assaulted the town, being baffled in his design by the King’s movements, and probably reluctant that the engagement should take place in the absence of the Welsh forces, and whilst his enemies had superior numbers, retired from before Shrewsbury as soon as he saw the royal standard flying there. [5c]  As Henry had much to hazard and nothing to gain by delay, it was clearly his interest to fight; yet, being aware of the risk and chances of a battle, he appears to have been desirous to avoid it, by negotiations for peace.  The Abbot of Shrewsbury went more than once to the insurgents, in the hope of effecting a pacific accommodation between the hostile parties.  The habits and usages of that age justified the mediation of a dignitary of the Romish Church of so elevated a degree as the Abbot of Shrewsbury; besides which, he had the King’s sanction for interfering as a mediator.  But in a few years hence, it will scarcely be credited, although it is now a notorious fact, that three elderly persons from England, unauthorised by the British Government, and belonging to a respectable body of men, of which the members are not usually wanting in shrewdness and intelligence, were actually so absurd as to go out to St. Petersburg, in the depth of winter (and let it not be forgotten, that it was a Russian winter into the bargain), in January 1854, to try to talk over the Emperor Nicholas, and to coax him from going to war with the Turks and their allies.  It is pretty certain, that posterity will either not credit the fact of so ridiculous an attempt having been made, by those three persons, or will believe, that whether they were deficient in common sense or not, at least they must have possessed a considerable degree of self-estimation or presumption.

The negotiations and pacific exertions of the Abbot of Shrewsbury, however, not terminating in a satisfactory result, both parties prepared for a mortal conflict.  Some small reinforcements of Welsh forces, but probably not in considerable numbers, contrived to effect a junction with the confederates; and although now, when we are all happily united as one nation, it may seem unnatural and strange to us, the presence of Scotchmen and Welshmen fighting on Percy’s side would in that age necessarily kindle amongst the forces of Henry, feelings of national antipathy, in addition to other feelings of hostility towards the opposite army.

It is not an easy matter to understand, why it happened, that the hostile armies came in collision, at such a spot as Battlefield.  The field did not offer any natural advantage of position of moment, to Percy’s army; whilst, if he had retired a few miles further on the same line of road, he would have come to some much stronger positions.  But, as Battlefield is on the road, through Hodnet and Market Drayton, towards the North, it seems most probable, that, when he was disappointed in his attempt upon Shrewsbury, he at first prepared to retreat back to Northumberland, but found that after getting so near to Henry, it was no longer practicable to effect a retreat with safety in the face of a superior force.  It was too late, and no other course remained for him, but to turn at bay and fight.

The battle was accordingly fought on the eve or vigil of St. Mary Magdalen, Saturday, the 21st of July, 1403; [7] and the place where it was fought has ever since been called Battlefield.

The two armies seem not to have been quite equal in numbers.  In consequence of Glendowr’s forces not joining Percy, the army of Henry is said to have been more numerous than that of his enemies.

The battle commenced with a fierce discharge of arrows on each side.  Both armies behaved with great valour; and Percy, Douglas, and others, in the heat of the battle, hoping to effect the destruction of the King, valiantly forced their way into the centre of his forces, but were baffled in their attempt by the King’s having withdrawn from his original position.  At one period, Henry’s van was broken, his standard overthrown; his son Henry Prince of Wales was wounded in the face by an arrow, but continued fighting; Sir Walter Blount and three other persons, armed in all respects like the King, were slain; and the fortune of the day appeared to incline against the King.  Percy, who had charged furiously into the centre of Henry’s ranks, seemed in a fair way of gaining the victory.  Henry, however, who displayed the utmost valour, and is said to have slain some of his enemies with his own hand, and had been unhorsed at one period of the battle, brought up his reserve at an important moment, which appears to have turned the scale; and Percy was killed, according to one account, by a spear, and according to another, by an arrow which pierced his brain.  His death seems to have had a material effect in deciding the victory in Henry’s favour; the insurgent forces, disheartened by that fatal event, gave way, and fled in great disorder. [8a]  The battle lasted three hours.  On Henry’s side, besides 3000 wounded, Edmund Earl of Stafford, [8b] who commanded the van, and the following knights, Sir Hugh Shirley, Sir John Clifton, Sir John Cockaine, Sir Nicholas Gausel, Sir Walter Blount, Sir John Calverley, Sir John Massey of Pudington, Sir Hugh Mortimer, and Sir Robert Gausel, all of whom had received the honour of knighthood that morning, and about 1600 men, are said to have fallen in the field of battle.  On Percy’s side, the loss of those slain in fight or in pursuit is estimated at 5000; and amongst the slain were 200 knights and gentlemen of Cheshire, who had joined Percy.  As for the Scotch, few or none escaped alive.  Sir Richard Venables (Baron of Kinderton), and Sir Richard Vernon (Baron of Shipbrook), both of Cheshire, and the Earl of Worcester, were taken prisoners, and beheaded two days afterwards (on Monday) at the High Cross at Shrewsbury; and the head of Worcester was set up over London Bridge.  Henry appears to have discouraged a very vindictive or eager pursuit after the fugitives; and of those who escaped, many got back to Northumberland, and shut themselves up in castles there: not liking to trust the King’s good faith. [8c]  Earl Douglas was taken, but was sometime afterwards liberated.

In a close or meadow on the right or north side of the present lane, leading towards the church from the turnpike road, there is the appearance of a slight bank and trench running parallel with that lane, which possibly may have been part of an intrenchment made in front of Percy’s line.  The close on the south side of the lane is called the King’s Croft, and it is traditionally said that a portion of Henry’s army was posted there; the probability is, that its name at that period, and before the present fences and enclosures were made, had a much wider application, and that King’s Croft extended on both sides of the present lane.

In gratitude for, and in commemoration of, this victory, Henry the Fourth erected on the spot, Battlefield Church; and from the circumstance of the battle having been fought on St. Mary Magdalen’s eve, he, in compliance with the prevalent opinions of the age, and probably also from his considering himself in some degree indebted to her for the victory, caused the church to be dedicated to St. Mary Magdalen.  The church is of the Gothic style, part Decorated, and part Perpendicular.  It is not of a large size, [9] but is handsome; and the edifice, with its battlemented tower, forms an interesting object on the westward side of the turnpike road, from which it is distant two or three fields’ breadth.  We cannot doubt that there must have been some strong motive, for selecting for its erection the spot where the church stands, for it is at an inconvenient distance from the highway, in a peculiar and, at that time, a lonely place, where there was not even a village near it, or a carriage road running immediately past it.  May we not conclude, that the motive was, either that it was the spot where the brunt of the battle took place; where the King escaped some imminent danger; or where Percy was slain?

The country, though not quite flat, has merely a gentle ascent from Shrewsbury to Battlefield, and also to the northward of the church, and along the turnpike road.  Here, in a line almost east and west, Percy’s army was drawn up very near the place where the church now stands, and in what are now the fields to the northward of it; and the left wing of his army probably also extended across the spot where the present turnpike road runs.  The army of Henry IV., after advancing from Shrewsbury, took up its position opposite that of Percy.  Percy’s forces, being posted as before mentioned, had the advantage of ground, if there were any advantage in the very slight ascent, which has been already noticed.  Leland, in adverting to the position selected by Percy, says, that he “having got the advantage of the ground,” &c. [10a]  I could not ascertain, after making some inquiries in that neighbourhood, that any relics indicative of the battle had very recently been dug up.  I however was informed, that human bones, fragments of armour, spurs, and similar relics, had formerly been discovered there; and Grose, the author of the Military Antiquities, particularly mentions the discovery of a weapon there, which he considered to be a bill, and of which he has given an engraving, but which Meyrick, in his work on Ancient Armour (which is a work of high authority in such matters), states to be a gisarme; [10b] and one man informed me that in his time, human bones had been found there in ploughing.  I am indebted to the politeness of the incumbent of the church, the late Rev. J. O. Hopkins, rector of Uffington, for the information, that in the field near the church, spurs, fragments of armour, of weapons, &c., have been dug up, but in small quantities; and it seems remarkable, that the relics discovered there have been comparatively few; although, as the battle was fought in the heat of summer, the slain must necessarily have been promptly interred, and the opportunity for carefully stripping them, and carrying off various articles from the field, must have been diminished. [11a]  Many of the slain were interred on the spot upon which the church was afterwards erected; [11b] and the Rev. J. O. Hopkins informed me, that some years ago, a drain was dug to carry off the wet from the Corbet vault, which is enclosed with iron railing, as shown in the engraving, [11c] in the small close or field lying on the north side of the chancel; and in digging deep, the workmen cut through large masses of human bones.  There cannot be any doubt, from the description of the spot, that vast numbers of the slain were interred there, in a large trench or pit. [11d]

It is exceedingly probable, that if a search were made by digging in other fields and meadows in the neighbourhood of Battlefield Church, it would be ascertained that numbers of the slain were buried in them. [11e]  Many persons of note who perished in the battle, were interred at the Augustine Friars and Black Friars in Shrewsbury. [11f]

The church is a handsome ecclesiastical edifice.  The nave or body is now roofless and dilapidated; and, from its moss-grown and impaired appearance, must have been a ruin for a long period.  It is said that the nave of the church suffered during the rule of the Parliament or of Cromwell.  Its exterior walls, the mullions, and most of the tracery work (which is undoubtedly handsome) of its windows, are, however, still existing.  The nave is entered by a door in the original pointed arched doorway, on the north side; and its floor has long been used as a graveyard, or place of interment. [12]

A corresponding doorway is on its south side, the door of which is now seldom used, except on the occasion of funerals.  There are on each side of the nave, three large handsome windows; and there has been a fourth window, now built up on each side of the nave, between the doorway and the tower; and, although seemingly made at the same period, some of them are of the Decorated and some of the Perpendicular style; and the two windows which immediately adjoin the chancel on the north and south sides, differ in some respects from the others, as some of the windows have the dripstones terminating at the bottom with plain returns, whilst others have them terminating in representations of human heads.  There are some indications of a porch having been at the south door.  Several grotesque corbel-heads are carved in stone in the chancel, in the places from which the arches of the roof have originally sprung; and the remains of some strange figures or monsters appear carved on the outsides, at the places on the wall, where the spouts of the roof seem to have formerly protruded, similar to those called gurgoyles, which may be seen on many other ancient churches.

The exterior of the church between the windows is supported by handsome stone buttresses, and from the indisputable marks of the ancient roof, which are visible on the east side of the tower, where the roof has joined up to it, and from there not being any traces of columns supporting any interior arches, it seems clear that it has never had any clerestory.

Exterior buttresses are built at the corners of the tower, and a square projection on its south-east corner admits of a staircase.  The tower is said to have been erected in 1504; and its walls, and most of its pinnacles, are still perfect.  It had originally eight pinnacles, but one on the east side fell down about 1851. [13a] The tower can be ascended by a spiral staircase [13b] to the top; but its roof is in a decayed condition, its floors are quite gone; and on the basement floor are placed various mutilated stone fragments, apparently of mullions, transoms, finials, and other parts of stonework, which have fallen or have been deposited there, besides part of the ancient font.  It still has, however, a bell, which is yet used.  Each side of the tower is surmounted by an embattled parapet of equal intervals, with plain cappings, and which, though not possessing the lightness of one with pierced battlements, is nevertheless handsome.  The tower at the highest part, and just below the battlements, has a handsome carved Gothic border, enriched (as far as my eyesight enabled me to form a judgment) with diamond-shaped ornaments and quatrefoils.  On the west it has two windows; and over the highest, in the middle of the border, is a small escutcheon bearing an animal, seemingly a lion rampant passant, probably intended for the arms of the Hussee family, and which also appears in a corresponding place on the south side, and there are also some indications of it on the north side.  On the east, in the centre of the border, is a small escutcheon, containing some appearances of an inscription.

In order to preserve the tower from falling, of which it exhibited symptoms, iron bars, with nuts and screws, have been fixed across it, so as to hold its walls together; two of the nuts are on its east side, as shown in the engraving. [14a]

The tower has one window on the east, one on the north, and one on the south side; and it has had a door with a pointed arch on the west, which is now built up.  The second floor is singularly furnished with a fireplace, having a chimney formed within the thickness of the wall, and opening outside of the western window of the bell-chamber.

The chancel is used for divine service on the Lord’s day.  It is separated from the ruinous nave by a comparatively modern wall.  In a vault on the north side of the chancel, is the place of interment of the family of Andrew William Corbet, Esq., of Pimley and Sundorne.  A handsome monument to the memory of John Corbet, Esq., is erected in the chancel on its north side, behind which is the arch of a doorway visible from the exterior, now built up, but which has evidently been formerly an entrance into the chancel.  A railed enclosure adjoining it, shown in the engraving, [14a] contains the entrance to the vault of the Corbets.  On its south side, not far from the altar, are three sedilia, with plain Gothic arches; and the one furthest from the altar is in a great degree filled with a much mutilated and whitewashed oaken image of the Virgin Mary [14b] with a figure in her lap, representing the dead Christ, which seems as if it had been brought there from some other part of the church.  Mutilated as the figure of the Virgin now is, there still remains an expression of sorrow in the face.

A large plain piscina is in the wall between the sedilia and the altar, but partly concealed by the wooden back of a seat.

The east or altar window is handsome, and of the Perpendicular Gothic style, and is of five lights below, with a transom; and the handsome tracery of the upper part, will be best understood by a reference to the engraving, which gives a correct view of the east end, and part of the north side of the church.  The window has some stained glass, much injured and dilapidated, which contains, amongst other designs, two crowned heads, a male and a female, seemingly of considerable antiquity, but well executed by the artist; and close to them, a human head in a dish, near to which the point of the blade of a scimitar appears, and which are said, and as I believe with truth, to represent the head of John the Baptist brought to Herod and Herodias.  Some imperfect escutcheons of arms, with various quarterings, are also there.  The stained glass also contains representations of the patera, cup, and wafer; and underneath is a faint representation of the crucifixion; and in another place in the window, a hammer and a nail are exhibited, apparently in allusion to the crucifixion.  Underneath is part of a mutilated inscription in old English characters, commencing with the words, “Orate pro animabus Rogeri.”  It also contains a monogram, which seems to be a combination of the letters in the name “Maria.”

In the stonework on the outside, immediately before the east or altar window, is a niche surmounted by a Gothic canopy, in which still stands, although a good deal impaired by time or violence, the statue of Henry IV., about half the size of life, in armour, with the remains of a crown on his head, and a dagger hanging on his right side; his right hand once sustained a sword, but it is now gone.

There are two windows on each side of the chancel, of which the mullions and general appearance bear a resemblance, though not quite the same, to those of the nave, and might be thought to be of a more modern date, if the whole of the fabric and the appearance of the stonework did not strongly convey the impression of all having been erected at the same date; in fact the style and appearance of the church, are just what might be expected in one erected early in the fifteenth century.

In the chancel is a handsome large modern stone font, with ornaments in the Gothic style, which supplies the place of the ancient one, of which some stonework lying within the tower, formed part.  There is a small cemetery still in use for interments on the south side of the church.

On each side of the exterior of the chancel, and nearest the east end, are dripstones, as if intended for the arch of a window, carried up nearly but not quite to a point, and with the stones ready jointed, as if for the purpose of breaking out an additional window on each side of the chancel, without disturbing the walls; but I think it is quite evident, from the appearance of the stonework, and from the dripstones for the contemplated windows or arches not having been carried up to meet at the top, that no window ever existed in either of those places; and that the intention of so singular a preparation by the architect, may have been, to add at some future time, side chapels, such as are often seen in ancient churches, and are known to have been added subsequently to the erection of the churches.

The ceiling of the chancel is modern, and is plastered and whitewashed, and supported by modern incongruous-looking pillars.

The church is approached by a narrow carriage way, which leads from the westward side of the turnpike road; but it stops at a gate opening into a field, in which the church stands, and a short path leads to it from the gate.

There is one remarkable singularity connected with the church, which is, that there is every appearance of the church, and the college after mentioned, having stood in a square space enclosed by a moat.  A moat regularly formed, and as straight as a canal, exists at a short distance from the east end of the church, except at one small spot near the centre, which appears to have been filled up, in order to admit of the path to the church; and it turns with an abrupt angle at each end, and extends a considerable distance on the north and south sides of the church.  I was unable, however, to trace its existence on the west side, or to discover whether it had ever completely encompassed the church.

Besides the erection of the church, there was erected there by Henry IV., or by Roger Ive, clerk, by virtue of a charter or license from Henry, a small college, consisting of a principal or master, and five secular chaplains, together with a hospital for several poor persons, of which Henry IV. was a benefactor. [17a]

The charter or license was of the eleventh year of the reign of Henry IV., and the first principal or master was the said Roger Ive. [17a]

A copy of an impression of the seal of the college, is given in Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, [17b] which exhibits on it, not as might be expected, the effigy of St. Mary Magdalen, but that of the Virgin Mary crowned, bearing the infant Jesus on her right arm, and a palm branch in her left hand.

At the time of the dissolution, the yearly revenues amounted to £54. 1s. 10d. net.  Not a vestige now remains of the college.

There are several shallow holes or pits in the meadow on the south side of the church, which have been dug into, in hopes of discovering something of interest; but nothing remarkable was discovered.  It has been conjectured that they are the sites of small fishponds, which may have existed before the college was destroyed; but they appeared to me more like the excavations, where the foundations or cellars of the old college buildings may have been.  Besides the indications of a moat, which present themselves to the eye, the charter or license of Henry, given at length by Dugdale, strongly corroborates the opinion before expressed, with respect to the moat.  That document, as set out by Dugdale, grants to Roger Ive, of Seaton, rector of the chapel of St. John Baptist, at Adbrighton Hussee, in the county of Salop, a piece of ground, with all the edifices and erections on it, within the lordship of Adbrighton Hussee, near Shrewsbury, situate in the field called Battlefield, in which a battle had been lately fought between the King and Henry Percy deceased and other rebels; and by the grace of God, the King had obtained victory and triumph, which piece of ground is enclosed with a ditch, and contains in length and breadth two acres of land, together with two inlets and outlets, one extending along the lands of Richard Hussee twenty feet, and the other containing in breadth fifteen feet. [18a]  The piece of land appears to have been before conveyed by feoffment to the said Roger Ive, by virtue of the royal license, by Richard Hussee, [18b] who seems from that circumstance to have held the same from the King.  The charter or license of 11th of Henry IV., states the land to have been granted to Roger Ive, for the purpose of a chapel being built on it, in honour of St. Mary Magdalen, [19a] in order that prayers might be said for evermore, for the souls of the King, &c. &c., and for the souls of those who were slain in the battle, and were buried there. [19b]

Battlefield is a distinct parish, and was, prior to its becoming so, in Henry IV.’s reign, attached to the then existing rectory of St. John the Baptist at Adbright Hussee. [19c]  St. Alkmond’s and St. Mary’s parishes, of Shrewsbury, adjoin it.  The living is a perpetual curacy, of which the Rev. J. O. Hopkins was the late incumbent; and it is in the patronage of Andrew William Corbet, Esq., of Sundorne Castle, Shropshire.

The present dilapidated state of the nave of Battlefield Church is generally ascribed to the Puritans of the time of the Commonwealth; and a note in the church register, above one hundred years ago (1749), states, that it was then in its present ruinous condition. [19c]  The conduct of those who committed the injury in this instance, brings to recollection the passage from the Holy Scriptures:—“But now they break down the carved work thereof, at once, with axes and hammers.  They have cast fire into thy sanctuary; they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name to the ground.” [19d]

On viewing this ancient church, I could not, either as a Christian or as an antiquary, see this handsome edifice, which had been erected by a King of England, in commemoration of an important historical event, and dedicated to the worship of the Most High, so injured by violence or neglect, without experiencing feelings of regret.  Still its walls and remains, in their present state, are truthful records of the past, and furnish an authentic and valuable example of church architecture, of the time of Henry IV.  The mere preservation of them from further injury, by time or negligence, would be laudable; but if the tasteless and ignorant scheme, which has been suggested, of renovating the church, should ever unfortunately be carried into effect, great mischief will be done; the original will be falsified; in its renovated state it will be a mere imitation; and it will no longer be an interesting and authentic example of the architectural science of the period to which it belonged.

CHAPTER II.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
BLORE HEATH. [21]

“There Dutton Dutton kills, a Done doth kill a Done,
A Booth a Booth, and Leigh by Leigh is overthrown,
A Venables against a Venables doth stand,
A Troutbeck fighteth with a Troutbeck hand to hand,
There Molineux doth make a Molineux to die,
And Egerton the strength of Egerton doth try.
O!  Cheshire wer’t thou mad, of thine own native gore
So much until this day thou never shed’st before!
Above two thousand men upon the earth were thrown,
Of which the greatest part were naturally thine own.
The stout Lord Audley slain, with many a captain there,
To Salisbury it sorts the Palm away to bear.”

Michael Drayton’s Polyolbion, Song 22nd.

England exhibited, during a great part of the fifteenth century, the mournful spectacle of a country harassed by rival parties, and exposed to all the horrors of civil war.  Hostile competitors contended for a prize of no common value; for the crown and dominions of England were to be the reward of the conqueror.

King Henry VI. was descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the fourth son of King Edward III., and the persons supporting the claim of the House of Lancaster to the throne, were from that circumstance called Lancastrians. [22a]  On the other hand, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, with the assistance of some of his powerful relations and connections, was cautiously but vigilantly taking measures calculated to secure his accession to the crown, although at first he did not openly bring forward his pretensions to it.  They were founded upon the fact of the Duke of York’s being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward III.; [22b] and the adherents and supporters of the Duke of York, and of his sons after his death, received the appellation of Yorkists.

The adverse parties encountered each other at St. Alban’s on the 22nd [23a] of May, 1455, where a battle was fought, and the Duke of York obtained the victory.  A hollow and ineffectual truce, and an outward reconciliation, ensued, only to be broken in rather more than four years afterwards, when the hostile parties once more took up arms, and at Blore Heath, on the borders of Staffordshire, again met in mortal conflict.

Blore Heath, celebrated for the battle fought in 1459, is in the parish of Drayton in Hales, or Market Drayton, on the high road leading from the small market town of Drayton, towards Newcastle.  It is in Staffordshire, two miles and a half distant from Drayton, and about two miles from the division of the counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire.  It is eight miles and a half distant from Eccleshall, and is, as Stow in his Annals correctly states, near Mucklestone, being only one mile and a half from the latter place.

The town of Drayton is in Shropshire; but the parish of Market Drayton, or Drayton in Hales, comprises parts both of Shropshire and Staffordshire, and includes Blore Heath, which, though formerly a heath, is now completely enclosed and cultivated.

In the autumn of 1459, Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury [24a] marched from Middleham Castle, in Yorkshire, with a considerable army, in support of the cause of the Duke of York, and entered Staffordshire with the ultimate intention of effecting a junction at Ludlow, with Richard Neville Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker, [24b] and also with the Duke of York, who had collected an army in Herefordshire, and in the marches of Wales.  The Earl of Salisbury, and his son the Earl of Warwick, were noblemen of very great power and possessions, and were then the principal leaders of the Duke of York’s party, and abettors of the scheme of deposing King Henry VI., and placing the Duke of York upon the throne of England.

At that time King Henry VI. was at Coleshill, in Warwickshire, and Queen Margaret [25a] and Edward the young Prince of Wales [25b] were at Eccleshall, in Staffordshire; and by her orders, or by those of her council, James Touchet Lord Audley, [25c] with a superior force, raised principally in Cheshire and Shropshire, amounting, as we are told, to as many as 10,000 men, took up a position on the road to Drayton, in order to intercept the earl in his march. [25d]  The earl’s army was inferior in number to that of his antagonist, which was strongly posted, as will be more fully explained afterwards, with a small stream in its front.

This stream had rather steep banks, which rendered it very hazardous for the earl and his army to cross it, and attack the Lancastrians, with a fair prospect of success.  In consequence of those difficulties, the earl resorted to a military stratagem, with the most fortunate result.

Early on the morning of Sunday, the 23rd of September, 1459 (St. Tecla’s day), he caused his archers to shoot flights of arrows against the Lancastrians.  He then feigned a retreat with his army, which induced Lord Audley, in his eagerness to pursue them, to pass over the stream with a considerable portion of his forces, and whilst they were on the ascent of the ground on the other side of the stream, and were disordered with effecting the passage, and before he could get the remainder of his forces over it, or put that portion which had crossed into order, they were so vigorously attacked by the Yorkists, that the Lancastrians were completely defeated, and Lord Audley, with 2400 of his forces, perished on the field.

There were slain in the battle, besides Lord Audley, Hugh Venables of Kinderton, Thomas Dutton of Dutton, Richard Molyneux [26a] of Sefton, William Troutbeck, [26b] John Legh of Booths, John Done of Wickington, and John Egerton of Egerton, Knights; Richard Done of Croton, and John Dutton [called Duttes by Stow], Esquires; and many other persons. [27a]  The battle was most disastrous to the Cheshire men, the greatest loss having fallen upon persons of that county, who had received the young Prince’s badge of the silver swan, which had been distributed by Queen Margaret amongst the principal partisans of the Lancastrian party. [27a]  John Lord Dudley was wounded, [27b] and he, and several knights and gentlemen of the Lancastrian party, were taken prisoners. [27c]

Sir John Neville [27d] and Sir Thomas Neville, [27d] sons of the Earl of Salisbury, were wounded in the battle, and were, with Sir Thomas Harrington, travelling to the north, when they were taken by some of the Lancastrians, and sent prisoners to Chester; but in consequence of a message from the Welsh marchmen, there being good reason to anticipate that the prisoners would be rescued by force, they were speedily set at liberty. [27e]

A Parliament, principally consisting of adherents and supporters of the Lancastrian faction, was held at Coventry, in the 38th year of Henry VI. (1459), and passed an act of attainder against the Duke of York, the Earl of March, the Earl of Rutland, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Warwick, Lord Clinton, Sir John Wenlock, [28a] William Stanley [28b] (brother of Thomas Lord Stanley), and other leaders of the Yorkists, [29] for various alleged offences; and the following is an extract from so much of it as relates to the battle of Blore Heath:—

“litle before the Erle of Salesburies departyng from the Castell of Middelham in youre counte of York hiderward, ye of youre knyghtly corage, withoute delaye toke the Felde, with such of youre Lordes as then was nygh aboute you, and in Pryncely manere with grete celerite, spedde the journay, toward the parties that the seid Erle of Salesbury drue and entended to come to, which caused hym to dyverte from his first enterprise and purpose, and to take another wey to assemble with the seid Duc of York, and Erle of Warrewyk, that their commyng togider myght make a myghtyer felde.  In which progresse the seid Erle of Salesbury, and Thomas Nevill, John Nevill, Knyhtes, sonnes to the seid Erle of Salisbury; Thomas Harryngton, Knyght; John Conyers, Knyght; Thomas Parre, Knyght; William Stanley, Squier, sonne to Thomas late Lord Stanley; and Thomas Meryng, late of Tong in the shire of York, Squier, accompanyed with grete multitude of people, to the nombre of VM. persones and moo, arraied in manere of werre, with their Standardes displaied, entendying to destroye youre moost Roiall persone, the Sonday next after the Fest of Seint Mathewe th’ apostle, the XXXVIIIth yere of youre moost gracious reigne, at Blore, in youre shire of Stafford, in the feldes of the same Toune, called Bloreheth, falsely and traiterously rered werre ayenst you, and than and there in accomplishment of their fals and traiterous purpose, slough James Lord Audeley, and many other Knyghtes, and Squiers, and other youre Liege people, and more despite didde, many of their throtes cutte, which were sent thider by your commaundement, to resiste the fals and traiterous purpose of the Erle of Salesbury, and also toke John Lord Dudley, and other dyvers, Knyghtes, and Squiers, prisoners, send thider also by youre commaundement.” [30a]

The Parliamentary Rolls of the same Parliament of Coventry, [30b] contain a bill of impeachment, which, though it never passed into an act, the royal assent having been refused, is interesting and important, as showing that, although Thomas Lord Stanley had not then taken up arms for, or avowed himself a partisan of, the Duke of York’s faction, yet he was so considered by that Parliament; besides which, his brother William Stanley came, with many of Lord Stanley’s servants and tenants, and fought on the side of the Yorkists, at Blore Heath.  It is material to bear in mind, that Thomas Lord Stanley (afterwards first Earl of Derby, of that surname), married Eleanor Neville, daughter of the Earl of Salisbury, and sister of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King Maker); which circumstance, in addition to the violence of party, may easily account for the conduct of Lord Stanley, and of his brother William Stanley, on the occasion of that battle.

“To the Kyng oure Soverayne Lord; shewen the Commens in this present Parlement assembled.  That where it pleased youre Highnes to send to the Lord Stanley, by the servaunt of the same Lord fro Notyngham, chargyng hym that upon his feyth and legeaunce he shuld come to youre Highnesse in all haste, with such felysshep as he myght make.  The said Lord Stanley, notwithstondyng the said commaundement, came not to you; but William Stanley his brother went, with many of the seid Lordes Servauntz and Tenauntz, grete nombre of people, to the Erle of Salesbury, which were with the same Erle at the distressyng of youre true Leige people at Bloreheth.

“Also where youre said Highnes gaffe in commaundement, to youre first bogoten sonne, Edward Prynce of Wales, to assemble youre people, and his Tenauntz, to resiste the malice of your Rebelles, and theruppon the same noble Prynce sent to the said Lord Stanley, to come to hym in all haste possible, with such felysshep as he myght make.  The said Lord Stanley puttyng the seid mater in delay, feyntly excused hym, seying he was not than redy.  Howe be it of his owen confession he had before a commaundement fro youre Highnes, to be redy to come to the same, with his said felsship, upon a day warnyng; which delay and absence, was a grete cause of the losse and distresse of your seid people, atte Bloreheth.

“Also where the seid Lord had sent his servaunt, to oure Soverayne Lady the Queue, and to the seid noble Prynce to Chestre, seying that he shuld come to theym in all haste; and after that, he sent to theym, Richard Hokesley his servaunt, to Egglesshall, certifying theym, that he wold come to theyme in all haste; and desired, for asmoche as he understode that he was had in jelosye, that he myght have the vaward ageyne the Erle of Salisbury, and his felysshep; and the seid noble Prynce, by th’ advice of his Counsell, consideryng that the felysship of the said Lord Stanley was fewer in nombre, than the felysship of the said Erle, willed and desired hym to come to the said noble Prynce and his felysship, that they beyng all togedyr, myght come to have assisted youre Highnes, which was promysed feithfully be his seid servaunt, shuld be perfourmed in all haste; which notwithstondyng was not perfourmed; but in defaute therof, youre people were distressed at Bloreheth aforesaid, as is well knowen.  Howe be hit, that the seid Lord Stanley, was within VI mile of the said Heth, the same tyme, accompanyed with IIM: men, and rested hym with the same felysship be the space of III dayes after at Newcastell, but VI myle oute of Egglesshall, where the Quene and the Prynce then were; and the said Lord Stanley, on the morne next after the distresse at Bloreheth, sent a letter for his excuse to oure Soverayne Lady the Quene, and the said noble Prynce; which said letter, your said Highnes had sent to him, commaundyng hym by the same, to have come to youre said Highnes with his felyshep in all haste: which came nethir to youre Highnes, to the Quene, nor to the seid Prynce, but soo departed home agayne.

“Also when the seid Erle of Salisbury and his felysship, had distressed youre said people at Bloreheth, the said Lord Stanley sent a letter to the said Erle to Drayton, the same nyght, thankyng God of the good spede of the said Erle, rejoysing him gretely of the same, trustyng to God that he shuld be with the same Erle in other place, to stond hym in as good stede, as he shuld have doon yef he had been with theym there; which letter the seid Erle sent to Sir Thomas Haryngton, and he shewed hit openly, seying; Sirres, be mery, for yet we have moo frendis.

“Also where as a squier of the seid Erles, on the Monday next after the said distresse, told to a Knyght of youres, which was taken prisoner by the felysship of the seid Erle at Bloreheth, that a man of the Lord Stanley’s, had been with the seid Erle at Drayton, in the mornyng of the same day, and brought hym word fro the seid Lord Stanley, that your Highnes had sent for hym, and that he wold ride to you with his felysship.  And yef eny man wold resiste or lette the seid Erle to come to your high presence, for his excuse, accordyng to th’ entent of the said Erle; that than the said Lord Stanley and his felysship, shuld lyve and dye with the said Erle, ayenst his resistours.

“Also where the said noble Prynce, in fullfillyng of your high commaundement, sent as well for your people and his Tenauntez in Werall Hundred, as in Maxfeld Hundred in Cheshire; the said people and Tenauntez, were lette by the seid Lord Stanley, so that they myght not come to youre Highnes, nor to ye presence of the said noble Prynce.

“Also where a servaunt and oon of the Cokys of the said Lorde Stanleys was hurte atte Bloreheth beyng with William Stanley in the felysship of the said Erle of Salesbury, and left behynde at Drayton; declared openly to dyvers gentilmen of the felysshep of th’ erlez of Shrewysbury that he was sent to the said Erle of Salesbury, in the name of the said Lord Stanley, with moo of his felysship.

“Also where certayne persones, beyng of the lyvere and clothyng of the said Lord Stanley, were take at the Forest of Morff, in Shropscshire; the day afore theire deth confessed, that they were commanded in the name and behalve of the seid Lord Stanley, to attend and awayte upon the seid William Stanley to assist the seid Erle, in such matier, as he intended to execute.

“Of all which matiers, doon and commytted by the said Lord Stanley; we youre said commens accuse and enpeche hym, and pray youre moost high Regalie, that the same Lord be commytted to prison, there to abide after the fourme of lawe. [34a]

“Le Roy s’advisera.” [34a]

[“Responsio.”

I have in several successive years [34b] paid visits to the field of battle.  At the distance of two miles and a half on the road from Drayton, and soon after entering Staffordshire, the stream before mentioned, which is scarcely large enough to be considered a river, crosses the road; and more than once when I have visited it, it contained so little water, that I could easily have skipped over it.  It is called Hemp Mill Brook, and is a tributary of the river Tern; its banks are rather steep, and it flows through a narrow valley, over which the road is now carried by a modern bridge.  At present, from the raising and improving of the road, and probably from its having been in some degree turned, the descent on either side to the bridge is not great; but at the period when the battle was fought, the position of the Lancastrians must have been strong, in consequence of the height of the banks of Hemp Mill Brook, the depression of the valley, and the abrupt ascent from the stream on the Drayton side, where the Lancastrians were posted; and there is no reason to suppose that at that period there was a bridge over the stream.  The place is evidently much changed, yet even now sufficient remains to show that they were strongly posted.

The exact spot where the battle was fought is easily identified.  After the traveller has crossed the modern bridge and ascended the rising ground at Blore Heath, by the road leading from Drayton towards Newcastle, he will observe, at a couple of fields’ breadth beyond the stream, and on the right side of the road, a field called the Cross Field, which at present is entered by the third gate on the right from the bridge.  This field extends from the road in a curved form backwards, and slopes down the declivity, until it reaches the stream at another point at a little distance from the bridge.

The battle of Blore Heath was fought on the spot where the Cross Field and the other fields near it on each side of the road now are; but, as the name implies, it should seem that the field of battle was open and unenclosed, in 1459.  Near the middle of the Cross Field, Lord Audley is said to have been slain.  A square pedestal, seemingly of great age, with a rude stone cross standing upon it, now much battered and injured, has been erected to mark the spot where he fell.  On the pedestal is the following inscription, which is a good deal worn by time:—

ON THIS SPOT
WAS FOUGHT THE BATTLE OF
BLORE HEATH
IN 1459;
LORD AUDLEY
WHO COMMANDED FOR THE SIDE OF LANCASTER
WAS DEFEATED & SLAIN.
TO PERPETUATE THE MEMORY
OF THE ACTION & THE PLACE,
THIS ANCIENT MONUMENT
WAS REPAIRED IN
1765,
AT THE CHARGE OF THE LORD OF THE MANOR,
CHARLES BOOTHBY SCHRYMSHER.

Plot, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, [35] published in 1686, mentions, amongst the antiquities of that county, “The stone set up upon Blore Heath, in memory of the fall of James Lord Audley, slain just in that place;” which is an additional proof of an ancient monument having been there, during a long period of time.

Opposite the gate of the Cross Field, and at the distance of a field’s breadth, on the other side of the road, is a farmhouse and farm called Audley Cross Farm, of which that field forms a part.  The farm belongs to Sir John N. L. Chetwode, Bart., and is occupied by Mr. William Hughes, a respectable and intelligent farmer, with whom I have had several conversations, during the visits which I made to the field of battle, as I was in hopes of hearing from him of some relics having been dug up; but he had not held the farm many years, and was not aware of any discoveries of that nature having been recently made.  He, however, informed me, that some relics of the battle had formerly been discovered.  On the 16th of May, 1856, I saw in the possession of Mr. George Goodall, a respectable farmer residing in that neighbourhood, a sword in tolerable preservation, which is said to have been found on the field of battle. [36]

Near the back of the farmhouse, in a little enclosure, is a small raised mount of earth, of a long square shape, on which a thorn-tree of rather large size is growing, which is said to have been raised in memory of some person of distinction who was slain there.  If that be so, the probability is, that he was one of the Yorkists, because it is a little in the rear of the spot where their right wing must have been.

It is impossible for any one, to read the accounts of the old chroniclers and annalists, and to inspect the field of battle, without being struck with the remarkable resemblance, between the spot, and the descriptions of it, meagre as they may be, which they have left us.  The stream crossing the high road, by which the Earl of Salisbury would naturally advance from Cheshire and Staffordshire, on his march towards Ludlow, the strong position of the Lancastrians, the name of Blore Heath (still preserved ages after the place had ceased to be a heath), and its contiguity to Mucklestone, as well as to Drayton, all which circumstances are mentioned by the ancient historians, combine, independently of tradition, to place the locality beyond dispute. [37]

CHAPTER III.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
NORTHAMPTON. [39a]

“The King from out the town who drew his foot and horse,
As willing to give full field-room to his force,
Doth pass the river Nen, near where it down doth run,
From his first fountain’s head, is near to Harsington,
Advised of a place, by nature strongly wrought,
Doth there encamp his power: the Earl of March, who sought
To prove by dint of sword, who should obtain the day,
From Towcester trained on his powers in good array.
The vaward Warwick led (whom no attempt could fear);
The middle March himself, and Falconbridge the rear.
Now July enter’d was, and e’er the restless sun
Three hours’ ascent had got, the dreadful fight begun.”

Michael Drayton’s Polyolbion, Song 22nd.

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, [39b] having landed, in the summer of 1460, from Calais, at Sandwich, with the Earls of March [39c] and Salisbury, [39d] and having been met by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, [40a] and other persons of distinction, supporters of the party of the Duke of York, proceeded towards London.  In passing through Kent they were joined by Cobham [40b] and many other personages of influence; and on the 2nd of July, 1460, they entered London, with a great accession to their forces, where they were cheerfully received by the Mayor and citizens, and of which they took quiet possession, except the Tower, into which Lord Scales [40c] and other Lancastrian leaders had retired, and which the Yorkists immediately besieged.  Without waiting for its surrender, the Earls of March and Warwick, with the Lords Falconberg [41a] and Clinton, [41b] Viscount Bourchier [41c] (Earl of Ewe), the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Exeter, [41d] and other bishops and noblemen, left London with an army, a great portion of which came out of Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Sussex, amounting altogether, as some writers state, to 25,000 men, and proceeded towards Henry VI., [42a] leaving the Earl of Salisbury, Cobham, and Sir John Wenlock, in London, to take care of the city, keep the citizens firm in their fidelity, and push the siege of the Tower. [42b]

Henry VI. was at Coventry when the confederate earls were in Kent.  On receiving intelligence of what was taking place in London, he—or, perhaps, it would be more correct to say, Queen Margaret, [42c] in his name, obtained money by compositions for knighthood, and loans from the prelates and convents, and from such of the nobility as were attached to the Lancastrian party, and raised a large army to provide for his defence, and proceeded with the Duke of Somerset, [43a] who had recently arrived from Guisnes, the Duke of Buckingham, [43b] and other noblemen and knights, to Northampton, where the King took up his abode at the Friary. [43c]

The confederate earls, at the head of the Yorkist army, proceeded northward to meet Henry, and took up a position between Towcester and Northampton. [43d]

Queen Margaret, judging from the power of the Lancastrians assembled at Northampton, that they were fully able to meet in hostile conflict the forces of the Yorkists, took upon herself to encourage [43e] her friends and supporters; and when the whole of the King’s forces were assembled, they issued out of Northampton, and, crossing the river Nen, or Nene, proceeded into the meadows on the southward side of the town, and in that part of them which is close to Delapré Abbey, [43f] a religious house of Cluniac nuns in the parish of Hardingstone, strongly intrenched themselves, [44a] and awaited the arrival of their enemies, and prepared to fight them there.  The position, in a military point of view, was most ill judged.  It possessed no natural advantages, but the contrary; for, by placing themselves on the southward side of the river, which seems to have been done with a view to deprive their adversaries of the advantage of having it in their front, the Lancastrians seem to have lost sight of the peril and chance of destruction, in case of defeat, from having the river in their own rear; an error which caused most lamentable consequences to them after the battle.

The Bishop of Salisbury, with the assent of the other bishops and of the noblemen who were on the side of the Yorkists, was sent to the King with pacific overtures, but without any satisfactory result; for, although somewhat inferior in numbers, the Lancastrians seem to have been over confident in their forces, and in the strength of their position.  In the night the Yorkists removed their camp towards Northampton, and both parties prepared for battle.

On the 9th [44b] of July, 1460, the Earls of Warwick and March, accompanied by Viscount Bourchier, Lord Falconberg, and others, advanced with their forces, and the battle commenced about seven o’clock in the morning.  According to one account, their van was led by the Earl of Warwick, and after him followed the Earl of March, with the banner of his father; others state that the Earl of March commanded the van, the Earl of Warwick the middle, and Lord Falconberg the rear body.  During the battle, Edmund Lord Grey, of Ruthen, [45a] who was in the Lancastrian army, betrayed his trust, and, having a command in a part of the King’s camp, where, in consequence of a deep trench, and of a rampart, fortified with piles and sharp stakes, with which the camp was encompassed, so that the Yorkists could not enter without great danger, he and his men assisted the Yorkists to get within the intrenchments, and greatly conduced to the defeat of the Lancastrians. [45b]

Another circumstance occurred which was a great disadvantage to the Lancastrians: there was a considerable fall of rain on that day, and the cannons, with which the camp of the King was in some degree at least, defended, were prevented by the wet, from being of the service that they otherwise might have been. [45c]

The battle however lasted some time, with obstinacy and fierceness, the victory being uncertain until nine o’clock, when the King’s army was completely defeated.  Many of his forces were slain in the battle and in their flight towards the town, and great numbers were drowned in the river Nen; [46a] for, as before observed, it was in their rear, and consequently between them and Northampton, and it proved a most serious disadvantage to the fugitives, when flying towards the town; so that the Lancastrians felt, to their grievous loss, the impolicy of taking up a position with the river in their rear.  The King was left to his fate by the vanquished, and was speedily captured by the victors. [46b]

Amongst other persons of distinction on the Lancastrian side, slain in the battle, were the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Shrewsbury, [46c] his brother Sir Christopher Talbot, Viscount Beaumont, [46d] Lord Egremont, [46e] and Sir William Lucy, who hastened to take a part in the fight, and immediately on joining in it, received his death wound, by a blow on the head, with an axe.  A considerable slaughter amongst persons of distinction, is said to have been caused by the Yorkist leaders directing their men to spare the common soldiers, but to despatch the noblemen, knights, and gentlemen.  Many of the Lancastrians, however, were taken prisoners, in consequence of their having alighted from their horses, to fight on foot; a mode of fighting very likely to be adopted, when it is borne in mind that they were to fight behind intrenchments.

The Duke of Somerset and others narrowly escaped, and fled with Queen Margaret, and Edward Prince of Wales, [47a] into the bishopric of Durham.

The confederate earls having obtained the victory, waited upon the King with all outward show of respect; but immediately conveyed him to London, and lodged him in the bishop’s palace.

The body of the Duke of Buckingham was interred in the church of the Grey Friars [47b] at Northampton; that of the Earl of Shrewsbury was conveyed to Worksop, [48a] and there buried; those of some of the leaders were interred in the Hospital of St. John, in Bridge Street, in Northampton;[48b] and others in the Abbey Delapré, adjacent to the field of battle; [48c] but the exact spot where the cemetery of the abbey was situated is not now known.

The Duke of Buckingham was of royal lineage, [48d] being the son and heir of Edmund Stafford, fifth Earl of Stafford, by Anne Plantagenet, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, youngest son of King Edward III.  A strange and mournful fatality attended the principal members of the great and powerful family of the Duke of Buckingham, during five generations.  The father, son, grandson, great-grandson, and great-great-grandson, all died violent deaths.  Edmund Stafford, fifth Earl of Stafford, was slain fighting on the part of Henry IV., at the battle of Shrewsbury, in 1403; his son, Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, was slain at the battle of Northampton, fighting for the Lancastrian party, in 1460; his son, Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, also fighting for that party, in 1455; his son, Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham, was beheaded in the first year of Richard III., in 1483; [49] and his son, Edward Stafford, the third and last Duke of Buckingham of that family, was beheaded in the thirteenth year of Henry VIII., in 1521.

I carefully searched for, but could not discover, any remains of intrenchments, and, although I made inquiries, I was unable to learn that any traces of them could be recollected by persons on the spot; but there is sufficiently clear information, given by the old historical writers, to enable a person fond of such investigations, to identify the place where the battle took place; and their accounts show that it was fought close to Northampton, [50a] in the meadows on the southward side of the town, [50a] and of the river Nen or Nene, and adjoining Delapré Abbey, [50a] in the parish of Hardingstone, and near Queen Eleanor’s Cross. [50a]  The field of battle is now occupied by beautiful plantations, pleasure-grounds, and a portion of the park of Edward Bouverie, Esq., [50b] formerly part of the meadows before mentioned; and the railway from Northampton to Peterborough, passes over one side of them.

The mansion of Delapré Abbey stands upon the site of the old abbey of that name, and some portions of the walls, and two or three small arches or doorways, of the old abbey, are yet to be seen, in the interior of the present mansion.

As the meadows are skirted by the river Nen, which flows on the south side of Northampton, and separates the town from them, it follows, that when the Lancastrians marched out of the town, and took up a position in the meadows, and had the town and river close to them in their rear, they faced to the southward.

As the Yorkists marched from London, and proceeded to a place between Towcester and Northampton, it appears pretty certain that they advanced by Blisworth, and by the present turnpike road, and passed close to the beautiful and interesting monument of antiquity, Queen Eleanor’s Cross, which stands not much more than a mile from Northampton.  The land is rather elevated in the vicinity of the cross, and slopes down to the mansion of Delapré Abbey, and to the park and pleasure-grounds belonging to it; and the Yorkists would naturally face to the northward, when attacking the Lancastrians.  I was unable to learn, upon inquiry, that any relics of the battle had been dug up upon the field; and, as it is now part of the park and pleasure-grounds, the probability of the discovery of them by any excavations, ploughing, or digging, is consequently much diminished.

The victory was productive of most important advantages to the Yorkists.  The Lancastrians were dismayed by the loss of the battle, the captivity of King Henry, and the deaths of so many of their leaders; and the defenders of the Tower of London, straitened by the want of provisions, surrendered immediately.  The Duke of York, [51] who was in Ireland when the battle was fought, hearing of its successful result, returned to London; and although he did not succeed in getting himself recognised as King of England, he was declared by Parliament to be Henry’s successor; besides which, without waiting for Henry’s death, he was at once intrusted with the power, though not the title, of King; for he was appointed Protector and Regent of the whole realm.

CHAPTER IV.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
WAKEFIELD. [53a]

Duke of York.—“But stay; What news?  Why com’st thou in such post?”

Messenger.—“The Queen, with all the northern Earls and Lords,
Intend here to besiege you in your castle:
She is hard by with twenty thousand men;
And therefore fortify your hold, my Lord.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act 1, scene 2.
(Sandal Castle, near Wakefield.)

Richard Duke of York, [53b] desirous to disperse a considerable body of troops, which Queen Margaret [53c] was assembling in the North, marched from London on the 2nd of December, 1460, with a small army, and proceeded into Yorkshire, whilst his eldest son, Edward Earl of March, afterwards King Edward IV., went into Herefordshire, and to the borders of Wales, to levy a large body of forces, in order to assist his father, [53d] and intended to follow him with an army, to his castle of Sandal, near Wakefield.

On Christmas Eve, the Duke of York took up his position, at Sandal; and his friends, retainers, and tenants, speedily began to assemble around him.  Margaret marched with diligence from York, [54a] with the Duke of Exeter, [54b] the Duke of Somerset, [54c] the Earl of Devonshire, [55] the Earl of Wiltshire, [56a] Lord Clifford, [56b] Lord Roos, [56c] the Earl of Northumberland, [57] and many of the knights and gentry of the northern parts, at the head of about 18,000 men, and advanced before Sandal, with the object of attacking him before his forces were fully mustered.  It is certain that the Duke of York’s army was much inferior in numbers, and some accounts state, that he was only at the head of 5000 men.  It is said that he was advised by his officers, in a council of war, not to risk an engagement, until his son Edward could arrive with the Welsh march-men.  Several reasons have been conjectured, why the Duke of York came to the fatal conclusion, to hazard the chances of a battle; but it is very probable, that the true reason may be found, in the impossibility of provisioning a considerable body of troops, in the depth of winter, at Sandal, when no previous preparation had been made for them; or that he was ignorant of the great disproportion in numbers, between the two armies.  Some of the historical accounts state, that he imagined that the main body of the Lancastrians who presented themselves and offered battle under the command of the Duke of Somerset, constituted all the army with which he had to fight, and that he was not aware of the fact, that there were other bodies of troops on each of its flanks, but at some distance, and concealed from his observation, one commanded by the Earl of Wiltshire, and the other by Lord Clifford.  It is not, however, very easy to understand, how it could be possible, with the advantage of overlooking the flat country occupied by the Lancastrians, that two considerable bodies of them could be so placed, as to be near enough to assist the main body, without being observed by him.

Sandal Castle stood upon an eminence upon which the Yorkists were posted, which extends a considerable distance, and gradually slopes down towards the meadows on the northward, and towards Wakefield on the north-westward side.

Having determined on a battle, the duke and his forces, on the 31st [58a] of December, 1460, descended the eminence and furiously attacked the Lancastrians.  The battle was fought at the place then called Wakefield Green, [58b] and the result was such as might have been foreseen.  His array nearly surrounded and overwhelmed by numbers, was completely defeated.

The Duke of York, and about 2800 of his forces, were slain, amongst whom were William Bonvile, commonly called Lord Harrington; [58c] Sir David Hall, Sir Hugh Hastings, Sir John Mortimer, Sir Hugh Mortimer; Sir Thomas Neville, third son of the Earl of Salisbury; [58d] Sir Edward Bourchier, son of the Earl of Ewe (afterwards of Essex); Reginald Grey, the third son of Edward Lord Ferrers of Groby; and abundance of the gentry of the south of England.  The Earl of Salisbury [58d] was wounded, taken prisoner, and sent the next day to Pontefract, and there beheaded, with some other persons of distinction; and their heads, with that of the Duke of York, were afterwards fixed on the gates or walls of York: that of the duke having a paper crown upon it, in derision of his claims to the throne.  This act of barbarity is alluded to by Shakespeare, who attributes to Queen Margaret the expression, after the death of the Duke of York,—

“Off with his head and set it on York gates
So York may overlook the town of York.” [59a]

The victory was closely followed by an act of shocking wickedness and barbarity.  Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of Rutland, a son of the Duke of York, a boy only twelve years old, was captured when flying with his tutor from the field of battle, and was put to death near Wakefield Bridge, by Lord Clifford: a murder which obtained for him during the very short remainder of his life, the epithet of “the Butcher.”

An extract from the act of attainder, which was passed after the accession of Edward IV. to the throne, against the Lancastrians, is interesting, as giving a list of such of them as took a part at the battle of Wakefield.

“For asmoch also as Henry Duc of Somerset, purposying, ymaginyng and compassying of extreme and insaciate malice and violence to destroy the right noble and famous Prynce of wurthy memorie Richard late Duc of York, Fader to oure Liege and Soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the fourth, and in his lyf verrey Kyng in right of the Reame of Englond, singuler Protectour Lover and Defensour of the good governaunce, pollicie, commyn wele, peas and tranquillite thereof; and also Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry late Erle of Northumberlond, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Nevill, [59b] John Welpdale late of Lychefeld Clerk, Philip Lowes late of Thouresby in the counte of Lincoln Clerk, Bawdewyn Fufforth Knyght, Alexander Hody Knyght, Nicholas Latymer Knyght, James Loterell Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Fyndern Knyght, Henry Lewes Knyght, John Heron [60a] of the Forde Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, William Grymmesby late of London late Squier, Thomas Tunstall late of Thurland in the shire of Lancastr’ Squier, Symond Hammes Knyght, Thomas Dalton late of Lilbourne in the counte of Northumberlond Gentilman, James Dalton late of the same Gentilman, George Dalton late of the same Gentilman, John Clapam late of Skipton in Craven in Yorkshire Yoman, Andrew Trollop [60b] late of Guysnes Squier, Antony Notehill Knyght, John Botiller late of Howke in the counte of Dorset Squier, Gawen Lampleugh late of Warkeworth in the shire of Northumberlond Gentilman, Edmund Fyesh late of York Taylleour, Thomas Frysell late of the same Smyth, John Smothyng late of the same Yoman, John Caterall late of Brayton in the counte of York Gentilman, Thomas Barton late of Helmesley in the counte of York Gentilman, William Fyppes late of Southduffeld in the counte of York Yoman, Henry Clyff the elder late of Lokyngton in the countee of York Yoman, Robert Tomlynson late of Helagh in the counte of York Yoman, and Thomas Barton late of York Mason; at Wakefield in the shire of York on Tywesday the xxx day of Decembr’ last past, with grete despite and cruell violence, horrible and unmanly tyrannye murdered the seid right noble Prynce Duc of York.” [60c]

As the city of York, from whence Queen Margaret advanced with the Lancastrians, lies on the north-eastward of the village and castle of Sandal, it might have been inferred, that the road by which she advanced, was that through Pontefract, on the eastward side of the river Calder.  Wakefield and its bridge over the Calder, are on the north-westward side of Sandal; and if the Earl of Rutland, at the time when he was captured, were trying to effect his escape, by Wakefield Bridge, it might be supposed, that during the fight, that side of the field of battle was in the rear of the Yorkists, and consequently was open and unoccupied by the Lancastrians. [61a]  But that is not reconcileable with the fact, that previously to the battle, the Duke of York’s army was posted at Sandal, and that the battle was fought between Wakefield and Sandal, and upon Wakefield Green; because in that case, Wakefield and its bridge, must of necessity have been in the possession of the Lancastrians; and if so, they naturally must have advanced from York to Wakefield on the west side of the Calder.  It seems probable, that when the Earl of Rutland was captured in his flight, his capture took place at some spot other than Wakefield Bridge, and that he was brought a prisoner to Lord Clifford, who murdered him on or near the bridge.

On the 31st of July, 1852, [61b] I first visited the field of battle, the castle, and also the village and church of Sandal.  The church has not any old monuments to boast of; and I could not discover that any monument whatever, which had any relation to persons slain at the battle, had ever existed there.  The Rev. Thomas Westmorland, recently the vicar of Sandal, now of Leominster, has, however, very kindly sent me a copy of an inscription in old characters apparently of about that age; but I am far from saying, that it had any reference, to any individual named Percy, connected with that battle, viz.:—“Orate pro bono statu Joselynni Pyrcy Armigery.”  I am also indebted to him, and to William Shaw, Esq., of Porto Bello House, for some valuable information upon some other points.  Looking from Sandal Castle Hill, a flat plain appears, of considerable extent, cultivated as meadow fields, extending from the castle to the river Calder.  Those meadows are at present called “the Pugnays.”  They are designated “the Pukenills,” on the Manor Court Rolls, which are still in existence, and of a date prior to the fourteenth century.  Adjoining the tract of meadow-land, and in the extreme north-westward, bounded by the river Calder, is “Porto Bello,” a mansion erected by Samuel Holdsworth, Esq., and now occupied by William Shaw, Esq.  The battle was fought upon that spot, upon part of the meadow-land before mentioned, and upon the tract of ground formerly part of Wakefield Green, extending from thence across the turnpike road in a north-eastwardly direction.  The green must have been at that time a large open tract of ground, but it has long been enclosed, and its position appears to have been on the southward side of, and about half a mile from the bridge; [62] its site is crossed by the modern turnpike road, from Wakefield to Barnsley, and part of it has acquired the name of Fall Ings, according to tradition, from the great numbers who fell there, in the battle.

There are now no remains of Wakefield Green: all of it has been enclosed, and several portions of it are built upon; and it is worthy of notice, that on one side of the spot, where the green is said to have been, the ground descends from Sandal to the present turnpike road, and to a tract of level ground close to Porto Bello House; and that, at a little distance further on the turnpike road leading towards Wakefield, there is a slight elevation in the road, and in the contiguous fields.  After carefully viewing the ground, I came to the conclusion that this little elevation, which faces the high ground at Sandal, must be considered to have been the position of the Lancastrians; and also that the battle was fought upon the level ground between it and Sandal, extending on the one side towards Porto Bello House, and on the other to the Fall Ings, and towards the Pontefract road.  In digging the foundations of Porto Bello House, and in forming the sunk fence there, human bones, broken swords, spurs, and other relics, were discovered, which were considered fully confirmatory of that locality having been the scene of the conflict.  On the northern part of Fall Ings, near the side where the highway to Pontefract runs, fragments of armour, and other indications, apparently of the battle, are said to have been discovered some time ago, in making an excavation there.  It was also the spot, and on the side of Sandal, where the battle would naturally take place, after the advance of the Lancastrians from York to Wakefield; and it tallies with the accounts handed down to us, that the battle was fought between Wakefield and Sandal, and upon Wakefield Green.

There has not been discovered, within the memory of man, any large trench or pit near Sandal Church, where it might reasonably be supposed that some of the slain would be interred, such as has been discovered at Battlefield Church, in consequence of the battle of Shrewsbury, and at Saxton Church, in consequence of the battle of Towton. [63]

Sandal Castle has not been an extensive one; and, except that its position was on an eminence, it was devoid of the natural advantages which many castles possess, such as being built on the margin of rivers, or the edges of steep precipices.  All that now exists of it, consists of rather large mounds, on which the outworks and walls have stood; two shattered and not large fragments of the latter remain, but so imperfect, that it is not possible to ascertain of what part of the castle they originally formed a portion.  The moat is tolerably perfect; indeed in one place, it contained water when I visited it, although the season was hot and dry.  There is also a very large and high mount, in a considerable degree artificial, on which the keep has stood, almost encompassed by an inner moat, which is of considerable depth.

In the additions to Camden’s Britannia, it is stated, with reference to the death of the Duke of York, that the spot where he fell was enclosed with a triangular wall, including about a rood or ten feet, now converted into a garden, the owners being obliged to keep it hedged in; that a large stone cross raised on it, was demolished in the civil war; that here was found a large gold ring, supposed to have belonged to the duke, and given to Mr. Thoresby; on the sale of whose museum, Mr. Bartlet, who remembered the finding of it, bought it for two guineas; that within is engraved, “Pour bon amour,” and on the broad outside are “three saints.” [64a]

On the right side of the old road leading from Wakefield to Barnsley, which passes the castle, and is called Sandal Castle Lane, [64b] is a small field or close, of rather a triangular form, which is said to be the spot where the Duke of York fell. [64c]  It will scarcely admit of any doubt, that this is the identical place which is mentioned in the addition to Camden’s Britannia, although there is not a vestige of the cross now left.  As the place is rather nearer to the castle than to the field of battle, it is not unreasonable to infer that the Duke of York may have been mortally wounded, and have been removed to a little distance in the rear (the spot in question would be in the rear of the Yorkists’ army), or he may have endeavoured to escape, on finding that the day was against him, and may have been slain there in his flight.  The strong probability is, that it is the place where he fell.  The small field or close may easily be distinguished: it lies about a mile from Wakefield Bridge; and at a very trifling distance beyond the toll-bar, a little well will be remarked, in the hedge, on the right side of the old road to Barnsley; and about midway between the toll-bar and the well, the small field or close presents itself to view.  It is remarkable for having two very old willows growing in the hedge adjoining the road; and more of them were not very long ago growing there.  A small compartment of the field was, within the recollection of the recent vicar of Sandal, fenced off from the remainder of it, and planted with red and white roses, which must naturally be supposed to have been done to commemorate the battle, or the death of the Duke of York. [65a]

CHAPTER V.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
MORTIMER’S CROSS. [67a]

Edward.—“Dazzle mine eyes, or do I see three suns?”

* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *

“’Tis wondrous strange, the like yet never heard of.
I think it cites us, brother, to the field,
That we, the sons of brave Plantagenet,
Each one already blazing by our meeds,
Should notwithstanding join our lights together,
And overshine the earth, as this the world.
Whate’er it bodes, henceforward will I bear
Upon my target, three fair shining suns.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act 2, scene 1.
(Near Mortimer’s Cross.)

The victory gained by the Lancastrians, at the battle of Wakefield, seemed at the first view, to decide the fate of the adverse party.  Richard Duke of York, the claimant to the throne, and the leader of the Yorkists, was slain; Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was wounded, taken prisoner, and afterwards beheaded at Pontefract; and the army of which they were commanders, was completely destroyed.  A most formidable enemy, however, soon presented himself to notice.  Edward Earl of March, [67b] the eldest son of the Duke of York, was considered by great numbers of persons, as the rightful heir to the throne of England; he was descended from the Mortimers, Earls of March, and had claims to the crown, from his descent through his mother’s side, from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., through Philippa (the only daughter and heiress of the Duke of Clarence), who married Roger Mortimer, third Earl of March and Lord of Wigmore; besides which, he was also descended from Edward III. in another manner, because his great-grandfather, Edmund of Langley, was the fifth son of Edward III.  He was a young man whose personal appearance and manners were very prepossessing; he gained the hearts of men in a warlike age, by his courage and excellence in martial exercises; and his noble and powerful alliances, combined with his lineal descent from the great families of Plantagenet and Mortimer, had a potent influence in his favour, with vast numbers of all ranks; besides which, he was young, talented, and daring, and was well qualified under those circumstances to fight his way to a throne.

At the time when his father perished at Wakefield, Edward was occupied, by the direction of the former, in raising forces in the marches and the borders of Wales: a district where he had immense patrimonial possessions, and where the circumstance of his being of the lineage of the Mortimers, gave him great sway and influence.  He was at Gloucester when he received the account of his father’s death.  After having raised a large army, which some writers have stated to have amounted to as many as 23,000 men, he prepared to march against Queen Margaret, and avenge the death of his father.

Edward had, according to the accounts given by several of the old historians, proceeded as far as Shrewsbury, when he received tidings, that James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire, [69a] and Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, [69b] half brother to King Henry the Sixth, had assembled a large army of Welsh and Irish, in order to attack him; and Edward, in consequence of that intelligence, [72a] was induced to return promptly in order to encounter them.

The two hostile armies met and fought, on Candlemas Day, the 2nd of February, 1461, [72b] in the parish of Kingsland, in Herefordshire, between Leominster and Wigmore, not far from East Hereford, and very near Mortimer’s Cross; [72c] from which place the battle acquired its name.

In those days the appearance of so unusual a phenomenon in the sky, as a parhelion, or mock sun, was considered a strange and unheard-of prodigy, which had its weight with ignorant men, as an omen of good or bad fortune, exciting within them either hopes or fears.  The rare phenomenon, of the appearance of three suns in the sky, presented itself to view, on the morning of the battle; and, after showing themselves for some time, they suddenly joined and seemed to form one sun.

“Three glorious suns, each one a perfect sun;
Not separated by the racking clouds,
But sever’d in a pale clear shining sky.
See, see! they join, embrace, and seem to kiss,
As if they vow’d some league inviolable:
Now are they but one lamp, one light, one sun.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI., part iii. act 2, scene 1.
(Near Mortimer’s Cross.)

Edward had the sagacity to affect to believe, or really did believe, that this natural phenomenon [73a] was an omen of his success.  He afterwards, in commemoration of it, assumed the sun in its splendour, as his device or badge. [73b]

Edward with his forces courageously attacked [73c] the forces of the Earls of Pembroke and Wiltshire, and after a severe battle, completely defeated them; and about 3800 of the Lancastrians were slain.  The Earls of Pembroke and of Wiltshire escaped by flight; Sir Owen Tudor, [73d] father of the Earl of Pembroke, and second husband of Queen Katherine, the widow of Henry V., and the mother of Henry VI., was taken prisoner, beheaded at Hereford, and was buried in a chapel of the Grey Friars Church; [73e] and Sir John Scudamore and his two sons, David Lloyd, Morgan ap Reuther, Thomas Griffith, John Throckmorton, Thomas Fitzhenry, and other gentlemen of consideration, were also taken and beheaded there: a fearful retaliation for the murder of the young Earl of Rutland, and the execution in cold blood, by the Lancastrians, of some of the prisoners, who had been taken at the battle of Wakefield. [74a]

The victorious Edward then proceeded with his army to join the King-making Earl of Warwick, who had recently been defeated by the Lancastrians at the second battle of St. Alban’s.  They effected a junction at Chipping Norton, near Cotswold, and, with their united armies, marched towards London, where Edward was proclaimed King by his partisans shortly after his arrival.

The field of the battle of Mortimer’s Cross is in the parish of Kingsland, five mile north-west by west from Leominster, close to the fifth milestone of the turnpike road, leading from Leominster to Wigmore and Knighton, at the place where a byroad joins the turnpike road, and where a stone pedestal or monument, which will be more particularly mentioned afterwards, stands at the point of junction of those two roads, which was erected to commemorate the battle. [74b]  Mortimer’s Cross is nearly a mile and a quarter further on the turnpike road, leading towards Wigmore.

It may perhaps be taken for granted, that the old historical accounts are correct in stating, that previous to the battle, Edward had marched as far as Shrewsbury, had returned to meet the Earls of Pembroke and Wiltshire, and that the two earls had raised a large portion of their forces in Wales; and if so, it is tolerably certain that the Lancastrians advanced from Wales into Herefordshire, towards the Earl of March’s possessions [75a] at Wigmore and on the borders of Wales; consequently the vicinity of Mortimer’s Cross was a very natural spot for the hostile armies to meet.  There is a gentle ascent in the road from Mortimer’s Cross to the field of battle, and to the spot where the pedestal stands, consequently the Yorkists had a slight advantage of ground; and they were drawn up facing the westward, whilst the Lancastrian army faced the eastward.

Mortimer’s Cross is not a village, but merely consists of a respectable but small country inn, called the Mortimer’s Cross Inn, and one or two other houses, at a junction of four roads; where in former times a cross is said to have been erected by one of the Mortimers; but it has long been removed, and I could not learn, upon inquiry, that it had been there within the memory of man.

Relics of the conflict have been occasionally dug up in the fields in front (to the westward) of the pedestal, and of the point of junction of the two roads.  When I first visited the field of battle, on the 16th of May, 1854, I met with a husbandman at work there, who had lived near it many years, and who informed me, that some years ago, in ploughing in the next fields immediately to the right and left of the turnpike road, after leaving the pedestal and the place of junction of the two roads, he had not unfrequently discovered remains of bridle-bits, stirrups, fragments of iron, and, amongst others, long pieces of iron, which, from their shape and size, he concluded had been sword-blades, besides other indications of the battle.

Within the recollection of the Rev. R. D. Evans, rector of Kingsland, some arms, swords, and spear-heads, were found on the field of battle, and were presented to the Museum at Hereford. [76a]  He also showed me, when I visited the field of battle in 1856, a large buckle, perfectly plain, conjectured to have formed part of the trappings of a horse; a small buckle, rather ornamented, probably intended for a sword-belt, both of iron or steel; and a small silver coin, seemingly a groat, all found upon the field of battle in 1854. [76b]  I have also been informed by him, that there was within his recollection, in a close near the field of battle, a mound said to have been a place of burial of those slain in the battle, but that it is now quite ploughed down, and no vestige of it remains.  Although the field of battle is now entirely enclosed, there were old persons living, when I visited it in 1855 and 1856, who recollected large parts of it, when the thorn fences of its enclosures were small, and not much grown, from having been recently planted, and even when a portion of the land near the pedestal was open and unenclosed.

The ruins of Wigmore Castle are little more than four miles further than the field of battle, on the road from Leominster, from which it is about nine miles and a half distant; and when I was on three occasions in the neighbourhood, I did not hesitate to prolong my excursion, and visit the remains of a castle which in days of yore was of importance, and a principal residence of the Mortimers and of Richard Duke of York.  Leland does not give any information of moment respecting the castle, but merely states concisely, “Wigmore Castle a XX myles from Shreusbiri, standing on a Brooket sumtime almost dry.” [77]

The ruins are upon a considerable eminence, and are sadly shattered, both by time and wilful spoliation, though they still are interesting, and of commanding appearance.

So much of the castle has been destroyed, that it is not possible to determine with accuracy its original plan and arrangements.  Some of the outside walls, an arch, and other small parts of the principal gateway, and some considerable portions of the keep, still remain, much of which are covered with ivy; the moat is also tolerably perfect in most places; and the ruins of the keep stand within the castle upon a naturally high elevation, which has been considerably raised by artificial means.  The keep has formerly been further strengthened by an interior moat, which separated it from the rest of the castle.

Most of the walls have been built of a slaty kind of stone, which has a tendency to splinter and crumble from the effects of the weather and frost, so that the remains do not appear likely to have a very long continuance.  In approaching the entrance, there are some appearances visible, of a rampart and ditch, extending to the right, and also for a little distance to the left, of the gateway; there are not, however, any signs of masonry upon the rampart; but, if it formerly formed part of the outworks or outward defences of the castle, it probably has been fortified with palisades or stakes.

The church and little village of Wigmore are close to the castle.  The church is a plain stone Gothic edifice, of great antiquity.  It contains sedilia, and also a piscina, both of remarkable construction: the former being literally stone seats separated by stone partitions perfectly plain, without any canopies or arches; and the latter being placed on the acute angle of some masonry near them.  The roof of the church is of a very unusual description, as it is of massive oak timber, waggon-shaped, and apparently of great age; and a large part of the outside wall of the north side of the nave is built with the stones set in the herringbone fashion, which is now very rarely to be met with, and is usually considered a proof of its remote antiquity.

A chapel, now demolished, originally stood on another part of the north side of the church, as is proved by the piscina still remaining on the outside of it; and the arch through which the entrance was obtained into it from the church, being still apparent in the north wall.

Considering the great utility of the castle, as a bridle to incursions from the borders of Wales, formerly a hostile country, its importance to the lords of the Welsh marches, and its having been a residence of the powerful Mortimers, who had more than once caused kings to feel uneasy on their thrones, I was a little surprised not to find it of more extensive size; nor did I consider its position to have been naturally as strong, as might have been expected, for such a fortress.

Here the traveller finds himself in a district upon the borders of Wales, which in a remote age, and when the principality was considered as a hostile country, was a part of the Welsh marches, and the personages in command there, were designated Lords Marchers. [78a]  They were so called, from the word marche, or limit.  They had Courts of Marche, in which they tried causes of different kinds, and especially offences against the public peace, which went by the name of Marche Treason. [78b]  The Mortimers often held that important office upon the borders of Wales.

There were in Wales, and the borders of England, adjoining the principality, 141 manors, of large extent, possessed by the Lords Marchers, who enjoyed almost regal rights upon their lands, and administered justice within their several districts, without the intervention of the King’s judges. [79a]  The excessive authority and local jurisdictions of the Lords Marchers, in this debatable land, were abolished by an act of Parliament, in the time of Henry VIII. [79b]

The drive from Leominster to Wigmore is interesting and pleasant.  The view from Wigmore Castle is extensive and beautiful; an amphitheatre of mountains forms a background, between which and the castle, is a very extensive plain, over which, in days of yore, the powerful Mortimers could survey, from the towers and battlements, their vast possessions, and, as mighty feudal lords, they also could despotically command the property, services, and even the lives of nearly all who resided within the district.

The pedestal or monument before noticed, erected near the fifth milestone of the turnpike road, to commemorate the battle of Mortimer’s Cross, contains the following inscription:—

THIS PEDESTAL IS ERECTED TO PERPETUATE THE MEMORY
OF AN OBSTINATE BLOODY AND DECISIVE BATTLE, FOUGHT NEAR
THIS SPOT, IN THE CIVIL WARS BETWEEN THE AMBITIOUS HOUSES
OF YORK AND LANCASTER, ON THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 1460 [80a]
BETWEEN THE FORCES OF EDWARD MORTIMER EARL OF
MARCH (AFTERWARDS EDWARD THE FOURTH) ON THE SIDE OF
YORK, AND THOSE OF HENRY THE SIXTH ON THE SIDE OF
LANCASTER.

THE KING’S TROOPS WERE COMMANDED BY JASPER EARL
OF PEMBOKE; EDWARD COMMANDED HIS OWN IN PERSON AND
WAS VICTORIOUS: THE SLAUGHTER WAS GREAT ON BOTH SIDES
FOUR THOUSAND BEING LEFT DEAD ON THE FIELD, AND MANY
WELSH PERSONS OF THE FIRST DISTINCTION WERE TAKEN PRISONERS,
AMONG WHOM WAS OWEN TUDOR (GREAT-GRANDFATHER TO
HENRY THE EIGHTH, AND A DESCENDANT OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS
CADWALLADER) WHO WAS AFTERWARDS BEHEADED AT HEREFORD:
THIS WAS THE DECISIVE BATTLE WHICH FIXED EDWARD THE
FOURTH ON THE THRONE OF ENGLAND, [80b] WHO WAS PROCLAIMED
KING IN LONDON ON THE FIFTH OF MARCH FOLLOWING.

ERECTED BY SUBSCRIPTION
IN THE YEAR 1799.

CHAPTER VI.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
TOWTON. [81a]

Edward.—“Now breathe we, Lords; good fortune bids us pause,
And smooth the frowns of war with peaceful looks.
Some troops pursue the bloody-minded Queen;
That led calm Henry, though he were a King,
As doth a sail, fill’d with a fretting gust,
Command an argosy to stem the waves.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part 3, act ii. scene 6.
(A Field of Battle, between Towton and Saxton.)

The most sanguinary and important battle that ever took place in the civil wars of England, was that of Towton, in Yorkshire; and from the interest which it has excited, and the historical events which have resulted from it, I have been induced to pay several visits to that memorable field of battle. [81b]

Queen Margaret [82a] and the Lancastrians, exulting in the victory obtained at Wakefield, were encouraged by it to proceed towards London, in hopes of being admitted into the city; but on their arrival at St. Alban’s, they encountered the Earl of Warwick [82b] and an army of Yorkists; and for the second time, within less than six years, a battle was fought there. [82c]  It terminated in the defeat of the Yorkists, and was of great importance to the Lancastrians, because they regained the advantage of the use of the name of King Henry VI. [82d] in their proceedings, as the battle delivered him out of the custody of the Yorkists.  Margaret’s victory was, however, disgraced by an act of great barbarity: she, or some of the Lancastrian leaders with her sanction, put to death in cold blood, after the battle, Lord Bonvile, [83a] and Sir Thomas Kiriel [83b] of Kent, to whose custody King Henry had been confided before the battle, and notwithstanding they had remained with him on his express assurance of their safety.

Margaret, however, was very far from deriving the advantages which she had hoped for, from the victory.  The citizens of London were, for the most part, favourable to the House of York; besides which, they were alarmed at the outrages, rapine, and violence, perpetrated by Margaret’s lawless forces, on their march towards London, and, consequently, its gates were shut against her.  Margaret found that she could not obtain admission into the city, and received intelligence that the Earl of Warwick had effected a junction with Edward Earl of March, [83c] at Chipping Norton, near Cotswold, and that they were marching with all the forces that they could collect, upon London; she, therefore, found it expedient to retire with her army, and to proceed to the north of England, in order to raise more forces; and then she hoped to have in the field an army sufficiently strong to crush her antagonists effectually.

Edward entered London triumphant after his victory at Mortimer’s Cross; and having the support of Thomas Bourchier, [83d] Archbishop of Canterbury; George Neville, [83e] Bishop of Exeter, and Lord Chancellor; and other bishops; the Duke of Norfolk; [84a] the Earl of Warwick; Lord Falconberg; [84b] and other noblemen and knights of the Yorkist party, who were then in London; was declared King by acclamation, by a large body of troops and of spectators, in the fields near Clerkenwell, on the 2nd of March, 1461. [84c]  On the 3rd he was petitioned by the noblemen and leaders of that party, to assume the kingly office, and rode on the 4th to St. Paul’s, and there made his offering, and then proceeded with a pompous procession to Westminster Hall, and took his seat upon the throne, with the sceptre in his hand, and was recognised as King, somewhat in the form of a coronation.  From thence he went with a similar procession to Westminster Abbey, under a canopy, and, having made another offering there, he received the homage of the noblemen there present, and was afterwards, in the usual form, proclaimed King of England, in Westminster, by the title of Edward IV., and the next day was proclaimed in the same manner, in the city of London.  The 4th of March was the day on which Henry VI. was subsequently declared by Parliament to have been deposed, and the reign of Edward IV. to have commenced. [85a]  Edward’s great object now was to seek and encounter the Lancastrian army; he had nothing to gain by delay, but everything to hope from a victory, which he knew would remove the advantage which Henry VI. had, from his being in possession of the crown, and having been for so many years recognised by the nation as King of England.  On the 7th of March the Earl of Warwick, and a large portion of the army of the Yorkists, quitted London, and commenced their march towards the North.  On the 12th, Edward and the remainder of the army also left London, and proceeded with little rest, until they reached Pontefract.

The Lancastrian army had assembled at York, and on the approach of the Yorkists, quitted the city, and marched through Tadcaster to Towton, and there prepared for the approach of their enemies; whilst King Henry VI., Queen Margaret, and Edward [85b] the young Prince of Wales, remained at York, awaiting the result of the impending battle, which was to decide whether Henry was to continue to be the sovereign of England, or to become a poor exile and a homeless fugitive.

It was with feelings of the most intense hatred, that the forces of the two parties approached each other; the deaths of not a few of the members of their respective families, and of many friends in battle, and of others on the scaffold, the forfeitures and confiscations by the act of attainder of the Parliament held at Coventry, and the bitterness of party strife, gave to the conflict a degree of inveteracy and fury, perhaps never equalled in any civil dissensions in England; and it cannot excite wonder, that in the dreadful battle which ensued, no quarter was given or expected.

The first hostile meeting of any of the forces, was unfavourable to the cause of Edward.  He had sent troops commanded by Lord Fitzwalter, [86a] to secure the passage over the river Aire, at Ferrybridge; but in the course of the night of the 27th of March, or very early in the morning of the 28th, a body of light cavalry, under the command of Lord Clifford, [86b] was detached by the Lancastrians, and attacked and defeated the Yorkists stationed there, slew their leader, and won that position; but in consequence of Edward’s forces having crossed the Aire at Castleford, three miles higher up the river, the Lancastrian troops were soon obliged to retreat from Ferrybridge, and, in endeavouring to rejoin the main body at Towton, were intercepted at a place called Dintingdale, [86c] near Scarthingwell, and near Saxton, were completely defeated, and their leader, Lord Clifford, was slain.

The main bodies of the two armies were now close to each other: that of the Yorkists being posted at Saxton, and that of the Lancastrians at Towton; and during the night of the 28th, each party prepared for the terrible combat of the morrow.  On Palm Sunday, the 29th of March, 1461, at nine in the morning, the battle commenced; and it is to be regretted, that the old historians have handed down to us, very little information of value, respecting that most extraordinary and sanguinary conflict; but some of the few particulars which they have left, will be noticed afterwards.  The battle is said to have raged with great obstinacy and valour on both sides, during about ten hours, and terminated in a complete victory on the side of the Yorkists, and the rout and dispersion of the Lancastrian army.

The place where it was fought, is found without difficulty; indeed the old chroniclers and annalists mention the locality with sufficient precision.  We know from those sources (independently of tradition), that it took place near Towton, partly in the township of Towton, and partly in that of Saxton, [87a] and between Towton and Saxton and as the distances between the villages of those names, is only one mile and a half, it defines the exact locality very clearly.

The battle has been called by various names, such as the battle of “Towton,” of “Saxton,” “Palm Sunday Field,” and “Sherburn,” and in the act of attainder of the first of Edward IV. it is called “Saxtonfeld and Tawtonfeeld, in the shire of York.” [87b]

This celebrated and decisive battle established for a considerable time, Edward IV. upon the throne of England. [87c]

The place where it was fought, lies between the villages of Saxton and Towton, and very near to, but a little to the southward of, the latter village.  In order that the locality may be correctly understood, it is necessary to mention, that the district in which the battle was fought consists of an extensive range of high land, the approach to which, on the south side, is by a gentle ascent, which commences about a quarter of a mile on the north side of the village of Saxton, and extends as a small elevated plain (except in one spot, where there is a depression or valley, which will be afterwards described), past the village of Towton, by the modern turnpike road, until within about a mile from Tadcaster, where the road descends rather rapidly into a flat tract of meadow ground, extending to Tadcaster.  On the eastward, the high ground slopes gently down towards the present great north road, leading from Ferrybridge to Tadcaster; and the slope of the land continues inclining to the eastward, in the direction of North Milford and of Church Fenton; and the south-eastward extremity extends towards Scarthingwell.  On the west side, the high ground terminates very abruptly in steep eminences, some parts of which may, from their steepness and abruptness, without much impropriety, be called cliffs, which overlook a narrow belt of beautiful meadow ground, in which the river Cock, there called Cock-Beck, flows.  It runs towards the north; and after passing the spot which will be afterwards more particularly noticed, where the ancient road to Tadcaster formerly was, it makes a turn towards the eastward, and at the foot of the descent before mentioned, the modern turnpike road (the present great north road) crosses it; and it flows from thence across some meadows for about a quarter of a mile, still to the eastward, and there runs into the river Wharfe.  The ancient road, upon which men yet living have driven to and from Tadcaster, which is now little more than an occupation road, turns off abruptly, at the north end of, and close to, Towton village, and descends the eminence [88a] in a westwardly direction, to a continuation of the belt of meadow ground before mentioned, where it arrives at the river Cock.  This descent by the ancient road is so steep, that it is a matter of surprise, how the heavy coaches formerly in use, and waggons, could safely pass up and down it, yet it was even in modern times part of the great north road.  After descending the eminence, the ancient road formerly crossed the river Cock by a stone bridge, now destroyed; [88b] and after passing over a part of the beautiful meadow ground before noticed, it ascended the rising ground on the opposite side of the meadow, and so proceeded on towards Tadcaster.

At present, the river Cock is crossed in the meadow by a narrow wooden bridge, merely used for foot passengers and horses, the supporting piers of which are of stone, and they probably were built or rebuilt from the materials of the older bridge; in fact, I saw several worked and broken stones lying near it, strengthening the supposition of their having formed part of an old bridge.  It may be correct here to mention that there is an old stone bridge at the village of Stutton, still existing, also over the Cock, much nearer to Tadcaster, from which a road joins the old road before mentioned to Tadcaster, and that human bones, probably of some of the fugitives, have been dug up on the line of the country where the modern turnpike road runs between Towton village and the bridge at Stutton. [89]

The village of Towton is small, and not well built; the houses are principally of stone, or with rough-cast fronts; it has not any church; and Towton Hall, where John Kendall, Esq., resides, is close to the village on the south-westward side of it.  The village lies about two miles and a half to the southward of Tadcaster; and the turnpike road from Ferrybridge towards Tadcaster, passes through Sherburn and past Barkston and Scarthingwell Park, and proceeds directly to it (Towton and Sherburn being nearly north and south of each other); and the turnpike road passes through the village of Towton, at which it meets the public road which will be afterwards noticed, from the village of Saxton.

There is also a road leading from Saxton village to Scarthingwell which joins the turnpike road from Ferrybridge, at Dintingdale, at the distance of about half a mile from Saxton village; and on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road, there is a stone quarry called Dintingdale Quarry, close to the place where the other road joins it.

Near this spot at Dintingdale, the engagement took place, in which the savage Lancastrian leader, Lord Clifford, fell, [90a] on the 28th of March, the day before the battle of Towton; [90b] his crimes merited a worse fate.  His death is introduced by Shakespeare in the Third Part of King Henry VI.

(Enter Clifford wounded.)

Clifford.—“Here burns my candle out, ay, here it dies,
Which, whilst it lasted, gave King Henry light.
Ah, Lancaster! I fear thine overthrow,
More than my body’s parting with my soul.
My love and fear glued many friends to thee;
And now I fall, thy tough commixtures melt,
Impairing Henry, strength’ning misproud York.—

* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *

Bootless are plaints, and cureless are my wounds;
No way to fly, nor strength to hold out flight:
The foe is merciless, and will not pity;
For at their hands I have deserv’d no pity.
The air hath got into my deadly wounds,
And much effuse of blood doth make me faint.” [90c]

The elevated land begins to rise about a quarter of a mile on the north side of Saxton village, from which a public road proceeds from thence in a northwardly direction, and continues to rise until within little more than half a mile to the southward of the village of Towton, where there is a considerable depression or descent in the road, and in the ground on each side of it.  At this place, and on the left or westward of the road, the depression in the ground deepens through a large meadow, where it forms a valley, which contracts, and extends through an opening in the eminence or cliff before mentioned, to the belt of meadow land extending to the river Cock.  On the right or eastward side of the public road, the depression which is called Towton Dale, extends some little distance into the adjoining fields, and then becomes a mere undulation in the fields; and the ground is nearly level from thence towards the eastward.  This place is easily known—not merely by the large meadow and valley, but by a stone quarry called Towton Dale Quarry, worked close to, and on the westward or left side of, the road, and which is passed on leaving the depression, and ascending towards Towton village. [91]

Those marks will enable the visitor to find the scene of action, without difficulty.  The battle of Towton was fought on the spot now occupied by the large meadow and valley before mentioned (on the west side of the road), the depression called Towton Dale, the fields extending a considerable distance to the eastward of the road, and the ground in the neighbourhood of the stone quarry.

The large meadow is remarkable for producing rich rank grass, and also for three or four extensive irregularly shaped patches of very small wild dwarf rose-bushes, which I was told, were both red and white; it forms the west end of Towton Dale.  The meadow is not unfrequently called the Bloody Meadow, and was, according to tradition, a scene of great slaughter, and it is said that considerable numbers of the dead were buried there.  The distance across the fields, from the public road at that spot to the turnpike road leading from Ferrybridge, is about a mile, and the whole tract of ground between them is enclosed and cultivated.

The Lancastrians had their army drawn up, a little to the southward of the village of Towton, which was rather more than a quarter of a mile in their rear, and they occupied the highest ground there.  The position was a good one.  Their right wing extended towards the eminence or cliff before mentioned, and they had the meadow and valley in front of it.  Their centre had the depression called Towton Dale, or at least part of it, in front, and their left wing extended a considerable distance to the eastward, [92a] towards the place where the turnpike road from Ferrybridge now is.  Before the land was drained, which lies below and on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road, between Dintingdale and Towton, some boggy and marshy land formerly existed beyond the position of their left wing, which perhaps might be a protection against its being outflanked. [92b]  Their left wing had no particular advantage over their adversaries, except from the ground being a trifle, and not much, higher than that occupied by the right of the latter.  The Lancastrian position extended along the highest part of the ground, in a direction almost due east and west.

The Yorkists naturally drew up their army opposite the other, and on the south side of the meadow and depression before mentioned, and with their centre and right wing extending across the ground, now enclosed fields, to the eastward, and towards the present turnpike road from Ferrybridge.

I made inquiries from persons residing near the scene of action, but could not learn that there were any traces of intrenchments visible: although they might have been expected to have been found at the spot where the Lancastrians were posted.

Instances have occurred, though not very numerous of late, of the discovery of parts of human skeletons, and fragments of armour, weapons, piles of arrows, bridle-bits, spurs, &c. &c., on the field of battle.

The remains of armour, weapons, and other relics, turned up on the field of this great engagement, have been comparatively, rather small, which has been very fairly accounted for by Dr. Whitaker, [93] from the circumstance, that the weather was cold, and the victory complete, so that the spoil of the field, and the interment of the dead, proceeded at leisure; he, however, mentions one relic, which escaped the vigilance of plunder, viz., a gold ring, weighing about one ounce, which was found on the field about thirty years before (his work was published in 1816); it had no stone, but a lion passant was cut upon the gold, with this inscription in the old black-letter character—“Now ys thus.”  The crest is that of the Percies; and Dr. Whitaker considers, that it was a ring actually worn by the Earl of Northumberland; and that the motto seems to allude to the times; as if it were expressed, “This age is fierce as a lion.”

Drake, in his Eboracum, says, that about a year or two before he wrote (his work was published in 1736), he and two other gentlemen had the curiosity to go and see a fresh grave opened, in those fields, where, amongst vast quantities of bones, they found some arrow piles, pieces of broken swords, and five very fresh groat pieces of Henry IV., V., and VI.’s coin.  These were laid near together, close to a thighbone, which made them conjecture, that there had not been time to strip the dead, before they were tossed into the pit.

It is to be regretted, that he has not informed us, in what particular spot, those relics were dug up; but as he, in the preceding sentence, had mentioned the intended chapel, and the piece of ground called “Chapel Garth,” it is only reasonable to conclude, that he alluded to the latter.

In the month of August 1774, a man was living at Saxton who, with many others, had been concerned in opening some graves of the warriors, slain at the battle of Towton, to satisfy the curiosity of some gentlemen.  On a strict examination of the bones, then found, it appeared, that the least decayed, were the internodia digitorum, of the bones of the thumbs and fingers. [94a]

Dr. Whitaker informs us, that he was possessed of a silver ring, gilt, with two hands conjoined engraved upon it, which was found upon the field of battle. [94b]

A dagger or short sword, discovered there, is now in the possession of the Rev. William Jepson Newman, of Badsworth, Yorkshire; it is 2 feet 4½ inches long, including the portion which was formerly inserted in the handle; very narrow, being at the broadest part hardly more than half an inch in breadth, but thick in proportion, and angular.  It has been somewhat shortened at the point, which is at present round; and it was picked up by the father of a man who now resides in the neighbouring township of Lotherton. [94c]

A spear-head, or pike-head, was six or seven years ago amongst some old iron in a blacksmith’s shop, near the field of battle, which had been found on the field; it was purchased and taken away by a gentleman. [94c]

There is another curious relic of the battle, which has been preserved.  A battle-axe, of which the blade is of a small size; and the handle is perfect, of black oak, roughly made, and 2½ inches in the gripe.  The blade and handle of the axe, are together, about 18 inches long.  Its history is curious.  It was found very many years ago, in the bed of the river Cock.  It was purchased by Colonel Grant, R.A., at Saxton, from the wife of a miller there; and she informed him, that it had been preserved for a long period of time in the family of her husband.  She had been in the habit of using it for the purpose of breaking sugar: an extraordinary change in the use of a weapon, which, as we cannot doubt, had been wielded at the battle of Towton, by a Lancastrian warrior, and been lost in the river Cock, in his flight from Towton Field.  It remained a considerable time in the possession of Colonel Grant, and was presented by him, to the Duke of Northumberland, for his museum at Alnwick Castle, where it still is. [95a]

A spur, which I have seen, of brass gilt, found on the field of battle, is preserved in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of London; it is a rowel spur; the rowel is scarcely larger than that of a modern spur, in which respect it differs from the very large rowels, of that period, which have occasionally been discovered.  The spur is remarkably perfect, and is slightly ornamented with a kind of scroll pattern.  Upon the shanks is engraved, in Old English characters, the following inscription—“en loial amour, tout mon coer;” the style and engraving of which, indicate its being of about the period of the battle. [95b]

I also learnt, on my visit to Towton Field in 1854, that on the recent occasion of making excavations for the York and North Midland Railway, close to Towton, some human bones were discovered; the spot was near the old road before described, and in the line of the retreat of the Lancastrians, from the field of battle, towards Tadcaster.

It is said that human bones, which must be presumed to have been those of some of the fugitive Lancastrians, have been found in the line of country, leading from Towton village towards the village of Stutton, at which a part of the fugitive Lancastrians probably crossed the river Cock, in their flight towards Tadcaster.

Persons residing near the field of battle, readily point out the place, where Lord Dacre [96] is said to have been slain, and which I have several times made a point of visiting, in the course of my rambles there; it is in a field called Nor Acres (or North Acre), which seems to have been originally much larger, and to have been subdivided.  It belongs to Lord Hawke, and lies a couple of fields’ breadth to the eastward of the public road, and opposite the large meadow before noticed, and extends a considerable distance to the eastward.  Dr. Whitaker states, that when Glover made his visitation in 1583, he heard the tradition, that Lord Dacre was shot at Towton Field, by a boy “out of a burtree,” and that “the place where he was slayne is called the North Acres, whereupon they have this rhyme:—

“The Lord of Dacres
was slayne in the North Acres.” [97]

It is remarkable that the farmer who occupies the field, and others whom I conversed with, repeated the tradition, and told me that Lord Dacre was slain by an arrow shot by a boy from an auberry-tree, evidently meaning the same shrub as that called burtree by Dr. Whitaker, who states that he did not know what the burtree was.  I was quite satisfied that the word auberry, was a provincial name for the elder-tree, and requested a person near the spot, to point out such a tree to me, and, as I anticipated, I was shown the elder-tree.

Following the depression or valley before mentioned, to the eastward, and at the corner of the second field from the public road, there was, until within about the last twelve or thirteen years, a square space, enclosed with an embankment, containing about half an acre; it was not usually ploughed, but in grass; and was said to have been a place of interment of many of the corpses after the battle; it lay on the corner of the Nor Acres (or North Acre) Field, at the southward; but the embankment is now thrown down, and the land has been ploughed.  According to tradition, the greatest slaughter took place at or near the Nor Acres Field.

Great numbers of the slain were interred in Saxton Churchyard, in a large trench or pit on the north side of the church.  Their bones were exposed to view, lying about four feet below the surface, in making a vault not many years ago, and again, subsequently, in making another, in 1848, as will be noticed in another place; we may conclude that they were the bones of Yorkists of some consideration, from the circumstance of the survivors taking the trouble of interring the remains in consecrated ground, at some little distance from the field of the battle.  The persons whose bones were so exposed, must have been either young, or in the prime of life, because the skulls were remarkable for the soundness and excellence of the teeth.

Amongst other fields on the spot where the battle was fought, there is one of considerable extent, lying on the eastward side, to which, or near to which, the Lancastrian left wing extended, which fronts the west side of the turnpike road from Ferrybridge; any person desirous of walking over the field of battle from the Ferrybridge road, will do well to cross it from this part, and enter the large field which is nearly opposite a white farmhouse, standing on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road.  On one occasion, whilst I was in it, I met with a farmer there, who informed me that some few relics of the battle had been discovered, but very rarely near the place.  I have also obtained considerable information from several other persons residing near the field of battle. [98a]

Dr. Whitaker states [98b] that “the field of battle is scarcely more than a mile long, and with little level ground in front of both armies, declines in the rear of both.  Hence it appears, that as the line could scarcely exceed 3000 men, the files must have been very deep, and that the rear must have been perpetually advancing as the front lines fell.”  But that theory of Dr. Whitaker appears to proceed upon the assumption that each of the armies would be drawn up in only one body.  At that period, the men-at-arms, or heavy cavalry, went to battle in complete armour; each man carried a lance, sword, dagger, and occasionally a mace, or battle-axe; his horse also was, to a certain extent, in armour.  A considerable part of the infantry of an English army, consisted of archers, armed with long bows, and arrows; and another large part consisted of men armed with bills, pikes, pole-axes, glaives, and morris-pikes.  Such of the forces as were of the latter description, would probably be drawn up in deep files, the better to resist charges of horse, but the archers and cavalry, in order to be useful, would require more space, and would be drawn up with more extended fronts. [99a]

It is, however, certain that each army was drawn up in more than one body; the rearmost body being in the nature of a corps de reserve; and in that case, of course, the army would present a much more contracted front.  We may fairly conclude, that the Lancastrians must have been drawn up in at least two bodies or lines, with the foot in rather deep files, and that their left wing extended to, or very near to, the place where the present turnpike road from Ferrybridge runs.  The old historians inform us, that the Earl of Northumberland [99b] and Sir Andrew Trollop [99c] commanded the van of the Lancastrians, which implies that there must have been a rear body, or force commanded by other leaders.  The van of the Yorkists was commanded by Lord Falconberg, and the rearward by Sir John Wenlock [100a] and Sir John Dinham or Denham; [100b] and it is certain, that such enterprising and courageous personages as Edward IV. and the Earl of Warwick, would take a prominent part in the battle, and would not willingly remain in the rear; accordingly they are said to have commanded the main body.

Near the village of Towton, and on its south-west side, King Richard III. commenced building a chapel, in memory of the slain who had fallen in the battle, but it never was finished; [100c] and the place where it was commenced is now called the “Chapel Garth,” or “Chapel Hill.”  It is situated close to, and extends in the rear or westward of, Towton Hall, which stands on part of the site of it; and a considerable mass of human bones was found, about sixty years ago, in enlarging the cellars at Towton Hall. [101a]  Behind the garden, and on the west side, are some inequalities in the ground, seemingly denoting the site of a small building; and in digging there, tiles and worked stones have been discovered: strongly conveying the impression, that the walls and foundations of the chapel had been placed there.  In some alterations which were formerly made, in an old chimney in Towton Hall, there was found some stone-work, broken, and evidently brought from elsewhere (and used with other building materials), which had apparently formed part of the mullions or tracery of a window, of an ecclesiastical edifice, [101a] which may reasonably be supposed to have been the chapel alluded to.

It is worthy of notice, that the spot was within the line occupied by the Lancastrians, but probably, many of the slain on both sides were interred there.

It cannot admit of a doubt, that the meadow and valley before mentioned, and many parts of the meadows lying between the foot of the declivities from the north side of the village of Towton, and the banks of the river Cock, must contain the remains of great numbers of the dead; but in most parts of the field where the battle actually raged, the soil is not in general, deep, and therefore, some parts of it would not easily admit of the interment of the dead in large pits.

We learn from the old historical accounts, that the Lancastrians mustered for this dreadful conflict about 60,000 men, and the Yorkists about 48,660.  The battle is stated to have commenced at nine in the morning, in the midst of a storm of snow and sleet, and to have lasted until seven in the evening. [101b]  It was a battle of extermination: the dreadful order not to give any quarter, nor to take any prisoners, having been issued before its commencement by Edward IV., and responded to by a similar order, on the part of the Lancastrians.

When the Lancastrians began to give way, they at first retired in the direction of Tadcaster, in some order, and made several stands to keep their pursuers at bay; but they could not long continue retreating without disorder; and in attempting to cross the river Cock in haste, a dreadful scene of destruction took place there, and such numbers of them were drowned, or otherwise lost their lives in the bed of the stream, as to fill it, so that the survivors passed it on the dead bodies of the sufferers.

The number of the slain is given by the chroniclers, as 36,776, but which probably includes not only all who fell on both sides in the battle, but all who were slain in the pursuit, or were drowned in the river Cock, and also all who fell in the engagements at Ferrybridge and Dintingdale on the previous day.

The principal leaders of the two parties, at the battle of Towton, were, on the Yorkists’ side, the new King, Edward IV.; the Duke of Norfolk (who was intended to have been the principal commander at the battle, but was prevented by illness from taking an active part in it; his forces, however, were there, and fought for Edward); the Earl of Warwick; his uncle, Lord Falconberg; Sir John Wenlock; Sir John Denham; and a number of the nobles and gentry of the midland and southern districts of England: on the Lancastrian side, the Earl of Northumberland; the Duke of Exeter; [103a] the Duke of Somerset; [103b] the Earl of Devonshire; [103c] Lord Dacre; Sir Andrew Trollop; and Sir John Heron. [103d]  The partisans on the Lancastrian side, comprised most of the noblemen and gentry of the northern, and part of the western, districts of England.

According to Stow, [103e] the following persons were slain there:—Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland; the Earl of Shrewsbury; [103f] John Lord Clifford; Lord Beaumont; [103g] John Lord Neville; [104a] Lord Willoughby; [104b] Lord Welles; [104c] Lord Roos; [104d] Lord Scales; [105a] Lord Grey; [105b] Lord Dacre; Lord Fitzhugh; [105c] Lord Molineux; [105d] Lord Henry Buckingham; [106a] of knights, two natural sons of Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter; Sir Richard Percy; Sir John Heron; [106b] Sir Gervase Clifton; [106c] Sir Edmund Hammes; Sir Thomas Crackenthorpe; Sir John Crackenthorpe; Sir William Harill; Sir John Ormond; Sir Andrew Trollop; Sir Roger Mollyn; Sir Ralph Pigot; Sir Henry Narbohew; Sir David Trollop; Sir John Burton, Captain of York; and other knights and esquires.  Thomas Earl of Devonshire, [106d] was taken prisoner, and beheaded by order of Edward, at York.

The act of attainder, [106e] passed against the Lancastrians soon after the accession to the throne, of Edward IV., professes to give a list of such of them, as had taken an active part for the House of Lancaster, at or immediately before or after the battle of Towton.  The following is an extract from it:—

“And where also Henry Duc of Excestr’, Henry Duc of Somerset, Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry late Erle of Northumberlond, William Vicecount Beaumont, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Clyfford, Leo late Lord Welles, John late Lord Nevill, Thomas Gray Knyght Lord Rugemond Gray, Randolf late Lord Dacre, Humphrey Dacre Knyght, John Morton [107a] late Person of Blokesworth, in the shire of Dorset Clerk; Rauff Makerell, late Person of Ryseby, in the shire of Suff’ Clerk; Thomas Mannyng late of New Wyndesore in Berkshire Clerk, John Whelpdale late of Lychefeld in the Counte of Stafford Clerk, John Nayler late of London Squier, John Preston late of Wakefeld in the shire of York Preest, Philip Wentworth Knyght, John Fortescu [107b] Knyght, William Tailboys Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Tresham Knyght, William Vaux Knyght, Edmund Hampden Knyght, Thomas Fyndern Knyght, John Courteney Knyght, Henry Lewes Knyght, Nicholas Latymer Knyght, Waltier Nuthill, late of Ryston in Holdernes, in the shire of York, Squier, John Heron of the Forde Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, John Ormond otherwise called John Botillier Knyght, William Mille Knyght, Symonde Hammes Knyght, William Holand Knyght, called the Bastard of Excestr’, William Josep’ late of London Squier, Everard Dykby late of Stokedry in the shire of Ruthlond Squier, John Myrfyn late of Suthwerk in the shire of Suit’ Squier, Thomas Philip late of Dertyngton in Devonshire Squier, Thomas Brampton late of Guysnes Squier, Giles Seyntlowe late of London Squier, Thomas Claymond, the seid Thomas Tunstall Squier, Thomas Crawford late of Caleys Squier, John Aldeley late of Guysnes Squyer, John Lenche of Wyche in the shire of Worcestre Squier, Thomas Ormond, otherwise called Thomas Botillier Knyght, Robert Bellyngeham late of Burnalshede in the shire of Westmerlond Squier, Thomas Everyngham late of Newhall in the shire of Leycestr’ Knyght, John Penycok late of Waybrigge in the Counte of Surr’ Squier, William Grymmesby late of Grymmesby in the shire of Lincoln Squier, Henry Roos late of Rokyngham in the shire of Northampton Knyght, Thomas Danyell late of Rysyng in the shire of Norff’ Squier, John Doubiggyng late of the same Gentilman, Richard Kirkeby late of Kirkeby Ireleth in the shire of Lancastr Gentilman, William Ackeworth late of Luton in the shire of Bed’ Squier, William Weynsford late of London Squier, Richard Stucley late of Lambehith in the Counte of Surr’ Squier, Thomas Stanley late of Carlile Gentilman, Thomas Litley late of London Grocer, John Maydenwell late of Kirton in Lyndesey in the Counte of Lincoln Gentilman, Edward Ellesmere late of London Squier, John Dauson late of Westmynster in the shire of Midd’ Yoman, Henry Spencer late of the same Yoman, John Smothyng late of York Yoman, John Beaumont late of Goodby in the shire of Leyc’ Gentilman, Henry Beaumont late of the same Gentilman, Roger Wharton otherwise called Roger of the Halle late of Burgh in the shire of Westmerlond Grome, John Joskyn late of Branghing in the shire of Hertf’ Squier, Richard Litestr’ the yonger late of Wakefield Yoman, Thomas Carr late of Westmynster Yoman, Robert Bollyng late of Bollyng in the shire of York Gentilman, Robert Hatecale late of Barleburgh in the same shire Yoman, Richard Everyngham late of Pontfreyt in the same shire Squier, Richard Fulnaby of Fulnaby in the shire of Lincoln Gentilman, Laurence Hille late of Moch Wycombe in the Counte of Buk’ Yoman, Rauff Chernok late of Thorley in the Counte of Lancastr’ Gentilman, Richard Gaitford of Estretford in Cley in the shire of Notyngh’ Gentilman, John Chapman late of Wymbourne Mynster in Dorset shire Yoman, and Richard Cokerell late of York Marchaunt; on Sonday called comynly Palme Sonday the XXIX day of Marche the first yere of his reigne, in a feld betwene the Townes of Shirbourne in Elmett, and Tadcastr’, in the seid shire of York, called Saxtonfeld and Tawtonfeeld, in the shire of York, accompanyed with the Frenshmen and Scotts the Kynge’s Ennemyes, falsely and traiterously ayenst their feith and Liegeaunce, there rered werre ayenst the same Kyng Edward, their rightwise, true, and naturall Liege Lord, purposying there and then to have distroyed hym, and deposed hym of his Roiall Estate, Coroune, and Dignite; and then and there to that entent, falsely and traiterously moved bataille ayenst his seid astate, shedyng therin the blode of a grete nombre of his subgetts: In the which bataille it pleased Almyghty God to yeve unto hym, of the mysterie of his myght and grace, the victorie of his ennemyes and rebelles, and to subdue and avoyde th’ effect of their fals and traiterous purpose.” [109]

Besides the persons above mentioned, the act of attainder includes several other noblemen and personages, who are charged with various offences, although not with taking a part at the battle of Towton.

Edward, besides punishing his antagonists, did not forget, after his accession to the throne, and in some instances very early afterwards, to reward with titles, or with substantial possessions, his adherents, who had fought for his cause at Towton, or had otherwise befriended him.  He created his brother George, Duke of Clarence; his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester; Sir John Neville, brother to the Earl of Warwick, Lord Montague and afterwards Marquis Montague; Henry Viscount Bourchier, brother to Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl of Essex; William Neville Lord Falconberg, Earl of Kent; Sir William Hastings, Lord Hastings; [110] Sir John Wenlock, Lord Wenlock; Sir John Denham or Dinham, Lord Dinham; and others.  Sir Walter Blount was rewarded with grants of several important and valuable offices, and in the fifth year of Edward IV. he was created Baron Montjoy. [111a]  John Lord Clinton, originally a Lancastrian, forsook the party of Henry VI. for that of the Duke of York, about 1459, and was in arms with the Yorkists at their encampment at Ludford near Ludlow, [111b] for which he was attainted, and his lands declared confiscated, by the Parliament of Coventry, held on the 20th of November, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., 1459; [111b] but all the acts and proceedings of that Parliament, however, were declared void, by act of Parliament of 39th of Henry VI., [111c] and on the accession of Edward, his estates and honours were restored. [111d]

There are several interesting particulars to be observed, on an inspection of the field of battle and its vicinity, and a visit to the river Cock, which tend very much to corroborate the old historical accounts.  We learn, that at first the Lancastrians retired from the field in some order, but soon became disordered, and retreated in great confusion.  It is easy to believe, that with the ground then unenclosed, or only partially enclosed, near Towton, they would at first retire in tolerable order, until they had passed the village; but when they turned off to the left, or westward, immediately upon leaving the village, and descended towards the river Cock, by the ancient and steep road, as they seem to have done, great confusion would most probably ensue in the retreat of an undisciplined army.  Their right wing, in retiring, would naturally fall back by the ground where Towton Hall now stands, or a little to the westward of it; but immediately after passing the village, it is almost certain that they would find their centre and right wing meeting nearly at one point, and all pressing forward to descend towards the river Cock.  The steep descent from the village by the old road, must have been very perilous, under such circumstances; their cavalry, many of the horses doubtless wounded and ungovernable, and their infantry, all attempting to descend by a steep road, hotly pursued by enemies, who gave no quarter, would probably soon become a disorderly mass of fugitives, and when they attempted to cross the Cock, nearly all order would be lost, and a scene of confusion and carnage would naturally result.  The strong probability is, that there was not then any bridge over the Cock; but if there were one, we must conclude that it was of small size, and that it could not have been wide enough to allow so numerous a crowd to pass; and if there were not one, and all of them were obliged to attempt to ford the stream, the danger would of course be increased.  The river Cock is narrower than the general width of our inland canal navigations, and when I visited it in the summers of several years, I could have waded across it, without having the water much above my knees; but I can easily suppose that at the close of winter, and when fed with melted snow, it would be difficult, if not dangerous, to ford it.

There is a passage in Biondi’s work, upon the wars of the Houses of York and Lancaster, written in old Italian, which tends to confirm the idea that there was not, at the period of the battle, any bridge there, but that the river was usually forded; the passage, however, is not conclusive, because, whether there was a bridge or not, a vast number of the fugitives would naturally attempt to ford the little river. [112]

“Those who remained alive, took the road for the bridge of Tadcaster, but being unable to reach it, and believing a small river called Cock to be fordable, the greater part were drowned therein.  It is constantly affirmed, that those who survived, passed over, by treading on the dead bodies of the sufferers; the water of this stream, and of the river Wharfe, into which it empties itself, were coloured in a manner to appear as pure blood.”

I have several times descended to and visited the river Cock, in two places—one after passing through the large meadow and valley before mentioned, and the other after descending from the village of Towton, by the old road already described; and whilst I drank of its pure and cool waters, at each place, I could not avoid reflecting upon the lamentable fact, that after the battle, this interesting stream flowed stained with human gore; and that both the Cock, and the large river the Wharfe, into which it flows, were discoloured with it, so as to appear like rivers of blood.  Doubtless very much of that shocking discoloration was produced both by the wounded, in their endeavours to cross the Cock, and by the men slain in its bed or on its banks, in their flight; besides which, a portion of the field of battle near the public road dips towards the westward, and the melted snow mixed with blood would naturally drain through the large meadow and valley before mentioned, towards the Cock; and we learn from history, that the blood of the slain lay caked with the snow, which at that time covered the face of the ground, and afterwards dissolving with it, ran down in a most horrible manner the furrows and ditches of the fields, for two or three miles together. [113]

However well selected the position of the Lancastrians was for fighting a battle, it was a most dangerous one for defeated forces to retreat from, because the contiguity of the river Wharfe, which was only from two to three miles distant on the eastward and north-eastward, prevented their escape from the field in that direction, and the eminence or cliff prevented it on the westward; whilst towards the northward the declivities and river Cock in their rear, were almost certain to cause, to an undisciplined army, the disorganization and loss of life which ensued.

There is a point of some historical moment connected with the action at Dintingdale which is worth notice.  Edward IV. was at Pontefract on the 27th of March, and prepared to pass the Aire at Ferrybridge, or both at that place and at Castleford.  Lord Clifford, with a body of light cavalry under his command, [114a] left the main army of Lancastrians, either on the night of the 27th, or sufficiently early on the morning of the 28th, to surprise and defeat the body of Yorkists posted under the command of Lord Fitzwalter [114b] at Ferrybridge, at daybreak; and Lord Fitzwalter, unaware of the approach of the enemy, hearing a disturbance and uproar, went from his bed armed only with a poleaxe, and lost his life [115a] in the conflict.  The Yorkists then passed the Aire at Castleford (only three miles distant) in great force, in hopes of cutting off the troops under Lord Clifford, who then retreated from Ferrybridge; and the Yorkists either intercepted or overtook him, slew him, and defeated and destroyed nearly all his forces, at Dintingdale.  As Dintingdale is only one mile and a half from Towton, and little more than half a mile from Saxton, the Yorkists would never have hazarded an action with so large a body of cavalry as we must suppose that Lord Clifford had with him, in a place so close to the main army of the Lancastrians, unless the Yorkists were in great force there, or were within reach of certain support from their advancing main army.  From those circumstances, and from the fact of the distance from Castleford to Saxton being but short, it appears very probable that by the middle or early in the afternoon of the 28th, the Yorkists had advanced to the village of Saxton, and perhaps to Dintingdale, and occupied the neighbourhood of those places in considerable force.

Dr. Whitaker states [115b] that Lord Clifford, according to the tradition of the family, was tumbled into a pit, with a promiscuous heap of dead bodies.

From the appearance of the road and the neighbouring country, it seems almost certain that, in 1461, the great north road from Ferrybridge to Tadcaster, turned off from the present Ferrybridge road, [116a] and passed through the village of Saxton, and then proceeded by the public road before mentioned through Towton; and if so, when the Yorkists advanced towards Towton, they would find the Lancastrian army lying like a lion in their path.

It is well known, that cannons and other firearms were used in the wars of York and Lancaster; and there is not any reason to doubt that they were used at the battle of Towton; yet it is remarkable that the fact is not noticed by any ancient writer.  Guns of some kind or other, appear to have been used in the following instances in the field (exclusive of sieges) during those wars: viz., in 1455, at the first battle of St. Alban’s; [116b] in 1459, at the encampment of the Yorkists at Ludford in Herefordshire; [116b] in 1460, at the battle of Northampton; [116c] in 1469, at the battle near Hornfield, Lincolnshire, often called the Battle of Lose Coat Field; [116d] in 1471, on the landing of Edward IV. at Ravenspur; [116e] in 1471, at the battle of Barnet; [116f] again in 1471, at the battle of Tewkesbury; [116g] in 1485, at the battle of Bosworth; [116h] and in 1487, at the battle of Stoke. [116i]  It can scarcely excite surprise, at the chroniclers and annalists not having mentioned cannons, as having been used at the battle of Towton, when it is borne in mind, that they do not make the slightest mention of cavalry having been employed there; although it is certain, that in both armies there must have been large bodies of cavalry engaged at that battle.

The honour of bearing Edward IV.’s standard, of the Black Bull, at the battle of Towton, devolved upon Ralph Vestynden, afterwards one of the yeomen of the chamber, who had for his services, at the battle, an annuity of £10, granted to him “yerely unto the tyme he be rewarded by us of an office.” [117a]  Besides having been borne upon Edward’s standard at that battle, “the Bull sable, corned and hoofed, or,” was also used on other occasions by Edward IV., and others of the House of York, in consequence of its having been a cognizance or device of the Clares (Earls of Gloucester), from whom the House of York was descended. [117b]

Henry VI., Queen Margaret, and Edward Prince of Wales, were at York during the battle of Towton; and on hearing of its disastrous result, they fled northward with the Duke of Exeter, the Duke of Somerset, Lord Roos, and Lord Hungerford, [118a] and at first repaired to Berwick, and from thence to Scotland, where Henry purchased the protection and assistance of the King of Scotland, by the surrender of Berwick.  Edward IV. was received on the day after the battle into York, with processions and great solemnity, the mayor and commonalty having sued for grace, and having obtained it from the King, through the mediation [118b] of Lord Montague [118c] and Lord Berners. [118d]

King Edward, on hearing of the flight of Henry VI., and the other personages, northward, immediately despatched a body of light cavalry, in pursuit of them, but too late to overtake them.

Edward remained at York sufficiently long to celebrate the festival of Easter there, and then went to Durham, and, after taking measures for the pacification of the northern parts, proceeded to London.

The decisive victory gained by Edward at Towton, confirmed his previous assumption of the royal title; he became to all intents the King of England; he was crowned at Westminster, on the 29th of June; and his right to the throne was solemnly recognized by the Parliament, which was held in the month of November following.  He was evidently a man of extraordinary talents, enterprise, and courage; he had already fought and been the conqueror in three important battles; and, notwithstanding the serious and numerous obstacles which he had to overcome, he succeeded in obtaining the sovereignty of England before he was twenty years old: his birth having taken place at Rouen, in Normandy, on the 29th of April, 1441. [119]

There are some passages in the accounts of the battle, given by historians, which seem to be exaggerated, or, at least, must be received with some degree of allowance.  We know from the old historical writers, that the battle commenced in a fall of snow or sleet, which was driven by the wind into the faces of the Lancastrians.  We are told that Lord Falconberg caused some arrows to be discharged during the snow, at the Lancastrians, and ordered the archers to fall back three strides (what difference could three paces make?) and that the Lancastrians, feeling the shot, but in consequence of the snow, not well knowing the distance between them and the Yorkists, supposed that they were within the range of archery, and discharged their arrows, until their quivers were exhausted, or nearly so, and that the Yorkists then not only shot their own arrows against the opposite forces, but also picked up and discharged part of the Lancastrians’ arrows against them, and planted others in the ground, which sorely galled the legs of the Lancastrians, when they advanced to close quarters.  It is easy to believe, that some amongst the undisciplined Lancastrian archers, would begin to shoot too soon, just as young troops will even now occasionally fire too soon; but when we reflect that there were several men amongst the leaders on both sides, who had served in France, and had had much experience in war, it is difficult to suppose that such a circumstance had any material influence in the result of the battle, or that they would allow their men to exhaust their quivers, by shooting in such a useless manner; besides which, if the Lancastrian archers were prevented by the snow from judging accurately of the distance, the same cause must, to a great extent, have operated against the archers of the Yorkists.  And with respect to exhausting the quivers, we cannot suppose that the Lancastrian leaders, after deliberately preparing for the approach of the Yorkists, would be so remiss, as not to have a plentiful supply of arrows in the rear for the use of the troops.  It is barely possible that some instances may have occurred of arrows being stuck into the ground, but it is not credible that it was done on any considerable scale.  The Yorkists would have something else to do on such a dreadful morning, than to occupy themselves with sticking arrows in any considerable numbers in the ground.  Besides which, if such a measure were adopted with any good effect, at the battle of Towton, it is clear that it would be equally useful at other battles fought in the middle ages; yet, as far as I can recollect, we are not informed by any historian, of such a measure being adopted, on any other occasion, either in the wars of York and Lancaster, or in any battle in which the English were engaged.  The real disadvantage, and that was a serious one, under which the Lancastrians laboured, was, that the wind, with the snow or sleet driven in their faces, would not only baffle their aim, but would cause a deflection in the flight of their arrows; besides which, even when they came to close quarters, it was a great disadvantage to have the snow and sleet driving against them.  There was, however, a good reason for soon coming to hand blows, which would equally operate on both armies: the wet from the snow, would affect their bow strings, and render the bows of both parties comparatively inefficient.  We are also told, that the Yorkists pursued the Lancastrians during all the night, which succeeded the battle.  It seems to be impossible that that can be literally true.  After two rather severe engagements, and a hasty march, which, for a considerable space, was through cross roads, on the 28th of March, and after so long and dreadful a conflict on the 29th, without food during the day, except that they might possibly have broken their fast very early in the morning, fighting in severe weather, exposed to cold and wet, and with bad roads, the Yorkists must, from sheer exhaustion, and want of bodily strength, have been scarcely able to pursue the fugitives after the day had closed in, about which time the victors would arrive at Tadcaster, glad to find food, shelter, and rest there, for the night.  We hear no more of the fugitives, as an army, after the 29th; and it is more than probable, that by the morning of the 30th, they had availed themselves of the hours of darkness to disperse, or to move northwards in detached parties merely; and they had one advantage over the victors: the fugitives could throw away a portion of their arms, offensive and defensive, to facilitate their flight.

There is one point in the plans of the Lancastrians connected with this battle, for which it is very difficult to account.  Why, with superior forces, did they act on the defensive?  It is very easy to understand, that the Lancastrians retired from before London, and proceeded northward, after the junction of the forces of Edward with those of the Earl of Warwick, in consequence of the then superiority of the Yorkists; but, if as we are told, the Lancastrians shortly afterwards mustered for the battle of Towton about 60,000 men, and the Yorkists only about 48,660 men, we should naturally have expected that the Lancastrians would have been the assailants.  It seems contrary to good policy, in military affairs, to wait with a superior force to be attacked.  Such a general as Cromwell, Marlborough, or Wellington, if commanding a force tolerably equal, would not have waited for the attack of an enemy.  With the exception, however, of the bold, and at first the successful, exploit by Lord Clifford, at Ferrybridge, the Lancastrians were not the assailing, but the defensive parties. [122a]  They did not even, as far as we are informed, attempt either to support Lord Clifford at Ferrybridge, or to succour him at Dintingdale, where he was slain, and his forces defeated. [122b]  Yet that place was only about a mile and a half from Towton; and the shouts of the combatants would be within hearing of the main body of the Lancastrian army.  The victors may possibly have exaggerated the number of the Lancastrians, in order to enhance the merit of the victory.  If some such reason cannot be given, it seems only left to ascribe their remaining on the defensive, either to ignorance of the numbers of their enemies, or to want of judgment on the part of the Lancastrian commanders.

Saxton is a parish containing the townships of Towton and Saxton-cum-Scarthingwell; the living is a perpetual curacy; and Saxton Church is dedicated to “All Saints.”

A great number of the slain were interred, as has been before mentioned, in a large trench or pit, on the north side of, and close to, the church.  In June, 1848, a short time prior to my first visit to Towton, their bones were exposed to view, when making a vault for the interment of a son of John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall. [122c]  The trench runs from east to west.  Besides which, only a few years before that discovery, another vault was made, nearer to the east than that of Mr. Kendall, and also on the north side of the church, and the workmen found a similar deposit of bones, about four feet below the surface; so that there can be no doubt that the bones of hundreds of men were buried in a continuous trench extending along that part of the churchyard. [123a]  It has been already mentioned, that the teeth in the skulls found there were sound and entire, showing that they had belonged to persons who had died either young or in the prime of life.

The tomb of Lord Dacre, called by Leland and Stow , “a meane tombe” [123b] (meaning not a contemptible, or shabby tomb, for it certainly has been a handsome one, but one of medium size), also lies on the north side of the church, and very near the place where the slain were buried.  It is about two feet high, with the inscription a good deal worn, so that I was not able to read many words.  It stands with its sides nearly corresponding with the four points of the compass; it has armorial bearings on each of its sides; and, besides various other quarterings, which are much defaced by age and weather, I observed the quarters—1st and 4th, Chequy, or and gules, for Vaux of Gillesland; 2nd and 3rd, Gules, three escallops argent, for Dacre, which, though not very plain, are nevertheless still visible; and I consider the engravings of the tomb in Dr. Whitaker’s work, very like the original. [123c]

The tomb is of dark stone or marble, and the slab or lid is very heavy, but broken in two pieces, at about two-thirds its length; and it seems likely to sustain further injury from boys playing and climbing upon it.  It is much to be regretted, that some endeavour is not made by some person of taste, to preserve it by putting iron rails round it.

Some of the leaders (naturally supposed to be Yorkists) were interred in the church; and within the recollection of Mr. Kendall, some slabs, with inscriptions in the Old English letters, were in existence there, which were said to have covered their remains.  The church is evidently very ancient, principally of the Gothic style of architecture; but it has been in part rebuilt and altered, without much regard to its style, so as to detract very much from its appearance.  Formerly there was some coloured glass in a window of the church, which is said to have contained the arms of the Dacre family; but, in consequence of the window requiring repairs, the coloured glass was removed about thirty years ago, and was taken to the mansion of the late Thomas Walker, Esq., of Killingbeck, near Leeds, where it perhaps may yet be.

It has an ancient plain Norman arch, at the doorway in the south porch; an antique font, large enough to immerse a child; and a piscina in the Hungate Chapel, which is on the south side; and one or two very narrow lancet-shaped windows on the north side of the chancel, are still remaining.

The tower of Saxton Church appears to have been rebuilt after the Reformation, and, as is said, between two hundred and fifty and three hundred years ago.  Several representations of crosses have been cut upon slabs or stones which are built into the tower, and which have evidently been carved in memory of some of the slain, who were buried there; most probably, some Yorkist knights or leaders.  Several of the crosses have been transposed and altered, when the tower was rebuilt; and parts of the shafts and pedestals of two or three of those crosses are still visible, and are now placed in different layers of the stone, or in the reverse way to the heads of the crosses, and are imperfect, parts of them having disappeared, and probably they have been cut and been removed.  On the south side of the tower there is one of these crosses perfect, or nearly so, and also part of another; on the west side there is one perfect cross; and on the north side, including an imperfect part of one on the adjoining buttress of the tower, there are five imperfect parts of crosses cut upon the stones; there probably are others which have since been built inwards into the wall, and are, consequently, not visible.  They have been four or five feet long, and the two which are nearly perfect, owe their preservation apparently to their having been cut on stones of unusual size, and to their not extending, like some others, upon more stones than one.  The heads of those two crosses are handsome, and a good deal ornamented.  There is a sufficient resemblance amongst the crosses, to show that they were probably all coeval in point of date; but they are certainly not, as Dr. Whitaker supposed, all alike.

Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, is said not to have been buried there, but at the chapel of Lead, which is about half a mile from Saxton, and in the parish of Ryther; but there is not any monument to his memory.

At the period when Drake wrote (in 1736), Lord Dacre’s tomb was much defaced, and the inscription was imperfect; he has, however, given it, as follows:—

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DS. DE DAKEE ET —— MILES
ET OCCISUS ERAT IN BELLO PRINCIPE HENRICO VI° ANNO DOM.
MCCCCLXI. XXIX DIE MARTII VIDELICET DOMINICA DIE PAL-
MARUM.  CUJUS ANIME PROPITIETUR DEUS.  AMEN. [125a]

Dr. Whitaker, however, who had Drake’s work before him when he wrote, gives the following, as the correct inscription, with the defects supplied; and states that less than thirty years before the time when he was writing, he retrieved much more of it, than would have been then possible:—

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DOMINUS DE DACRE ET GREYSTOCKE VERUS MILES QUI
OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI. VICESIMO [125b]
DIE MENSIS MARCII VID’LT., DOMINICA PALMARUM CUJUS ANIME PROPICIETUR
DEUS.  AMEN. [125c]

Whichever is the correct version, they, however, both coincide in the main particulars, of its being Lord Dacre’s tomb; that he was a supporter of King Henry VI., and was slain in battle, on Palm Sunday, 1461.  From the mention of King Henry VI., it may be surmised that the tomb was not erected until after the death of Edward IV.

Drake mentions, that many years ago, this tomb was violently wrenched open (for it had been strongly cramped together with iron), in order to inter beneath it a Mr. Gascoyne, when the remains of Dacre’s body were found, in a standing posture; and that a fragment of the slab, and a material part of the inscription, were then broken off.

He does not inform us who or what Mr. Gascoyne was, when alive; but whoever he was, whether of a high or low sphere in life, whether he was a gentleman, or some rag-merchant, it evinced bad taste on the part of his relations or representatives, to commit such an act; and perhaps some culpable remissness on the part of the then incumbent of the church, to permit it.  Of Lord Dacre’s general character we know little; but from that circumstance, we are at least justified in believing, that, unlike two great leaders of the opposite parties, he was neither perjured like Clarence, nor a murderer like Clifford; that is certainly only negative praise; but we do know that he was at least a nobleman of high rank, consistent in his principles, and one who died a warrior’s death, on the field of battle: circumstances which ought to have preserved his remains from profanation, and ought to have caused us to be spared the disgust and indignation, which we naturally entertain, at the bad taste and bad feeling evinced, in the violation of a soldier’s grave.

In the dreadful wars of York and Lancaster, it is said that more than 100,000 Englishmen lost their lives; but that is merely the number believed to have been slain in battle; and, however repulsive it may be to our feelings, it must be admitted that it cannot include the numbers who must have perished during that disastrous period, in unimportant skirmishes, in marauding parties, in private warfare, by assassination, by the axe or by the halter, in pursuance of or under the colour of judicial sentences, or by open and undisguised murder. [127a]  Besides this horrible sacrifice of human life, during this distracted period, it is shocking to think what sufferings unprotected and helpless persons must have been exposed to, from the lawless partisans of the rival parties, when they passed through or were located near any district, which they chose to consider as favouring their antagonists.  Pillage, cruelty, violence to women, incendiarism, and contempt of the laws and of religion, [127b] were the natural attendants upon a civil war, [127c] carried on with feelings of bitter hatred by each party; and it is certain that the examples of cruelty and wickedness which were openly set by the nobles and leaders of both factions, would readily be copied by their followers.  Voltaire thus expresses himself, in reference to the wars of York and Lancaster: “Quand les premiers d’une nation ont de telles mœurs, quelles doivent être celles du peuple?” [127d]

One of our ancient historical writers correctly states, that “this conflict was in maner unnaturall, for in it the sonne fought against the father, the brother against the brother, the nephew against the uncle, and the tenant against his lord.” [128a]

The following is an extract from a very interesting scene, from the pen of Shakespeare, relative to the battle of Towton; and, although the tragedy in which it is introduced is not well adapted to the stage, it will well repay the student for the time bestowed, in reading the whole of it:—

The Third Part of King Henry VI.

Scene—A Field of Battle between Towton and Saxton. [128b]

(Enter a Son that has killed his Father, bringing in the body.)

Son.—“Ill blows the wind, that profits nobody.
This man, whom hand to hand I slew in fight,
May be possessed with some store of crowns;
And I, that haply take them from him now,
May yet, ere night, yield both my life and them
To some man else, as this dead man doth me.
Who’s this?—O Heav’n! it is my father’s face,
Whom in this conflict I unawares have killed.
O heavy times, begetting such events!”

(Enter a Father that has killed his Son, bringing in the body.)

Father.—“Thou that so stoutly hast resisted me,
Give me thy gold, if thou hast any gold;
For I have bought it with an hundred blows.—
But let me see: is this our foeman’s face?
Ah, no, no, no, it is mine only son!
Ah, boy, if any life be left in thee,
Throw up thine eye; see, see, what showers arise,
Blown by the windy tempest of my heart,
Upon thy wounds, that kill mine eye and heart!
O pity, Heav’n, this miserable age!
What stratagems, how fell, how butcherly,
Erroneous, mutinous, and unnatural,
This deadly quarrel daily doth beget!”

King Henry.—“Sad-hearted men, much overgone with care,
Here sits a King more woful than you are.”

It may be said, that the portion of the scene in which those circumstances are introduced, is one of imagination, and the offspring of the grand and admirable talents of Shakespeare.  Be it so; still the truthful records of history disclose quite enough, to prove that deeds of bloodshed and violence, nearly as repulsive to our feelings, and almost as disgraceful to mankind, as those which that scene represents, were frequently perpetrated during those disastrous times; and we may well feel grateful to the supreme Disposer of events, that we are now preserved from the miseries and calamities which were experienced in this country, during the wars of York and Lancaster.

CHAPTER VII.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
TEWKESBURY. [131a]

“Then came wandering by
A shadow like an angel, with bright hair
Dabbled in blood; and he shriek’d out aloud,
‘Clarence is come; false fleeting perjured Clarence,
That stabb’d me in the field by Tewkesbury.’”

Shakespeare’s King Richard III. act i. scene 4.

Of the numerous battles which have been fought in England in the middle ages, few have been more decisive, or have excited more interest, than that of Tewkesbury. [131b]  In order that the positions of the hostile armies, and the reason why the battle happened to be fought close to the town of Tewkesbury, may be correctly understood, it is necessary, in giving a description of the field of battle, to notice concisely, some of the events which immediately preceded it. [131c]

On the 18th or 14th of April, 1471, [132a] Margaret, [132b] the Queen of Henry VI., and their son, Edward Prince of Wales, [132c] accompanied by John Longstrother, Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, [132d] and several persons of consideration, arrived from France, and landed at the port of Weymouth, in Dorsetshire, with a small body of French and other troops; and she proceeded from thence to the Abbey of Cerne, [132e] not far from that port.  The Countess of Warwick had accompanied her from France, but in a different ship, which outsailed that of the Queen. [133a]

Margaret was at first almost broken-hearted and overwhelmed, by the dismal tidings of the loss of the battle of Barnet, the defeat and destruction of her friends, and the captivity of her husband; but in consequence of being encouraged by Edmund Duke of Somerset; [133b] Lord John Beaufort; [133c] Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire; [133d] Lord Wenlock, [133e] and other persons of rank, and gentlemen, who promised her their support, she determined once more to try the chances of a battle.

The noblemen and gentlemen of her party, immediately adopted measures for mustering their retainers and followers, and with that view repaired to Exeter, sent for Sir John Arundel, and Sir Hugh Courtenay, and raised forces in Somersetshire, Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, and afterwards in Cornwall and Devonshire; and proceeded from Exeter by Taunton, Glastonbury, and Wells, to Bath, and from thence to Bristol: their forces being continually increased on their march.  Their intention was to have marched through Gloucestershire into Wales, where Jasper Earl of Pembroke, [133f] a powerful and staunch Lancastrian, was in arms, and raising forces for that party; and they also expected to receive assistance from their partisans in Cheshire and Lancashire.

Edward, in the mean time, after receiving intelligence of the landing of Queen Margaret, being uncertain towards what quarter the Lancastrians would bend their course, departed on the 19th of April, with some of his forces, furnished with artillery and other things requisite, from London for Windsor, where he remained a short time, for the double purpose of celebrating the feast of St. George, and of awaiting the arrival of other troops, whom he had appointed to assemble there.  He commenced his march from Windsor, against the enemy, on the morrow after St. George’s day, the 24th of April.  He reached Abingdon on Saturday the 27th, remained there all Sunday, and on Monday the 29th, proceeded to Cirencester, [134a] where he received information, that on the next day (Tuesday), his enemies intended to be at Bath, and that on the Wednesday they would come forward, and give him battle; and Edward, desirous to see his men in order of battle, led them out of the town, and encamped in the field three miles from it.

On the next day, Edward, still seeking to encounter his enemies, marched to Malmesbury, when he learned that they had turned aside and gone to Bristol.  On Thursday [134b] Edward arrived at Sodbury, and shortly before the arrival of the main body of his army there, a skirmish took place; a few of his men, riding into the town to secure quarters and accommodations, encountered and were attacked by some of the enemy, who had been sent forward from the Lancastrian army, and five or six of the Yorkists were made prisoners.  Edward having some reason to think that the Lancastrians were near at hand, sent out scouts to endeavour to obtain intelligence of their movements; but not hearing any certain tidings of them, he lodged his vanguard in a valley, beyond the hill, towards the town of Sodbury, and lay himself with the residue of his forces at Sodbury Hill.  About three o’clock after midnight, he received information, that the Lancastrians had taken their way by Berkeley towards Gloucester; and he in consequence, after taking the advice of his council, sent with all speed to Sir Richard Beauchamp, the son of William Lord Beauchamp of Powick, [135] to whom he had committed the government of the city and castle of Gloucester, with orders not to admit Margaret’s forces into them, but to defend them to the utmost.

At Bristol the Lancastrians received assistance, both in men, victuals, money, and artillery, and on Thursday proceeded to Berkeley, and marched from thence towards Gloucester, travelling all night, and arrived before Gloucester at ten o’clock on Friday, and hoped to be admitted into that city, and to pass the Severn there, in order to effect a junction with the Earl of Pembroke.

But as King Edward IV. had previously sent orders to the Governor of Gloucester, to refuse admittance to Margaret and her adherents, and had promised that, if the city were assailed, he would advance immediately to its relief, his orders were obeyed, and Margaret was unable to obtain admittance.  To the circumstance of her being baffled in the design of passing the Severn at Gloucester, may be ascribed, the utter ruin, which so soon after befell her and her army; in fact the issue of the campaign might very probably have been completely different, if she had succeeded in getting possession of Gloucester, and of securing a safe passage for her forces over the Severn, and, consequently, of effecting a junction with the troops raised by the Earl of Pembroke.

She proceeded from Gloucester towards Tewkesbury, having then no alternative, with reference to her design of passing the river, but to march to the latter town; and on the way thither, some of her artillery were captured from her rearguard. [136a]  She arrived at Tewkesbury on Friday the 3rd of May, about four in the afternoon, having travelled on that day and the preceding night, thirty-six long miles, through bad roads, between woods, and without proper refreshment, so that both men and horses were greatly fatigued.  It became absolutely necessary, to give some rest to her exhausted troops, most part of which consisted of infantry; and it was determined by the leaders of her forces, to await at Tewkesbury the coming up of Edward’s army, and to take the chances of a battle.

The Lancastrians, as we learn from one of our old historians, encamped “in a close even hard at the Townes end having the Towne and Abbeie at their backes, and directlie before them, and upon each side of them they were defended with cumbersome lanes, deepe ditches, and manie hedges, beside hils and dales, so as the place seemed as noisome as might be to approach unto.” [136b]  Whether the position was or was not as strong and difficult to be assailed, as is here represented, it is at all events certain, that the Lancastrians fortified it, at least to some extent, and prepared to act on the defensive; with the hope of holding out against Edward, until the arrival of the Earl of Pembroke, who was supposed to be rapidly approaching.  There can scarcely be a reasonable doubt, that during the evening and night previous to the battle, the Lancastrians exerted themselves assiduously to intrench and fortify their position.  It is worthy of notice, that we do not hear of any attempt by the Lancastrians, to pass the Severn at Tewkesbury; and as they prepared to act on the defensive, and not to be the attacking party at the approaching battle, it may at first sight perhaps appear remarkable, that they do not seem to have endeavoured to have had the river Severn interposed between themselves and their enemies, especially as it flows close to Tewkesbury.  But the reason for their not attempting it, may easily be found, in the exhausted state of their troops, and the near approach of Edward’s army, which rendered it a very dangerous attempt to cross the river with the enemy so close upon them. [137a]  Besides which, there was not a bridge over the Severn at Tewkesbury, before the present iron bridge was completed in 1826, at the place where there was an old ferry called the Upper Lode; and Leland expressly states, that even as late as when he wrote (in the reign of Henry VIII.), there was not any bridge there:—“There is noe Bridge on Severne beneath Gloucester—neither is there any bridge on Severne above Gloucester, till the Townlett of Upton a 11 or 12 miles from Gloucester.” [137b]

If Margaret and her army had attempted to cross the Severn at Tewkesbury, in hopes of joining the Earl of Pembroke, the want of a bridge would naturally have compelled them, to have crossed it by fords and ferries, as they best could: a perilous attempt, and one which would almost certainly have exposed the rear of the army to destruction.  That would of course be an additional and powerful reason, for their being compelled to take the chances of a battle. [137c]

King Edward, having received tidings that the Queen’s forces were proceeding towards Tewkesbury, commenced his march from Sodbury, with his army in good order of battle in three bodies, very early in the morning of Friday, the 3rd of May, and passed over Cotswold.  The day was very hot, and the King marched with his forces more than thirty miles; during which, they could neither find food for man or horse, and his troops were much distressed for want of water, having met with only one small brook, which soon became so disturbed and foul, by so large a number of men, carriages, and horses passing through it, as to be unfit for use.  During a considerable part of that day, the King’s army and that of his enemies were within five or six miles of each other: his in a plain country, and theirs amongst woods.  He had constantly useful scouts, to inform him of the movements of his enemies.  At length he came with his army to Cheltenham, “unto a village called Chiltenham,” [138a] where he had certain intelligence, that the Queen’s forces were already come to Tewkesbury, and were encamped, and intended to remain and give him battle there.

Edward did not remain long at Cheltenham; but after his troops, which consisted of 3000 infantry and a large body of cavalry, had had some refreshment, they marched forward towards Tewkesbury, and passed the night of the 3rd of May encamped in the field, near [138b] the Lancastrian position.

On the next morning, Saturday the 4th of May, [138c] Edward advanced to attack his enemies in three bodies: his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester [139a] commanded the van; Edward in person, with his brother the Duke of Clarence, [139b] commanded the centre; and the rear was commanded by the Marquis of Dorset [139c] and Lord Hastings. [139d]

Edward, prior to the commencement of the battle, had observed that there was a park [140a] and much wood growing in it, on the right hand of his enemies’ camp; and in order to guard against an ambuscade from that quarter, he ordered two hundred spearmen to proceed to it, about a quarter of a mile from the field; and if there were no ambuscade, then to act and assist the army, in such a manner, as circumstances might seem to render advisable.

The Lancastrian army was arranged also in three bodies, behind the natural defences of the position, and such intrenchments, as had been assiduously formed in so short a time; the Duke of Somerset and his brother Lord John Beaufort commanded the first line; Prince Edward, Lord Wenlock, and the Prior of St. John, commanded the second; and the Earl of Devonshire the third.

We learn from one of the old historians, that the Queen’s position was, “right hard to be assailed, by reason of the deep ditches, hedges, trees, bushes, and cumbersome lanes wherewith the same was fenced both a front and on the sides.” [140b]

Some openings were left by the Lancastrians in their intrenchments, in order to enable them, if it should be considered expedient, to sally forth upon the Yorkists: a circumstance which seems not to have been known at first to the leaders of the latter.

Before the battle commenced, the Queen and Prince Edward rode about the field, encouraging the men, and promising them rewards and booty, if they acquitted themselves well.

Both of the armies used cannons.  The King’s army was well furnished with great artillery, which was well placed to annoy his enemies, and the Duke of Gloucester galled them severely with discharges of arrows; and the Lancastrians repaid them in the same manner with shot of artillery, and arrows, although they had not as many guns as the King had.

The Duke of Gloucester with his forces made a fierce attack upon the Lancastrians, but was unable to force their lines; in fact it was scarcely practicable for them to come to hand blows with their enemies, from the peculiarities and difficult nature of their position; and after a short time he purposely retired from before their intrenchments with his men, and with an appearance of being repulsed, in order to tempt the Duke of Somerset from his stronghold.  Somerset rashly quitted the intrenchments through the openings already mentioned, and with his men pursued the Duke of Gloucester into the open field, when the latter suddenly ordered his forces to halt, and recover their ranks, and face their enemies, which was accordingly done; and the Duke of Gloucester with the Yorkists immediately attacked the troops of the Duke of Somerset, repulsed them, put them to flight, and pursued them towards their camp.

The two hundred spearmen were of great use on this occasion, as they advanced to the assistance of Gloucester, and suddenly charged Somerset and his Lancastrian troops in their flank, when they had already enough to do, from being engaged with the others; and, dismayed at this new charge upon them, they gave way, and attempted to regain their camp, and were pursued by the King and Gloucester with the Yorkist forces. [141a]

Some of the fugitives “fled into the parke, other into the meadow there at hand, some into the lanes, and some hid them in ditches, each one making what shift he could, by the which he hoped best to escape; but manie neverthelesse were beaten downe, slaine, and taken prisoners.” [141b]

Lord Wenlock not having advanced to the support of the first line, but remaining stationary, contrary to the expectations of Somerset, the latter, in a rage, rode up to him, reviled him, and beat his brains out with his axe.

Gloucester and his troops, pursuing those that fled with Somerset, forced their way into the intrenchments, and were supported by the King, who conducted himself very valiantly; the Lancastrians soon gave way, the second and third lines making little resistance; the rout became general, and was attended with great slaughter; and upon the camp being forced, almost all such of the defenders as stood their ground were killed.

The Lancastrians fled towards the town, and were hotly pursued by the victors, the King and others joining in the pursuit, and many of the fugitives were slain, and “at a mill in a meadow fast by the town, a great sort were drowned.  Manie ran towards the towne, some to the church, and diverse to the abbeie, and other to other places, where they thought best to save themselves.” [142a]

In this decisive battle, and in the pursuit, about 3000 Lancastrians were slain, with the following leaders:—The Earl of Devonshire, Lord John Beaufort, Lord Wenlock, Sir Edmund Hamden, Sir William Wittingham, Sir William Vaux, Sir Nicholas Hartry, Sir John Delves, [142b] Sir William Fielding, Sir John Lewkener, Sir William Lermouth, Sir John Urnan, Sir Thomas Seymour, Sir William Rouse, and Sir Thomas Fitzhenry. [142c]  The Duke of Somerset, the Prior of St. John, and other individuals of distinction, escaped from the field, and sought refuge in the neighbouring Abbey Church.  They were pursued thither by King Edward, who attempted to enter the church with his sword drawn, but was stopped at the porch by a priest, with the Host, [142d] who prohibited his defiling the sacred edifice with blood.

Prince Edward was taken prisoner by Sir Richard Crofts, and in consequence of a proclamation, made by the King’s orders, that whosoever should produce the Prince, should receive an annuity of one hundred pounds, and that the Prince’s life should be spared if he were brought forward unhurt, he was conducted by Sir Richard Crofts into the King’s presence.  Here an act of wickedness and cruelty took place, similar to and equally detestable, with that which was perpetrated by Lord Clifford, a leader of the other party, against the young Earl of Rutland, after the battle of Wakefield.  The King having asked, in a haughty manner, how Prince Edward had dared to invade his dominions, and being irritated by an imprudent and hasty reply from the youthful captive, struck him on the face with his gauntlet.  This seems to have been considered a sufficient encouragement to others, to proceed to a deed of savage violence against the unhappy Prince, and the Marquis of Dorset, Lord Hastings, the Dukes of Clarence [143a] and Gloucester, and some others, dragged the Prince away, and murdered him with their daggers. [144]  His corpse was buried in a common grave, in the Abbey Church, with some of the soldiers who had been slain in the battle.  The King pardoned a number of the fugitives, who had taken refuge in the Abbey Church, although it did not possess any privilege to protect rebels; and he might have taken them out of it without breach of any liberty of that church; and he allowed the bodies of the noblemen and others slain in the battle, to be buried in the church, or wherever their friends or servants pleased; nor was there any quartering or setting up in public places, of the heads, or quarters, either of those who had been slain, or of those who had been executed: a disgusting exhibition, which had too often been witnessed during the wars of the Roses.

Near the centre of the choir, under the tower, is a brass plate, let into a stone slab in the floor, with the following inscription, commemorating the murder of the young Prince:—

NE TOTA PEREAT MEMORIA
EDVARDI PRINCIPIS WALLLÆ
POST PRÆLIUM MEMORABILE
IN VICINIS ARVIS DEPUGNATUM
CRUDELITER OCCISI
HANC TABULAM HONORARIAM
DEPONI CURABAT
PIETAS TEWKESBURIENSIS
ANNO DOMINI
MDCCXCVI

The inscription was written by the late Rev. Robert Knight, vicar of Tewkesbury, and was placed there in 1796, in accordance with a tradition that the body of the Prince had been interred there.  It was ascertained, by an examination some years ago, that the slab upon which the brass plate is affixed, was over a stone coffin.  The latter was examined, but it did not exhibit any appearances to denote its having been the place of the deposit of the young Prince’s remains. [145a]

In the addition to Camden’s Britannia, by Gough, it is stated, that there was a monument in the chancel of the church, to the memory of George Duke of Clarence and Isabel his wife; and that near the entrance of the choir, under a large grey marble flag, stripped of its brasses, Prince Edward was interred after his murder.  “This deed is supposed to have been done in a house since rebuilt, now Mr. Webb’s, an ironmonger, on the north side of the High Street, near the Tolsey.  His bones and coffin were discovered by the breaking of the stone.” [145b]

Two days after the battle, Edward caused Somerset and other fugitives to be taken from the sanctuary of the Abbey Church.  They were brought before the Duke of Gloucester, who officiated as high constable, and the Duke of Norfolk the marshal, by whom they were condemned to death; and accordingly, on Monday, the 6th of May, [146a] the Duke of Somerset, John Longstrother the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem, Sir Humphrey Audley, Sir Gervase Clifton, [146b] Sir William Grimsby, Sir William Cary, Sir Henry Rose, Sir Thomas Tresham, [146c] Sir William Newborough, Knights; Henry Tresham, Walter Courtenay, John Flory, Lewis Miles, Robert Jackson, James Gower, John Delves, [146d] son and heir to Sir John Delves, [146d] and other gentlemen of rank, were executed in the market-place of Tewkesbury, a small triangular space, where the three principal streets meet. [146e]  The corpses of the Duke of Somerset, Lord John Beaufort, and the Earl of Devonshire, were interred in the Abbey Church.

On the same day on which those executions took place, Margaret was discovered in a poor religious house, and was conveyed, by Edward’s orders, to London, and confined in the Tower, until she was ransomed, for 50,000 crowns, by her father, René Duke of Anjou and Lorraine, who also used the empty and unsubstantial titles of King of Jerusalem, Naples, and Sicily.

The following are the names of the persons of distinction who, according to Leland, lost their lives, on the part of the Lancastrians, at or immediately after, the battle of Tewkesbury:—

Prince Edward, buried in the Monastery of Tewkesbury.

Edmund Duke of Somerset, taken, beheaded, and buried there.

Lord John Somerset, brother of the Duke Edmund, buried there.

Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, buried there.

Lord Wenlock, whose body was removed to be buried elsewhere.

Humphrey Handeley, beheaded with Thomas Courtenay, and buried together.

Sir Edmund Havarde.

Sir William Wichingham.

John Delves the elder, slain in the field, and

John Delves his son, beheaded there, buried together, afterwards removed elsewhere. [147a]

Sir John Lukenor, slain in the field, and buried near the Delves.

Sir William Vaux, slain in the field, and buried there.

Sir Gervase Clifton, taken, beheaded, and buried there.

Sir William Car, and Sir Henry Ros, taken, and beheaded, buried in the Cemetery of Tewkesbury.

Sir Thomas Tresham, taken, beheaded, and buried there.

Sir William Lirmouthe, Sir John Urman, Sir Thomas Semar [Quære—Seymour?], Sir William Rowys, slain in the field, and buried in the cemetery there.

Sir William Newborrow, taken and beheaded, and buried there.

Henry Wateley, Esquire, slain and buried there.

Henry Barrow, Esquire, slain and buried there.

— Fielding, Esquire, slain and buried there.

John Gower, sword-bearer of Prince Edward.

John Flore, standard-bearer of the Duke of Somerset, Henry Tresham, Walter Courtenay, and Robert Acton, taken and beheaded.

The Prior of St. John’s, taken and beheaded; whose body was removed to his own friends at London.

Hugh Courtenay, taken, and afterwards beheaded. [148a]

Life spared by King Edward, to each of the under-mentioned personages:—

Queen Margaret.

Anne, wife of the slain Prince Edward.

Foster, Chief Justice of England.

Doctor Mackerell, John Throgmorton, Baynton, and Wroughton. [148a]

Tewkesbury is a small town, situated ten miles from Gloucester, and eight from Cheltenham, close to the confluence of the Severn and one of the Avons.  “It standeth in lævâ ripâ Avonæ, a good flite shot above the confluence of Avon and Severne.”

“Ther is a greate bridge of stone at the northe ende of the towne, and ther a little above the bridge, Avon brekith into 2 armes.  Yet the bridge is so large that both cum under it.  The right arme cummith into Severne withyn a flite shot of the bridge, and at the point of this arme is the towne key for shippes callid Pickardes.”

“The other arme commith downe by the side of the towne, and the Abbay, leving it on the este, and so passing harde ther by Holme Castelle goith into Severne.” [149a]

The field of the battle of Tewkesbury is close to the first mile-post [149b] on the turnpike road, leading from Tewkesbury, through Tredington to Cheltenham and Gloucester.  For the information of persons desirous of visiting it, it may be well to observe, that on the westward side of the town of Tewkesbury, there is a range of elevated ground, called the Holme Ground, or Holme Hill, where a castle once stood, [149c] the rise of which commences very near the town, upon part of which, contiguous to the turnpike road, the union workhouse stands, and close behind the latter there is a field called the Gastons; and immediately beyond the union workhouse, are two fields which were purchased in 1855, for the purpose of, and are now laid out as, a cemetery for Tewkesbury, and are called in the title-deeds, part of “the Gastons,” a name which I shall afterwards have again to refer to.  This high ground extends on the side of the turnpike road, as far as the first mile-post; just opposite to which, and on the eastward side of the road, is a field which has immemorially been called “Margaret’s Camp,” and which is situated upon a part of the elevated ground which is called Gupshill.

The battle appears to have been fought at that place, and in the adjacent fields to the southward, and also in those a little to the eastward of it, [150a] and on the spot where Gupshill Farm houses and gardens now stand.

The high road from Cheltenham did not formerly pass as close to Margaret’s Camp as at present.  Within the memory of persons now living, it turned out of the present turnpike road from Cheltenham, in the descent of the hill, two or three fields’ breadth before arriving at the first mile-post from Tewkesbury, and wound with a considerable curve round the westward side of Gupshill Farm houses and buildings, at which place, part of the old road still remains, and joins the turnpike road at a spot sixty or eighty yards nearer Tewkesbury than the first mile-post. [150b]

In the field called “Margaret’s Camp,” are some slight inequalities in the ground; but they are not sufficiently decided to enable any person to state that they are the remains of intrenchments; and in the centre of the field there is a small circular enclosure, which measures as nearly as I could judge, by stepping over it, about twenty-eight or twenty-nine yards across.  It is surrounded by a small and shallow ditch, [150c] which was dry when I visited it; and is without any hedge or bank; it has, however, a number of large elm-trees growing round its inner edge.  It is too insignificant to have formed part of the military intrenchments; but it may possibly have been a place of interment of some of the slain; or, as seems probable, it may have been formed in comparatively modern times, by some owner of the land, to commemorate the spot where the Lancastrian army was posted.

It may readily be admitted, that the Lancastrians might have formed their encampment, in some place possessing greater natural strength, on the north instead of the south side of the town; but in that case, they must most unwisely have abandoned to their enemies, the advantages of the possession of the town, and the command of the river, and would have enabled them to intercept the reinforcements which were expected.

It seems impossible to find any place near the town, where an army intending to await and give battle to the Yorkists, when they advanced by the road from Cheltenham, could have been so advantageously posted, as at the spot before mentioned.  Although perhaps not naturally very strong, the position was, of course, strengthened by artificial defences, which we may conclude, were then adopted, as has frequently occurred on similar occasions, as for example by baggage waggons, fallen trees, and intrenchments; and it had the additional defences of hedges, ditches, brushwood, &c.  It was approached on three sides by ascents, which, though not steep, were at least disadvantageous to the assailants; and it was situated at the end of the tract of elevated ground before noticed. [151]  The field before mentioned belongs to Mr. Haywood, and is tenanted by Mr. John Phillips; and I was informed by elderly people, when I visited it, that human bones had formerly been discovered in the immediate neighbourhood of it; but I was not able to learn that any other indicia of the battle had been found there.  It is not possible for any intelligent person to mistake the spot, if he is desirous to find it, when he has walked a mile from Tewkesbury on the turnpike road.  The place is called “Gupshill,” and is in the parish of Tewkesbury. [152]

The old annalists and chronicles have left us much in the dark, as to the exact place near the camp of the Lancastrians, where Edward’s forces passed the night prior to the battle; but on the morning of the battle, and immediately before it commenced, his army, according both to tradition and probability, took up a position upon some elevated ground, adjoining the turnpike road, and to the southward of, and scarcely half a mile from, the Lancastrian army.  From that position, a small tract of ground (now inclosed fields) slopes downwards so as to form a depression between it and the spot occupied by the Lancastrians.  This tract of ground was formerly called the Red Piece; and is intersected by the turnpike road, leading towards Cheltenham and Gloucester, and at present forms two fields, one of which, on the right side of the road, is called the Near Red Close, and the other, on the left side of the road, is called the Further Red Close, belonging to Mr. Naish, of Bristol, of which the tenant is Mr. William Brown, a farmer and cattle-dealer.  The portion of it on the left side of the road extends to the field called Margaret’s Camp; and it was on the southward side of the latter, that Edward’s forces appear to have made their attack.

A meadow rather in the rear of the Lancastrian position, but lying on the westward side of the turnpike road, half a mile from Tewkesbury, and within a few hundred yards of the Tewkesbury union workhouse, is called the Bloody Meadow; it belongs to Miss Shapland, and is tenanted by Mr. William Trotman, innkeeper and farmer; and an idea is generally entertained, that it derived its name from the slaughter of many of the fugitives, who fled from the battle towards the meadow, probably in hopes of getting over the Severn, as there is a ford and ferry called Lower Lode, near it.  On the 27th of May, 1856, when I last visited the field of battle, a husbandman who was at work in the garden of Gupshill Farm, informed me, that when he was working a few years ago in a field near Lower Lode Ferry, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Bloody Meadow, he found a quantity of horses bones, and a considerable number of horseshoes in the ground there.  Mr. William Trotman informed me, that fourteen or fifteen years ago, he found in the Bloody Meadow a long piece of iron, which from its appearance, he believed had been part of a sword-blade.  He also showed me a cannon ball of small size, weighing one pound six ounces, which had been dug up in the same meadow. [153a]

Besides the importance which we may fairly attach to tradition, and to the name “Margaret’s Camp,” it is very remarkable how many strong proofs are afforded, by the works of the ancient annalists and chroniclers, that the before-mentioned spot, contiguous to the high road from Tewkesbury to Cheltenham and Gloucester, was the place where the battle was fought.

We know from one of the old writers, [153b] that Edward advanced by the road from Cheltenham towards Tewkesbury.  The spot above mentioned, is on that road, on a slight eminence, which was the best position near Tewkesbury, that could have been selected by an army, with a view to giving battle to Edward’s forces, on their advance from Cheltenham.

We are also told by one of our old chroniclers, with reference to the position selected by Somerset, that he “so fyxed in a fayre parke adioning to the towne he pytched hys felde;” [153c] and we learn from another of them, that the position occupied by the Lancastrians, was, “even hard at the Town’s end.” [153b]  The field called Margaret’s Camp, may be very correctly said to be “adjoining to the towne,” for it is only one mile from it by the turnpike road, and is in fact “at the Town’s end,” because it is little more than half a mile in a direct line from the outskirts of the town.

We also find from the same authority, that “the Lancastrians had the town and abbey at their backs.” [154a]  This also tallies precisely with the position already described, as being occupied by them, as the abbey is visible from it; and the town and abbey must of necessity, be in their rear [“at their backs”], when they faced an enemy advancing towards Tewkesbury from Cheltenham.

The field is stated in Warkworth’s Chronicle to be “not ferre from the ryver of Severne.” [154b]  That account is also very important, for the place is not more than about half a mile from the river Severn.

Leland, in his Itinerary, [154c] in adverting to the battle, uses the following remarkable expression:—“Edwardus Princeps Henric VI filius venit cum exercitu ad Theokesbury, & intravit campum nomine Gastum,” &c., and again, “Nomina occisorum in bello Gastiensis prope Theokesbury,” &c.  I have already mentioned that upon part of the elevated ground before noticed, and at the back of the union workhouse, near Tewkesbury, and very near the spot called Margaret’s Camp, there is a place called “the Gastons”; and after allowing for the difference in spelling at the time when Leland wrote, it can scarcely admit of a doubt, that the latter was the place which he meant, when, in adverting to the battle, he used the expression—“campum nomine Gastum,” and “in bello Gastiensis prope Theokesbury.” [154d]

We are also informed by one of the old historians, that many of the Lancastrians were drowned at “a mill in the meadow fast by the town.” [154e]  This must certainly have been the Abbey Water-mills, which (although at present, in a great degree, rebuilt and altered) still stand in the meadow close to the town, in the rear of the Lancastrians, and in a place where it is almost certain that some of the fugitives from the battle, trying to escape towards the Avon and the Severn, would pass.

It is also a well-authenticated historical fact, which has not been disputed by any author, that the Duke of Somerset, John Longstrother the Lord Prior of St. John’s, Sir Thomas Tresham, Sir Gervase Clifton, and other knights and esquires, when the battle was lost, fled to the Abbey of Tewkesbury, and other places in the town.  The distance was, as already mentioned, only about half a mile from the rear of the Lancastrian position to the Abbey Church and town; and if Margaret’s forces had not awaited the approach of, and given battle to, the Yorkists on the southward side of Tewkesbury, or, in other words, on the side of the town which the Yorkists must naturally approach on the road from Cheltenham, and with the abbey and the town in the rear of the Lancastrians, it would have been utterly impossible for the fugitives to have fled either to the abbey or town.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
BOSWORTH. [157a]

King Richard.—

“Caparison my horse:
Call up Lord Stanley, bid him bring his power:
I will lead forth my soldiers to the plain,
And thus my battle shall be ordered.
My foreward shall be drawn out all in length,
Consisting equally of horse and foot;
Our archers shall be placed in the midst:
John Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Earl of Surrey,
Shall have the leading of this foot and horse.
They thus directed, we will follow
In the main battle; whose puissance on either side
Shall be well winged with our chiefest horse.”

Shakespeare’s Richard III. act scene 3.
(Bosworth Field.)

On the 3rd of June, 1856, I visited the celebrated Field of the Battle of Bosworth, [157b] so called from its contiguity to the town of Market Bosworth, in Leicestershire, which is in sight of, and little more than a mile distant from, the field.  It is a locality of great interest, from being the place where Richard III., the last of the Plantagenet Kings, [158a] lost his throne and life, on the 22nd of August, 1485, in battle; the result of which placed his rival, Henry Earl of Richmond, [158b] upon the throne of England, by the title of Henry VII.

The description of the field and of the battle, given by that painstaking antiquary W. Hutton, F.S.A., is so full, that I am unable to add much to the stock of information on those subjects, which is contained in his interesting work, to which, however, several references will be found in the following pages.

He has expressed some surprise, at the changes which had taken place between his visit in 1788, and that in 1807.  He says:—“I paid a visit in July 1807, to Bosworth Field; but found so great an alteration, since I saw it in 1788, that I was totally lost.  The manor had been enclosed; the fences were grown up; and my prospect impeded.  King Richard’s Well, which figures in our histories, was nearly obliterated; the swamp where he fell, become firm land; and the rivulet proceeding from it, lost in an under-drain.” [159]

If so great a change had occurred prior to July 1807, it may well be imagined, that a still greater change had occurred when I visited it in 1856.  On that occasion, I had the benefit of the local information and knowledge possessed by Mr. John Rubley, an extensive farmer, and a very well informed person, residing at Dadlington Fields, near there, who was kind enough to accompany me, and explain the various positions and points of the field of battle, without which, I should have found it impossible to have understood them, even with the aid of a copy of the plan of the field, from Mr. Hutton’s work, which I carried with me.

Amongst other changes which have occurred there, and which have altered its appearance, may be mentioned, the cutting of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch Canal, which extends through part of it.

Mr. Hutton states, that the south end of the field, by which Henry advanced, is three miles from Bosworth; and was, when he wrote, a wood of many acres. [160a]  He adds, “About thirty yards above the wood is a spring, called at this day King Richard’s Well.  A small discharge of water flows from the well, directly down the hill, through the wood, into the rivulet; but, having no channel cut for its passage, it penetrates through the soil, and forms that morass which Henry is said to have left on his right.  Amyon Hill is nearly in the centre of the field, and is by much the highest ground; the summit is two or three hundred yards beyond the well.  The hill has a steep descent on every side, but is steepest towards the north, or the Bosworth side, and terminates with a rill, a bog, and a flat, called Amyon Lays.  The field extends a mile farther towards Bosworth, but that part was not the scene of action.” [160b]

He also informs us, that after Richard had made an oration, or address to his forces, his army marched in battalia, to Amyon Hill, where they arrived before Henry. [160c]

The wood called Amyon (or Ambien) Wood, still remains, and is, of course, much grown and changed, since Mr. Hutton’s time.  A portion of the ground upon which it stands, seems to have been the scene of at least a part of the engagement. [160d]  I walked with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, through a portion of it, and found that part rather wet and spongy; but there was not then any appearance of what could with propriety be called a morass, either in the wood, or below the well, or at the foot of the hill.

Mr. Hutton, in his account of the position of Richard’s army, immediately before the battle commenced, and of the place to which he considers Richard’s right wing extended, states that “The King’s right extended to the declivity of the hill, on the Bosworth side, called Cornhill Furze, [160e] or Amyon Lays, and his left towards King Richard’s well.” [161a]  But it would perhaps be more correct and clear, to state, that the King’s right wing extended along the summit of Amyon Hill, towards the declivity, which slopes down in the direction of Market Bosworth, and of the road leading from Shenton to Sutton Cheney; that his centre occupied the ground where Amyon Hill Farm, tenanted by Mr. Bradfield, now is; and that his left wing probably extended a little beyond King Richard’s Well, which seems to have been in the front of a portion of his left wing.  Consequently, Richard’s army must have faced to the south-westward, with Market Bosworth and Sutton Cheney, at a little distance, in its rear; and that of Henry, must have faced to the north-eastward.  The precise position of the armies must, however, be admitted to be in some measure conjectural.

The marches of the hostile armies before the battle, may be concisely described thus:—Richmond set sail from Harfleur, on Sunday the 31st of July, 1485; landed at Milford Haven on the 6th of August; marched through Wales, by Dell, Haverfordwest, Cardigan, New Town, and Welsh Pool, to Shrewsbury, and then through Newport and Stafford, to Lichfield, where he encamped for a day or two, and arrived at Tamworth on the evening of the 18th. [161b]  On the 19th, he went to Atherstone, where Lord Stanley [161c] and Sir William Stanley [161d] had an interview with him, and concerted the measures for their future operations.  During all his march, he had constant additions to his forces, for others came in and joined him.  On the 20th he encamped at Atherstone; and on the 21st, both armies were in sight of each other for the whole day; [161e] Henry having encamped at Whitemoors, close to the place where the battle of Bosworth was fought on the next day.

It is impossible to suppose that Henry could have acted with such folly, as to sail from France, with a very small body of men, described by Commines as a very sorry and unsoldierlike set, from gaols, hospitals, &c., and land in Wales, and from thence march into the heart of England, where any serious disaster must have caused the utter ruin of himself and his adherents, unless he had been well assured beforehand, of the co-operation of Lord Stanley, who was the third husband of his mother. [162a]  Such a course of proceeding, by Henry, without being previously certain of Lord Stanley’s deserting Richard at a convenient opportunity, would have been an act of madness.  Everything had, no doubt, been arranged between them before Henry embarked in France.

The fatal error which Richard committed, was previously to the battle, in intrusting the levying of forces to Lord Stanley, when he could not confidently trust him: Richard imagined that, by retaining in his custody George Lord Strange, the son of Lord Stanley, by way of hostage, he had sufficient security for his fidelity; but the result showed how frail and deceptive such a security really was.

Richard, on the 16th of August, led his army from Nottingham to Leicester, which town he entered with great pomp.  On the 17th, he marched from it, expecting to meet his rival at Hinckley.  That night he passed at Emsthorpe, where his officers slept in the church.  On the 18th, he removed to Stapleton, where he pitched his camp on the ground called Bradshaws, and remained until Sunday, the 21st, when both armies came in sight of each other.  In the evening, Richard removed with his forces to Amyon Hill. [162b]  On the 22nd, the battle took place.

Mr. Hutton states, that “the King continued in battalia near the top of the hill, unwilling to lose his advantageous ground; while Henry unfurled his banners, sounded the march of death, and advanced from the meadows below;” [163a] also, that Richmond “slowly marched up the ascent, where the wood now stands; the morass formed by King Richard’s Well, being on his right, and the sun, not on his back, or his right hand, but between both: the King’s troops looking on with their bows bent.” [163b]  That account respecting the position of the sun when the battle commenced, differs in a slight degree from the accounts of the old historians, who state, that when Henry left the marsh on his right, he had the sun at his back, and that it was in the face of his enemies. [163c]

Those accounts seem to be all that we have to guide us, as to the precise position of Richard’s army, when the battle commenced; for the old historians have not devoted their attention to describing it.

The position upon the hill, was certainly, as Mr. Hutton correctly states, an excellent one, and Henry must have begun the attack at some disadvantage, for the hill was against him. [163d]

The old historical writers state, that when Henry marched from his camp to the attack, he left the morass on his right; [163e] which is important, and tends to confirm the explanation before attempted, respecting the position of Richard’s army.  Mr. Hutton mentions, that Henry advanced from the south end of the field, [163f] and that Richard’s forces were posted in battalia upon Amyon Hill. [163g]  If so, it seems tolerably clear, that Henry’s army faced (as has been already mentioned) to the north-eastward, and that of Richard to the south-westward; and it appears naturally to follow, that Richard had the town of Market Bosworth, or the village of Sutton Cheney, or both of them in his rear, or rather in the rear of his left wing.

It is remarkable, that in Mr. Hutton’s plan of the field of battle, at page 1, Henry’s army is drawn, as facing towards the south-eastward; and Richard’s army is delineated facing towards the north-westward, with Market Bosworth at a distance, in advance of his right, and with Sutton Cheney rather to the rear of his right, and with his left extended towards the well; but with Lord Stanley’s forces interposed between it and the King’s army; yet in the other plan, delineated by Mr. Pridden, and introduced by J. Nichols, F.S.A., into the work; at page 244, Henry’s army is depicted facing to the north-eastward; and the army of Richard is delineated as facing to the south-westward (which seems to be probable), and with Sutton Cheney to the rear of his left, and with King Richard’s Well between the two armies, and rather before Richard’s right centre.

With respect, to the tradition, that Richard quenched his thirst at the well during the battle, I have merely to remark, that it was an improbable circumstance to have occurred in such a place.

In the army of King Richard, the Duke of Norfolk and his son the Earl of Surrey had the honour of leading the van, consisting principally of archers; the main body (or main battle, as it was at that time called) was led by the King in person; and the rear was commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. [164]

The van of the Earl of Richmond’s army, consisting also principally of archers, was commanded by the Earl of Oxford, the main body by the Earl of Richmond and his uncle Jasper Earl of Pembroke, the right wing by Sir Gilbert Talbot, and the left by Sir John Savage.

Cannons and other descriptions of firearms, were in common use by the English in war at that period, and we cannot dispute the fact of their having been used at the battle of Bosworth, because we know, from the accounts handed down to us by Philippe de Commines, the historian, that the King of France, besides advancing money, furnished the Earl of Richmond with some pieces of artillery for his expedition against Richard, “une bonne somme d’argent, et quelques pieces d’artillerie, et ainsi fut conduict, avec le navire de Normandie, pour descendre en Galles, dont il estoit;” [165a] besides which, guns are mentioned in the act of attainder of 1st Henry VII. [165b] passed against the adherents of Richard who took part in the battle; and cannon balls of a small size have been dug up upon Bosworth Field. [165c]

The principal commanders on the part of Richard were, the Duke of Norfolk [165d] (slain in the battle), his son the Earl of Surrey, [165e] the Earl of Northumberland, [165f] Francis Viscount Lovel, [166a] John Lord Zouch, [166b] Walter Lord Ferrers of Chartley, [166c] Sir Richard Ratcliffe, [166d] Sir Gervase Clifton, [166e] and Sir Robert Brackenbury. [166f]  All the four last-mentioned commanders were slain in the battle.

The principal commanders on Henry’s part were, the Earl of Pembroke, [166g] the Earl of Oxford, [166h]  Sir William Brandon, [167a] who was Henry’s standard-bearer; Sir Gilbert Talbot, [167b] of Grafton in Worcestershire; Sir John Savage, [167c] Sir John Byron, [167d] and, at an opportune time after the battle had commenced, Lord Stanley. [167e]  The only person of note of Henry’s army who was slain in the battle was Sir William Brandon, his standard-bearer; and historians inform us, that he was slain by Richard with his own hand.  Richard made a courageous and intrepid charge [168a] and attempt, with some of his forces, to cut his way to Henry, and to terminate the battle by despatching him; and in his charge slew Sir William Brandon, and unhorsed Sir John Cheney.  Richard’s daring enterprise at first seemed likely to be attended with success, but was frustrated by Sir William Stanley, [168b] who then declared for Henry, and threw the weight of 3000 fresh soldiers into the scale of the latter, and attacked Richard’s right flank.

This appears to have been the important period of the battle alluded to by Shakespeare:—

Catesby.—“Rescue my Lord of Norfolk!  Rescue!  Rescue!
The king enacts more wonders than a man,
Daring an opposite to every danger;
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death.
Rescue, fair Lord, or else the day is lost!”

Shakespeare’s Richard III., act v., scene 4.
(Bosworth Field.)

It was at a critical moment that Sir William Stanley declared for Henry, because, if he had deferred his aid a very short time longer, he might have deferred it for ever; for fortune seemed at that moment to be propitious to Richard’s enterprise and invincible courage; and Henry was in the utmost danger, and it was probable that he must either have perished or fled.

The consequence of Sir William Stanley’s opportune and most valuable assistance was, that Richard and most of the noblemen, knights, and soldiers, who accompanied him in the charge, were surrounded by superior numbers and slain, and Henry obtained the victory. [169a]

It is not known with any degree of certainty what the respective numbers were in the hostile armies, but it is supposed upon reasonable grounds, that Richard brought into the field about 12,000 men, that Henry brought 7000, Lord Stanley 5000, and Sir William Stanley 3000; [169b] consequently, Richard’s forces were considerably more numerous than his enemy’s at the commencement of the battle; but were considerably outnumbered by those on the side of Henry, after Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley had joined him.  Authors differ very much respecting the number of the slain; some state it to have been very considerable.  Mr. Hutton, on the contrary, inclines to think that it was only about 900 on both sides, [169c] of which by far the greatest carnage was in the pursuit.  Probably his estimate is too low; but, as the battle did not last very long, and as the principal part of Richard’s forces were indifferent or reluctant to fight in his cause, it may perhaps be reasonably inferred that the slain did not very greatly exceed that number.  Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton, concur in stating, that the number of the slain was not much more than 1000, which may probably be correct.

Henry, with great pomp, proceeded the same evening to Leicester.  Richard’s corpse was found amongst the slain, covered with wounds, dirt, and blood, and was hung perfectly naked across a horse, the feet dangling on one side and the hands on the other, behind Blanc Sanglier, pursuivant at arms, so called from the Boar Argent, the cognizance of Richard, and was carried in triumph to Leicester that afternoon.  This disgusting spectacle was meant as a disgrace to Richard, but it was really a disgrace to Henry.  Insults offered by the victor to the corpse of a soldier slain in battle, be he whom he may, evince a great degree of meanness or cowardice on the part of the former.  The body was exposed to public view during two days in the Town Hall, and was then interred in the Grey Friars Church.  At the destruction of religious houses, his remains were turned out of it by the town’s people, and there is reason to believe that they were got rid of, by being thrown into the river at the end of Bow Bridge, at Leicester; “borne out of the city, and contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge, which giveth passage over a branch of Stoure, upon the west side of the towne.”—See Speed’s Annals, fo. 936; see also Thorsby’s Views in Leicestershire, p. 338.  A stone coffin in which they had been deposited, was converted into a watering-trough at the White Horse Inn in Gallow Tree Gate, and was early in the last century broken to pieces. [170]

Happening to be in Leicester on the 5th of June, 1856, I did not omit to inquire for the Grey Friars Church; but although I discovered the street where it had stood, I found that every vestige of the church had disappeared.

There is a very absurd, but very common mistake, arising from the ignorance of authors, in stating that Richard wore his royal crown upon his helmet during the battle.  Nothing can be more erroneous than such a statement.  Richard was too old and experienced a soldier to put such a head-gear upon his helmet; nor could a real crown screwed to, or fastened upon a helmet, be worn for any rational purpose, during a battle.  He, however, wore, as a distinguishing mark, and as an emblem of command, a comparatively small ornament, resembling a crown, upon his helmet, which was not at all strange or unprecedented; on the contrary, it was formerly a common practice.  King Henry V. wore a similar ornament upon his helmet at the battle of Agincourt, in 1415, which was of some use, in sustaining the stroke of a battle-axe from the Duke of Alençon, which cleft it; and Thomas Duke of Clarence, second son of Henry IV., wore a coronet or circlet upon his helmet, when he was fighting valiantly, and slain at the battle of Baugé in France, in 1421; besides which, there are many monuments which I have seen in English cathedrals and churches, where the figures of warriors and men of rank are represented with ornaments resembling small crowns or coronets upon their helmets.

The account of the battle, and the description of the field, having been so fully given in the interesting work already mentioned, it would be superfluous for me to attempt to go into further particulars; I may, however, add, that the battle terminated in the defeat and death of Richard, rather in consequence of the defection of Lord Stanley and of his brother Sir William Stanley, and the indifference or disaffection of others, whom Richard relied upon, than of any valour or skill in Henry or his army.

Henry was immediately saluted as King of England by his forces; and, without waiting for the ratification of his claim by Parliament, or any other recognised authority, assumed the title of Henry VII.; and, scorning to be less tyrannical or less wicked than his predecessor, commenced his reign by putting to death, without any trial, and in cold blood, two days after the battle, William Catesby, [171] and two gentlemen from the North, of the name of Brecher, who had been taken prisoners; and sentencing to imprisonment for life, in the Tower, an innocent and defenceless boy, Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, whose only crime was his being the son of George Duke of Clarence, and the only surviving male of the royal house of Plantagenet, and whom Henry very wickedly at last put to death, in 1499.  Henry also caused an act of attainder [172a] to be passed by Parliament, shortly after the battle, in which he had a great number of persons, who had been the subjects and adherents of Richard III., attainted, and declared guilty of high treason, and all their lands and possessions confiscated, on the alleged ground of their support of Richard against Henry, although Henry had never, previously to the battle of Bosworth, been recognised as King, nor had he even assumed the royal title or functions.  It was, therefore, not only an iniquitous proceeding, but was an insult to the understandings of men, to treat any acts done by any persons in the service of the then reigning King, at the battle of Bosworth, as treasonable actions, committed against Henry.  Those attainders and confiscations, affecting as they did the lives and property of many persons, whom Henry wished to destroy or crush, were acts of gross despotism and tyranny. [172b]

Many years ago, I saw, in the collection of Colonel Stretton, of Lenton Priory, in Nottinghamshire, some spurs and bridle-bits, said to be relics of Bosworth Field; and Grose, in his Military Antiquities, gives an engraving of a helmet found there. [173]

Many relics of the battle are described in Mr. Hutton’s work, which had been discovered there; besides which, human bones were found, about four years ago, in cutting a drain in a field, in front of the farm-house standing upon the slope of the hill, and called Amyon Hill Farm, mentioned before, belonging to Mr. Stuart, and occupied by Mr. Bradfield.  The field where they were discovered, adjoins that in which King Richard’s Well is.

Mr. John Rubley informed me, that, not many years ago, he found a sword-hilt, upon the field of battle, which was afterwards given to Mr. Stuart.  There are also a few relics of the battle preserved in the Public Museum at Leicester.

Persons desirous of visiting the field of battle, will find it expedient to go from Atherstone to Shenton, and soon after passing that village, instead of pursuing the road to Market Bosworth, to turn off to the right, by the road which leads from Shenton to Sutton Cheney, until they arrive at a large farm on the left, called Sutton Field Farm, occupied by Mr. Cooper, a considerable farmer.  They should then turn off to the right, into a field road (which is passable in a carriage, but is not a good one for that purpose, and therefore walking is preferable), which ascends the northward side of Amyon Hill, frequently mentioned before, and cross its summit; and on the slope of the hill, on its southward side, is Amyon Hill Farm (which is upon the field of battle), and close to it, in an adjoining field, is King Richard’s Well.  It is covered in with a small pyramid, built of rough stones, but is open on its south front; and on the inner wall, opposite to the open part, is the following inscription, cut in small Roman characters, from the pen of the reverend and learned Dr. Parr:—

AQVA EX HOC PVTEO HAVSTA
SITIM SEDAVIT
RICARDVS TERTIVS REX ANGLIAE
CVM HENRICO COMITE DE RICHMONDIA
ACERRIME ATQVE INFENSISSIME PRAELIANS
ET VITA PARITER AC SCEPTRO
ANTE NOCTEM CARITVRVS
XI KAL. SEPT. A.D. MCCCCLXXXV.

The battle of Bosworth is often called the last of the wars of York and Lancaster.  That is an error.  The last battle in those wars was the battle of Stoke, fought in 1487.

It is a lamentable fact, that deeds of violence and bloodshed, on a large scale, did not cease in England with the death of the last Plantagenet King; for during the reign of the two first Tudor Kings, the crimes and offences disclosed by history, are so shocking, as to make us amazed at the wickedness and cruelty of man.

Although the habits and characters of Richard III. and of Henry VII. were widely different, each was sufficiently iniquitous in its way; [174] and it would be a task of great difficulty for any well-read historian, to decide which of those two men was the most wicked.  Both of them were usurpers, and neither of them had any legal right to the throne; and if they had lived nearer these times, and in humble life, it is not improbable that the intrepid disposition and invincible courage of Richard might have made him a daring robber or highwayman; and the mean and avaricious propensities of Henry, might have caused him to become an adroit pickpocket or sordid miser.

It was very much the fashion for historical writers, who lived in the times of the Tudor sovereigns, in order to court popularity with them, to calumniate Richard, blacken his memory, and in their accounts of him, to represent him as a kind of monster, deformed in person, and malignant in mind, with not a few other strange assertions, which subsequent generations have been induced to consider either as absurdities or exaggerations.

Upon a cool and dispassionate comparison, however, of the characters of Richard III. and Henry VII., both of them wicked and unscrupulous men, the contrast is not favourable to Henry.

Richard committed sanguinary crimes, in order to obtain the crown; but even his enemies do not accuse him of any tyrannical or unjust actions, as a King: Henry had not the opportunity of perpetrating such offences before he obtained the crown; but history is replete with instances of his tyranny and injustice during the whole of his life, after he became a King.  Richard possessed great talents, and natural capacity; but his reign was so short, that he had not many opportunities of evincing his abilities for exercising the royal functions; yet he passed some excellent laws for the benefit of his subjects: Henry was sagacious and clever in many respects, and during his rather long reign, he also passed some very good laws; but, as has been correctly observed, his laws were ever calculated with a view to his own profit; [175] he encouraged commerce, as it improved his customs, and brought money in to his subjects, which he could squeeze out at pleasure. [175]  Richard was munificent and liberal: Henry was mean and avaricious.  Richard was bold, enterprising, and courageous: Henry was timorous, selfish, and cautious.  Richard and Henry, however, closely resembled each other in one respect: each of them was unscrupulous, and did not hesitate without remorse to put to death a fellow-creature who had incurred his displeasure, or was an obstacle to the success of his measures.

Richard is believed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V. and the young Duke of York; and Henry is known to have inhumanly and very wickedly put to death Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick—an action which has been properly designated “as vile a murder as that of Edward V.; nay, were it possible to speak in palliation of this worst of crimes, Richard was the least culpable, for he had one temptation which Henry had not—Edward V. had an absolute right to the crown, but Warwick only a shadow.” [176a]  The crime of illegally depriving a human being of life is very solemnly reprobated by Shakespeare, in his usual beautiful and powerful language:—

“Erroneous vassal! the great King of kings
Hath, in the table of his law, commanded,
That thou shalt do no murder.  Wilt thou then
Spurn at his edict, and fulfil a man’s?
Take heed; for he holds vengeance in his hand,
To hurl upon their heads that break his law.” [176b]

CHAPTER IX.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
STOKE. [177a]

“Have we so soon forgot those days of ruin,
When York and Lancaster drew forth the battles,
When, like a matron butchered by her sons,
And cast beside some common way, a spectacle
Of horror and affright to passers by,
Our groaning country bled at ev’ry vein?”

Rowe’s Jane Shore, act iii.

Before commencing a description of the Field of the Battle of Stoke (in Nottinghamshire), it may be advisable to mention concisely the nature of a very formidable insurrection, which was suppressed by that battle.

John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, [177b] a man of talents, courage, and enterprise, was a nephew of Edward IV. and of Richard the Third, and also of Margaret, [177c] the widow of Charles the Bold, or the Rash, Duke of Burgundy.  Margaret was an uncompromising and implacable enemy of Henry VII., [178a] and in 1487, a formidable conspiracy was set on foot, by her and the Earl of Lincoln, of which the object was to raise an insurrection in England against Henry.  It was given out that Edward Earl of Warwick, son of George Duke of Clarence, and nephew of Edward IV., had effected his escape, notwithstanding the vigilance of Henry VII., and had gone abroad; and Lambert Simnel, [178b] the son of a joiner, named Thomas Simnel, of Oxford, [178c] was tutored by Richard Simons, a priest of that city, to personate the young prince.

Margaret furnished the Earl of Lincoln with 2000 Germans, veteran troops, commanded by Martin Swartz, an officer of talents and experience.  With these forces, and with Lambert accompanying him, the earl landed in Ireland, and Lambert was soon afterwards crowned as King, in the Cathedral at Dublin.

They remained some short time in Ireland, where the earl raised a body of Irish forces, and provided transports; and having at length sailed from Dublin, the Earl landed with his army, on the 4th of June, [178c] near Pile of Foudrey, at Furness, in Lancashire, where Sir Thomas Broughton, who had become a party to the conspiracy, had considerable possessions; and the spot near the village of Broughton, where, according to tradition, they encamped after landing, is even now called Swart Moor, after the commander of the German troops.  The insurgents were there joined by Sir Thomas Broughton, and others, with additional forces.

Lord Lovel [178d] was also a principal mover of the insurrection; and we are informed by Dugdale, that he accompanied the Earl of Lincoln from Flanders to Ireland, and afterwards came over with him and the rest of the insurgents into England.  Whether that was the case, or whether Lord Lovel joined the earl at the same time that Sir Thomas Broughton did, or afterwards, during the march of the insurgents, does not seem quite certain.  Writers have differed upon that point; and the act of attainder [179a] against Lord Lovel, does not throw any light upon it.  It is, however, certain, that he joined the insurgents before the battle of Stoke.

The Earl of Lincoln marched with his forces from Furness into Yorkshire; and on arriving at Masham, he sent to the mayor of York, and requested to be admitted into the city, in order to victual the army. [179b]  This having been refused, it made a great and serious change, in the earl’s plans and prospects; and it is not improbable, that it determined him at all hazards, promptly to seek and fight the King.  He then marched from Yorkshire into Nottinghamshire; but the exact line of march is not known; it may, however, be fairly concluded, that he took the route by Mansfield.  He proceeded to Southwell, and continued his march in the direction of the Trent; and he appears to have crossed that river at Fiskerton, which in the summer time is shallow, and easily fordable by men and horses.  As Newark was preoccupied by the King’s army, Fiskerton was the only safe place near Southwell, where the earl’s forces could pass the Trent.  After crossing the river, they took up a position on the elevated ground to the southward of, and overlooking, the little village of East Stoke, in Nottinghamshire.

In the mean time, the King, apprised of the landing of the insurgents in Lancashire, assembled a considerable army under the command of his uncle, Jasper Duke of Bedford (formerly Earl of Pembroke [180a]) and John Earl of Oxford; [180b] and with these he marched from Kenilworth, through Coventry, Leicester, Loughborough, and Nottingham.  The valuable services rendered to Henry by Thomas, first Earl of Derby (when Lord Stanley [180c]), at the battle of Bosworth, were too important, and too recent, to be forgotten; and the King was, of course, happy to call for, and avail himself of, his influence on this occasion.  On Corpus Christi Day, the King was joined at Nottingham by Lord Strange, son of the Earl of Derby, with a great body of troops, principally consisting of the followers and tenants of the earl.  He was also joined there by the Earl of Shrewsbury, [180d] and by several knights and gentlemen, with additional forces.

The King marched to the village of Ratcliffe, where he passed the night.  From Ratcliffe, he proceeded to Newark, which he succeeded in occupying before the Earl of Lincoln’s forces could arrive there. [180e]  From Newark, the King advanced with his army, and took up his position on the road leading to East Stoke, and about three miles on the southward side of Newark.

These introductory observations may possibly cause the positions, which will now be described, of the hostile armies, to be the more readily understood.

In approaching the village of East Stoke, by the foss-way leading from the southward towards Newark, the road gradually ascends, until the traveller attains an eminence or hill, distant little more than half a mile from the village, commanding an extensive view of Newark and the neighbouring country.  Upon its highest elevation, to the left or west of the foss-road, is a windmill, in Stoke Fields; and to the right or south-east, is another mill, in Elston Fields; but both are in the parish of Stoke: this eminence decreases in height towards the latter mill, but extends past the former, towards the north-west, and it ends in a steep cliff, the foot of which is separated from the river Trent and Fiskerton Ferry, by Stoke Marsh.  The marsh is of narrow width, and the distance is not much more than a quarter of a mile from the ferry to the foot of the hill.

That part of the hill upon which the mill in Stoke Fields is erected, was, at the time when I visited the field of battle, and probably still is, called the Rampire, a name sufficiently significant, and the inhabitants of its vicinity are in the habit of pointing it out, as the place where the Earl of Lincoln’s forces were encamped.  It is by far the strongest military position within some miles of the village, and tallies exactly with the accounts in the old historical works.  This being premised, the earl’s centre would naturally be at the place where the mill is now erected; his right wing would extend a little way across the foss-road, in the direction of the other mill standing in Elston Fields; and his left wing would occupy the strong position on the summit of the eminence. [181]  The hill rapidly decreases in height, and slopes down towards Stoke village and the vicarage-house, which stands in Elston Fields, although in Stoke parish, close to the village, and about fifty or sixty yards to the right or east of the foss-road.  It was down this slope that the earl’s troops descended to attack the forces of Henry VII., at the battle of Stoke.

In proceeding to describe the situation of Henry’s camp, and to compare the two positions with the accounts given by the old historians, it is proper to mention, that after passing the village of Stoke, and at less than half a mile on the foss-road, towards Newark, and between three and four miles from the latter town, the road gradually rises until the traveller arrives at the toll-bar, which is on slightly elevated ground. [182a]

From the accounts given by the old historical writers of the movements of Henry VII., [182b] there is great reason to suppose, that at that place, or very near to it, his forces were encamped previously to the battle of Stoke; and as the country, between Newark and Stoke, is nearly level, with the exception of the elevated ground just before mentioned, it was the only place, three miles from Newark, where eligible rising ground could be found, to encamp upon, between that town and Stoke village; and it tallies in its distance from Newark, and its contiguity to the village of Stoke, with the accounts given by the old historians.

The two positions above described, correspond in a remarkable manner, with the accounts of the old annalists and chroniclers.  Polydore Virgil, after describing the Earl of Lincoln’s putting to sea with his forces from Dublin to England, says, that “haud procul Lancastrio in terram descendunt, freti opibus Thomæ Brogtoni, qui princeps erat conjurationis socius.”  He then mentions the course pursued by Henry, and states, that “Comes Lincolniesis interea Eboracensem agrum ingressus cùm sociis, lento incedebat gradu, ac sine ullo maleficio incolarum, quippe qui sperabat aliquem populi concursum ad se fieri,” and, after mentioning the earl’s reasons for venturing upon a battle, he proceeds as follows: “ex agro Eboracensi Neuuarcum versus iter facere cœpit, ut ibi auctis copiis, in regem, quem venire obviam, & vix bidui abesse intellexerat, recta via contenderet.  Cæterū priusquam ille eò perveniret, Henricus cui nulla hora operis comitis erat ignota, sub vesperū illius diei, qui ante prælii diem illuxit, celerius opinione eorum, obviam venientibus factus, Neuuarcum accessit, parumque illic moratus, tria millia passuum progressus est, ibique positis castris pernoctavit.  Comes verò cognito regis adventu nihil territus incœptum iter continuat, eodemque die pervenit ad viculum proximum adversariorum castris, quem vocāt Stochum, eôqûe loci castra facit.  Postero die rex ex omnibus copiis triplici instructa acie, Stochum proficiscitur, ac prope castra comitis consistit, atque facit æquo in loco pugnandi potestatem.  Potestate facta, comes copias educit, signoque suis dato, in certamen descēdit.”

As Polydore Virgil wrote in the reign of King Henry VIII., numbers of persons present at the battle, must have been living, from whom he probably obtained information.

Hall also wrote in the reign of King Henry VIII., and died soon after the accession of King Edward VI.  In his Chronicles, the mentions, that the Earl of Lincoln and his troops landed “at the Pyle of Fowdrey, within lytle of Lancastre;” that he marched into Yorkshire, and afterwards “directed his waye from Yorke to Newarke-upo’-Trent, to thentent that there he (as he trusted) augme’tyng hys co’paigny might set upon the Kyng, who’ he knew to be but II daies jorney from him.  Albeit, before he came there, Kyng Henry was in his bosome, and knewe every houre what the erle did, came the night before that he fought, to Newarke, and there approched nere hys enemyes soner then they loked for him, and there tariyng a lytle, went III myles further and pitched his feelde, and lodged there that night.  The Erle of Lyncolne certefyed of his commyng was nothynge afearde, but kepte styll on hys jorney, and, at a lytle village called Stoke, nygh to the Kyng and hys army, planted hys campe.  The next daye followynge the Kynge devyded hys whole nombre into three battailes, and after in good arraye approched nigh to the toune of Stoke, where was an equall and playne place for bothe parties to arreigne the battaile.  When the place was apoynted and ordeined to trye the bittermost by stroke of battaile, the erle set furth his army, and, gevyng a token to his compaignye, set upon his adversaries with a manly courage, desirynge his souldyours that daye to remembre his honoure and their awne lyves.”

Holinshed’s account, in his Chronicles, written in the reign of Elizabeth, is nearly in the same words.

Lord Chancellor Bacon (Viscount St. Alban’s), in his Life of King Henry VII., as given in Kennet’s Lives, says, that the Earl of Lincoln “march’d towards Newark, thinking to have surprised the town.  But the King was somewhat before this time come to Nottingham,” and, a battle being resolved upon in his council, “march’d speedily, so as he put himself between the enemies’ camp and Newark, being loth their army should get the commodity of that town.  The earl, nothing dismay’d, came forwards that day unto a little village call’d Stoke, and there encamp’d that night upon the brow or hanging of a hill.  The King, the next day, presented him battel upon the plain, the fields being open and champion.  The earl courageously came down, and joyned battel with him.”

In Stow’s Annals, it is stated, that “the Earl of Lincolne, being entered into Yorkeshire, directed his way to Newark-upon-Trent, and, at a little village called Stoke, three or four miles from Newarke, nigh to the King and his army, planted his campe.  The next day following, the King divided his number into three battells, and after approched nigh the towne of Stoke, where both the armies joined and fought egerly.”

Speed says, that “the King dislodgeth with his army, and passeth thorow Newarke, leaving it behind him about three miles.”  Also, “the next day, both the armies are brought forth to fight neere to a little village called Stoke.”  He also adverts to the earl’s having marshalled his men “upon the brow or hanging of an hill,” before the battle.

Sir Richard Baker, in his Chronicles, mentions the earl’s “taking his way from York to Newark-upon-Trent.  King Henry, understanding which way he took, came the night before the battel to Newark, and, going three miles further, near to a village called Stoke, there waited the approach of the Earl of Lincoln.”

Upon inquiry, I learnt, that human bones, coins, and other relics indicative of a battle, have been frequently dug up in the fields, on the south side of the village, which are exactly where, from the above accounts, it is to be presumed, the earl’s centre was engaged, after descending from his strong post, and which lie at the foot of the eminence, above described; and also on the south side of and within the garden of Sir Robert Bromley, Bart., which would be the position of the earl’s left wing when fighting.  They have also been found in digging the foundations of some walls near the vicarage, in Elston Fields, where the King’s left wing would be engaged.

In August 1825, Sir Robert Bromley kindly accompanied me over part of the field of battle, and pointed out a place in his garden, where the remains of many of the slain were found.  They were interred in long trenches; but very few indications of armour or weapons were discovered; however, the labourers found two spurs: one of which they purloined, the other Sir Robert Bromley obtained.  He kindly allowed me to inspect it.  It is of silver on the outside, and of steel within, and is of considerable beauty and elegance of workmanship.  It is of very small size, and remarkable for the appropriate nature of its ornaments—roses boldly embossed on its surface.  It bears a strong resemblance to the one dug up on Bosworth Field, of which an engraving is given in Hutton’s Bosworth Field.

Those who wish for an account of the march and movements of Henry previously to the battle, will find it in the journal said to have been kept by the herald, [185a] who accompanied his army.  Henry’s proclamation, [185b] for enforcing discipline and order on the march, is curious, and gives us some idea of the insubordination of an English army, at that period.

The principal commanders in Henry’s army, were, Jasper Duke of Bedford, [186a] John Earl of Oxford, [186b] George Earl of Shrewsbury; [186c] Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, [186d] Edward Lord Hastings; [186e] George Lord Strange, son of Thomas Earl of Derby; [186f] Sir John Cheney, and Sir Edward Fielding. [186g]  Thomas Brandon, brother of Sir William Brandon [186h] (who was the standard-bearer of Henry, and was slain at the battle of Bosworth), had the honour of bearing Henry’s shield at the battle of Stoke. [186i]

The Earl of Lincoln and his forces being posted upon the hill, Henry, on the 16th of June, 1487, [186j] drew up his army in three lines, in the open space to the southward or south-east of Stoke, and offered the earl battle, which the latter, notwithstanding the disparity of their forces, courageously accepted.

The act of attainder [187a] passed against the earl and his adherents, furnishes some evidence of guns having been used by the earl’s forces; as the act states them to have been armed with “swerdys, speris, marespikes, bowes, gonnes, harneys, brigandines, hawberkes, and many other weapyns and harneys.”  If, as that act seems to state, the earl had artillery with his army, which were used at the battle, they would naturally be placed, on the slope of the hill before described, and would be fired from thence upon the royal army drawn up on the lower ground.

The earl descended the hill, with his troops in good order, and attacked the royalists with great intrepidity, in hopes, that, by breaking their first line, the fugitives from it, would fall back upon those in the rear, and throw them into confusion; but, after bravely fighting for three hours, during which, the half-naked Irish, undisciplined, and only armed with darts and skins, obstinately maintained their ground, although Henry’s archers kept constantly thinning their ranks, and the English and Germans fought with the utmost valour, they were totally routed, with great slaughter.  The Earl of Lincoln, Lord Kildare (or, as several authors call him, Lord Thomas Gerardine or Fitzgerald), Sir Thomas Broughton; Martin Swartz, the commander of the foreign auxiliaries; and most of the other leaders of the earl’s party, died sword in hand. [187b]  The impostor, Lambert Simnel, and the priest his tutor, were taken prisoners, [187c] and Lord Lovel was never afterwards heard of; it has been said, that in endeavouring to escape by crossing the Trent, he was drowned in the river.  Some writers state, that he was slain in the battle; but in the account given in the before-mentioned journal, he is said to have been “put to flight” [escaped]. [188a]  Whether he perished in crossing the Trent, fell in the battle, or fled, and contrived to secrete himself, so as to elude discovery, will probably never be satisfactorily ascertained. [188b]  He had been a steadfast supporter of King Richard III., at whose coronation, he had the honour of carrying one of the pointed swords on the King’s left hand; [188c] and was made Lord Chamberlain, and he had also fought for him at Bosworth Field. [188d]  His enmity to Henry VII. induced him to join the insurrection of Sir Humphrey Stafford, and his brother, Thomas Stafford, in 1486, and take up arms in Yorkshire, whilst they prepared to attack Worcester; but, his troops dispersing, he was obliged to fly to Furness, in Lancashire, where Sir Thomas Broughton received and afforded him an asylum, and from thence he proceeded into Flanders, to Margaret Duchess of Burgundy. [188e]

Many of the Earl of Lincoln’s forces were destroyed in their flight from the field, and in attempting to escape over the Trent, by Fiskerton Ferry.  A ravine or gully, which descends from the high ground on the south-west side of the cliff, is now pointed out, as being the place through which the fugitives endeavoured to pass, in order to get to the ferry, and which, tradition says, ran with blood, and where a great slaughter was inflicted upon them.  It is from that circumstance, called Red Gutter; and human bones, and other indicia of slaughter, have been dug up in it.  It is rather difficult of access at present, from being covered with a plantation of trees; but there is still a path through it, and it opens upon Stoke Marsh, about thirty or forty yards to the southward of the modern road leading over the marsh, to the ferry; towards which the fugitives would naturally endeavour to pass through this ravine, as the steepness of the cliff would render it difficult, in most places, to descend in any other direction; and the contiguity of the right wing of the royal army would prevent a retreat over the flat ground by the high road past the church to the ferry.  The Trent, in the summer time, and the battle was fought in the month of June, is fordable for horses and men, and, as far as I could judge by the eye, it is thereabouts one hundred and sixty or one hundred and eighty yards wide; and if the wreck of the defeated army could have gained the opposite bank, it would have furnished some chance of escape, in comparative safety.

That the hill in Stoke Fields above described, is that on which the Earl of Lincoln was encamped, seems to be satisfactorily proved, independently of tradition, from the circumstance, that when he entered Nottinghamshire from Yorkshire, and marched towards Newark-on-Trent, as stated in Leland’s Collectanea, [189] “Enemyes and rebelles drew towards Newarke warde, passing by Southwelle and the Furside of Trente,” he found the castle and town of Newark preoccupied by his enemy, in which Hall, Holinshed, Polydore Virgil, Bacon, Speed, and Baker, all agree, and he could not well get to Stoke, without passing through, or close to, Southwell, and then crossing the Trent: and the ford and ferry nearest to Southwell, and to those parts of the country through which he is said to have marched, is Fiskerton; which is close under the hill.  Besides which, the hill is by far the strongest military position in that part of the country: in fact, the cliff occupied, as before observed, by his left wing, was almost inassailable; and the parts of the hill where his centre and right were posted, must have been exceedingly difficult of approach by hostile forces, because they would labour under the disadvantage of having to ascend an eminence, probably strengthened by artificial defences and by the natural obstacles of brushwood and other inconveniences incident to uncultivated ground.  It is the only elevated ground near Stoke, of sufficient elevation to warrant the word “descends,” used by Polydore Virgil, “Comes copias educit, signoque suis dato in certamen descendit;” and, after a very careful survey of the country for miles round Stoke, no other eminence presents itself worthy of Bacon’s appellation, “the brow or hanging of a hill,” or to which his words “came down” can apply, “the earl courageously came down and joyned battel with him.”

The bones, coins, and other relics, which have been dug up, show that the conflict took place at the spot before mentioned, near the village, and close to, and in the garden of Sir Robert Bromley, Bart., in Stoke Fields, and also upon a small portion of Elston Fields. [190]

A great part of the church has evidently been rebuilt, and, except a Gothic arch communicating from the tower to the body of the church, it has not many claims to antiquity.  A few brick and slated cottages have of late years been built amongst the others, in the village; but its appearance conveys to the spectator, the idea of its having undergone little change for centuries past.

The places where the human bones, &c. &c. have been dug up, show that the village of Stoke, previous to the battle, was occupied by part of Henry’s forces, because, as it was the Earl of Lincoln who commenced the attack, it is obvious, that, if the village had been occupied by his troops, the battle would have been fought on the north or the north-east side, and not to the southward of the village; besides which, that idea receives corroboration from the expression of Polydore Virgil, in reference to Henry’s movements:—“Stochum proficiscitur, ac prope castra comitis consistit.” [191a]  Henry could not have drawn his forces out of the village, and approached the camp of the earl, if the former had not preoccupied the village.

This memorable battle was the last that was fought between the adherents to the rival Houses of York and Lancaster (that in 1485, called Bosworth Field, being often erroneously so considered), in which one of the House of York attempted, by arms, to obtain the crown; and it firmly secured the House of Tudor upon the throne of England.  The victory was, however, purchased by a lamentable destruction of human life: about 4000 of the insurgents, and half of the van of the royal forces, are said to have perished there; probably a total loss of from 5000 to 6000 lives.

What consequences would have ensued to England, if the earl had been victorious, though it may be amusing to speculate upon them, it is, of course, impossible to form a reasonable conjecture.  He had claims to the crown, according to the laws and constitution, in due course, after the daughters of King Edward the Fourth (supposing the attainders [191b] of George Duke of Clarence, and Sir Thomas Saint Ledger, to be valid, and to exclude their issue), from his being the eldest son of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, and of Elizabeth, [191c] second sister of King Edward IV. and Richard III., and daughter of Richard Duke of York.  He is described as one who possessed talents and courage; and he was encouraged by the known intentions of his uncle, King Richard III., who had declared him successor to the crown, [192a] in case that monarch should die without issue; and at his coronation the earl had the honour of carrying the ball and cross, whilst the sceptre was confided to his father, the Duke of Suffolk. [192b]

It is very clear, that the earl was not at the battle of Bosworth, fighting on the side of his uncle, not only from the total silence of historians, [192c] but from the fact, that his name does not appear in the list of noblemen, knights, and gentlemen, who were attainted, [192d] when Henry VII. called a Parliament, for taking a part in that battle; and also from the fact of his being one of the nobles allowed to attend a council of Henry VII. [192e]  He appears not to have acted with sincerity, when he could so far demean himself, as to bring the impostor, Lambert Simnel, forward as a stalking-horse; and, in the words of Bacon, “neither did the earl refrain the business, for that he knew the pretended Plantagenet to be but an idol.  But contrariwise, he was more glad it should be the false Plantagenet than the true; because, the false being sure to fall away of himself, and the true to be made sure of by the King, it might open and pave a fair and prepared way to his own title.”  He must have been aware of the imposture, and appears to have been actively concerned in the insurrection, with the intention of benefiting himself, and the hope of successfully advancing his own claims to the crown.

It is a remarkable circumstance, that, at the time of the Earl of Lincoln’s death, his grandmother, Cecily Duchess of York, was still living; a woman who was doomed to witness, in her own family, more appalling and extraordinary calamities and vicissitudes, than are to be found in the history of any individual allied to any of the other royal families of Europe; I might, perhaps, even be allowed to go further, and to state, in the known history of any other human being.

Her nephew, Humphrey Earl of Stafford, was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; his father, Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who married her sister, Anne Neville, perished at the battle of Northampton in 1460; her husband, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, when the crown of England was almost within his grasp, and her nephew, Sir Thomas Neville, son of her brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and her husband’s nephew, Sir Edward Bourchier, son of Henry Earl of Ewe, afterwards Earl of Essex, by Isabel his wife, were slain in 1460, at the battle of Wakefield; her brother, the Earl of Salisbury, was taken prisoner there, and put to death; her second son, Edmund Earl of Rutland, although a mere child, was, at the same time, murdered after the battle, by John Lord Clifford; her half-nephew, Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, [193a] brother to Ralph Neville, second Earl of Westmoreland, perished in 1461, in the action of Dintingdale, prior to the battle of Towton; her nephew, Sir Henry Neville (son of her brother, George Neville, Lord Latimer), was made prisoner, and put to death after the battle of Banbury, in 1469; [193b] her two nephews, Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick, the “proud setter-up and puller-down of kings,” and John Neville, Marquis of Montague, and her husband’s nephew, Humphrey Bourchier, Lord Cromwell, the son of Henry Earl of Ewe and Essex, by Isabel his wife, were slain at the battle of Barnet, in 1471; Edward Prince of Wales, who married her great-niece, Anne Neville, the daughter of her nephew, the great Earl of Warwick, was barbarously murdered, after the battle of Tewkesbury, in the same year; her son George Duke of Clarence, was put to death in the Tower of London, in 1477–8, his wife Isabel, who was her great-niece, having previously died, as was suspected, by poison; her son-in-law, Charles Duke of Burgundy, called Charles the Bold, or Charles the Rash, who married Margaret, her third daughter, after having by his folly and rashness, impaired his power, and placed his dominions in a state of great peril, was slain at the battle of Nancy, in 1476–7; her eldest son, King Edward IV., abandoned a warlike and active life for pleasure and excesses, which cut him off in the prime of manhood, in 1483; the first husband of her niece, Katherine Neville, William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, [194a] was slain at the battle of Wakefield, in 1460, and the second husband of her niece, William Lord Hastings, was beheaded, without even the form of a trial, in 1483; her youngest niece, Margaret Neville, married John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, [194b] who, during many years of his life, was a fugitive or prisoner, whilst she suffered from great poverty, and her son by the Earl of Oxford, died in confinement, in the Tower of London, during her husband’s exile; her son-in-law, Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, who married her daughter Anne, was attainted for his support of the House of Lancaster, lived for some time in exile, and was in such poverty, as to be obliged to beg his bread, and in 1473, his corpse was found stripped naked, on the seashore, near Dover; her two grandsons, King Edward V. and Richard Duke of York, are believed to have been murdered [195a] in the Tower of London, in 1483; her son-in-law, Sir Thomas St. Ledger, who married Anne, widow of Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, was executed in 1483, at Exeter, and attainted for treason, in joining the unsuccessful rebellion of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; and the latter, who was her great-nephew, being the grandson of her sister, Anne Neville, being deserted by his forces, and betrayed, was, about the same time, taken prisoner and beheaded; her grandson, Edward Prince of Wales, son of King Richard III. and of her great niece, Queen Anne, through whom she naturally expected the honour of being the ancestress of a line of English Monarchs, died in 1484; and the childless Queen, his mother, a few months afterwards, followed him to the tomb; her youngest son, King Richard III., was slain at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485; and her grandson, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, perished in 1487, at the battle of Stoke. [196a]

She died in 1495; [196b] after three princes descended from her, had succeeded to the crown of England, without taking into the account her grand-daughter, Elizabeth, Queen of Henry VII., and more than one had been murdered; and, by her death, was saved the additional affliction of the loss of her grandson, Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, the last male of the House of Plantagenet, who was tyrannically and wickedly put to death, in 1499, by Henry VII.

On a reference to the following Pedigrees, although they only give some portions of the descents and alliances of the illustrious Houses of Plantagenet and Neville, the reader will observe the degree of consanguinity or connection in which each of the before-mentioned distinguished but unfortunate personages stood, with reference to Cecily Duchess of York.  It would be foreign to the object of this work, and would be an undertaking of great labour and difficulty, to give on a more extensive scale, the pedigrees of either of those Houses.

After perusing such a list of frightful calamities, occurring in the lifetime of a single individual, to the members of her own family, the reader may rejoice in living in a civilized age, under the mild and gentle sway of a Sovereign of the House of Brunswick, and may well exclaim of the Duchess of York, in the language of Voltaire, whilst narrating the misfortunes of the Royal House of Stuart:—“Il n’y a pas d’exemple sur la terre d’une suite de calamités, aussi singulières et aussi horribles, que celles qui avaient affligé toute sa maison.”

“Que les hommes privés, qui se plaignent de leur petites infortunes, jettent les yeux sur ce prince, et sur ses ancêtres.” [197]

THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
EVESHAM.

As the battle of Evesham was not fought in the fifteenth century and had no relation to the wars of York and Lancaster, it would not have been noticed here, if it had not been for the circumstance of my having visited the field of battle a few months before this work was sent to the press.  Very little information, however, respecting that sanguinary conflict, can be obtained by inquiry upon the spot.

On the 28th and 29th of May, 1856, I visited the field of battle, which was fought on the 4th of August, 1265, between the forces of King Henry III., under the command of his eldest son Prince Edward, and those of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the rebellious barons, and terminated in the defeat of the latter with great slaughter.

The battle was fought in the spot now enclosed fields, upon the elevated tract of ground, adjoining the turnpike road from Evesham in Worcestershire, to Alcester and Warwick, very near a house called Battle-well House (which stands on the left side of the road in going from Evesham), and also near the tollbar, called Battle-well Gate, and almost a mile and a quarter from Evesham.

A lane turns off from the turnpike road near the tollbar, towards the river Avon, by which the defeated forces are said to have fled, and to have attempted to descend to the meadows, in order to cross the Avon, at a place now called Offenham Ferry.  The lane was, until about 1741, the great high road from Worcester towards London.  An old man, named Thomas Price, who lives at the lodge of the mansion belonging to Mrs. Blainey, which is situated on the side of the turnpike road, opposite to Battle-well House, and, consequently, upon the spot where the conflict took place, and who has resided there most of his life, informed me, that many years ago, he recollected seeing a battle-axe, which, with some human bones, had been ploughed up in a field, close to Battle-well House.  A bridge is said to have formerly stood at Offenham Ferry, and some appearances of masonry, seemingly of the pier of the bridge, may still be discovered at the ferry.  Close to it the ground is a little raised, and that spot is called “Dead Man’s Height,” or “Dead Man’s Bank,” where human remains and fragments of weapons, are said to have been formerly discovered, as well as in an orchard very near there, called “Twyners.”  About two miles on the opposite side of the ferry, is a stone quarry upon a hill, at South Littleton, which was also in the line of retreat, and human bones, and parts of weapons, are said to have been found there, about thirty years ago.

In the beautiful grounds of E. T. Rudge, Esq., of Abbey Manor, near the field of battle, a small pillar has been erected with the following inscription:—

ON THIS SPOT [204]
IN THE REIGN OF HENRY III
THE BATTLE OF EVESHAM
WAS FOUGHT AUGUST IV 1265
BETWEEN THE KING’S FORCES COMMANDED BY HIS ELDEST SON
PRINCE EDWARD
AND
THE BARONS UNDER
SIMON DE MONTFORT EARL OF LEICESTER;
IN WHICH
THE PRINCE BY HIS SKILL AND VALOUR
OBTAINED A COMPLETE VICTORY,
AND
THE EARL WITH HIS ELDEST SON HENRY DE MONTFORT,
EIGHTEEN BARONS, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY KNIGHTS,
AND
FOUR THOUSAND SOLDIERS,
WERE SLAIN IN THE BATTLE.

THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
BARNET.

Warwick (wounded).—“Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend, or foe,
And tell me, who is victor, York or Warwick?
Why ask I that?  My mangled body shows,
My blood, my want of strength, my sick heart shows,
That I must yield my body to the earth,
And by my fall, the conquest to my foe.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part 3, act v. scene 2.
(A Field of Battle, near Barnet.)

The Battle of Barnet was fought on the 14th of April, 1471, at a place formerly called Gladmore Heath, but which is now completely enclosed, about a mile north-west from Barnet, in the county of Middlesex, between the Yorkists, under King Edward IV., and the Lancastrians, commanded by Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, [205] the King-Maker, in which the latter was slain, and the Yorkists were completely victorious.

I visited the field of battle on the 9th of July, 1856.  The accounts of the battle given by the old historical writers are so imperfect, that they do not throw any light upon the precise positions which the hostile armies respectively occupied; and I could not, when upon the spot, obtain much new information of moment, relative to the battle.

After Edward IV. had returned from the Continent, and had landed at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, he proceeded to York, and from thence towards London; and the Earl of Warwick, who was posted with his forces at Coventry, marched from it in pursuit of him:—

Warwick.—“I will away towards Barnet presently,
And bid thee battle, Edward, if thou dars’t.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act v. scene 5.

The Earl of Warwick expected that the city of London would hold out against Edward, until he could arrive to its relief.  On his march, he received the disastrous tidings, that Edward had been joyfully received into London; that Henry VI. was a prisoner; and that Warwick’s son-in-law, George Duke of Clarence, [206a] had renounced his engagements, and had gone over, near the town of Warwick, with all his forces, to Edward.

The Earl of Warwick was now in a situation of great peril, and, under other circumstances, would probably have attempted a retreat, but he was in the face of a superior army, and was some days’ march from any place of safety; he was too far advanced to retreat; and, although Clarence offered his mediation between Edward and Warwick, the latter proudly rejected it, and resolutely prepared for battle.

Edward had the superiority of numbers, as his army had become greatly increased, since Clarence had deserted the Earl of Warwick, and had joined the Yorkists.

During the night preceding the battle, the Earl of Warwick and the Lancastrians were encamped on Gladmore Heath, on the north-westward side of Barnet, and they had posted a small advanced guard in that town.  Edward, having advanced from London to Barnet, dislodged the few Lancastrian forces posted in it, and drove them towards the main body; he, however, did not suffer his men to remain in the town, but encamped in the open field, nearer his enemies than they were aware; and one old writer states, that he caused his people to keep as silent as possible, in order to prevent the Lancastrians from knowing the exact position of his army. [206b]

Both parties used artillery; [206c] and some historians state, [206c] that they fired at each other, in the course of the night.  We are also told, that the guns of the Earl of Warwick, were constantly fired at Edward’s forces during the night, but with little effect, in consequence of overshooting them, from their lying nearer than was supposed. [207a]

On Easter Sunday, the 14th of April, 1471, the day commenced with a thick fog, and both armies were placed in order of battle.  On Edward’s part, the van was commanded by Richard Duke of Gloucester; [207b] the middle, by Edward in person, assisted by the Duke of Clarence (having with them King Henry as a prisoner); and the rear was under the command of Lord Hastings; [207c] besides which, Edward had a considerable body of men in reserve.

The Earl of Warwick gave the command of the Lancastrian right wing, which consisted of horse, to his brother, the Marquis Montague, [207d] and the Earl of Oxford; [207e] the left wing, also consisting in a great measure of horse, was under the command of the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Exeter; [207f] and the middle, which consisted principally of archers and bill-men, was commanded by the Duke of Somerset. [207g]

The battle commenced very early in the morning, Edward having between four and five o’clock, advanced his banners, and caused his trumpets to sound for battle; and as soon as the opposite forces got sight of each other, the conflict commenced with archery, and they shortly afterwards, encountered each other with hand blows.  In consequence of the fog, the armies were inadvertently not drawn up exactly opposite each other; the Earl of Warwick’s right wing, under the command of the Earl of Oxford, extending a little beyond Edward’s left, which stood to the westward; and in consequence of it, that part of his army was rather overmatched; [207h] and we may readily believe, that from the same cause, Edward’s right wing outflanked Warwick’s left.  By reason of that circumstance, and the fierceness and intrepidity, with which the Earl of Oxford attacked his enemies, he had at first a considerable degree of success; he broke a part of the ranks of the Yorkists, and several of the fugitives fled to London, and gave out that the Lancastrians were victorious.  This, however, proved to be of no eventual advantage, and gave no encouragement to the other forces of Warwick, because the fog prevented their being fully aware of it; beside which, some of Oxford’s men commenced pillaging, instead of following up their first success.  An unfortunate mistake also occurred in consequence of the fog: the device of the Earl of Oxford, a star with rays, being mistaken for that of Edward, the sun in splendour; [208] and the Lancastrian archers shot at Oxford’s troops, which caused Oxford and many of his men to suppose it to be the effect of treachery, and to quit the field.

The Duke of Gloucester gave proofs of the undaunted courage and daring spirit, for which he was always conspicuous, and which his enemies have never ventured to deny; he fought valiantly against the Lancastrians; and his two esquires, John Milwater and Thomas Parr, were slain at his feet.

Warwick, at the head of his troops, attacked the part of the Yorkist army, in which Edward was; and the battle was for a long time, obstinate and bloody.  Edward, however, brought up his reserve at an opportune moment, and at length, the Earl of Warwick was slain, and a complete victory was obtained by Edward, over the Lancastrians.  John Neville, Marquis Montague, and several knights, of whom Sir William Tyrrel was one, also perished.  The Duke of Exeter was wounded, and left for dead upon the field, from seven in the morning, until four in the afternoon, when he was brought to the house of one of his servants named Ruthland, where he was attended by a surgeon; he was conveyed to sanctuary at Westminster, and afterwards went abroad.  The Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Oxford fled, in the company of some northern men, towards Scotland; but changing their plans, Somerset made for Wales, in order to join Jasper Earl of Pembroke; and Oxford escaped to France, from whence, he not long afterwards returned, with some men, and seized the fortress of St. Michael’s Mount, on the coast of Cornwall, which he held for several months, against King Edward’s forces.

On King Edward’s side, there were slain, Lord Cromwell; [209a] Lord Saye; [209b] Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of John Lord Berners; [209c] Sir John Lisle; [209d] and about 1500 men; but the loss on the Lancastrian side is said to have amounted to about double that number, Edward having given orders not to give any quarter.  Most of the slain were buried on the plain where they had fallen, and where, according to Stow, a chapel was afterwards built, in memory of them, of which there are now no remains; but he states, that when he wrote, it was a dwelling-house, and the upper portions remained.  Some of the bodies of the persons who had been of a higher rank, are said to have been removed, and interred in the church in Austin Friars, London.

The bodies of the Earl of Warwick, and the Marquis Montague, were conveyed in a cart to London, and for three days lay in Saint Paul’s Cathedral Church, with their faces exposed to view, so that no person could doubt their deaths; and they were then buried with their ancestors, in Bisham Abbey, in Berkshire, where they remained until the dissolution of monasteries, when the abbey was destroyed, and all knowledge of the exact spots where they were interred, is now forgotten.

Such was the end of the career of the great, valiant, and powerful Earl of Warwick, who has been not incorrectly described as the “proud setter-up and puller-down of Kings,” [210a] and who had been mainly instrumental in dethroning Henry VI. and making Edward IV. a King; and again, in dethroning Edward, and restoring Henry.

Warwick (wounded).—“For who liv’d King, but I could dig his grave?
And who durst smile, when Warwick bent his brow?
Lo, now my glory smear’d in dust and blood!
My parks, my walks, my manors that I had,
Even now forsake me; and of all my lands,
Is nothing left me, but my body’s length!”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act v. scene 2.
(A Field of Battle near Barnet.)

From the accounts given by the old historians, [210b] it is clear that cannons or some other description of firearms were used at the battle of Barnet.  Besides which, W. Hutton, F.S.A., states that the keeper of the Red Cow Tavern, near the obelisk after mentioned, preserved a ball of a pound and a half weight, which he dug out of the ground. [210c]

An obelisk of stone, apparently about eighteen or twenty feet high, commemorative of the battle, [210d] and of the place [210e] where it was fought, was erected by Sir Jeremy Sambroke, Bart., in 1740.

It stands about a mile beyond Barnet, and just beyond the small village of Hadley, and is in the county of Middlesex, but near the borders of Hertfordshire, and on the right side of the high road, close to the point where the roads diverge in one direction to South Mims and St. Alban’s, and in the other to Hatfield.

It stood originally close to the tavern called the Two Brewers, to which it is still very near; but about fourteen or fifteen years ago, it was removed thirty-two yards more towards the South Mims side, where it now stands. [211]

The obelisk is often called Hadley High Stone, and contains the following inscription:—

HERE WAS
FOUGHT THE
FAMOUS BATTLE
BETWEEN EDWARD
THE 4TH AND THE
EARL OF WARWICK
APRIL THE 14TH
ANNO
1471
IN WHICH THE EARL
WAS DEFEATED
AND SLAIN.

CHAPTER X.
ON THE
GENERAL USE OF FIREARMS
BY THE ENGLISH,
IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [213]

(Enter, on the walls, the Master Gunner and his Son.)

Master Gunner.—“Sirrah, thou know’st how Orleans is besieg’d,
And how the English have the suburbe won.”

Son.—“Father, I know; and oft have shot at them,
Howe’er, unfortunate, I miss’d my aim.”

Master Gunner.—“But now thou shalt not.  Be thou rul’d by me:
Chief Master Gunner am I of this town;
Something I must do to procure me grace.
The Prince’s espials have informed me,
How the English, in the suburbs close intrench’d,
Wont, through a secret grate of iron bars
In yonder tower, to overpeer the city;
And thence discover how, with most advantage,
They may vex us, with shot, or with assault.
To intercept this inconvenience,
A piece of ordnance ’gainst it I have plac’d;
And fully even these three days have I watch’d
If I could see them.”

Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part 1, act i. scene 4.
(Before Orleans.)

It is a fact admitted by historians, that in the reign of King Edward III., the English, not unfrequently, made use of cannons in sieges, during their wars with the French; but whether they ever used them in the open field, in the fourteenth century, as has been asserted, is a point which may well be doubted.

History is replete with instances of the extreme caution and reluctance, with which the English adopt innovations upon ancient customs, even when recommended by the probability of improvement.  Their implicit belief in the excellence of the long bow, and the proud recollection of the splendid victories which they had obtained by means of it, would, for a considerable period of time, render it a useless task, to attempt to convince them, of the superiority of the newly discovered military engines.  Until their efficacy had been often proved, their shape and workmanship had attained some degree of perfection, and the artificers employed in their production, had become sufficiently skilful, to make different kinds and sizes, one description of which was portable, and was eventually called Hand Cannon, Hand Gun, or Hand Culverin, and, subsequently, Harquebuss, Arquebuse, Haquebut, Hackbut and Hagbut, the origin of the modern Musket, the advantages of the recently discovered engines of war, would be very slow in disclosing themselves; and would by no means be sufficiently obvious, to induce a warlike nation, precipitately to admit them into general use.

The change in the art of war, by the application of gunpowder to military purposes, was extremely slow and gradual.

If any person, ignorant of, or not reflecting upon, that circumstance, should ask, at what period the ancient weapons were laid aside, and firearms introduced in their stead; the answer is readily and correctly given.  There never was such a period.  More than two centuries elapsed, after the common application of gunpowder to warlike purposes in Europe, before the English and the other European nations, entirely relinquished the use of bows and arrows, and in lieu of them, but by slow degrees adopted the use of firearms.

Archery for the purposes of war, had not been altogether abandoned in this country, even at the breaking out of the civil war, in the reign of Charles I.

It has been correctly remarked by Mr. Grose, in his Military Antiquities, [215a] that there is amongst old soldiers, a great dislike to innovations, because, by adopting new weapons, and, consequently, a new exercise, the old and expert soldiers find themselves in a worse state than new recruits, as they have not only a new exercise to learn, but also the old one to forget.

Indeed, as late as the year 1557, so evenly did the public opinion run, between the comparative efficacy of the ancient and new systems, that in that year, by an act of Parliament (of the 4th and 5th of Philip and Mary), [215b] respecting the providing of armour and weapons, various persons, in Wales, Lancashire, and Cheshire, were required to provide and keep a haquebut; or, in lieu of one, the alternative was given to each of them, to keep a long bow and sheaf of arrows, in such instances, where he was required by that act, to provide himself with the former.

Some interesting and curious examples may be found of the use of cannons of various kinds, by the English, in their wars with the French, in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III.; [215c] but although it is indisputable that they were then made use of in sieges, and in the defence of fortified places, there does not appear to be any evidence, that they were made use of in that century, in the field, by the English; [216a] and the defective construction of the cannons of the time of Edward III., and the silence of the English and French historians, raise very strong doubts, whether they ever were so used at that period.

It is, however, the use of them in the fifteenth century, to which our attention is at present to be devoted.  Although writers admit the occasional use of cannons and other firearms by the English, in that century, it has been commonly imagined, that they were not generally used by them until the following one.  I, therefore, shall endeavour to show, that that idea is not correct, and that in the fifteenth century, firearms of various descriptions and sizes, were in general use by them, as principal and important military weapons; that they appear seldom to have undertaken any warlike expedition of magnitude without them; that they constantly attacked and defended towns and fortresses with them; that they used them in the open field; and also, that there is some evidence of guns being in use even on shipboard.  The English, as early as in the middle of that century, were also sometimes armed with portable guns, or small arms, then called Hand Coulevrines, or hand guns; and they are expressly mentioned by Monstrelet by the name of “Coulevrines à main,” and he states, that they were reserved to the English, at Caen, in 1450, when they capitulated under the Duke of Somerset.  This was considerably earlier than the period, when Mr. Grose, in his work on Military Antiquities, [217a] supposes that they were first used in England; as he mentions the year 1471, on the occasion of the landing of Edward IV. at Ravenspur, as the period of their introduction into this country.

Monstrelet, as will be afterwards noticed, mentions “Petis Canons” as having been carried in eight little boats across the Seine, by the English, in attacking Pont de l’Arche, in 1418, which, and also the “Artillerie menue,” occasionally mentioned by him, probably apply to guns of a size small enough to be portable. [217b]

We cannot well entertain doubts of the fact of the English having made use of portable firearms in the fifteenth century, when we reflect that there is undisputed historical evidence of the use of them, at that period, by continental nations, who reckoned them by thousands in their armies; and that before the close of that century, they appear to have been even used on the Continent by cavalry as well as by infantry. [218a]

Very early in the fifteenth century, firearms varied very much in size, appearance, and denomination; and even as early as in the year 1406, the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France, in preparing for the siege of Calais, had, according to Monstrelet, “bombardes, canons, artilleries,” &c. &c.  We also learn from the same authority, that in 1430, in raising the siege of Compeine, which was defended by the English, the Duke of Burgundy was obliged to abandon his ordnance, consisting of “bombardes, canons, veuglaires, serpentines, coulevrines, et autre artilleries.”

The word Artillery, and also the word Engine, did not, however, apply in the fifteenth century exclusively to cannons; for both words were frequently used to designate all projectile weapons, such as balistæ, long-bows, cross-bows, guns of various descriptions, bombards (somewhat resembling the modern mortars), and also portable firearms.

Some descriptions of cannons, as, for example, those called bombards, [219a] which are considered to have been the first in use, threw large stones or balls, by a parabolic curve, against places besieged, whilst others were afterwards introduced, of a different description, which sent balls direct, or point blank.

In 1414, one Nicholas Merbury was Master of the Ordnance to Henry V., “Magistro Operationum Ingeniorum & Gunnarum.” [219b]  There was also a Master of the Ordnance in 1481, in the reign of Edward IV.; and a warrant was then issued for the payment of £100 to the Master of the Ordnance, for the purchase of draught horses. [219c]

I apprehend that it will not be denied, that it affords very strong evidence of this destructive instrument of war, being brought to considerable perfection, and into general use, when the genus had thus become subdivided into species, and when a public officer existed, whose province it was to superintend that particular department of military affairs.

Later on, in the same century, it became still more subdivided, and appears to have consisted of many varieties; for we read of bombards, cannons, mortiers, veuglaires, guns, serpentines, ordnance, fowlers, coulevrines, hand-coulevrines, hand-guns, haquebuts, &c. &c.; from which it may be presumed, that gunnery had then become a science, and occupied a great portion of the attention of the military.

The bombard is supposed to have derived its name from the sound proceeding from its explosion; the mortier or mortar, from its death-dealing or destructive nature; the serpentine basilisk and coulevrine, from some fancied resemblance in their appearance or effects to a serpent; the fowler, to the rapid and birdlike flight of its ball; and some of the large bombards were jocularly called “bourgeoise,” from their constant residence in one place, their weight rendering them inconvenient to move. [220]

Under whatever name or form, however, this destructive engine appeared, its general effects were, to a certain extent, similar; and I venture to think, that the authorities, which will now be referred to in chronological order, furnish strong proofs of its having become, not in occasional, but in general use for warlike purposes by the English, in the fifteenth century.

CHRONOLOGICAL REFERENCES.
1400 TO 1500.

1403, 8th September.—Warrant of the 4th Henry IV. relative to the safe custody of the castle of Laghadyn, in Wales, “Utpote, in personis Defensalibus, victualibus, armaturis, artillariis, et omnibus aliis rebus, pro hujusmodi munitione garnisturâ et custodiâ ejusdem Castri, necessariis et opportunis.”—8 Rymer’s Fædera, fo. 328; folio edition.

1404, 29th August.—Warrant of the 5th Henry IV. respecting the giving up of the castle or fortalice of Fascastle, in Scotland, to the Warden of the East Marches, “unâ cum artillaria, et aliis Rebus nostris, quibuscumque, in eodem Castro sive Fortalitio, existentibus.”—Same, fo. 370.

The word “artillery,” as has been already stated, was formerly often used to denote cannons and other weapons, the operation and efficacy of which entirely depended upon gunpowder, and also projectile weapons of various descriptions, such as long-bows, cross-bows of different kinds and sizes, balistæ catapultæ, &c. &c., which were used in war quite independently of gunpowder.  The same observation also applies to the word “engine.”  The English very frequently not only used engines which depended upon gunpowder for their operation, but others which were independent of it, in order to cast stones, &c., in sieges, in the fifteenth century.  It is impossible, in every instance which will be noticed in the following pages, to determine clearly in which of those senses the word “artillery” or “engine” is used; and it must be left to the judgment of the reader to decide the meaning from the context.

1405.—Henry IV., at the siege of Berwick Castle, “caused a peece of Artillerie to be planted against one of the Towers, and at the first shot overthrowing part thereof, they within were put in such feare that they simplie yeelded themselves.”—Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 530.

1405, 4th March.—In the 6th Henry IV., in a warrant enumerating the stores and articles in the castle of “Hadlegh” [Quære Harlech, in Merionethshire], “De stuffura pro Castro de Hadlegh,” there is mentioned amongst a variety of armour, weapons, and other articles, “Unum longum ferrum pro Gunnis opturandis.”—8 Rymer’s Fædera, fo. 384.

Same year.—In the attack by Count St. Pol upon the castle of Mark, near Calais, and the relief by the English forces, “Et avecques eux menerent dix ou douze chars chargez de vivres et artilleries.”—Chroniques de Monstrelet, edition of 1572, vol. i. fo. 20.

The English also took away “tous les biens, chars, et artilleries, qu’avoient là menez leurs adversaries.”

And on the attempt upon the town of Andres the “Anglois de Calais issirent de leur ville, à tout foison de canons et autres instrumens de guerre, qu’ils avoient gaignez sur les Français, devant Merc.”—Same, vol. i. fo. 21.

Same year.—At the unsuccessful attack by the English upon the Castle de l’Escluse, the garrison “tant que par le trait, Canons et autre deffence rebouterent leurs adversaires,” &c.—Same, fo. 21.

1406.—Preparations by the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France for the siege of Calais, “Et y avoit aussi tres grand quantité de Charois menans bombardes, Canons, artilleries, vivres, et autres besonges necessaires à guerre.”—1 Monstrelet, fo. 27.

Although the cannons in the two last instances were not used by, but were intended to be used against, the English, yet it has been considered advisable to notice them, in order to show that they were then commonly used in the wars in which the English were engaged, and were intended in each instance to be used against a town defended by the latter; and also to prove that at that period there were firearms of various denominations.

Same year, 7th Henry IV.—Account of the military stores stated by Henry Somer to have been delivered to William Loveney, Treasurer to the King’s sister, Philippa, Queen of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, &c., “2 Gunnes, 40 Libras pulveris pro Gunnes, 40 Petras pro Gunnes, 40 Tampons, 4 Touches, 1 Mallet, 2 Fire pannes, 40 Pavys, 24 Arcus, et 40 Garbas Sagittarum, pro Stuffura cujusdam navis, ordinata pro aula ejusdem Reginæ versus Dauciam, per Indenturam,” &c.; also “prædictis 2 canoins 40 l. pulveris,” &c.—8 Fædera, fo. 447.

The above document furnishes evidence of the use of stone balls for cannons in 1406; and, although the language is not at all conclusive, it may be worthy of consideration whether it does not also afford some slight evidence of guns being in use on shipboard at that early date.

1407, 12th September.—Indenture of 8th Henry IV. between the King and Rees ap Griffith and others, containing the terms of the surrender by them of the castle of Aberystwith, in Wales, “facient seu faciet liberationem plenam Canonum seu instrumentorum Anglicè Gunnes vocatorum, arcuum, sagittarum, Balistarum, et aliorum Instrumentorum, infra dictum Castrum,” &c.—8 Fædera, fo. 498.

1413, 1st September.—Warrant of the 1st Henry V. to John Sprong and John Louth, empowering them to take and provide “ad tot Equos, Boves, Plaustra, et Carectas, quot pro cariagio certorum gunnorum nostrorum, ac aliarum Rerum pro eisdem Gunnis necessarium, à villa Bristolliæ usque Civitatem nostram Londoniæ indiguerint,” &c.—9 Fædera, fo. 49.

1414, 22nd September.—Warrant of the 2nd Henry V. to Nicholas Merbury, “Magistro Operationum, Ingeniorum, et Gunnarum nostrorum, ac aliarum Ordinationum nostrarum, pro guerrâ,” and to John Louth, “Clerico earundem Operationum,” to take and provide “ad tot Lathomos, Carpentarios, Serratores, Fabros, et Laboratores, quot pro operationibus Ingeniorum, Gunnarum, et Ordinationum prædictorum, necessarii fuerint, cum sufficienti maeremio Ferro,” &c.—Same, fo. 159.

In that warrant Nicholas Merbury is distinctly mentioned as the Master of the Ordnance; yet, notwithstanding the existence of that document, and of another which will be afterwards referred to, of 22nd Edward IV., Mr. Grose, in his Military Antiquities, vol. i. page 198, states that the first Master of the Ordnance that he could find on record was only in the first year of the reign of Richard III.; and it is strange that, in a note in vol. i. page 401, he afterwards mentions Nicholas Merbury as having been Master of the Ordnance in the 2nd year of Henry V., but he does not allude to the existence of any such officer in the reign of Edward IV.

1414, 26th September.—Warrant of the 2nd Henry V. to the Collectors of the customs and subsidies, and keepers of the passages of the port of London, &c., prohibiting the exportation of gunpowder without a special permission, “aliquod Gunpoudre versus partes exteras, in portu prædicto, absque speciali mandato nostro, transmitti permittatis.”—9 Fædera, fo. 160.

1415.—The army of Henry V., on landing in France, is stated to have been composed of “environ six mille bacinets et 24 mille archiers sans les Canoniers et autres usans de flondelles et engins, [224] dōt ils avoiēt grād abondance.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. fo. 218.

It appears very difficult to ascertain the kind of instrument meant by “flondelles.”  It seems far-fetched to consider it as a corruption of the words “frondes” (slings), besides which, there is not, as far as I am aware, any authority for supposing that the English used slings in battle.  A word nearly similar (“fondeffles”) also occurs in 1 Monstrelet, p. 27, and is used in conjunction with “eschelles,” which is evidently scaling ladders, which raises the presumption that it was some engine used in sieges.

Same year.—At the siege of Harfleur the English “asseirent leurs gros engins [224] les lieux plus convenables entour la dicte ville, et prestement icelle moult travaillerent par grosses pierres et dammageans les murs,” &c. &c. * * * “le Traict et pouldre de canons envoyez a iceux [the Besieged] par le Roy de France furent rencontrez et prins des dits assiegeans.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. p. 218.

1418, 10th February.—Warrant in 5th Henry V. to John Louthe:—“Clerico operationum Ordinationis nostræ;” and to John Benett, of Maidstone, mason, to press workmen to make “septem milium Lapidum pro Gunnes de diversis sortibus.”—9 Fædera, fo. 542.

John Louthe, clerk of the Ordnance, and this warrant, in which he is named, are noticed by Grose, vol. i. p. 198.

Same year.—Warrant to the same John Louthe, to procure workmen and materials:—“Quot pro factura trescentorum Pavys Grossorum pro Gunnis, Quaterviginti Blokk, et septem milium Tampons pro eisdem, Quinquaginta jugorum de Ligno pro Bobus infra trahendis, Centum Cathenarum pro eisdem, Duodecim Carectarum Grossarum pro Gunnis Grossis supracariandis, viginti piparum de Pulvere de Carbonibus silicis, necessaria fuerint.”—Fædera, fo. 543.

The use of the words “Pavys grossorum pro Gunnis,” goes a long way to prove that gunners, like archers, were covered or protected in action, at that period, by the shield-like instruments called the Pavaise, Pavys, or Pavache.

Same year.—In the passage of the Seine, in his advance upon Pont de l’Arche, the English commander:—“vint pour passer Seine à tout huict petit naviaux; dedans lesquels il se meit en l’eaue accompaignè de son fils aáge de quinze ans, de soixante combattans et un seul cheval, avec petis canons, et autres habillemens de guerre: si feit nager en une petite isle qui estoit au meillieu de l’eaue, de laquelle ils pouvoient plainement traire sur les Francois dessusdits, qui gardoient le rivage.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. fo. 262.

1418.—Henry V.:—“avec toute sa puissance et gens de guerre et grande multitude d’engins et artilleries, assiegea la tres puissante et noble ville de Rouen, au mois de Juing,” &c. &c.; and directed against the gates and walls “plusieurs grosses bombardes et d’autres engins,” &c.; and the besieged used “bombardes, canons, engins vollans, arbalestres, et autres instrumens de guerre,” &c. &c.—Monstrelet, vol. i. fos. 264, 265.

The artillery, cannon, and powder, on the surrender of the under-mentioned cities, towns, or castles, are stipulated in the Treaties of Surrender, to be given up to the English, or to remain for their use:—

1417.

Touque.—“Vitaillez et Artillarie,” &c.—9 Rymer’s Fædera,

fo. 480

Villiers.—“Vitaille et Artillerie,” &c.

487

Caen.—“Arbalastres, Treit, et autres Articlarie,” &c.

490

Falaize.—“Artilleries, Trait, Pouldre, Canons,” &c.

533

1418.

Cambray.—“Pouldres, Canons,” &c.

552

Hambye.—“Tous leurs Artilleries,” &c.

553

St. Lo.—“Poudres, Canons, et autres abillemens de guerre,” &c.

554

Hommet.—“Toutes leurs Artilleries,” &c.

555

Constance.—“Touz vivres et Artilleries,” &c.

556

Charenton.—“Canons, Pouldres, et tout autre manere de Trait,” &c.

557

St. Sauveur Le Visconte.—“Leur Artillerie, et les autres armures,” &c.

566

Juiry.—“Poudres, Canons,” &c.

585

1419.

Rouen.—“Artillariæ, Pulveres, et alia quæcumque habilimenta guerrarum,” &c.

665

Monstreville.—“Canons, Poudres, et toutz aultres bastons et abillemens pour la guerre et defens,” &c.

674

Eu, Monceaux, St. Marien, le Gaillera, et Guilleimcourt.—“Artillerie et abillemens de guerre,” &c. &c.

696

Grand Goulet et Petit Goulet.—“Vivres et Artillerie,” &c.

699

1420.—The English, at the siege of the Town and Castle of Monstreau:—“combattans icelle de gros engins pour desrompre les portes et murailles;” also, “feirent de tous costez approcher de la forteresse plusieurs gros engins [227] pour icelle confondre et abattre.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. pp. 291, 292.

Same year.—At the siege of Melun, by the English:—“feirent en plusieurs lieux asseoir leurs engins volans, bombardes, canons et autres instrumens et habillemens de guerre pour desrompre confondre et abbatre les murs de la ville,” &c.—Same, fo. 293.

Same year.—In the Treaty between Henry V. and the Duke of Bourbon, as given at length in Goodwin’s Life of Henry V., a stipulation was introduced for the restoration of “ammunition and artillery.”—Goodwin’s Life of Henry V., book vii. p. 295.

1421.—At the siege of Meaulx, by Henry V.:—“feit dresser plusieurs engins contre les portes et murailles de la ville pour l’abattre et demolir,” &c.

“Et brief ensuivant gaigna une petite isle assez pres du Marché en laquelle il feit asseoir plusieurs grosses bōbardes, qui moult terriblement greverēt les maisons du dit Marché et aussi les murailles d’icelle,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. i. fos. 310, 312.

1422.—At the siege of St. Valery, by the English, under the Earl of Warwick, they “commencerent à abattre la dicte ville de leurs pierres et engins sans cesser, jettans contre les murs d’icelle en les derompant en plusieurs lieux.”—Same, fo. 317.

Same year.—At the siege of Meulan, by the Duke of Bedford, he “là feit dresser contres les portes et murailles grans engins pour icelle confondre et abattre;” and in the Articles of Capitulation, it is provided that the fortress shall be given up, “fortiffiée et garnie de canons pouldres et arbalestres,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 2.

1427.—The French and Bretons, on raising the siege of St. James de Beuron, defended by the English:—“delaissant audit siege grand foison de bombardes vivres et autres artilleries.”—Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 35.

1428, March.—Indenture, in 6th Henry VI., containing the terms on which Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, engaged to serve in France, with an army, by which it was stipulated that he was to be paid 1000 marks:—“pour convertir et employer en cannons, pierres, charretes, pincees de feer, chasbles, et autres choses necessaires, pour iceulx canons,” &c.; and which also stipulates for the earl’s including in the number of men-at-arms, “quatre Maistres Cannoniers;” each of whom was to be considered as equal to a man-at-arms at 20 deniers Easterlings per day, and that the earl should have, at the King’s expense, “Escipeson pour les canons, pierres, et aultres choses, touchans et regardans le fait de l’artillerie.”—10 Fædera, fo. 392.

Same year, 25th March.—Warrant in 6th Henry VI., for payment, amongst other matters, to John Parker, of Cheshunt, of 1000 marks:—“Pour converter et employer en canons, pierres, en charretes, chariottz, pinces de feer, chasbles, et autres choses necessaires pour icelz canons,” &c.—Same, fo. 395.

Same year, 28th April.—Warrant in 6th Henry VI., to John Parker, to seize and provide carriages for the conveyance of “canones, petras,” &c. &c.—Same, fo. 397.

Same year.—At the siege of Orleans, Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, was mortally wounded by the splinters of a stone, shot from a cannon (“veuglaire”), whilst reconnoitering there.  The besieged defended themselves “en faisans plusieurs saillies en tirant de canons coulevrines et autres artilleries.”

The Duke of Bedford, Regent of France, is mentioned as sending, under the charge of Sir John Fastolf [228] (of Norfolk), to the English, at this siege, “de quatre à cinq cēs que chars que charrettes,” loaded with “vivres, artilleries, et autres marchandizes;” and after an engagement with the French (called by them the “Battle of the Herrings”), the English proceeded in good order, “à tout leur charroy, et leur artillerie, comme brigandines, heaulmes, arbalestres, bastons à feu, et plusieurs autres armeures qu’il fault a gens de guerre par aucuns pou de jours devant la dictè ville,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. ii. fos. 38, 40, 41.

1430.—At the siege of Compeigne by the English (under the Earl of Huntingdon) and the Burgundians, the unsuccessful result of an attack by the French upon part of the works of the besiegers, is ascribed to “la grande déffence de ceux de dedans qui estoient en une grosse compaignie de combattans et bien pourveuz d’artillerie.”  In raising the siege, there were left behind of the Burgundian ordnance, “tres grand nombre de grosses bombardes, canons, veuglaires, serpētines, coulevrines, et autres artilleries avec plusieurs engins,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 64.

1431.—The French, after a temporary success against the castle of Rouen, were compelled to give it up again to the English, on account of the want of provisions, and being “combattus de plusieurs gros engins que les dits Anglois feirent asseoir contre la grosse tour.”—Same, fo. 78.

1432.—The English under the Earl of Arundel, advancing from Paris towards Ligny-sur-Marne, had “foison de chars et charrettes, canons, artilleries, et autres instrumens de guerre,” &c.; and at Ligny, “Si feit Le Compte d’Arondel asseoir une grosse bombarde contre l’arche du pont levis de la ville, lequelle du premier coup qu’elle jecta rompit la dicte arche,” &c. &c.; also, “y assis grosses bombardes, dont ils avoient fait battre et travailler la muraille d’icelle.”—2 Monstrelet, fo. 81.

1435.—The Earl of Arundel, in advancing to attack the castle of Gerberoy, took with him “Vivres et viandes artilleries et autres plusieurs instrumens de guerre a tout lesquels il se meit a chemin,” but was attacked and discomfited by the garrison, which “feiret apporter une coulevrine qu’ils avoiēt en leur fort, laquelle au secōd coup qu’ils la feirent jetter, ferit le dit Compte parmy la jambe vers la cheville du pied;” of which wound he soon afterwards died at Beauvais.—Same, vol. ii. fos. 101, 102.

1435.—At the siege of St. Denys, by Lord Talbot: “Toutesfois les dessusdictes portes et murailles furent fort empirées en plusieurs lieux par les engins d’icieux assiegeans.”—Same, fo. 116.

1436.—At the siege of Calais, by Philip Duke of Burgundy, his forces had a great number of “ribauldequins, portans canons, coulevrines, arbalestres, et plusieurs autres gros engins,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 129.

Whilst he was riding to reconnoitre the town, which was defended by the English, “vint une grosse pierre de canon au plus pres de luy laquelle occist une trompette et trois chevaux, dont celuiy du Seigneur de Saveuses estoient l’un.”—Same, fo. 130.

In the above quotation, the word “engine” seems to apply to such instruments of war as cannons, culverins, cross-bows, &c., and it tends to confirm what has been stated before, that the word was used both in describing those projectile weapons which were used with gunpowder, and also those which were used without it.

In raising the siege, the Burgundians left behind them, “plusieurs gros engine et autres habillemens de guerre qui estoient au dit Duc de Bourgongne; pource qu’on ne pouvoit trouver de chars ne de chevaux pour les emmenener;” and, upon the Duke of Burgundy’s ordering Jean de Croy to withdraw from the siege of Guisnes, he accordingly dislodged, “mais aucunes gros engins demourerent là, par ce qu’on ne les pouvoit chargèr sur les chars,” &c.—Same, fo. 133.

1439.—The Earl of Somerset, at the siege of the castle of Folleville, “Si feit prestement apprester une petite bombarde qu’il avoit amenée avecques luy, laquelle estoit excellentement bonne et roide, avec autres engins: lesquel engins bombardes et canons a l’une des fois occirent le Capitaine de Leans quand elles furent jectées.”—Monstrelet, fo. 166.

1440.—At the siege of Harfleur, the English, under Somerset, “assevient contre la porte et muraille d’icelle ville plusieurs bombardes et autres habillemens de guerre,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 169.

1441.—The English, under the Duke of York, Governor of France and Normandy, attempting to relieve Ponthoise, “avoient avecques eux tres grand nombre de chars, charettes, et chevaux chargez de vivres et artilleries,” &c.—Same, fo. 184.

The use of “petits canons et coulevrines,” by the French, at this siege, is also mentioned.—Same, fo. 186.

1449.—At the siege, by Count St. Pol, of the castle of Nogent, defended by the English, the French vanguard entered the basse court, and gained the barrier, “mais pource qu’ils doubtoient fort les canons ils se retrahirent pour attendre leurs compaignons.”—Same, vol. iii. fo. 10.

1449.—Assault of Ponteau de Mer, defended by the English, when the French, under Dunois, “entrerent tous dedans icelle ville autant d’une costé que d’autre: moyēnant aussi et par le feu de fusées qui y furent jettées par dedans les fossez ou ils estoient en l’eaue jusques au col,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. iii. fo. 11.

Same year.—The French, under Dunois, having come against Harcourt, defended by the English, the former, in making their approaches, “esquelles fut tué d’un canon un moult vaillant homme d’armés de la garnison de Louviers, et un Anglois fut pareillement tué d’une coulevrine,” &c.—Same, fo. 15.

Same year.—At the capitulation of the palace and castle of Rouen, by the Duke of Somerset, he stipulated for the departure in safety of himself and the English forces, with their goods, “reservé prisonniers et grosses artilleries,” &c.—3 Monstrelet, fo. 21.

1449.—At the siege of Honfleur, defended by the English, under Curson, who “faisoient grand devoir d’eux deffendre et de tirer canons et autres traicts sur les Francois,” &c.—Same, fo. 26.

1450.—At the siege of Bayeux, by the French, defended by the English, “desquelles deux parties en y eut plusieurs de morts de traict et de coulevrines,” &c.—Same, fo. 28.

Same year.—At the siege of St. Sauveur Le Vicomte, defended by the English, “fut tué d’un canon, un vaillant escuyer du pays de Berry, noīné Jean de Blanchefort.”—Same, fo. 28.

Same year.—On the surrender of Caen, by the Duke of Somerset, to the French, he stipulated for the departure of the English, with their effects, but with a proviso as to delivering up the prisoners, acquitting the burgesses, and others in the town, of all demands, and not taking away any thing of theirs.  “Et avec ce qu’ils lasseroient toute artillerie grosse et menue, reservé arcs, arbalestes et coulevrines à main.”—Same, fo. 30.

We have therefore here the hand-coulevrine (hand-culverin or hand-gun) distinctly mentioned as in use amongst the English.  It was in all probability an iron cylinder or barrel, of clumsy and unwieldy form, let into a wooden stock, and fired from a rest or crutch, by means of a match.  Mr. Grose seems not to have been aware of the above, and, in his Military Antiquities, vol. i. page 153, and vol. ii. page 29, he mentions the year 1471, upon the landing of Edward IV. at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, as the period of the first introduction of hand-guns into this country.

1450.—Amongst the charges against William Duke of Suffolk, was, that having the custody of the castle of Wallingford, “he hath fortified it, and repaired it, and also stuffed it with gunnes, gunepowder, and other habilimentez of werre,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 28 Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 177.

Same year.—In the 28th Henry VI., Conay ap Rice was called “yoman gonner of oure citee and castell of Westchestre,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 28 Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 198.

Same year.—A representation appears on the Parliamentary Rolls, of the insufficient state of defence of the Isle of Wight, and that the castle was not then provided “with gonnes, gonnepowder, crosse-bowes, quarelles, longe-bowes, arowes, longe-speres, axes, and gleyves,” &c.—Same, fo. 204.

Same year.—And also that Harry Bruyn, Esquire, who had been appointed lieutenant of the Isle of Wight, had bestowed a “gret good of his own, bothe in gonnys and in arcerie,” &c., in that island.—Same, fo. 205.

Same year.—Upon the insurrection of Jack Cade, when he and his followers came to London, the mayor applied to Lord Scales, who commanded in the Tower of London, for assistance against the rebels, and he promised “his ayde with shoting of ordinaunce,” &c.—Hall, fo. 150.

The Lord Scales promised “his aid with shooting off the artillerie in the Tower,” &c.—1 Holinshed, fo. 634.

1451.—At the siege of Bayonne, the English made a sortie, and were attacked by Bernard de Biarn and his forces, when he was wounded by the shot from a culverin, which pierced through his shield, and injured his leg.  “Et ainsi que le dit messire Bernard s’en retournoit de la dicte escarmouche il fut frappé d’une coulevrine, qui perca son pavois et entra la plommée dedās sa jambe,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. iii. fo. 38.

1452.—The Duke of York, at Brent Heath, near Dartford, “encamped his army very strongly bothe with trenches and artillery.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 163.

1454.—In the thirty-second year of Henry VI. the castle of Calais, and the castles and fortresses in the marches of it, were directed to be provided with “vitaile ordonnance habiliments of werre and artillerie.”—5 Rot. Parl. fo. 255.

1455.—At the first battle of St. Albans, the Yorkists are mentioned, in the Rolls of Parliament, as being assembled, “with grete multitude of people harneised, and other abillementis of werre, as gonnes and other, and come to the toune of Seint Albones,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. vol. fo. 347.

1457–8.—A letter has been published from John Bokking, to Sir John Fastolf, of Norfolk, [234] from which the following is an extract:—“And my lord of Caunt’bury tolde me yat ye Frenche men have ben before yow, and yt ye shotte many gonnes, and so he tolde all ye lords, I have desirid hym to move ye counsell for refreshing of ye toun of Yermowth wt stuff of ordnance and gonnes and gonne powdre, and he said he wolde.”—Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters (occasionally called the Paston Letters), vol. i. p. 156.

1459.—The act of attainder of the 38th year of the reign of Henry VI., mentions the encampment of the Yorkists at Ludford, near Ludlow, and states that they “traiterously raunged in bataill, fortefied their chosen ground, their cartes with gonnes sette before their batailles;” * * * “and than and there shotte their seid gonnes, and shotte as wele at youre most roiall persone, as at youre lordes and people with you than and there beying.”—Rot. Parl. 38th Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 348.

1459.—At the Duke of Somerset’s repulse from Calais, “the artillarie shot so fierseley both out of the toune and Risebancke,” &c.—Hall, fo. 175.

Same year.—Attack by Sir John Denham upon Sandwich, where he “tooke the principall shippes of the Kynge’s navie then liying at the port, well furnished with ordinaunce and artillarie,” &c.—Same, fo. 175.

From the above passage it seems not unreasonable to infer that cannons were at that date used on shipboard by the English.

Same year.—Osbert Mountforth was sent towards Guisnes, to assist the Duke of Somerset, and was attacked and captured whilst lying in Sandwich, by John Denham and John Wenlock, and the former was badly wounded in the thigh, by a bombard, “in crure cum bombardo.”—Annales W. Wyrcestrii.

1460.—At the siege of the Tower of London, which was defended by the Lancastrians under Lord Scales, who “dayly shote their ordenaunce out, and had likewise great ordinaunce shott at them.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 176.

Same year.—“And they that were within the Tower cast wild fire into the city, and shot many small gunnes, whereby they brent and slew men, women, and children, in the streetes; also they of the city layd great guns on the further side of the Thames against the Tower, and brake the walls in divers places.”—Stow’s Annals, pp. 408, 409.

Same year.—At the battle of Northampton, “the King’s ordinance of guns might not be shot, there was so great raine that day.”—Stow’s Annals, fo. 409; see also Speed’s History, fo. 844.

The exact date uncertain, but in the reign of Henry VI.—An account is given in Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, of a sea-fight, which took place in the reign of Henry VI., between some English ships and some ships of Holland, Zealand, Flanders, &c., in which Robert Wenyngton appears to have commanded the English vessels; and he states that the enemy’s ships “schotte atte us a 1000 gonnys and quarrell owte of nu’ber, and have slayn meny of my felyschyp and meymyd all soo.”—The meaning seems to be, that there were 1000 discharges from the enemy’s guns.  The engagement is noticed here, although the guns were used on board the enemy’s vessels, because there can scarcely be a doubt, that if they were used on board those vessels, at that period, they must also have been in use on board English vessels.—Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 210.

1463.—At the siege of the castle of Bamborough, after the battle of Hexham, when defended by Sir Ralph Grey, the Earl of Warwick, “cum maximis bumbardis, obsedit idem castrum.  Et ibi in casu quoque cujusdem parietis castri, excussione bumbardi, cecidit dictus R. Gray quem credebant mortuum.”  Annales W. Wyrcestrii.

Same year.—At the sieges of the castles of Alnwick, Dunstanborough, and Bamborough, ordnance was sent from Newcastle, sufficient both for the sieges and for the field, in case any action in the field should be fought.  Ordnance was, at the same period, conducted from Newcastle to Warkworth Castle, to the Earl of Warwick.—Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 274.

1464.—In the fourth year of Edward IV., Henry Cressewell held the office of “kepyng of the artillery within oure castell of Pountfret, in oure shire of York.”—5 Rot. Parl. 4 Edw. IV. fo. 532.

Same year.—John Newburgh held the office “of keping of the artellerye within oure castell of Carnarvan, and gunner of alle oure townes and castells within Northewales.” &c.—Same, 4 Edward IV. fo. 543.

1464.—Roger Kelsall held “the office of the artyllary withynne our castell of Chestre.”—Rot. Parl. 4 Edward IV. fo. 546.

1467–8.—Henry Cresswell continued to hold the office of keeping the artillery of the castle of Pontefract.—Same, 7 and 8 Edw. IV. fo. 585.

1469.—A letter of permission of this year, from the Duke of Norfolk, has been published, authorizing John Paston and the persons who had held the manor of Caistor, in Norfolk, against the duke (Caistor Castle had been besieged by him), to depart, with goods, horses, and harness, “except gonnes, crosse-bows, and quarrels, and alle other hostlements [warlike implements], to the said maneur annexed and belonginge.”—Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. ii. p. 27.

Same year.—At the battle fought near Hornfield, Lincolnshire, often called Lose Coat Field, the forces of Edward IV. “set on the Lincolnshir men, and sparkelid [scattered] them with his ordinaunce,” &c.—2 Lel. Coll. fo. 502, p. 719.

“And losyde his gonnys of his ordynaunce uppone them and faught with them, and anone the comons fledde away.”—MS. Chronicle, by J. Warkworth, p. 8, printed for the Camden Society.

1470.—Vaucler and his forces, on the Earl of Warwick’s attempting to enter Calais, “luy tirerent de grans coups de canon.”—Philippe de Commines, c. iv. fo. 65.

Same year.—On the Earl of Warwick preparing to return to England, the Duke of Burgundy equipped a fleet of vessels of war, “tous fort avaitaillez et garniz d’artillerie et gens de guerre, d’Anglois, Bourgonguons, Picards, et autres.”—Autres nouvelles Chroniques added to Monstrelet, fo. 164.

Same year.—The Earl of Warwick, on his arrival in England, went to Bristol, “et illec avoit laissé son artillerie, et de ses bagues, quand il s’en alla en Normandie.”—Same, fo. 165.

1471, 5th March.—Warrant after the restoration of Henry VI. to Thomas Mainwaring, Thomas Corwen, Thomas Aghton, &c., to provide for conveying a cannon from Bristol to Hornby Castle, and to deliver it to Sir Thomas Stanley of Stanley, for the purposes of the siege of that castle, “cum nos appunctuaverimus quendam canonem nostrum vocatum Mile End, una cum toto apparatu, et aliis necessariis eidem pertinentibus,” &c. &c.—11 Fædera, 699.

1471.—Edward IV. landed at Ravenspur, with Lord Hastings, Lord Say, “and IXC Englisch men and IIIC Fleminges, with hange gunnes.”—2 Lel. Coll. fo. 503, p. 721.

It can scarcely admit of any doubt that hand-guns must have been the weapons there meant, and that they were so called from being sufficiently light to be portable by the hand.  The word “hange” seems to be merely a corruption of the word “hand,” [238] which is confirmed by the following authority:—

“And had with him IXC of Englismenne and three hundred of Flemmynges with hande-gonnes.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 18, printed for the Camden Society.

1471.—On the occasion of Edward IV.th’s public entry into London, before the battle of Barnet, “the eleventh of Aprill, King Edward quietlie made his entrie into the citie with his power, having five hundred smokie gunners marching foremost, being strangers, of such as he had brought over with him.”—1 Holinshed, fo. 683.

It seems tolerably clear that the 500 men there described as smoke gunners, were armed with portable firearms, and probably carried lighted matches; and, although the numbers do not tally, we cannot well doubt that they were the same men already mentioned as armed with “hange-guns,” or “hande-gonnes.”

1471.—On the night before the battle of Barnet, between the forces of Edward IV. and the Earl of Warwick, “and shotte gunnes al night one at the other.”—1 Lel. Coll. fo. 504.

“And eche of them loosede gonnes at othere alle the nyght.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 16, printed for the Camden Society.

Besides which, we also learn from Holinshed, that the Lancastrians, during the night before the battle, continually discharged their cannons at the camp of Edward IV.; and Holinshed adds:—

“The King would not suffer anie of his gunnes in all that night to be shot off, least thereby they might have gessed the ground, and so levelled their artillerie to his annoyance.”—Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 684.

Same year.—A small cannon-ball, weighing a pound and a half, was dug up near the obelisk erected upon Gladmore Heath, where the battle of Barnet was fought.—Hutton’s Bosworth Field, Introduction, p. xxxv.

1471.—In the march of Queen Margaret and her army from Gloucester towards Tewkesbury, “the Lord Beaucampe toke from her rereward, more ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to her no smal prejudice.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 31.

Same year.—At the battle of Tewkesbury the Yorkists were well furnished “with great artillerie,” and the Lancastrians defended themselves “with shot of arrowes and great artillerie, although they had not the like plentie of guns as the King had.”—1 Holinshed, fo. 687.

1471, May 14th.—Thomas Neville, called the Bastard of Falconbridge, and the common people, and undisciplined forces under him, being denied a passage through the city of London, “sette upon diverse parties therof, as Bysshoppes Gate, Algate, London Brydge, and a long the waters syde, and shot gonnes and arowes, and fyred the gates with cruell malyce, as Bysshoppes Gate and Algate, and fought,” &c.—Fabyan’s Chron., fo. 223.

1471.—Another old writer (Leland) states, that “they shot his ordinaunce at the cyte and brent aboute London Bridge and at Aldgate.”—1 Lel. Coll. fo. 506.

Another account states that he “loosede his gonnes into the citee.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 19, printed for the Camden Society.

Same year.—And another writer states, that “Hereupon, having brought certeine peeces of artillerie foorth of their ships, they planted the same alongst the water side right over against the citie, and shot off lustilie, to annoie them within, so much as was possible.  But the citizens on the other side lodged their great artillerie against their adversaries, and with violent shot thereof so galled them, that they durst not abide in anie place alongst the water side, but were driven even from their owne ordinance.”—1 Holinshed, fo. 690.

Same year.—At the renewal of the truce between Edward IV. and the Duke of Brittany, stipulations were introduced for the safety of merchants, “de harnois, d’armures, d’artilleries,” &c.—11 Fædera, fo. 726.

1474, 8th December.—Warrant of 14 Edward IV. to Richard Copeote, to provide whatever was requisite for “bumbardos, canones, culverynes, fowelers, serpentynes, et alios canones quoscumque, ac pulveres, sulphir, saltpetyr, petras, ferrum, plumbum, et omnimodas alias stuffuras, pro eisdem canonibus necessarias et oportunas,” &c.—Same, fo. 841.

1475.—In the enumeration of the English forces in the fourteenth year of Edward IV., we find ordnance repeatedly mentioned. [240]—Same, fo. 844.

Same year,—With the forces of Edward IV., when in France, there were a great number of men whose province it was to pitch their tents, attend upon their artillery, and enclose their camp, “pour servir a leur artillerie et clorre leur cāp.”—Philippe de Commines, book iv. ch. v. fo. 93.

1475.—Before the interview between the English and French Kings, Edward IV. was about a league from Picquigny, “accompaigné de vignt mille Anglois bien artillez de dās son dit parc.”—Nouvelles Chroniques added to Monstrelet, fo. 181.

1480.—Edward IV., in his preparations for the invasion of Scotland, with an army commanded by the Duke of Gloucester, “wherefore al the winter season he mustred his souldiers, prepared his ordinance, rigged his shippes, and left nothyng apperteignying to the warre unpurveyed or unloked for.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 54.

“even in the winter season mustered his men, prepared his artillery, and rigged his ships, that nothing should bee unready at the next spring.”—Speed’s Annals, fo. 876.

1480–1, 2nd March.—Warrant of 20th Edward IV. to William Temple, to seize and provide for the expedition against Scotland, whatever was requisite for “bumbardos, canones, culverynes, fowelers, serpentynes, et alios canones quoscumque, ac pulveres, sulphureos, saltpetre, petras, ferrum, plumbum, et omnimodas, alias stuffuras, pro eisdem canonibus necessarias et oportunas,” &c.—12 Fædera, fo. 140.

1482, 30th June.—Warrant of 22nd Edward IV. to the Bishop of Lincoln, Keeper of the Privy Seal, authorising him to cause John Ebryngton, Treasurer of the Household, to pay £200 “unto our moost dere brothre Richard Duc of Gloucestre, for the cariage of his ordenance into Scotland.”  The carriage of the ordnance is afterwards twice mentioned, and it then directs the payment of £100 “unto the Maistre of oure Ordenance, for the bying of 120 draught horsez, for the cariage of our seid Ordenance fro our seid towne of Newcastell, northward,” &c.—12 Fædera, fo. 158. [241]

That document consequently furnishes another instance of a Master of the Ordnance prior to the reign of Richard III. [242]

1483 to 1485.—King Richard III., in altering the north part of Warwick Castle, “beganne and half finished a mighty towre, or strength, for to shoote out gunnes.”—4 Lel. Itin. fol. 163b.

1483.—On the 30th of December there was a great fire at Leadenhall, in London, which, besides other damage, burnt “all the stockes for gunnes, and other like provision, belonging to the Citty.”—Stow’s Annals, fo. 466.

1485.—In the account given by Philippe de Commines, of the assistance afforded by the French King to the Earl of Richmond, for his expedition to England, it is stated that “Peu de temps apres, ou luy paya trois ou quatre mille hommes, pour le passage seulement: et fut baillee par le Roy qui est de present, à ceux qui estoyent avec luy, une bonne somme d’argent, et quelques pieces d’artillerie: et ainsi fut conduict, avec le navire de Normandie, pour descendre en Galles, dont il estoit.”—Philippe de Commines, 5me livre, fo. 151.

Same year.—In the act of attainder passed after the battle of Bosworth, it is stated that the forces and adherents of Richard III. were “with banners spred, mightyly armed and defenced with all manner armes, as gunnes, bowes, arrowes, speres, gleves, axes, and all other manner articles apt or needful to gef and cause mightie battaille agen oure said soveraigne Lord,” &c.  Rot. Parl. 1 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 276; see Appendix No. III.

1485.—“Cannon balls, of a small size, have also been dug up in the field of the battle of Bosworth.”—Hutton’s Bosworth Field, pp. 82 and 97.

Same year.—In the 1st Henry VII., Nicholas Leventhorp held the office of “keping of the artillerie within the castell of Pountfrett, parcell of the Duchie of Lancastre, within the countie of York,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 1 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 341.

1487.—Documents selected from the Municipal Archives of the city of York, connected with the Earl of Lincoln’s rebellion, and the imposture of Lambert Simnel, in the reign of Henry VII., have been published: one of which is of the 23rd of April, 1487, from the mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, and common council of York, to the King, representing that the “said citie is not well furnesshed with artilment and stuff of ordnaunce,” and praying that “some of youre ordnaunce and artilment of werr might be sent hidder.”

Collection of “Original documents relating to Lambert Symnell’s rebellion, in the second year of King Henry VII.;” selected from the Municipal Archives of the city of York, by Robert Davies, Esq., F.S.A.; communicated to the meeting of the Archæological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, held at York, in 1846: published in 1847, p. 10.

A reply, of the 30th of April, written by order of the King, to the application, has been preserved, stating that William Tunstall, constable of the castle of Scarborough, was ordered, by royal letters, to deliver to them “twelve serpentynes, some more some less, of diverse sortes, garnysshed with chambre and powder thereunto according.”—Ibid., p. 15.

A further communication, of the 14th of May, was made from the mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, &c., of York, to the King, representing that he had addressed William Tunstall, the constable of the castle of Scarborough, by letter, “for 12 serpentynes, with chambre and powdre garnysshed sufficiently for the same,” to be delivered to that city; and that they had applied accordingly for them, and had been answered “by your said constable, that ther is not 4 serpentynes within your said castell;” and praying the King “to provide for ordinaunce to be sent to this your said citie, for the more defence of the same.”—Ibid., pp. 20, 21.

1487.—In the act of attainder, passed after the battle of Stoke, against the Earl of Lincoln and his adherents, it is stated that they were “with force and armes, that ys to saye, swerdys, speris, marespikes, bowes, gonnes, harneys, brigandynes, hawberkes, and many other wepyns and harneys defensible,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 3 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 397; see App. No. V.

1492, 8th Henry VII.—In the request and application to Henry VII. by the commanders of the English army before Boulogne, for concluding peace, one reason assigned is, “the King’s ordinaunce and artillerye must nedys come by sea from Englond and Caleis,” &c.—12 Fædera, fo. 492.

1495.—The act of attainder against Sir William Stanley and others, alleged to have been adherents of Perkin Warbeck, states, that the latter landed at Deal, in Kent, on the 3rd of July, in the tenth year of Henry VII., accompanied by a great multitude of people, rebels and traitors, “with baners displayed, and with armours defensives, as jakkes, salettis, brigandynes, bowes, billes, haubertes, curesses, gunnes, speres, marispikes, crosse-bowes, and other enhabilments of warres,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 11 Henry VII., 1495, vol. vi. fo. 504.

1497.—In the preparations for the battle of Blackheath, between Henry the VII.th’s forces and the Cornish insurgents, some of the commanders in the army of the former “were appointed, with some cornets of horse, and bandes of foot, and good store of artillery wheeling about, to put themselves beyond the hill, where the rebels were encamped,” &c.—Bacon’s Life of Henry VII. (in Kennett’s Lives of the Kings and Queens of England), fo. 619.

CHAPTER XI.
THE
ANCIENT FAMILY
OF
WYCHE, OR DE LA WYCHE,
OF ALDERLEY, CHESHIRE. [245a]

The ancient family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, was located at a very early period at Davenham, and afterwards removed to Nether Alderley, in Cheshire, where the members of it possessed an estate, and a mansion called Soss Moss Hall, [245b] which, after being for several generations in the family, were purchased by Sir Edward Stanley, Bart., in 1753, from William Wyche, Esq.; [245c] and are now the property of Sir Edward’s descendant, Lord Stanley of Alderley.

The family appears to have been of great consideration, and of long standing in the county, and one of the family, Sir Peter Wyche, was ambassador to Constantinople, in the reign of Charles I.; [245d] he was first cousin of Richard Wyche, the first of the family who settled at Alderley.

The armorial bearings of the members of the family were, “Azure, a pile ermine; crest, an arm embowed azure, cuffed ermine, holding a trefoil vert.” [246a]  In the second volume of Edmonson’s Heraldry, the crest is rather differently stated, viz., crest, “a dexter arm embowed, habited gules, turned up or; holding in the hand proper a sprig vert.”

In Lysons’ Magna Britannia the family is named [246b] amongst the Cheshire families still resident in the county, whose descent has been continued in an uninterrupted male line for more than three centuries, and some of them for a much greater length of time. [246c]

In Ormerod’s Cheshire [246d] it is stated that some of the descendants of the family of Wyche were still remaining in the neighbourhood of Soss Moss Hall; that work was published in 1819: and in Lysons’ Mag. Britannia, [246e] which was published in 1810, it is stated that the immediate descendant of this ancient family, then (in 1810), rented a farm in the neighbourhood.

It lies in my power to corroborate those statements.  William Wyche, a tenant of my father, Richard Brooke, Esq., of Liverpool, resided, when those works were written, and during many years previously, on a farm which belongs to my father, [247] rather more than a mile from Soss Moss Hall; the farm, which is called the Peck Mill Farm, is in Little Warford, in the parish of Rostherne, and there is not any reason to doubt that William Wyche, the tenant, was, as he claimed to be, a lineal descendant of this ancient family.  He was an old man, of limited education even for a small farmer, so much so that if he could read, he could not write perfectly.  He died about 1821, and the farm was then occupied by his widow, Elizabeth Wyche, for several years, and afterwards by his son, Samuel Wyche, who was in very poor circumstances, and left it in 1839.

On the 28th of April, 1822, and again on 26th of December, 1831, I went to look at Soss Moss Hall; and on the 4th of September, 1848, I happened to be at the Peck Mill Farm, and feeling a desire once more to examine the seat of this ancient family, I walked from the farm to Soss Moss, to amuse myself with another inspection of the old hall, and I found little or no change in it since my first visit.  It stands about three hundred yards to the southward of the public road at Soss Moss, in Nether Alderley, and about half that distance from the London and North-Western (formerly the Manchester and Birmingham) Railway, which lies between the road and the mansion.  It is two stories high, besides having one or two rooms in the roof, and is of very antique appearance, principally built of timber and plaster, the timber being disposed in squares, in the style sometimes called “pillar and panel.”  On the east end is the following inscription, cut in antique letters, in stone, on a projecting stack of chimneys, or range of chimney flues, of great size:—

T. WYCHE
1583
which, no doubt, gives the correct date of the building or rebuilding of the eastern wing.  In a room in the western wing, used as a dairy or milk-room, is a stone slab (similar to those used in dairies for placing vessels of milk upon), with the letters cut on it, in similar characters, E W.  W W.  Of course they relate to other members of the family of Wyche.

On entering the edifice, we come into a room on the ground floor, now used as what is there termed a house-place (partaking in some degree both of the nature of a sitting-room and a kitchen), lighted by a large window, with small panes of glass let into lead, in the cottage style; over it is a border of carved small round ornaments, resembling the roundles of heraldry.  This room has evidently been once the large hall, or part of the large hall, or principal room of the mansion; it has much the appearance of having had a portion of the east end cut off to form other rooms, on the ground floor, which are now used for various purposes; at present it looks small and insignificant for such a mansion.

The ceiling of this room is formed of oak planks, quite black, with strong heavy beams of oak of the same colour.  It has had a very large projecting chimney, with chimney-corners and a fire-place; but, although the form and appearance remain, it is in part built up, and a common modern grate and fire-place are substituted.

The principal staircase is of oak planks, and its balustrade is of the same wood, with large flat balusters, and a heavy carved hand-rail, all black with age.  On the first floor, up the stairs, on the landing, in one of the bed-chambers, and in a cheese-room, the old oak floors remain nearly entire; and the oak floor also partially remains in another room at the eastern end of the building, on the same story; into this room a communication was not long since made from the bed-chamber before mentioned, and in making it the workmen discovered that they were merely reopening an old door-case (which had been long blocked up), with its jambs and lintel.

The room into which the communication was so opened had formerly been let off as part of a distinct dwelling; it lies at the eastern extremity of the mansion, and is now used as a bedchamber.  It is remarkable for being the place of discovery of an ancient painting, which it is to be regretted was never seen by any person capable of copying or properly describing it.  The old hall is now tenanted by a farmer, who informed me that, in 1847, when he was making a fire-place in it, at the east end, and close to the range of chimney-flues before mentioned, with which the fire-place now communicates, he caused some plaster to be removed, and by that removal exposed to view a painting on stone, representing several men and females, about five or six inches in height.  The only description which he could give me of them was, that they appeared to him to have very droll dresses, like long flowing robes, of different colours, with ornaments, which he supposed to represent large buttons; that some of the figures had curiously shaped hats (his description of them conveyed to me the idea of their being something in the style of Spanish hats), and he stated that the painting did not appear to him to represent any Scripture subject.  It was covered over again with building materials when the fire-place was completed.  It is much to be regretted that the figures were not copied, or at least examined by some person conversant with such subjects; as it is more than probable that they would have afforded a curious and authentic illustration of the dresses of persons of the higher classes, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, about 1583.  Some slight indications of a similar painting were once visible, over the fire-place, in a room on the ground floor under the room which will be next described.

There is also, on the first floor, and at the east end of the mansion, another chamber, which once had a door of communication with the room in which the painting was discovered, but of which the door-way, though visible, is now built up, and which is at present entered from the outside of the building, by a modern staircase and door.  In this chamber there is a closet, built of stone, and ingeniously built into and forming part of the stack or range of chimney-flues before mentioned.  The chamber has a fire-place, on the left of which is the stone closet before mentioned, which was once entered by a thin oaken door, of which the lower half still remains, the upper portion having been sawn off.  The closet has been lighted from the outside, by two small apertures in the stone work at the back of it, now built up. [250a]

I could not discover that there were any traces of the old hall having ever been surrounded by a moat, as is the case with some other halls near that part of Cheshire. [250b]

Upon the whole, considering that it belonged to a family of eminence in the county, I was disappointed with the size of Soss Moss Hall, the appearance of the rooms, and the want of the conveniences and comforts which, even three centuries ago, such a family might be reasonably supposed to require; nor does the hall convey to a spectator the idea of a mansion formerly inhabited by a leading family in the county.  Besides which, the situation of the hall is bad: it is quite in a flat, the soil is poor and sandy; the public road near it was bad in several places, within my recollection; and, from the appearance of bog-earth in many situations close to it, there cannot be a doubt that, less than three centuries ago, the land about it must have been wet, and almost a swamp; and certainly it was not the situation which we should expect a family of a certain rank in the county, to select for their principal mansion.

The last time that I heard anything of the son of old William Wyche was in September, 1848, when I learnt that he had been for some time an ostler at a small inn at Knutsford, and had since been a labouring gardener at Manchester, or in its vicinity, and was then in very indifferent circumstances, and out of work.  Such has been the falling away, and sad reverse, in the fortunes of the old and once high and influential Cheshire family of Wyche, or De la Wyche!

CHAPTER XII.
WILMSLOW CHURCH,
CHESHIRE. [253a]

The village of Wilmslow is in the hundred of Macclesfield, in Cheshire, and before the introduction of railways, the mail-coach road from Manchester to Birmingham passed through it.  It has not the advantage of having a market, but has some little trade, and possesses the convenience of being one of the stations of the London and North-Western (formerly the Manchester and Birmingham) Railway, which passes close to it; and it is pleasantly situate on the south bank of the river Bollin, which there flows through a picturesque and beautiful valley.

The parish of Wilmslow (anciently called Le Bolyn) contains four townships:—Bollin Fee, which comprehends the hamlets of Bollin-cum-Norcliffe, Hough, and Dean Row; Pownall Fee, which comprehends the hamlets of Morley and Styal; Chorley, also comprehended in the manor of Pownall Fee; and Fulshaw.

Wilmslow, in strictness, singularly enough, consists exclusively of the parish church with its churchyard, and of a small plot of land, now covered with buildings, near the church; and nearly the whole of the town is built in the hamlets of Hough and Dean Row.

The church is dedicated to St. Bartholomew, and is built of dark-coloured stone, close to the river, and consequently derives no advantage from elevation or position.  The tower is ornamented with battlements and pinnacles, and has a peal of six bells; and both the tower and the church are of the Gothic style of architecture, though with some modern alterations.  The church has evidently been rebuilt and considerably altered, at various periods, one of the latest of which must have been not long prior to the Reformation; and it has a clerestory and rood-loft.  The nave of the church is spacious, and on each side of it, and of the chancel, are lofty and pointed arches, supported by octagonal pillars.

The pulpit has some handsome carved work, of a style which was common in the time of Elizabeth and James I.  On each side of the chancel is an oratory or chapel.  These chapels are separated from the altar, by projecting wing-walls, and also from the body of the chancel, by portions of an oaken screen, much mutilated; but the portions which remain are sufficient to show that it has been handsome; and on the south side, some small Tudor roses are yet visible in many parts; and a continuation of the wood-work, much defaced, extends under the rood-loft, so as to separate the chancel from the nave.

The chapel on the south side of the chancel is called the Earl of Stamford’s Chapel, or the Booth Chapel.  The present Earl of Stamford is a descendant of the family of that name.  It contains a massive raised tomb, evidently of very great antiquity, built against the wall on the south side, and bearing a strong resemblance to an altar; the inscription, if it ever contained any, is now quite obliterated.  A grave-stone near it commemorates the “fifth son of S. William Booth, of Dunham Massey, who departed this life the 28th day of March, 1620,” at least so the date appeared to me; but there is some difficulty in deciding upon the two last figures of it, because the wood-work of a partition nearly covers them.  Adjoining to it is another grave-stone, much defaced, to the memory of Lady Elizabeth Booth, who died on the 14th June, 1636.  It appears, from a statement of donations painted up in another part of the church, that this lady benevolently left a sum of money, for the distribution of twelve loaves of bread weekly, to poor aged persons in Wilmslow; a dole which is still kept up.

In this chapel, close to the left side of the door, on entering from the churchyard, is an ancient pew, with carved panels at the back, on one of which are cut the following initials and date:—

S G B B
1557.

Probably meant for Sir George Booth, of Bollin, because at one period, the Booths resided at Bollin Hall, near Wilmslow, which was, after many mutations and alterations, reduced to the rank of a farmhouse, and was at last pulled down, when the railway was made.

The chapel or oratory, on the north side of the chancel and altar, is called the Pownall Chapel, and in its east window are four scrolls, in stained glass, each containing the words, “Ego autem in Dño gaudebo.” [255b]  On the north side of the chapel, is a piscina [255a] in the wall; and on the south side, on the floor, close to the projecting wing-wall, separating it from the altar, is a grave-stone, evidently of great antiquity, with a singularly shaped cross carved upon it, the ends of the arms of which are sloped off, instead of being carved square; and the inscription is almost illegible, except that on each side of the cross, there are yet to be seen the initials T H S, in the old characters.

At the east end of the chancel, is a large and handsome altar window, of the Perpendicular Gothic style; and on the outside, immediately above it, is a carved shield of arms, containing “the Griffin segreant,” the armorial bearing of the Traffords.  In the projecting wall, on the north side of the altar, is a small square open recess, apparently intended, in former ages, for an almbury, or aumbery, in which the sacred vessels, and articles used in the celebration of the mass, were usually kept.  The roof of the church is very handsome, of oak, the cross beams being elaborately carved, and in various places in the roof, the initial letters H. T. appear in the ancient character, doubtless intended for Henry Trafford, the last rector of Wilmslow, before the overthrow of the Papal supremacy, and the first of that rectory of the Reformed religion, if the Reformation can strictly be said to have been established, during the lifetime of the capricious monarch, Henry VIII.  I shall have occasion to say more of this ecclesiastic hereafter.  There are also one or two shields of arms painted on the beams, containing “the Griffin segreant, gules;” they furnish additional proof, that a large portion of the church, and probably the roof, were rebuilt or renovated, just before the Reformation.  Amongst other ornaments on the roof, an etoile, or star, appears painted in several places where the beams intersect each other. [256]

The font is massive, quite devoid of ornament, and bears the appearance of great antiquity.

At the west end of the church is an arch, which is said to have formerly opened into the belfry of the tower; it is an exact segment of a circle; but as it has not the slightest appearance of the zig-zag, or dog’s-tooth, or any other of the ornaments so generally met with, on Norman arches, I am of opinion that it is of a comparatively modern date, and was probably erected when a portion of the church and its tower were rebuilt or altered, not long before the Reformation.  This idea receives some degree of countenance from the circumstance, that on the south-west corner of the outside of the tower, is a niche with its carved canopy, which formerly contained an image, said to have been that of the Virgin Mary.

The church porch, which fronts the south, has been handsome, and much ornamented, but is now considerably defaced, and over the porch entrance is a handsomely carved niche with its canopy, [257a] which is said to have contained an image of Saint Bartholomew, the tutelary saint of the church; but at present, in lieu of the old saint, the niche is disfigured by an unsightly slab, or piece of stone, of a different colour to the rest of the stonework near it, let into the niche with an inscription, communicating the important fact, that certain good men were churchwardens some thirty or forty years ago. [257b]  The fact of the existence on the walls of an old church, of niches, which contain, or formerly contained, images, is a sufficient proof, that they must have been erected, at least before the Reformation.

On the south side of the nave of the church is a chapel, projecting into the churchyard, called the Hawthorn Chapel, which, in the last century but one, belonged to a junior branch of the Leighs, of Hawthorn Hall, near Wilmslow.  The arms of Leigh, “argent, a lion rampant, gardant, gules,” with a crescent for difference, and also the crest of the family, appear painted over an arch, which connects it with the church, and also in stained glass in the window of the chapel.

This chapel appears, from the style of its window, to have been rebuilt or altered, since the general prevalence of the Gothic style, but as some remains of inscriptions, in ancient characters, have been discovered on its walls, the inference is, that it is an old chapel rebuilt or much altered.

Hawthorn Hall, and the estate belonging to it, afterwards came from the Leighs to the family of Page, who were the proprietors of it, and resided there, during a considerable part of the eighteenth century, and at last sold it to a person named Bower, and it is now used as a school.  It is about half a mile from Wilmslow, and is an antique brick mansion, with large gables, and a small cupola, and much resembles the style of mansions which were in fashion during the reign of William III., said to have been adopted from the Dutch.  The same armorial bearings, before mentioned, of the Leighs, with the crescent for difference, appears over the principal entrances, on the north and south fronts of the mansion; and on the lead spouts are the initials of one of the Leighs, J L, and the date, 1698; which probably may also give us a hint of the date of the rebuilding of the chapel.

In my observations on Wilmslow Church, I ought not to omit mentioning, that in the churchyard, at the east end, is an ancient grave-stone, with the date 1596, and on the north side of the church is another, of the same date, inscribed with the names, “Phe. Dale.” [258]

Under the altar is an under-ground chapel or sacristy, which at one time was unworthily used as a charnel-house, and when I visited it, in January, 1849, it was a place of deposit for bricks and rubbish; I am glad to hear that they have since been removed.  With some difficulty I entered it from the churchyard, by an opening which exists under the large altar window.  It is not vaulted with stone, as might have been expected, but the wooden floor near the altar forms its roof.  Three recesses, resembling sedilia, in the Gothic style, and which, if they had been discovered near an altar, would be at once pronounced to be sedilia, are formed in the wall in front of the opening, and the centre one has an inclined groove on each side, cut into the stone, which rather conveys the impression as if a temporary desk, for reading, had formerly been sometimes fixed up there.  It is lighted by loopholes, opening into the churchyard; and on the south side is a narrow winding staircase, of which many of the steps remain, which at one time gave access from the altar to it, but the communication is now built up.  The steps in it commence under a plain Gothic arch, and the staircase was lighted by a loophole, which still remains.

The following is a list of the names of the various Rectors of Wilmslow, from 1339:—[259a]

Hugo Fitton.

1339—2nd September

Thomas de Chatterton.

Thomas Ffrost.

1412—28th April

Galfridus Boseley.

Willielmus de Bothe.

1418—26th Julii

Georgius Radcliffe.

Galfridus Boseley.

1419—11th September

Georgius Radcliffe.

1425—20th October

Ricardus Radcliffe.

1456—

Radulphus Davenport.

1500—13th February

Robertus Broke.

1522—Ante

Henry Trafford, D.D. [259b]

1537—Circa

Henry Ryle.

1542—

Henry Trafford.

1591—30th September

William Massie, B.D.

1610—27th August

Thomas Wright.

1654—12th December, ante

John Brereton.

1660—

Thomas Wright.

1661—28th November

Peter Ledsham.

1673—16th February

Francis Mosley.

1699—24th August

John Usherwood, A.M.

1705—9th December

Joshua Wakefield.

1718—21st November

Henry Moore, D.D.

1770—4th March

Edward Berresford, A.M.

1787—16th April

Croxton Johnson, LL.B.

1814—28th March

Joseph Bradshaw, A.M.

The Rev. John Matthias Turner, D.D., afterwards Bishop of Calcutta, succeeded to the rectory about 1823, an interval having elapsed subsequent to the death of Mr. Bradshaw, about 1820, during which the living was in sequestration.

The present rector is the Rev. William Brownlow, M.A., who succeeded the Rev. Dr. Turner, in 1829.

Whilst describing Wilmslow Church, although I avow myself a Protestant, and a member of the Church of England, without any kind of leaning towards the Church of Rome, and without even admiration of her rites or ceremonies, I feel myself called upon, as an act of common justice to our Roman Catholic predecessors, to mention, that I have remarked, both in Wilmslow Church, and in various other ancient churches erected before the Reformation, that they appear better calculated for hearing, or, in other words, for the transmission of sound, than more modern churches; yet we might suppose that the large arches and massive pillars in the former would militate against that effect.  It may be that the architects of an age gone by, understood the science of acoustics better than those of our time, and I throw out the suggestion (without giving any confident opinion), whether the pillars, arches, and carved oak roof, may not have the effect of preventing the too great number of pulses, or repetitions of sound in a given time, by returns from the walls, on the principle, that although the human voice in a large room, quite devoid of furniture, carpets, curtains, or a crowded assembly, will often produce a confused and indistinct echo, yet the resonance of the room becomes diminished, and the reverberation of sound becomes less, and consequently we can sometimes hear better, when the speaker is delivering his address in the room, when it is properly furnished, and contains a number of auditors.  I may also add, that there is not any place of worship which I have been accustomed to attend, where I am more impressed (if so much) with feelings of devotion, than when attending divine service in this and other ancient churches erected before the Reformation; whether those feelings may arise from the reflection forcing itself upon the mind, that generations after generations of our fellow-creatures have worshipped there, and died since the walls of the sacred edifice were erected, or whether the massive walls, pillars, arches, and Gothic windows, naturally produce a certain degree of solemnity or seriousness on the mind, I cannot say; I can only speak to the effect which I have mentioned, be the cause what it may.

There is a very ancient chest in the vestry, in which are contained the parish books, which is said to be 500 years old.  It is formed out of one solid block of oak, nearly four feet wide, by five feet long, and three feet deep.

On the north side of the altar, and erected as a continuation of the wing-wall before mentioned, is a very remarkable and perfect monument.  On an altar-tomb, [261] and in flowing ecclesiastical robes, lies, the size of life, the effigy of Henry Trafford, who was rector of Wilmslow, both whilst the Roman Catholic religion was predominant here, and after the overthrow of the Papal supremacy.  He obtained the living at least as early as 1522, and died in 1537; and the figure is interesting, as combining, so to speak, badges of both the old and the reformed religion.  The head has the tonsure or shaven crown, but it rests upon a large clasped book, evidently intended for a Bible: a combination which I do not recollect having ever seen in any other monument.  On the leaves of the Bible, parts of a short inscription are visible; but I was not able to read more than the words “ut non,” which are not very legible.  Round the four upper edges of the tomb is the following inscription, which unfortunately is not cut, but painted on the stone, and although now legible, it is by no means certain that it will long continue so:—

“Hic jacet corp’ Mr. Henr’ci Treffort sacre theologie doctor lice’ciat quo’d’ ca’celarii metropolit’ eccl’ie Ebor’ et Rector de Holtō psōn Rector etia ’eccl’sie de Siglisthorn & i’ti eccl’ie qui obiit primo die me’s’ Augusti ann’ D’ni - - - MCCCCCXXXVII cuj’ ai’e o’ipote’s De’ sit p’pti’.”

In English the inscription reads thus:—

Here lies the body of Mr. Henry Trafford, a Doctor in Divinity, formerly Surrogate of the Chancellor of the Metropolitan Church of York, and Rector of Halton, Parson and Rector of the Church of Sigglisthorne, and of this Church, who died on the first day of the month of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand five hundred and thirty-seven: to whose soul be the Almighty God merciful.

In Lysons’ Mag. Brit. [262a] it is stated, that on the side of this tomb are painted an emaciated body, and scrolls with inscriptions, in text-hand.  I however could not discover any trace of them, and probably they have been for some time defaced.

In the reign of Henry V. the advowson of Wilmslow came to the family of Trafford, and now belongs to Sir T. J. De Trafford, [262b] Bart.

In the north wall of the Pownall Chapel are two obtuse arches, with crockets and foliage; one containing a tomb, on which rests the figure of a man, in flowing robes, his head resting between two tuns or casks, with a scroll on his body, containing the word “Neuton.”  The adjoining one contains a tomb, on which rests the figure of a female, in a flowing robe, with the head resting on a garb, or sheaf of corn, and with a purse or pouch attached to her girdle.  Both tombs have fronts, ornamented with remains of carved work and shields, but they are so much in the dark, by the construction of the seats, and the valances in the pews, that even with a candle which the sexton brought me, I could not discover any armorial bearings.  The pew adjoining the tomb which has the figure of the man, was not long ago used by the residents of Pownall Hall, near Wilmslow, which formerly belonged to an ancient family named Fitton, afterwards to another named Pownall, and, after passing through many hands, was purchased by Mr. John Worrall, in 1817, and was again sold, some eighteen or nineteen years ago, to James Pownall, Esq., [263a] of Liverpool, who resided there for some time after his purchase.

It is well known what a proneness existed, during the middle ages, to make punning rebuses, even in sacred buildings; and if the male figure be intended for the effigy of Humphrey Newton, after mentioned, I cannot discover a reason for the head of that figure being placed or fitted between two tuns or casks, which appears intended as a rebus or figurative enigma on the word Fit-ton, and has no allusion, that I am aware of, to the word Newton.  I do not mean to hazard any opinion as to the time when the word “Neuton” was inscribed on it; but, if it were originally inscribed there, I cannot see the application of the punning rebus to the name Newton.  I could not find the slightest trace of any inscription except that, on either of the monuments; but we are informed, on the authority of Ormerod, [263b] that on the man’s tomb was formerly the following inscription:—“Orate pro Humphrido Neuton de Pownall Armigero, et Elena uxore ejus, fil: et hered: Tho. Fitton et Cecilie ux: ejus, qui obiit A.D. MCCCCC.”  A modern inscription, in stained glass, also commemorating Humphrey Newton and Ellen his wife, has been recently placed in the window above the tomb.

In the chancel, in the front of the altar, is a grave-stone, with brasses, representing a male and female, Sir Robert Booth, Knight, of Bollin and Dunham, and Douce, his wife, with the right hand of the former clasping that of the latter.  This Sir Robert Booth is said [264a] to have been slain at the battle of Blore Heath, in the wars of York and Lancaster; and there is every reason to believe the statement, which is corroborated in a remarkable manner, by the fact that the battle was fought on St. Tecla’s day, [264b] 1459, which saint’s day is mentioned in the inscription on the brass, as the date of his death.  The following is a copy of the inscription, given by Ormerod:[264c]—“Hic jacent corpus Roberti del Bothe, militis, quondam d’ni de Bolyn, Thorneton, et Dunh’m qui obiit in festo s’ce Tecle Virginis anno domini mill’mo ccccLX [264d] et corpus Dulcie ux’ris d’ci Rob’ti del Bothe que obiit in castrino s’cte be’e Virginis anno Domini mill’mo CCCC quinquagesimo tercio, quorum animabus p’p’tietur Deus.  Amen.”

Some parts of the inscription have been purloined or lost, and some portions are preserved in the vestry, and a small part still remains affixed to the stone; but if the inscription given by Ormerod be correct, as there is reason to believe, one or two fragments, which probably got loose, have been injudiciously riveted on, in wrong places.  Immediately following the part of the date relating to the husband, “mill’mo CCCC,” the pieces of brass containing the words “quinquagesimo tercio, quorum animabus p’p’tietur Deus. Amen,” have been riveted on in a wrong place, and, so far from having any relation to the death of the husband, clearly allude to the death of the wife, in 1453, and conclude with the prayer so common, in those times, for the souls of both of them.

Such portions of the inscription as I could ascertain, from a careful inspection both of the parts of the inscription and brass fixed to the stone, and of the parts which are loose, are marked in italics in the above copy of the inscription. [265a]

The brass has originally had a handsome Gothic canopy engraved over each figure, but at present one portion, that over the husband, is missing.  He is represented without a helmet, and bareheaded, and in the armour of that age, but without gauntlets (which indeed would have been a little incongruous, as he is clasping the hand of his wife), and with a plated gorget, and rather remarkable pauldrons; his feet rest upon a greyhound, and near them is a shield of four quarters, of which the dexter chief only can be deciphered, which represents a lion passant gardant.  The wife is represented in a loose robe, with her hair flowing, and without any kind of head-dress, except a narrow fillet or band, on which precious stones appear to have been represented, and at her feet is a small dog; over her head is a shield, on which is a bend with three garbs.  A similar coat of arms appears on the wood-work attached to a seat, situate very near the grave, carved boldly, and evidently at a remote period back, and it is also seen in stained glass in the large altar window; it appears to be the arms of Fitton, which were, “argent, on a bend azure, three garbs, or.”  Some few other armorial bearings and fragments of stained glass, but in very indifferent preservation, may be seen in the window of the chancel. [265b]

In concluding, I must here express my regret that this interesting monument should be so situated as to be exposed to great risk of injury, and even of destruction.  It is usually covered by a mat, but that is not a certain safeguard against its being worn and trampled under foot, by persons passing through the chancel, and it is close to the place where the charity children sit, a class of beings not very likely to respect old monuments.  The same plan might be advantageously pursued respecting it, which has been successfully adopted with other monuments, in other churches: it might, at a very trivial expense, be removed, with the grave-stone to which it is attached, and placed, in an upright position, on one of the walls of the chancel, and a common grave-stone might be put down in the place of the present one, with a few words engraved, commemorating the removal.  The inscription on the Trafford tomb might, at a light expense, be cut in, by a skilful man, so as to be a copy, verbatim et literatim, of the words now painted on it, and precisely in their present characters and places, in order to prevent the inscription from being lost.

It is to be hoped that some of the members of the families of the personages interred under the two last-named monuments, will adopt some plan, with the sanction of the rector, for their preservation; if not, it would be judicious for some few individuals, who possess sufficient taste to appreciate those interesting memorials of an age long past, to set on foot a small subscription, and adopt measures to preserve them from further injury or mutilation.

The following lines, from Crabbe, [266] may, without impropriety, be quoted here, after describing the ancient monuments in the church:

“Wonder not, mortal, at thy quick decay.
See! men of marble piecemeal melt away;
When whose the image we no longer read,
But monuments themselves memorials need.”

CHAPTER XIII.
HANDFORD HALL
AND
CHEADLE CHURCH,
CHESHIRE. [267a]

Handford is a township of the parish of Cheadle, in Cheshire, in the hundred of Macclesfield, intersected by the London and North Western (formerly the Manchester and Birmingham) Railway, and situated eleven miles from Manchester, and five miles south-west-by-south from Stockport.

The village of Handford is agreeably situated in a pleasant part of Cheshire, upon the turnpike-road leading from Manchester to Wilmslow and Congleton.  On entering the village from the northward, a neat but small country church, of brick, which is a chapel-of-ease under Cheadle, lying on the left side of the road, and a well-built National School, on the right, are conspicuous objects.

The Village Green is noticed by Sir William Brereton, Bart., of Handford, whose family I shall soon have occasion to advert to, and whose travels in Holland, England, &c. &c., in 1634 and 1635, have been published by the Cheetham Society, in vol. i. of the Cheetham Papers.  He refers to the Village Green, [268a] when narrating his travels in Scotland, and in describing one of the places of public entertainment, he calls it “a poorer house than any upon Handforth Green;” and again [268b] he afterwards states that he had been in a small tavern in Ireland, “a little low thatched Irish house, not to be compared unto Jane Kelsall’s, of the Green at Handforth.” [268c]  Her cottage has disappeared, and the Green has long been enclosed: no appearance of either of them now remains, and it may be a question whether portions of the railway and its station do not stand on what was once the south-eastern end of the Green; it is, however, to a certain degree, preserved from oblivion, by the field enclosed from its site, being still called the Green Field.

Handford is also sometimes known by the names of Hanford, Honford, Handforth, Handford-cum-Bosden, and Handforth-cum-Bosden (Handford being a joint township with the township of Bosden).  Some centuries ago the manor and estate of Handford belonged to the ancient family of Handford of Handford; then, by marriage, to that of Brereton, in the reign of Elizabeth; [268d] they afterwards passed, under a deed of settlement, to that of Booth, Sir William Brereton having, in the reign of Charles II., settled them, in default of male issue of his son, on Nathaniel Booth, Esq., of Mottram St. Andrew, in tail male; but the estate did not remain any considerable time with the Booths, and it soon became subdivided amongst various proprietors.  The manorial rights, however, remained a much longer period with the Booths; the manor having been sold and conveyed, in 1766, by Nathaniel, Baron Delamer, formerly Nathaniel Booth, Esq., and others, to Edward Wrench, Esq., of Chester; in 1805, it was again sold, to Mr. Joseph Cooper, of Handford; and, in 1808, it was once more sold, by the devisees in trust under his will, to Mr. William Pass, of Altrincham.

The family of Brereton, and also those of Grosvenor and Davenport, are mentioned by Ormerod, in his History of Cheshire, as families which can be proved, by ancient deeds, to have existed at or near the time of the Conquest.

I do not pretend to give a full historical account of the old family of Brereton, especially as some very interesting particulars respecting it, have been recently given by Sir Fortunatus Dwarris, in a paper, read before the Society of Antiquaries. [269a]  Sir Randle Brereton, of Shocklach and Malpas Hall, in Cheshire, grandson of the founder of that branch, was Chamberlain of Chester, in the 19th and 20th years of the reign of Henry VII., and one of the Knights of the body to that King.  He is mentioned generally as Chamberlain to Henry VII., in the 21st year of that monarch’s reign, and that he held that office twenty-six years, to the 23rd of Henry VIII., by whom he was made a Knight Banneret, as a reward for his conduct at Terouenne and Tournay.  He built the Brereton Chapel [269b] in the Church of Malpas, in 1522, where he was buried, leaving issue nine sons and three daughters. [269c]

Sir Randle Brereton’s second and ninth sons were founders respectively of the Tatton and the Handford branches of the Breretons.  His seventh son succeeded his father as Chamberlain of Chester, and was Groom of the Chamber to King Henry VIII.  He married Elizabeth, daughter of Charles Earl of Worcester, widow of Sir John Savage, and was beheaded, upon a most questionable charge of criminal intercourse with Queen Anne Boleyn, in 1536, when he was twenty-eight years of age, and a young married man.  It may be noticed incidentally that Queen Anne Boleyn’s favourite lap-dog (an Italian greyhound) was named Urian, the name of a brother of the Groom of the Chamber, and a family name in the Malpas Hall branch of the Brereton family, derived from the early Barons of Malpas.  “Trifles light as air are to the jealous confirmations strong as proofs of Holy Writ.”

Sir Urian Brereton, the ninth son of Sir Randle Brereton, of the Shocklach and Malpas Hall branch, married Margaret, the daughter and sole heiress of William Handford, Esq., of Handford.  His son, grandson, and great-grandson, were all of the name of William; and it was the latter (Sir William Brereton, Bart.), who was the distinguished Parliamentarian general, [270a] and whose achievements are so well known to persons who have devoted their attention to the unhappy war between Charles I. and the Parliament, in which—now that the excess of party-heat has long ago subsided, and the history of those times can be dispassionately considered—there is too much reason to believe that both parties were in the wrong.  His notorious aversion to church government, noticed by Clarendon, was probably heightened by circumstances; but he appears, by his early travels, to have been always of a sober, serious, and religious turn of mind, with a penchant for spicy sermons.  He married a daughter of Sir George Booth, who was considered the cornerstone of the Presbyterian interest in Cheshire, and is described by writers of the day as “free, grave, godly, brave Booth, the flower of Cheshire.”  Sir William Brereton was also the friend and neighbour of Henry Bradshaw, of Colonel Duckinfield, and of Lenthall; the latter of whom afterwards married his daughter.  The cruel and unjust execution of the Groom of the Chamber, by Henry VIII., rankled in the breasts of his family and connections; the imposition of ship-money had led Sir William Brereton into collision with the citizens of Chester; and he had disputes with the church and corporation of that city, about exemptions from tolls, and for murage, on account of his lands of St. Mary’s Nunnery in Chester, granted by the Crown to his family.

The before-mentioned William Brereton, of Handford, was created a Baronet in 1626–7, and the title became extinct on the death of Sir Thomas Brereton, Bart., in 1673. [271a]

A copy of the principal portion of the Pedigree of the Breretons, of Handford, [271b] so far as is necessary to elucidate the subject, will be given afterwards.

Another branch of this ancient family was that of the Breretons, of Brereton Hall, Cheshire.  It is, however, foreign to the purpose to go into any particulars with respect to that branch, here, further than to mention, that that branch was ennobled; and, as a proof of the divisions which existed in some of the principal families during the disastrous period of the civil war, Lord Brereton, of the latter branch, eminently distinguished himself by his devotion to the opposite cause, and raised troops and ventured his life and property on the part of King Charles I.  Lord Brereton was taken prisoner, with his wife and son; he suffered sequestration of his estates, and was ultimately reduced to compound for them, and to pay a composition for his son.  After the restoration, Lord Brereton was associated with the Earl of Derby, in the Lord Lieutenancy of the county of Chester; he was also member for the county in the first Parliament ensuing, as many of the members of his family had been in prior Parliaments. [271c]

The old hall at Handford, formerly the residence of the Breretons, lies nearly half a mile from and on the south-eastward side of the village, and is approached, after crossing the bridge built over the railway before mentioned, by a lane lending from thence into a pleasant and picturesque valley, through which a small brook runs, and after crossing it we arrive at the old hall.

This mansion, like many others situated in various parts of Cheshire, is principally built of timber and plaster, the timber being disposed in squares, which are filled up with plaster.  At the front or main door is a porch, the entrance to which is under a beam of oak, supported at each end by a very large beam, of that wood.  On the transverse beam, which forms what may be considered a kind of arch, at the entrance, the following inscription is carved, in Old English characters:—

“This haulle was buylded in the yeare of oure Lord God MCCCCCLXII by Uryan Breretoun Knight whom maryed Margaret daughter and heyre of Wyllyam Handforth of Handforthe Esquye and had issue III sonnes and II daughters”

Underneath the inscription, and on each side of the arch of the porch, are as follows:—On one side the letter V (for Urian), and on the other the letter B (for Brereton), and between them, on a border running along the arch, is carved a tun or cask (in the centre), and also a brier, the stem and foliage of which extend, on each side, from the tun to the before-mentioned letters; evidently a rebus punning upon the word “Brereton” (or “Brier-tun”).  At the upper part of the door-post of the porch, on the left-hand side, is an escutcheon with the arms of Brereton impaling those of Handford.  Ormerod calls it “the coat of arms of Brereton quartering Ipstones, and impaling Handford,” and adds, “Brereton has for difference a cross crosslet between the bars, and a crescent on the first bar.” [272a]  The last time that I visited the hall was on the 11th January, 1849, and then, possibly in consequence of the wearing effects of time and weather on the coat of arms, I was not able to discover any crescent, but I did distinguish the cross crosslet.  I could discern that there were some quarterings on the dexter side, but they were so impaired by time, that except those of Brereton proper, I could not clearly distinguish them. [272b]  The arms of Brereton are “Argent two bars sable, a crescent gules” [273a] (on the first bar); crest, “a bear’s head and neck, erased sable, muzzled gules.” [273a]  The arms of Handford (which are impaled with those of Brereton), are first and fourth, sable, a star argent pierced of the field, for Handford proper; second and third, gules, a scythe argent, for Praers; [273b] with which family the Handfords had formerly intermarried.  The wife’s arms are nearly perfect, and are plain to the sight, the sinister side of the carved escutcheon having suffered less than the dexter side: both sides are, however, too much worn to enable me to distinguish the metals or colours, even if the marks of discrimination were then used, or to decide whether the star (for Handford) was “pierced of the field.”

At the upper part of the corresponding or right door-post is the crest of the Breretons, a bear’s head and neck erased muzzled. [273c]  The fronts of the door-posts of the porch have also been ornamented with carving; and the before-mentioned border with the brier is also continued down to the ground, on each of the door-posts.

This mansion is stated by Ormerod to have originally formed a quadrangle, but I could not satisfy myself, by inspection, whether that had been the case, although it is clear that it was once much larger than it now is.  Early in 1849, in digging a drain in front of the hall, in a place which had been part of a garden, some human bones were found, with some wood, possibly parts of coffins, conveying an impression as if there had once been a place of interment there; but the remains were inconsiderable, and the researches were not pursued by any further excavation.  There were persons, who have not been very long dead, who used to say that there had been grave-stones existing as late as in the last century, close to the hall.  Traces of foundations have also been formerly discovered at the hall, conjectured to have formed part of a chapel; of course such a conjecture must be received with caution; as the mansion was once considerably larger, it does not follow that they may not have formed part of the foundations of other parts of it.

The hall has long been used as a farm-house, and belongs to the Rev. Henry Wright, of Mottram St. Andrew.

The brook before mentioned is one of the tributaries of a small river, called the Dean, and flows upon part of an estate at Handford, called the Brooke Farm, belonging to my father, Richard Brooke, Esq., [274] and which has been for a very long period in my family.  The brook separates that estate in part from the adjoining one held with the hall, belonging to the Rev. Henry Wright.  Some indications of fishponds and terraces may be seen in part of the field, which slopes down from the hall, towards the brook, conveying strongly the idea of the spot having been the site of a garden or pleasure-ground.  As a proof how indifferent and inattentive the families of high consideration in the county were, in comparatively recent times, to many of the conveniences and requisites which respectable families now consider indispensable, I may observe, that the only road from the highway and village to the hall, crossed the brook, and that there was not any bridge there until about 1846 or 1847. [275]  The Breretons must consequently have been obliged to cross it on horseback, or on stepping-stones, or have waded through it; and though the brook is quiet, and very shallow in dry weather, it is liable to rise and become much swollen after heavy rains, as I have more than once seen; and the act of crossing it in the dark, and after a continuance of wet weather, must have been a feat frequently attended not merely with much inconvenience, but with some danger.  That circumstance may be mentioned, as exhibiting a feature in the habits of the country gentry of consideration in Cheshire, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the Breretons resided at the hall.

The interior of Handford Hall has been much changed, and the rooms considerably altered; the alterations, however useful they may be to a farmer, are sad desecrations in the eyes of an antiquary; but still something remains to interest the latter.  The staircase is of oak, and is wide and handsome, with highly ornamented flat balusters, the upper part of which is curiously carved in open work, so as to form rather small and round-headed arches, cut through the wood, in a style occasionally used in the times of Elizabeth and James I.  Above the arches are carved ornaments, not unlike lozenges, and the balustrade is surmounted with a heavy carved handrail, all of oak; and the whole balustrade, though handsomer than that of Soss Moss Hall, described by me in a former paper, has some resemblance to it.  On the landing on the first floor, at the head of the stairs, is a large folding door, each fold of which is laid out in panels, on the lowest of which were formerly four ornaments of fleurs-de-lis, placed at the top, bottom, and on each side respectively; and each four pointing towards the centre of the panel; several of these fleurs-de-lis ornaments still remain.  Above them are other panels, each decorated with four lozenge-shaped ornaments, also disposed so that each points to the centre.  I was struck with the resemblance to the lozenge-shaped carved ornaments which are to be seen on the pulpit of Wilmslow Church, only a mile distant from Handford, and mentioned in a former paper.  The folding door before mentioned, opened into what was the principal apartment on that floor, but which is now quite stripped of all appearance of antiquity.  Several windows of the old hall have been modernized, but there are still some of them remaining, apparently as they have been for many generations, with small squares of glass let into lead, such as may be seen in many old houses.

There are several modern additions of brick, and other alterations in the hall, which detract from its appearance; still it has an air of antiquity, and correctly conveys the impression of having been the residence of a family of importance.

The chapel-of-ease, before mentioned, in the village of Handford, was built in 1837, by subscription of the landowners there, and of other benevolent persons; the scheme having been set on foot and much assisted by the exertions of the Rev. Edward Trafford Leigh, the then rector of Cheadle, in which parish it is situated.

A handsome brick viaduct of the Railway crosses a picturesque valley at Handford, through which the river Dean flows; and, after joining the Bollin near Wilmslow, the combined rivers fall into the Mersey, near Altrincham.

The place of interment of the Breretons of Handford was in the parish church of Cheadle, distant nearly four miles from the hall.  The church is in the village of Cheadle, and is an old stone edifice of the Gothic style of architecture, with a chancel, a clerestory, a nave with four pointed arches on each side, resting on octagonal pillars, and with side aisles.  It has a square tower, with six bells.  It is a rectory which has for many years been in the patronage of the Broughtons; and the present rector is the Rev. Charles James Cummings.

There is a striking general resemblance between the churches of Cheadle, Wilmslow, and Bowdon, all in the same part of Cheshire; and they all appear to have been rebuilt, or considerably altered, or repaired, not long before the Reformation; and tradition says, that all three were repaired or rebuilt at the same time, which receives considerable corroboration, not merely from the resemblance in the appearance and style of the churches, but also from the fact, that an inscription, which I saw a few years ago, and which probably still remains, on the stained glass of a window at Bowdon Church, mentions the name of a prior of Birkenhead, the last or one of the last priors of that place, who is stated in the inscription, to have presented the window to the church.

The church at Cheadle is dedicated to the Virgin Mary.  A chapel, called the Handford Chapel, is on the south side of the church.  In this chapel is a large altar tomb, on which are recumbent marble figures of two knights or personages, in complete plate armour, of a very richly ornamented style, and each with his hands conjoined; one bare-headed, but with the head resting on a helmet, which is so injured that it cannot be clearly ascertained whether it had any crest; the other figure has a helmet, which is ornamented with a wreath and a fillet, and has a crest, seemingly the head of some animal, but of which there are not sufficient remains to show whether it was the head of a bird or beast, but it is said to have been that of a hind.  Each of the figures is decorated with a collar of SS, and the feet of each rest upon a lion.  Another altar tomb is placed close up to and on the north side of the tomb, but on rather a lower elevation; on it is a third figure, in stone, with some truces of its having been painted; it is the effigy of another personage, in plate armour, but instead of greaves, it has rather small jack-boots, and is bare-headed, with long flowing hair; and, what seems very remarkable in such an effigy, instead of a gorget, it has a neckcloth or cravat, tied, with the ends of it falling down over the upper part of the cuirasse.  The head also rests upon a helmet with a plume of feathers, coloured blue, white, and red: the feet do not rest upon any animal.

On the north side of this tomb is the following inscription:—

Here lyeth the body of Sr. Thomas
Brereton of Handforth Barronett
who married Theodosia, Daughter
to the Right Honourable Humble
Lord Ward and the Lady Frances
Barronesse Dudley, hee departed
this life the 7th of January
Anno Dom: 1673
Ætatis Suæ 43.

On the dexter side of that inscription is a shield of the arms of Brereton, before described, with the badge of Baronetcy; the crescent gules, before mentioned, appears on the first bar in the arms, but there is not the cross crosslet (before adverted to, in noticing the arms at Handford Hall); and on the sinister side is a shield of the arms of Ward, “chequy, or and azure, a bend ermine.”  The east and south sides of the monument are so close to the walls, that it is impossible to ascertain what they contain by way of inscriptions or heraldic devices; and the same remark applies to the west end, where the side of a pew completely precludes all examination.  All the three effigies are said to be those of Breretons, and there does not seem to be any fair doubt of the fact.  The tombs seem to have been removed to their present position, as it is scarcely probable that they were originally crowded close to each other, and to the walls, as they now are.

In the east window of the Handford Chapel is a mutilated shield of arms, in stained glass; the parts remaining are, as far as I could distinguish, as follows:—On the dexter side, on a chief azure, three bucks’ heads caboshed, or, for Stanley (the rest of the dexter side is so much injured that it cannot be distinguished); impaling the arms of a female, evidently one of the Handfords, of which only the following quarterings remain distinguishable, viz.: second, gules, a scythe argent, for Praers; fourth, sable, a star, with six or eight rays (it is not easy to distinguish the number), argent, for Handford; the crest is rather defaced, but seems to be an eagle’s head erased, holding in its beak an eagle’s leg and claws erased.

Ormerod describes the arms in the window, as the arms of “Stanley impaling Handford, on a chief engrailed azure, three bucks or; impaling Handford, first and fourth, sable, a star of six rays argent; second and third, gules, a scythe argent, Praers; crest, an eagle’s head erased or, holding in the mouth a claw gules.” [279a]  It is probable that the stained glass (with the arms) was more perfect when Ormerod wrote, than at present; but he seems to have fallen into an error, in mentioning three “bucks” instead of “bucks’ heads” on the chief.  On the dexter side of the arms is the inscription “Vanitas vanitatum.”  The chapel has a carved oak screen or frame-work, enclosing it on the west and north sides, with some carving, not very dissimilar to lace-work, but much injured; with a cornice containing the before-mentioned rebus, of a brier and a tun, for Brereton, repeated thirteen times, with the initial letters V and B between each alternately, for “Urian” and “Brereton,” on the north side, but the rebus has been destroyed on the west side. [279b]  At the bottom of the screen, on each of those sides, are panels, carved so as to resemble drapery, in upright folds, with two arrows showing themselves upon the drapery on one or two of the panels, and which probably may also have formerly appeared on some of the others.

On the north side of the church is the part called the Mosely Chapel, and sometimes called the Bamford Chapel, which has on the south and west sides a screen or frame-work of carved oak, of a plainer style, and apparently of an older date, than that of the Handford Chapel.  It is much mutilated, and there are on it traces of an inscription, in the old characters, of which only a few letters are still visible and legible; but I was informed, by Mr. George Smith, the clerk, that the pulpit, which has been removed, and placed close to the screen, now conceals other imperfect portions of the inscription, which, however, he had previously carefully copied (a measure highly creditable to him), and that the imperfect portions which exist, are as follows:—“rginis — — artu milīmo — uīgētismo XXIX”; the latter being meant for the date—millesimo quingentesimo undetricesimo (1529).

The roof of the church is of oak, supported by elaborately carved oak beams, with cross rafters, also handsomely carved, and with bosses at the intersecting points of the rafters; in several places the etoiles or stars, similar to those mentioned in my account of Wilmslow Church, are also carved on the bosses.  Some modern bosses have been recently introduced in the roof of the chancel, and of the side aisles, where the old ones had disappeared; they have been carved in good taste by Mr. Smith, in strict conformity with the remaining ancient ones; he is not only the clerk of the church, but also a mason, and the Gothic font, which was presented by him, and is now used in the church, is of his design and workmanship.

On the east window, which has been sadly altered for the worse, is a mutilated inscription, in stained glass (which may, however, have originally belonged to a much older window), with the date 1556.

The chancel is separated from the nave by a slight screen of carved oak, nearly denuded of all ornament, which seems to have been the lower part of the rood-loft, the upper portion having been long since destroyed.

On a grave-stone near the altar is a small brass plate, with the arms of Bulkeley, three bulls’ heads couped, and the following inscription:—

“Hic jacet Humphridus Bulkeley Armiger, Filius et Hæres Richardi Bulkeley, Armigeri, et Katherinæ Uxoris, Filiæ Georgii Nedham de Thornset, in comitatu Derbiæ Armigeri; Richardus Filius fuit primogenitus Richardi Bulkeley, Militis de Beaumaris et Cheadle per uxorem priorem; Humphridus Bulkeley prædictus obiit octavo die Septembris, anno Domini, 1678.”

From the style and appearance of the present east or altar window, it is very probable that it was made during some general alterations and repairs of the church in the seventeenth century—a supposition which receives some corroboration from the date, 1634, which has been put upon the church porch; and it presents us with another striking and lamentable proof of the ignorance of many of the persons to whom the repair of our churches has been intrusted, and of the debased and retrograde state of the science of church architecture which prevailed at one period:—an ugly square-looking window, with little cottage panes of glass, not unlike those often seen in country schools, is put in the place where, no doubt, there was formerly a handsome Gothic altar window. [281a]

The following is a copy of the Pedigree before mentioned:—

CHAPTER XIV.

PART I.
THE
OFFICE OF KEEPER OF THE ROYAL MENAGERIE,
IN THE REIGN OF EDWARD IV. [283a]

Letter from Richard Brooke, Esq., F.S.A., to Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S., Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries of London, upon the office of Keeper of the Royal Menagerie in the Tower of London, in the reign of Edward IV.

“Liverpool, 17th November, 1849.

“Dear Sir,—I have been recently much interested, in reading Mr. Collier’s Annals of the Stage.  My curiosity was excited, by the passage in vol. i. pp. 35 and 36, in which he gives in a note, a copy from the Harl. MSS., No. 433, of a warrant of 1st Richard III., [283b] to John Brown, appointing him keeper of the King’s bears and apes; and Mr. Collier there slates, that if a keeper of those animals were known before the reign of Richard the Third, he is not aware of any earlier record of his existence, as a licensed court officer.  On reading the passage, I felt a strong impression, that the Rotuli Parliamentorum contained proofs of the existence, at an earlier date than that reign, of an officer of a similar description, to the one alluded to by Mr. Collier.  Although I have not succeeded in discovering, that any person is previously mentioned, as being the keeper, by royal authority, of bears and apes in England, I have discovered in the 5th vol. of the Rotuli Parliamentorum, proofs in three different instances, in the reign of Edward IV.; one of which is as early as 1461, of the fact of a keeper (Ralph Hastings, Esq.), having been appointed, by letters patent of that King, to what would, in more modern times, be called the Royal Menagerie, in the Tower of London.  Lions and lionesses are there mentioned, as being kept in the Tower, in all the three instances; and leopards are mentioned in the first of them.  As Edward IV. only came to the throne on the 4th of March, 1461, and as the references to the grant of the office are worded in a commonplace manner, as if it were nothing extraordinary, it is only fair to presume, that the keeping of foreign animals in the Tower, and the appointment of an officer to have the custody of them, not only existed in the reign of Edward IV., but may have occurred at least as far back as the reign of Henry VI.

“It is probable that the passages in the Rotuli Parliamentorum, to which I have alluded, are well known to many of our Society, still there may be some who are not aware of them; and I am induced to subjoin extracts, and request them to be read before the Society, under the impression that all information of this nature is useful, as tending to give us an insight into the customs and habits of an age gone by.

“I remain, dear Sir,

“Yours faithfully,

“Richard Brooke.

“To Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S.,
Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, &c. &c.”

Extract from the Act of Declaration of the Royal Title and of Resumption of 1st Edward IV., A.D. 1461.—Rot. Parl. vol. v. fo. 475:—

“Provided also, that this seid acte of assumpcion or resumpcion, extend not nor in any wise be prejudiciall unto Rauff Hastynges, Squier for oure body, of or in any graunte made unto hym by oure lrēs patentes, berying date the XXX day of Juyn the first yere of oure reigne, of the office of kepyng lyons, leonesses and leopardes, within our Toure of London that tyme beying, and of theym that within the same Toure for the tyme shal be, with a place for the Keper of such lyons, leonessez and leopardes there deputed, with another place there, which for the same lyons, leonessez and leopardes within oure seid Toure is ordeyned, with the wages of xiid. by day for hymself, and for sustentation of every lyon, leonessez and leopardes abovesaid vid. by day, duryng the lyf of the said Rauf.  But that oure seid lrēs patentes stande good and effectuell after the contenue of the same; the seid acte or any other acte in this Parlement made or to be made notwithstonding.”

The Act of Resumption of 4th Edward IV., A.D. 1464 (Rot. Parl. vol. v. fo. 533), contains a very similar proviso and reservation of the office, in favour of the before-mentioned Ralph Hastings, except that it does not mention the leopards, and that the allowance is stated to be 16d. a day, instead of 1s., for fees for himself, besides what was also allowed for the keep of the lions and lionesses.

The following is an extract from the act:—

“of any graunte made by us to hym by any of oure lrēs patents of the office of kepying of lions and lionesses within our Toure of London; or of any graunte made by us to the said Rauff by oure lrēs patentes, of a place within the said Toure for kepying of the seid lions and lionesses there deputed, or of anoder place which for the seid lions and lionesses within the seid Toure is ordeyned, or of xvid. by the day, by us graunted to the said Rauff, for his fees and occupation of the seid office, or of vid. by the day by us graunted to hym, for the sustentation of every lion and lionesse.”

Perhaps the latter passage may be considered as elucidated, in some degree, by another passage, which occurs in the subsequent act of 7th and 8th Edward IV., as will be next noticed; and that 6d. a day was allowed for the keep of each lion, &c.: no trifling sum at that time.

The Act of Resumption of 7th and 8th Edward IV. A.D. 1467 and 1468 (Rot. Parl. vol. v. fo. 598), also contains a proviso and reservation to the same effect as the last, respecting the grant of the office to Ralph Hastings; but mentions 1s. a day only, for his fees, besides a further allowance for the keep of the animals.  It provides that the act should not prejudice the grant to Ralph Hastings, of the office—

“of kepying of lyons and lyonesses within oure Toure of London, or of any graunte made by us to the seid Rauf, by oure letters patentes, of a place within the said Toure, for kepying of the seid lions and lionesses there deputed, or of an other place whiche for the said lions and lionesses within the seid Toure is ordeyned, or of xiid. by the day by us graunted to the seid Rauf, for his fees and occupation of the said office, or of vid. by the day by us graunted to hym, for the sustentation of every lyon, and of every lyonesse vid.”

PART II.
ON THE PROBABLE PERIOD OF THE EXTINCTION
OF WOLVES IN ENGLAND. [287a]

“Cruel as death, and hungry as the grave!
Burning for blood! bony and gaunt, and grim!
Assembling wolves in raging troops descend;
And pouring o’er the country, bear along,
Keen as the north wind sweeps the glossy snow.
All is their prize.  They fasten on the steed,
Press him to earth, and pierce his mighty heart,
Nor can the bull his awful front defend,
Or shake the murd’ring savages away.”

Thomson’s Winter.

Several descriptions of wild animals were, at one period, inhabitants of Great Britain, which, with the increase of population and civilization, have become extinct, amongst which may be mentioned, the wolf, bear, [287b] and wild boar. [287c]  We may, however, perhaps regret the extinction of other animals, which were not of a destructive kind; for example, the beaver [288a] is generally admitted by naturalists, to have been, and the roe deer certainly was, formerly, a native of England.  The beaver is no longer to be found amongst us; and the roe deer is not now to be met with in any part of this country to the south of Scotland: the latter, however, remained wild in England and Wales, until the reign of King Henry VIII. [288b]  The fox would probably have also disappeared ere now, if it had not been for his superior cunning, and his conducing to the sports of the field; the otter is become rather scarce; and the seal is now rarely found upon the coasts of England.  The poor harmless badger, although still occasionally met with in some unenclosed or wild parts, has, notwithstanding his inoffensive and unobtrusive habits, been exterminated in several of the English counties, and is become rare in most of them.

The inquiries pursued in this paper will, however, be with reference to the wolf only.

It is admitted by all writers upon the natural history of the British Isles, that wolves once abounded in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland; and it is an interesting circumstance, that we know with tolerable exactness, something of the dates of their extinction in Scotland and Ireland.  The last wolf that is known to have been wild in Scotland, was killed about the year 1680; [288c] and the last presentment for killing wolves in Ireland, was made in the county of Cork, about the year 1710. [288d]

It is remarkable, that when Buffon wrote in the last century, he or Daubenton, who assisted him, did not believe that wolves had become extinct in Great Britain.  The following remarkable passage occurs in Button’s Natural History:—“Les Anglais pretendent en avoir purgé leur Isle, cependant on m’a assuré, qu ’il y en avait en Ecosse.  Comme il y a peu de bois, dans la partie meridionale, de la Grand Bretagne, on a eu plus de facilité pour les detruire.”—Buffon’s Natural History, vol. vii. p. 50, title “Du Loup”; in which work Buffon was assisted by Daubenton, the naturalist.  As Buffon was born in 1707, and Daubenton in 1716, it is quite possible that one or both of them, received the information upon that point, from some person, who had lived in Scotland, before the extinction of wolves in that country; and, consequently, it might easily be believed by either of them, that wolves were to be found there, at the time when that passage was written.

Holinshed wrote his Chronicles in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and he mentions, that wolves then abounded in Scotland:—

“First of all therefore in the fields and wild places of the country, there is great plenty of hares, red deere, fallow deere, roes, wild horsses, wolves and foxes.”

* * *

“The wolves are most fierce and noisome to the heards and flocks, in all parts of Scotland, saving in one parcell of Angus, called Glennorsdale, where these beasts doo no manner of hurt unto the domesticall catell, but preie onlie upon the wild.”—Holinshed’s Chronicles, Description of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 14.

We also know from Camden, who likewise wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that at the time when he wrote, wolves were very common in Scotland. [289]  He also informs us in another place, that Scotland was “grievously infested with fierce wolves, which not only make dreadful havoc of cattle, but even fall upon men, with such inveteracy and mischief, not only in this but in many other parts of Scotland, that by act of Parliament, the sheriffs and inhabitants in every county, are obliged to go out three times a year, to destroy the wolves and their young ones.” [290a]

We also learn from Camden, that at that time, Ireland swarmed with wolves. [290b]

Although it appears to be known with some degree of certainty, about what period they ceased to exist in Scotland and Ireland, there is a great difficulty in ascertaining, at what date they became extinct in England; and in consequence of its greater population, its not having many mountainous and wild districts, and, as suggested in Buffon’s work, its not having extensive woods, it is certain, that wolves would be much sooner exterminated in England, than in Scotland or Ireland.

At the time of the Anglo-Saxon sway, wolves abounded in great numbers in England; and in the tenth century, in the reign of Athelstan, a place of retreat was erected at Flixton, in Yorkshire, in order to protect travellers from being devoured by wolves. [290c]

It has been said, that in the reign of Edgar, also in the tenth century, an annual tribute was imposed upon the Welsh princes, of three hundred wolves’ heads, in order to effect their destruction.  If that be true, it is only reasonable to suppose, that considerable numbers would be destroyed, by the adoption of that expedient; but it is strange that some authors, copying from one another, and without giving themselves the trouble of searching into authorities, have stated, that the extinction of wolves in England and Wales was caused by it.  Nothing can be further from the truth, as will be presently shown.  Mr. Hume, in his History of England, indeed, even goes far beyond other writers, in his unqualified assertions on that subject, without any proof; and shows, as is too often the case in his work, his ignorance of the authorities relative to it; and he has not adduced, and in fact he seems to have been unable to adduce, any authority for making the following assertion, viz.:—“Another remarkable incident of this [Edgar’s] reign, was the extirpation of wolves from England.  This advantage was attained by the industrious policy of Edgar.  He took great pains in hunting and pursuing those ravenous animals; and when he found that all that escaped him had taken shelter in the mountains and forests of Wales, he changed the tribute of money imposed on the Welsh princes by Athelstan his predecessor, into an annual tribute of three hundred heads of wolves; which produced such diligence in hunting them, that the animal has been no more seen in this island.” [291a]  It is surprising that Mr. Hume should have ventured to make an assertion so easily refuted; and it is remarkable, that his History of England should find a prominent place in so many libraries, when it is now admitted, that its author is very frequently incorrect as a historian, and that the statements in it, when he omits, as he often does, to quote authorities, cannot be relied on.  That work has never been regularly reviewed, which ought even yet to be done.  Lord Brougham, in his Lives of Men of Letters and Science, who flourished in the time of George III., very properly exposes the faults and incorrectness of Mr. Hume’s History of England, thus:—

“There is continual proof, that he took what he found set down in former works, without weighing the relative value of conflicting authorities, and generally resorted to the most accessible sources of information.  There have been instances without number, adduced of his inaccuracy in citing even the authorities to which he confined his researches.

“Nor can we acquit him on another charge, not rarely brought against him, and partaking of the two former: neglect or carelessness about the truth, and infidelity in relating it.” [291b]

The Abbey of Fors, in Wensleydale, in Yorkshire, was founded in the year 1145, which is nearly two centuries after the reign of Edgar; and some time afterwards, Alan Earl of Bretagne, gave to the monks of that abbey the privilege of taking, by themselves or their servants, the remains of the deer which had been killed and partly devoured by the wolves, in the forest of Wensleydale. [292a]

In the 10th year of the reign of William I. (1075), Robert de Hurfravill, lord of Tours and Vian, otherwise called Robert with the Beard, being a kinsman to the King, obtained from him a grant of the lordship, valley, and forest of Riddesdale, in the county of Northumberland, with all the castles, manors, lands, woods, pastures, waters, pools, and royal franchises, which were formerly possessed by Mildred, the son of Akman, late lord of Riddesdale, and which came to that king upon his conquest of England, to hold, by the service of defending that part of the country, for ever, from enemies, and wolves. [292b]

In the 1st year of King John (1199), he granted to William Briwere, a license, “to hunt the hare, fox, cat, and wolf, throughout all Devonshire; and likewise the goat out of the regard [sight] of the forest; and to have free warren throughout all his own lands, for hares, pheasants, and partridges.” [292c]

In the 9th year of Edward I. (1281), wolves existed in such numbers in several parts of England, that a royal commission was issued by him, to Peter Corbet, for the destruction, by means of men, dogs, and engines, of wolves, in all forests, parks, and other places, in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire; and all bailiffs, &c., were commanded to be aiding and assisting Peter Corbet, in the destruction of wolves in those counties.

The commission is alluded to by Bingley, the Naturalist; but it is remarkable that he has altogether omitted to give the date or any reference, where an account of it was to be found.  Dr. Whitaker does not notice it, although he more than once, in his History of Craven, adverts to the existence of wolves in England after the reign of Edgar.  As the mandate is a curiosity, it is given here precisely as it appears in the Fædera.—

A.D. 1281.  An: 9 Edwd. I.  Pat. 9 Edw. I. m 20 in Turr: Lond:

“Rex omnibus Ballivis etc: Sciatis quod injunximus dilecto & fideli nostro Petro Corbet, quod in omnibus forestis, & parcis, & aliis locis, infra comitatus nostros Gloucestr’ Wygorn’ Hereford’ Salop’ et Stafford’ in quibus lupi poterunt inveniri, lupos, cum hominibus, canibus & ingeniis suis, capiat, & destruat, modis omnibus quibus viderit expedire.

“Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem Petro in omnibus, quæ ad captionem luporum in comitatibus prædictis, pertinet, intendentes sitis & auxiliantes, quotiens opus fuerit, & prædictus Petrus vobis scire faciet ex parte nostra.

“In cujus &c. duratur’ quamdin nobis placuerit.  Teste Rege apud Westm’ decimo quarto die Maii.” [293]

(TRANSLATION.)

The King, to all bailiffs, &c.  Know ye, that we have enjoined our dear and faithful Peter Corbet, that in all forests, parks, and other places, within our counties of Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Salop, and Stafford, in which wolves may be found, that he take and destroy wolves, with his men, dogs, and engines, in all ways, in which it shall seem expedient; and we command you therefore that you be aiding and assisting the said Peter, in all things that relate to the capture of wolves, in the aforesaid counties, as often as occasion may require, and the said Peter may make known to you on our part.

In witness, &c., so long as it shall be our pleasure.  Witness the King, at Westminster, the 14th day of May.

Enough has now been stated, for the purpose of showing that it was an idle tale to assert that the extinction of these animals occurred in the reign of Edgar.  Evidence has been already adduced to show that they existed here, in a wild state, a considerable period after the Conquest; but it is the intention of the author of this paper to go much further, and some proofs will be brought forward of their being in existence for centuries after that event; and some conjectures will be hazarded, respecting the probable period of their final extinction in England.

In the 25th year of Edward I. (1296), John de Engaine, Lord of Blatherwic, died, seized of lands in Pightesse, or Pytesse, in Northamptonshire, found to be held of the King, by service of hunting the wolf, fox, and badger. [294a]

In the reign of Edward II. (1820), John le Wolfhunt, or Wolfhurt, son and heir of John le Wolfhunt, or Wolfhurt, held lands at Wormhill, in Derbyshire, by the service of chasing and taking all wolves that might come into the King’s Forest of the Peak, in that county. [294b]

In the 11th year of Edward III. (1336), John Lord Roos, of Hamlake, had a charter granted to him, by the King, of free warren in lands in Nottinghamshire and Oxfordshire, and also to hunt the fox, wolf, hare, and cat, throughout the King’s forest of Nottinghamshire. [294c]

In the 33rd year of Edward III. (1358), Vitalis Engaine died, seized of part of the lordships of Laxton and Pichesse, in Northamptonshire, held by petit serjeanty, to hunt the wolf whensoever the King should command. [294d]

In the 41st year of Edward III. (1366), Thomas de Engaine, Lord of Blatherwic, died, seized of lands, meadows, and rent, in Pightesse, in Northamptonshire, held by the service of “finding, at his own proper costs, certain dogs, for the destruction of wolves, foxes, martrons [marten cats], cats [wild cats], and other vermine,” within the counties of Northampton, Rutland, Oxford, Essex, and Buckingham. [295a]

Of course it is not pretended, that upon the deaths of any of the before-mentioned personages, who died seized of lands, held by the tenure of hunting or destroying wolves, such a tenure is conclusive evidence that those animals existed at the times of the deaths of those personages respectively, because it may have happened that the lands may have descended from father to son, several times, after the dates of the original royal grants or charters creating such tenures; still, even in that case, enough has been shown to prove that they were not extinct until centuries after the time of King Edgar.  Besides which, it must not be forgotten, that the charter before mentioned, of the 11th year of Edward III. (1836), to John Lord Roos, of Hamlake, then gave him a license to hunt the wolf in the King’s Forest of Nottinghamshire, &c., which would have been useless if there had not then been any such animal to hunt.  We therefore have some evidence that wolves existed in England in the fourteenth century; but it is very probable that they had been destroyed in the more populous and cultivated counties, although for more than a century longer they might continue to be occasionally met with, in the wild and thinly peopled parts of England, especially in the northern counties.

In the fifteenth century they probably became scarce.

In the 14th year of Edward IV. (1474), that monarch invaded France, and negotiations for a truce were commenced between Louis XI. and Edward, and we learn, from Baker’s Chronicles, that King Louis then presented Edward with the handsomest horse which Louis had in his stable, and an ass, and also “a wolf and a wild boar, beasts at that time rare in England.”[295b]  Those are the exact words of Baker, and are very interesting, and, with reference to the objects of this paper, very valuable.  It will be remarked, that he does not state or insinuate that wolves had been exterminated, or had ceased to exist in England, but merely that they had then become rare.  We therefore have got so far towards the latter part of the fifteenth century, and appear not yet to have reached the period of their extinction.  I have read somewhere, that it is traditionally stated that they were to be found either in the Forest of Dean or in the Forest of Dartmoor, as late as in the time of Queen Elizabeth; but unfortunately I omitted to take a note of the publication in which it was mentioned; and, although I have since devoted some time in endeavouring to discover it, I have not yet succeeded.

Shakespeare wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and his allusion to England, and also to wolves, is worthy of notice, as showing his impression of their having at one period abounded in England, viz.:—

“O, thou wilt be a wilderness again,
Peopled with wolves, thy old inhabitants.”

Shakespeare’s Henry IV. 2nd part, act 4, sc. 4.

Some passages in a very learned and celebrated work—the Institutes of the Law of England—by Sir Edward Coke (afterwards Lord Chief Justice of England, from that circumstance often called Lord Coke), who was a lawyer of great talents, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, will perhaps excite surprise, and are very important with reference to the subject of this inquiry.

He was born in 1551; was made Solicitor General by Queen Elizabeth in 1592, and Attorney General in 1594.  He was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas by James I. in 1606, and Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench in 1613.  His celebrated works—the Commentary upon Sir Thomas Littleton’s Treatise, and the Institutes of the Laws of England—required vast time and labour; and it is almost incredible that they could have been written after he became a judge; and consequently, it may be admitted, as is generally believed, that they were written whilst he was at the bar, and in the reign of Elizabeth.

It is well known that the precincts of the forests in England had courts of their own, and were governed by different laws from the rest of England; and of course, in treating upon the laws of this country, so learned and so accurate a writer, as Coke is admitted to have been, could not avoid noticing them.  In the part of his Institutes upon the Forest Courts, he describes the jurisdiction and functions of those tribunals, and the animals to be met with in the forests of England; and, in the quaint and peculiar language incident to writers of the time of Queen Elizabeth, he proceeds to mention the beasts of chase and of the forest.  The following are extracts from his work upon that subject:—

“There be many beasts of the forest by the laws of the forests of England.  The hart in summer, the hinde in winter, and all that proceed as of them: the buck in summer, the doe in winter, and the proceed of them; the hare, male and female, and their proceed; the wild boar, male and female, and their proceed; and the wolf, male and female, and their proceed; the fox, male and female, and their proceed; the martin, male and female; capreolus the roe, as it appeareth before, is no beast of the forest, but it is a beast of chase.”

“The proceads of the hare, the first year a leveret, the second a hare, the third a great hare.  Of a wilde boar: a pig, a hogge, a hog-stear, a boar, and after a sanglier.”

“No beast of the forest that is solivagum et nocivum, is venison, as the fox, the wolf, the martin, because they be no meat, but caro eorum est nociva.”

“So as the red deer, the fallow deer, the wilde boar, and the hare, are venison.  Whereupon these two conclusions in the law of the forest do follow: first, whatsoever beast of the forest is for the food of man is venison, and therewith agreeth Virgil, describing a feast:—

“‘Implentur veteris bacchi pinguisq: ferinæ.’” [297]

It is to be presumed, that a writer, whose works are so accurate as Coke’s are admitted to be, would not have stated that the wolf was an animal of chase in England, at the time when he wrote, in the sixteenth century, in the reign of Elizabeth, if it had then been extinct; and it must be borne in mind, that he has used the present tense in writing of it; which it is not likely that he would have done, if he had intended to write respecting an animal which had formerly been a beast of chase, but which had ceased to exist in England.  We have, therefore, got to the point, that the wolf may fairly be believed not to have become extinct in England until at least some time in, or perhaps soon after, the reign of Elizabeth.  I am, however, far from contending that it then existed in the southern or midland counties.  On the contrary, it appears probable, that when Coke wrote, it had become extinct in all parts of England, except in some few of the most northern counties, of which two are contiguous to Scotland.  In the southern parts, it may perhaps be presumed to have ceased to exist about, or soon after, the period of the accession of the Tudors to the throne; and it will be borne in mind that only seventy-three years elapsed between the accession of the first of that family, Henry VII. in 1485, and that of Elizabeth, who was the last of them, in 1558; and that no very extraordinary change took place in the cultivation or population of England, during that period.  As we have the clear evidence of writers of such authenticity as Holinshed and Camden, that in the time of Elizabeth, all parts of Scotland abounded with wolves, and as there was nothing to prevent those animals from rambling across the Border, either in search of prey, or for bringing forth their young, or in consequence of any other natural instinct, it would be impossible, at that time, with a scanty population, and with the desolation incident to the unsettled state of the Borders, to keep the northern counties of England always free from them, and to prevent their breeding there. [298]  Those parts of England were exposed to the incursions of Borderers and freebooters from Scotland, whose lawless and dangerous habits were almost as intolerable to their own countrymen as to the English, and who principally subsisted by pillage, and rendered life and property insecure, and, as a natural consequence, those parts were very thinly inhabited.  Many very large districts in the northern counties consisted of wild wastes, forests, hills, woody valleys, and swamps, with a very scanty and semi-barbarous population: disadvantages which militated very much against the early extermination of savage animals.  A change for the better, however, took place in the population, the civilization, and the appearance of the country, about the close of the reign of Elizabeth.  I, however, am not aware that any English writer, since the time of Coke, has given us any reason to suppose that wolves were to be found in England after the termination of her reign.  We can scarcely suppose that Coke was incorrect in mentioning wolves as beasts of chase in England at the time when he wrote; it seems, however, only reasonable to believe, under all the circumstances, that they were at that time extinct in all the southern parts; but that a few then remained in their fastnesses and retreats in forests, hills, and wild districts, in some of the northern counties of England, and especially in the parts adjacent to Scotland, and furnished employment and sport to the hunters, and that, with the increase of population and cultivation, the clearing away of woods and forests, and the more general use of firearms, they at last became extinct in the northern counties, about the commencement of the seventeenth century, which was near the period of the close of the reign of Elizabeth.

APPENDIX.

No. I.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of the 1st Edward IV., passed against the Lancastrians who had taken part in the second Battle of St. Alban’s, the Battle of Wakefield, and the Battle of Towton.—Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. (A.D. 1461), vol. v. p. 476, 477, and 478.

“For asmoche as Henry, late Kyng Henry the sixt, ayenst the honoure and trouth that owe to be stablisshed in every Christien Prynce, dissimilyng with the right noble and famous Prynce Richard Duc of York, to whome it lyked at the grete and speciall instaunce of the same Henry, and of the Lordes Spuelx and Temporelx, and Commyns of the Reame of Englond, solempnely to hym made, and for the tender and naturall zele and affection that he bare unto the commyn wele, good pollitique, and restful governaunce therof, to take his viage from the Cite of London, toward the North parties of the seid Reame, to represse, subdue and resist the unleefull and inordynat commotion and riotte there bigonne, to the subversion of the seid Cõen wele, politique and restfull governaunce: Natheles procured, stered and excited, ayenst his promisse, and the forme of the Convention and Concorde made bitwene hem of and uppon the right and title of the seid Coroune, roiall power, dignite, estate, preemynence and possession of the seid Reame, the murdre of the same Duc.  And where the seid Henry Usurpour, dissimilyng the destruction of other lordes and persones of the same reame, by his writts, called to assist hym to attend uppon his persone, to resiste and represse another commocion of people, by his assent and wille gadered, and waged not oonly in the North parties, but also oute of Scotlond, commyng from the same parties with Margarete late called Quene of Englond, and hir son Edward, late called Prynce of Wales, extendyng to the extreme destruction of the seid Reame, namely of the South parties therof, wherof experience sheweth the clerenes, respect had to the spoile by theym of Godds chirch, of Chalesses, Crosses of sylver, Boxes for the Sacrament, and other onourments longyng therunto, of defoulyng and ravisshing religious wymmen, wedowes and maydens, of unmanly and abhomynable entretyng of wymmen beyng in the naturall labour and bataille of travailyng of child, by the moyne therof piteously disperaged, Heven sorowyng the lost therby of the Soules that shuld have been of the felauship of Cristendom and of the blisse of Heven, not abhorryng of unmanly, unnaturall and beestly cruelte to drawe wymmen beyng in childebedde from their bedds naked, and to spoile hem of all her goods, a piteous desolacion.  The same Henry, actour, factour and provoker of the seid commocion, and assentyng of covyne with the seid Margarete, Henry Duc of Somerset, and Henry late Erle of Northumberlond, in a battaille to be shewed unto hym, and offered of fraudulent dissimilacion, in a feld beside the toune of Seint Albones, the XVII day of Feverer last past, not joynyng his persone and blode to the defence, tuition and salvacion of the same Lordes and persones commen to assist hym by his auctorite and commaundement, lyke a victorious and a noble captayne, but lyke a disseyvable coward, ayenst princely and knyghtly duetee, sodenly, privately and shamefully refused theym, sufferyng and procuryng to disseivably th’effucion of their blode, and horrible murdre and deth, not havyng therof sorowe, pitee or compassion; adheryng to the seid Margaret, and to the seid Duc of Somerset, and other Lordes and persones that committed the seid orrible and cruell murdre of the seid Duc of York, and of the Erles of Rutlond and Salesbury, and also of the seid people, in the seid felde beside the seid toune of Seint Albones, yevyng therfor to the seid Duc and other assistyng theym therin, a speciall laude and thank; from thensforth appliyng to theym and to their outrageous and unlawfull riotts and misgovernaunce; after that sufferying wilfully thoo worthy and good Knyghtes, William Lord Bonvile, and Sir Thomas Kiryell, for the prowesse of knyghthode approved in their persones called to the order of the Garter, and William Gower Squier, the Berer of oon of his Baners, whom to he made feith and assurans under Kynges word, proeedyng from his mouth, to kepe and defend theym there from all hurt, joupardie and perell, to be murdred, and after that tyrannyously heded, with grete violence, withoute processe of lawe or any pitee, contrary to his seid feith and promysse, abhomynable in the heryng of all Christen Prynces.  For asmoch also as Henry Duc of Somerset, purposyng, ymaginyng and compassyng, of extreme and insaciate malice and violence, to destroy the right noble and famous Prynce of wurthy memorie, Richard late Duc of York, fader to oure Liege and Soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the fourth, and in his lyf verrey Kyng in right of the reame of Englond, singuler protectour lover and defensour of the good governaunce, pollicie, commyn wele, peas and tranquillite therof; and also Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry Erle of Northumberlond, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Nevill, John Whelpdale late of Lychefeld, Clerk, Philip Lowes late of Thouresby in the counte of Lincoln Clerk, Bawdewyn Fulforth Knyght, Alexander Hody Knyght, Nicholas Latymer Knyght, James Loterell Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Fyndern Knyght, Henry Lewes Knyght, John Heron of the Forde Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, William Grymmesby late of London late Squier, Thomas Tunstall late of Thurland in the shire of Lancastr’ Squier, Symond Hammes Knyght, Thomas Dalton late of Lilbourne in the counte of Northumberlond Gentilman, James Dalton late of the same Gentilman, George Dalton late of the same Gentilman, John Clapam late of Skipton in Craven in Yorkshire Yoman, Andrew Trollop late of Guysnes Squier, Antony Notehill Knyght, John Botiller late of Howke in the counte of Dorset Squier, Gawen Lampleugh late of Warkeworth in the shire of Northumberlond Gentilman, Edmund Fyssh late of York Taylleour, Thomas Frysell late of the same Smyth, John Smothyng late of the same Yoman, John Caterall late of Brayton in the counte of York Gentilman, Thomas Barton late of Helmesley in the counte of York Gentilman, William Fyppes late of Sonthduffeld in the counte of York Yoman, Henry Clyff th’ elder late of Lokyngton in the counte of York Yoman, Robert Tomlynson late of Helagh in the counte of York Yoman, and Thomas Barton late of York Mason; at Wakefeld in the shire of York, on Tywesday the xxx day of Decembr’ last past, with grete despite and cruell violence, horrible and unmanly tyrannye, murdred the seid right noble Prynce Duc of York.  And where also Henry Duc of Excestr’, Henry Duc of Somerset, Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry late Erle of Northumberlond, William Vicecount Beaumont, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Clyfford, Leo late Lord Welles, John late Lord Nevill, Thomas Gray Knyght Lord Rugemond Gray, Randolf late Lord Dacre, Humfrey Dacre Knyght, John Morton late Person of Blokesworth in the shire of Dorset Clerk, Rauff Makerell late Person of Ryseby in the shire of Suff’ Clerk, Thomas Mannyng late of New Wyndesore in Berkshire Clerk, John Whelpdale late of Lychefeld in the counte of Stafford Clerk, John Nayler late of London Squier, John Preston late Wakefield in the shire of York Preest, Philip Wentworth Knyght, John Fortescu Knyght, William Tailboys Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Tresham Knyght, William Vaux Knyght, Edmund Hampden Knyght, Thomas Fyndern Knyght, John Courteney Knyght, Henry Lewes Knyght, Nicholas Latymer, Knyght, Waltier Nuthill late of Ryston in Holdernes in the shire of York Squier, John Heron of the Forde Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, John Ormond otherwise called John Botillier Knyght, William Mille Knyght, Symonde Hammes Knyght, William Holand Knyght called the Bastard of Excestr’, William Josep’ late of London Squier, Everard Dykby late of Stokedry in the shire of Ruthlond Squier, John Myrfyn late of Suthwerk in the shire of Surr’ Squier, Thomas Philip late of Dertyngton in Devonshire Squier, Thomas Brampton late of Guysnes Squier, Giles Seyntlowe late of London Squier, Thomas Claymond, the seid Thomas Tunstall Squier, Thomas Crawford late of Caleys Squier, John Aldeley late of Guysnes Squyer, John Lenche of Wyche in the shire of Worcestre Squier, Thomas Ormond otherwise called Thomas Botillier Knyght, Robert Bellyngeham late of Burnalshede in the shire of Westmerlond Squier, Thomas Everyngham late of Newhall in the shire of Leycestr’ Knyght, John Penycok late of Waybrigge in the counte of Surr’ Squier, William Grymmesby late of Grymmesby in the shire of Lincoln’ Squier, Henry Ross late of Rokyngham in the shire of Northampton Knyght, Thomas Danyell late of Rysyng in the shire of Norff’ Squier, John Doubiggyng late of the same Gentilman, Richard Kirkeby late of Kirkeby Ireleth in the shire of Lancastr’ Gentilman, William Ackeworth late of Luton in the shire of Bed’ Squier, William Weynsford late of London Squier, Richard Stucley late of Lambehith in the counte of Surr’ Squier, Thomas Stanley late of Carlile Gentilman, Thomas Litley late of London Grocer, John Maydenwell late of Kirton in Lyndesey in the counte of Lincoln, Gentilman, Edward Ellesmere late of London Squier, John Dauson late of Westmynster in the shire of Midd’ Yoman, Henry Spencer late of the same Yoman, John Smothyng late of York Yoman, John Beaumont late of Goodby in the shire of Leyc’ Gentilman, Henry Beaumont late of the same Gentilman, Roger Wharton otherwise called Roger of the Halle, late of Burgh in the shire of Westmerlond Grome, John Joskyn late of Branghing in the shire of Hertf’ Squier, Richard Litestr’ the yonger late of Wakefeld Yoman, Thomas Carr late of Westmynster Yoman, Robert Bollyng late of Bollyng in the shire of York Gentilman, Robert Hatecale late of Barleburgh in the same shire Yoman, Richard Everyngham late of Pontfreyt in the same shire Squier, Richard Fulnaby of Fulnaby in the shire of Lincoln Gentilman, Laurence Hille late of Moch Wycombe in the counte of Buk’ Yoman, Rauff Chernok late of Thorley in the counte of Lancastr’ Gentilman, Richard Gaitford of Estretford in Cley in the shire of Notyngh’ Gentilman, John Chapman late of Wymbourne Mynster in Dorset shire Yoman, and Richard Cokerell late of York Marchaunt; on Sonday called comynly Palme Sonday, the xxix day of Marche, the first yere of his reigne, in a feld bitwene the townes of Shirbourne in Elmett, and Tadcastr’ in the seid Shire of York, called Saxtonfeld and Tawtonfeeld, in the shire of York, accompanyed with the Frensshmen and Scotts, the Kynges Ennemyes, falsely and traiterously ayenst their feith and liegeaunce, there rered werre ayenst the same Kyng Edward, their rightwise, true, and naturall liege Lord, purposyng there and then to have distroyed hym, and deposed hym of his roiall estate, coroune and dignite; and then and there, to that entent, falsely and traiterously moved bataille ayenst his seid astate, shedyng therin the blode of a grete nombre of his subgetts: In the which bataille, it pleased Almyghty God to yeve unto hym, of the mysterie of his myght and grace, the victorie of his ennemyes and rebelles, and to subdue and avoyde th’ effect of their fals and traiterous purpose.  And where also the seid Henry, late called Kyng Henry the Sixt, Margarete his wyf, late called Quene of Englond, and Edward her Son, late called Prynce of Wales, and also Henry Duc of Excestre, Henry Duc of Somerset, Thomas Lord Roos, Thomas Grey Knyght Lord Rugemond Gray, in the fest of Seint Marc Evangelist last past, purposyng and ymaginyng the destruction of oure seid Soverayne Lord Kyng Edward, to depose hym of his roiall astate and dignite, procured of James Kyng of Scotts, and of his subgetts, then ennemyes of oure seid Soverayne Lord, their eyde, assistence and armed power, to entre uppon the same oure Soverayne Lord into his seid reame, to put hym from the reigne therof, and to distroy hym; and to that entent, convened with the same James Kyng of Scotts, and ayeinst their feith and liegeaunce, delyvered to hym to his possession and obeisaunce, in the seid Fest, the toune and castell of Berwyk, of oure seid liege Lordes, then beyng their rightwisse, true, and naturall liege Lord, to that ende and effect, that the seid Kyng of Scotts soo than possessed of the seid toune and castell, the key of the Estmarches of Englond, shuld therby have entre, to execute the unjust, untrue, and malicious purpose and entent of the same Henry, Margaret and Edward.  And for asmoch also as the seid Margarete, and also Henry Duc of Excestr’, Henry Duc of Somerset, Jasper Erle of Pembroke, James late Erle of Wilteshire, Robert Lord Hungerford, Thomas Mannyng Clerk, John Lax, late Parsoune of Walton in the shire of Somerset Clerk, Henry Lewes Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, John Ormond otherwise called John Botillier Knyght, Frere Robert Gasley, of the ordre of the Freres Prechours, and Thomas Cornewayle Squier, have ayenst their feith and liegeaunce, dyvers tymes sith the fourth day of Marche last past, stured, laboured and provoked the ennemyes of oure seid soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the Fourth, of outeward landes, to entre into his seid reame with grete bataille, to rere werre ayenst his astate within this seid reame, to conquere the same from his possession and obeysaunce, to depose hym of roiall astate, corounes and dignite, and to destroy his moost noble persone and subgetts.  And where also the same Margarete, and Edward her son, and also the seid Henry Duc of Excestr’, Thomas Grey Lord Rugemonde Grey, Humfrey Dacre Knyght, Edmund Hampden Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, Henry Bellyngeham Knyght, and Richard Tunstall Knyght, adheryng to the Scotts, ennemyes of oure seid soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the Fourth, convened with the same Scotts, procuryng, desiring and wagyng theym to enter into his seid reame, to make there werre ayenst his Roiall Majeste, bringyng the same Scotts and ennemyes to his cite of Carlile, besegyng and envirounyng it, brennyng the subarbes therof, distroiyng the howses, habitacions and landes of his subgetts nygh therunto, in manere of conquest; purposyng, ayenst their feith and liegeaunce, to have delyvered the seid cite, the key of the Westmarches of Englond, into the possession and obeysaunce of the seid Kyng of Scotts, and to have spoiled the coroune of Englond therof, as they didde of the seid toune of Berwyk.  And over that, where the seid Henry, late called Kyng of Englond the Sixt, and also Thomas Lord Roos, Thomas Gray Lord Rugemond Grey, Humfrey Dacre Knyght, John Fortescu Knyght, William Tailboys Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Nevill late of Brauncepath in the Bisshopryke of Durham Clerk, Humfrey Nevill late of the same Squier, and Thomas Elwyke late of Caleys Squier, the XXVI day of Juyne last past, at Ryton and Brauncepath in the Bisshopryke of Durham, with standardes and gyturons unrolled, rered werre ayenst oure seid Lord Kyng Edward, purposying to have deposed hym of his roiall astate, coroune and dignite, ayenst their feith and liegeaunce.  And for asmoch also as Henry Duc of Excestre, Jasper Erle of Pembroke, and Thomas Fitz Herry late of Herford Squier, at a place called Tutehill, besid’ the toune of Carnarvan in Wales, on Friday next after the fest of Translacion of Seint Edward last past, rered werre ayenst the same oure soverayne Lord, purposyng then and there to have proceeded to his destruction, of fals and cruell violence, ayenst their feith and liegeaunce.”

The act then declares Henry, late called King Henry the Sixth, convicted of high treason, and to forfeit all castles, manors, lordships, lands, &c. &c., parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the said Margaret, late called Queen of England, convicted of high treason; and the said Margaret, and also the said Edward her son, disabled from having or enjoying any name of dignity, pre-eminence, &c. &c.; and declares the said Margaret, and Edward her son, to forfeit all castles, manors, lordships, lands, goods, &c. &c.; and also declares the noblemen comprised in it disabled from having or enjoying any name of dignity, pre-eminence, &c. &c.; and the noblemen, knights, and other persons comprised in the act, convicted of high treason, and to forfeit all their manors, lordships, lands, possessions, &c. to the King; except such as were within the liberty of the Bishop of Durham, which were declared forfeited to the Bishop, who claimed them in right of the Cathedral Church of St. Cuthbert of Durham; within which liberty the Bishops of Durham were alleged to have had immemorially the right to all forfeitures of that description.

No. II.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 14th Edward IV. passed against some of the Lancastrians who had taken part in the Battles of Barnet, Tewkesbury, &c.—Rot. Parl. 14th Edward IV. (A.D. 1475), vol. vi. fos. 144, 145, 146.

“And also where John Veer late Erl of Oxford, late of Wyvenho in the counte of Essex Knyght, George Veer, late of the same toune Knyght, Thomas Veer late of the same toune Knyght, Robert Harlyston, late of Shymplyng in the counte of Suffolk Squyer, William Godmanston, late of Bromle in the counte of Essex, Squyer, John Durraunt, late of Colleweston in the counte of Northampton Yoman, and Robert Gybbon, late of Wyngfeld in the counte of Suffolk Squyer, in the solempne and high fest of Ester Day, the which was the XIIIIth day of Aprill, the XIth yere of the reigne of our said sovereigne liege Lord, at Barnet in the counte of Hertford, and there and thenne togider assembled theym, with grete multitude of his innaturall subgiettes, rebelles and traytours, felonsle falsle and traiterousle, levied werre agayns Kyng Edward the IIIIth, their naturall liege Lord, his roiall persone then and there beyng, and his baner displayed, entendyng traiterousle then and there the fynall distruction of his said moost roiall persone, purposyng to have distroyd’ hym, and deposed hym of his roiall astate, corone and dignitee, and there and then falsle and traiterousle made and reared werre agayns his astate, sheddyng there the blode of grete nombre of his subgiettes; in the which bataill, it pleased Almyghty God to gyf hym victorie of hys ennemyes and rebelles, and to subdue the effecte of their fals and traiterous purpose.  And also where Thomas Tresham late of Sywell in the counte of Northampton Knyght, John Delves, late of Uttokeshater, in the counte of Stafford Squyer, and Robert Baynton, late of Farleston in the counte of Wilteshire Knyght, with grete nombre of rebelles and traytours, assembled theym the IIIth day of the moneth of May, the said XIth yere of the reigne of oure said sovereigne Lord, at Tewkesbury in the counte of Gloucestr’, and there and then felonsle falsle and traiterousle levied werre agayns Kyng Edward the IIIIth, their naturall liege Lord, his roiall persone then and there beyng, and his baner displaied, entendyng traiterousle then and there the fynall destruction of his said moost roiall persone.”

The act then declares the persons comprised in it convicted of high treason, and all their castles, manors, lordships, lands, &c., forfeited to the King, and also declares that they were disabled from having or enjoying any name of dignity, pre-eminence, &c. &c.

No. III.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 1st Henry VII., passed against the Yorkists who had taken part in the Battle of Bosworth.—Rot. Parl. 1st Henry VII. (A.D. 1485), vol. vi. fos. 275 and 276.

“Forasmoche as every king, prince, and liege lord, the more hie that he be in estate and prehemenence, the more singularly he is bound to the advancement and preferring of that indefferent vertue justice; and promoteinge and rewardinge vertue, and bi oppressinge and punishinge vice: Wherefore oure soveraigne lord, calleinge unto hys blessed remembraunce thys high and grete charge adjoyned to hys royall majestie and estate, not oblivious nor puttinge out of hys godly mind the unnaturall, mischeivous, and grete perjuries, treasons, homicides and murdres, in shedding of infants blood, with manie other wronges, odious offences, and abominac̃ons ayenst God and man, and in es̃pall oure said soveraigne lord, committed and doone by Richard late Duke of Glouc’, callinge and nameinge hymself, by usurpac̃on, King Richard the IIId; the which, with John late Duke of Norff’, Thomas Erle of Surrie, Francis Lovell Kñt Visc’ Lovell, Walter Devereux Kñt, late Lord Ferrers, John Lord Zouche, Robert Harrington, Richard Charleton, Richard Ratcliffe, William Berkley of Welley, Robert Brakenbury, Thomas Pillkinton, Robert Midletoune, James Harrington, Kñts, Walter Hopton, William Catesby, Roger Wake, William Sapcott, Humfrey Stafford, William Clerke of Wenlocke, Jeffrey St̃ Jermin, Richard Watkins, Herrauld of Armes, Richard Revell of Derbishyre, Thomas Poulter of the countee of Kent the younger, John Walsh otherwyse called Hastinges, John Kendale, late secretarie to the said Richard late Duke, John Buck, Andrew Ratt, and William Bramton of Burford, the XXIst daie of August, the first yere of the reigne of oure soveraigne lord, assembled to theyme atte Leicestre in the countee of Leicestre a grete hoste, traiterously intendinge, imagininge and conspireinge the destrucc̃on of the kinges royall ps̃oune, oure soveraigne leige lord.  And they, with the same hoste, with banners spred, mightyly armed and defenced with all manner armes, as gunnes, bowes, arrowes, speres, gleves, axes, and all other manner articles apt or needfull to gef and cause mightie battaille agen oure said soveraigne lord, kept togedre from the said XXIId daie of the said month thanne next followinge, and theyme conduced to a feld within the said shyre of Leicestre, there bi grete and continued deliberacõne, traiterously levied warre ayenst oure said soveraine lord, and his true subjects there being in his service and assistance under a banner of oure said soveraine lord, to the subversion of this realme, and com̃on weale of the same.”

The act then proceeds to declare Richard Duke of Gloucester otherwise called King Richard III., and all the noblemen, knights, and other persons comprised in the act, convicted of high treason, and disabled and forejudged of all honours, dignity, pre-eminences, &c. &c., and all their castles, manors, lordships, lands, goods, &c., forfeited to the King.

No. IV.

Proclamation by Henry VII., for enforcing order and discipline in his Army; and Extract from a Journal of the March and Proceedings of Henry VII. previously to the Battle of Stoke; from a manuscript in the Cottonian Library.—Lelandi Collectanea, vol. iv. p. 210.

“The King our souveraigne lorde straytly charge and comaunde, that no maner of man, of whatsoever state, degre, or condition he bee, robe ne spoyle any chyrche, ne take oute of the same any ornament theron belonging, nor touche ne sett hande on the pixe wherein the blessed sacrament is conteynede, nor yet robbe ne spoyle any maner man or woman, upon peyne of deth.  Also that no maner of persones ne persones whatsoever they bee make no quarell to any man, nor sease nor vex ne troble any man by body or goodes for any offense, or by color of any offence hertofor doon or comyttede agenst the roial Majestie of the King our saide souveraigne lorde, withoute his auctoritie and especial comaundement geven unto hym or theym, that so doon in that behalfe upon peyne of deth.  Also that no maner of persones ne persones whatsoever they bee, ravishe no religios woman, nor mannes wiff, doughter, maydene, ne no mannes ne womans servaunt, or take, ne presume to take, any maner of vytayll, horsemet, nor mannes mete, withoute paying therfor the reasonable pryce therof, assisede by the clerke of the market or other the king’s officers therfor ordeynede, upon peyne of deth.  Also that no maner of persones ne persones, whatsoever thay bee, take uppon theym to logge theymsilfs, nor take no maner of logging, ne harbygage, but suche as shal be assignede unto hym or theym by the King’s herbygeours, nor disloge no man, nor chaunge no logging after that he be assignede, without advyse and assent of the said harbygeours, uppon peine of imprisonment and to be punyshede at the wille of our saide souveraigne lorde.  Also that no maner of man, whatsoever he bee, make no quarell with any other man, whatsoever be bee, for no maner of cause, old ne newe; ne make no maner of fray, within the hooste ne withoute, upon peyne of imprisonment and to bee punishede according to ther trespas and defautes.  And if ther happen any suche quarell of affray to be made by any evyll disposede personnes, that then no maner of man, for any acquentaunce or filiship that they bee of, take noo parte with no suche mysdooers in any suche affrayes or quarells, upon peyne of imprisonment and to be punyshed at the King’s wille.  But that every man endevor hymsilf to take al suche mysdooers and brynge theym to the marshalls ward, to be punyshed according to ther desertes.  Also that no maner of personne, whatsoever he bee, hurte, troble, bete, ne lette no maner of personne, man, woman, or childe bryngyng any vitayle unto the Kings hooste, upon payne of imprisonment and his bodye to bee at the Kings wille.  And over this, that every man, being of the reteyne of our saide souveraigne lorde, at the furste sounde or blaste of the trumpet to saddil hys hors; at the 2d doo brydell; and at the 3d be redy on horsebake to wayte upon his highnesse, upon peyne of imprisonment.  Also, that no maner of personne, whatsoever he bee, make no skryes, showtings, or blowing of hornesse in the Kings hooste after the wache bee sett, upon peyne of imprisonment and his bodye to be at the Kings wille.  Also, that no vagabonde, nor other, folowe the Kings hooste, but suche as be reteynede, or have maisters within the same, upon peyne of imprisonment and to bee punyshede in example for other; and that no coman wooman folow the Kings hooste, upon payne of imprisonment and openly to be punyshede in example of al other.  Also, whansoever it shall please the King our souveraigne lorde to comaunde any of hys officers of armes to charge any thing in his name, by hys high comaundement, or by the comaundement of his counstable or marshall, that it be observed and kept, upon payne of imprisonment and his body to be punyshed at the Kings pleasure.

“From thens” [Kenilworth] “the King procedede to Coventrye, wher the Bishop of Wynchester toke his leve and went to the Quene and the Prince, and the substance of his companye waytede upon the King, under the standerde of his neveu th Erle of Devonshir.  From Coventrie the King remeved unto Leycester, wherby the comaundement of the mooste Reverende Fader in God, th Archbishop of Canterbury, then Chanceller of England, the Kings proclamations were put in execusion.  And in especyal voydyng comen women and vagabonds, for ther wer imprisonede great nomber of both.  Wherfor ther was more reste in the King’s hooste, and the better rule.  And on the morow, which was on the Monday, the King lefte ther the forsaide Reverende Fader in God and roode to Loughborough; and the saide Lorde Chancellors folks were commyttede by his neveu, Robert Morton, unto the stander of th Erle of Oxinforde, in the fowarde.  And at Loughborough, the stokks and prisonnes wer reasonabley fylled with harlatts and vagabonds.  And after that were but fewe in the hooste unto the tyme the felde was doon.  On Tewsday the King remevede and lay al nyght in the felde, under a wode called Bonley Rice.  And on the Wednesday the King’s marshalls and herbigers of his hoste did not so welle ther diligence that way, for when the King remevede ther was no propre grounde appoyntede wher the Kings hooste shulde logge that nyght hen following, but it was a royal and a marvelouse faire and a wele tempered day.  And the King, with his hooste, wandrede her and ther a great espace of tyme, and so came to a fayre longe hille, wher the King sett his folks in array of batell, that is to say, a bow and a bill at his bak, and al the fowarde were wele and warely loggede under the hille to Notyngham warde.  And when the King hade sene his people in this fayr array, he roode to a village 3 myles a this side Notingham, on the highway syde, wher in a gentilmannes place his grace logede.  And in that village, and in a bene felde to Notingham warde, lougede al his batell; whiche evening wer taken certeyn espies, whiche noysede in the contrey that the King had ben fledde.  And sume were hangede on the ashe at Notyngham Brygge ende.  And on the morowe, whiche was Corpus Christi day, after the King had harde the dyvyne servyce in the pariche chirche, and the trumpetts hadde blowne to horse, the King, not letting his hoste to understand his entente, rode bakewarde to see, and also welcome the Lord Strannge, whichc brought with hym a great hoste, inow to have beten al the Kings enemies, only of my Lorde his faders th’ Erle of Derbye folks and his.  And al wer fayre embaytailled, whiche unknowne turnyng to the hooste, causede many folks for to marvaille.  Also the Kings standerde and muche cariage folowde after the King, unto the tyme the King was advertysede by Garter King of Armes, whom the King comaunded to turne them al ageyn, whiche so dide theym al in bataile on the hef heder side of the great hille a this side Notingham, unto the tyme the King came.  That nyght the Kings hooste lay under the ende of all that hille towarde Notingham to Lenton warde, and his fowarde befor hym to Notyngham Bruge warde.  And th Erle of Derbyes host on the Kings lifte hand to the meadowes besides Lenton.  And that evenyng ther was a great skrye, at wiche skrye ther flede many men; but it was great joy to see how sone the King was redye and his true men in array.  And from thens, on the Friday, the King, understanding that his enemyes and rebelles drew towards Newarke warde, passing by Southwelle and the furside of Trente, the King with his hoste remevede thedarwards, and logged that nyght beside a village callede Ratcliff, 9 miles oute of Newarke.  That evening ther was a great skrye, whiche causede many cowards to flee; but th Erle of Oxinforde, and al the nobles in the fowarde with hym, wer sone in a good array and in a fayr bataile, and so was the King and al the very men that ther wer.  And in this estrye I harde of no man of worship that fledde but raskells.

“On the morne, which was Satirday, the King erly arros and harde 2 masses, wherof the Lorde John Fox, Bishop of Excester, sange the ton; and the King had 5 good and true men of the village of Ratecliff, whiche shewde his grace the beste way for to conduyt his hoost to Newark, whiche knew welle the countrey, and shewde wher wer marres, and wher was the river of Trent, and wher wer vilages or grovys for bushements, or strayt weyes, that the King might conduyt his hoost the better.  Of whiche guides the King gave 2 to th’ Erle of Oxinforde to conduyt the fowarde, and the remanent reteyned at his pleasure.  And so in good order and array, before 9 of the clok, beside a village called Stook, a large myle oute of Newarke, his fowarde recountrede his enemyes and rebells, wher by the helpe of Almighty God, he hadde the victorye.  And ther was taken the lad that his rebells callede King Edwarde, whos name was indede Lambert, by a vaylent and a gentil esquier of the Kings howse, called Robert Bellingham.  And ther was slayne th’ Erle of Lincoln John, and dyvers other gentilmen, and the Vicount Lorde Lovell put to flight.  And ther was slayne of Englishe, Duche, and Irishemen M IIII.  And that day the king made 13 baneretts and LII knyghts, whose names ensueth.

“Theis bee the names of the baneretts:

Sir Gilbert Talbot,

Sir John Cheyny,

Sir William Stow,

Theis III wer made byfor the batell.

“And after the batel were made the same day:

Sir John of Aronndell,

Sir Thomas Cokesay,

Sir John Forstin,

Sir Edward Benyngfelde,

Sir James Blount,

Sir Richard Crofte,

Sir Humfrey Stanley,

Sir Richarde de la Ver,

Sir John Mortymer,

Sir William Trouthbek.

“The names of the knyghts made at the same bataill:

Sir James Audley,

Sir Edward Norres,

Sir Robert Clifforde,

Sir George Opton,

Sir Robert Abroughton,

Sir John Paston,

Sir Henry Willoughby,

Sir Richard Pole,

Sir Richard Fitzlewes,

Sir Edwarde Abrough,

Sir George Lovell,

Sir John Longvile,

Sir Thomas Terell,

Sir Roger Bellyngam,

Sir William Carew,

Sir William Trouthbeck,

Sir Thomas Pooll,

Sir William Vampage,

Sir James Parker,

Syr Edwarde Darell,

Sir Edwarde Pykerynge,

Sir Thomas of Wolton,

Syr William Sandes,

Syr Robert Brandon,

Syr Mores Barkley,

Sir John Dygby,

Sir James Harrington,

Syr John Devenyshe,

Sir John Sabarotts,

Sir Thomas Lovell,

Sir Humfrey Savage,

Sir Antony Browne,

Sir Thomas Grey,

Sir Nicholas Vaux,

Sir William Tyrwytt,

Sir Amyas Pallet,

Sir Rauff Langforth,

Sir Henry Bould,

Sir William Redmyll,

Sir Thomas Blount,

Sir Robert Cheyny,

Sir John Wyndan,

Sir John A. Musgrove,

Sir George Nevell,

Sir Raf Shirley,

Sir William Litilton,

Sir William Norres, [315a]

Syr Thomas Hanseide,

Sir Christofer Wroughton,

Syr Thomas Lyn,

Sir Moses Aborough,

Syr Thomas Manyngton.

No.  V.

Extract from the Act of Attainder against John, Earl of Lincoln, and his Adherents.—Rotul. Parl. 3rd Henry VII. (A.D. 1487), vol. vi. fo. 397.

“Forasmoch as the XIXth day of the moneth of Marche last past John, late Erle of Lincolne, nothyng consideryng the greate and sovereygn kyndnes that oure sovereygne leige lorde that nowe ys, at dyvers sundry tymes contynuelly shewed to the said late erle, but the contrarye to kynd and naturall remembraunce his faith trouth and allegeaunce conspired and ymagyned the most dolorouse and lamentable murder, deth, and destruction of the roiall psone of oure said sovereygne and leige lorde, and also distruction of all this realme, and to pform his said malicious purpose traiterously departed to the parties beyond the see, and ther accompanyed hymselfe with many other false traitours and enemyes to our said sovereygne leige lorde, by longe tyme contynuyng his malyce, prepared a grete navye for the coostes of Brabon, and arryved in the portes of Irland, where he, with Sr̃ Henry Bodrugan [315b] and John Beaumound, Squier, ymagyned and conspired the destruction and deposition of oure said sovereygne liege lorde; and for the execution of the same ther, the XXIIIIth day of May last passed at the cite of Develyn, contrarie to his homage and faith, trouth, and allegiaunce, trayterously renownced, revoked, and disclaymed his owne said most naturall sovereygene leige lord the kyng, and caused oone Lambert Symnell, a child of X yere of age, sonne to Thomas Symnell, late of Oxforde, joynonre, to be proclamed, erecte, and reputed as kyng of this realme, and to hym did feith and homage, to the grete dishonour and despite of all this realme, and frome thens contynuyng in his malicious and trayterous purpose arived with a greate navie in Furnes, in Lancashire, the IIIIth day of June last past, accompanyed with a greate multytude of straungers with force and armes, that ys to saye, swerdys, speris, marespikes, bowes, gonnes, harneys, brigandynes, hawberkes, and many other wepyns and harneys defensible, and frome thens the same day he, with Sr̃ Thomas Broughton, knyght, Thomas Haryngton, Robert Percy, of Knaresburgh, in the countie of Yorke, Richard Harleston, John a Broughton, brother unto the said Sr̃ Thomas Broughton, knyght, Thomas Batell, James Haryngton, Edward Frank, Richard Middelton, squiers; Robert Hilton, Clement Skelton, Alexander Apilby, Richard Banke, Edmund Juse, Thomas Blandrehasset, gentilmen; John Mallary, of Lichbarowe, in the countie of Northton, Robert Mallary, of Fallesley, in the same countie, Gyles Mallary, of Grevysnorton, in the same countie, William Mallary, of Stowe, in the same countie, Robert Mannyng, late of Dunstaple, Willyam Kay, of Halyfax, gentilman, Roger Hartlyngton, Richard Hoiggessone, John Avyntry, Rowland Robynson, yomen; with many other ill-disposed psones and traytours, defensible and in like warrely maner arrayed to the nomber of VIIIM persones ymagynyng, compassyng, and conspiryng the deth and deposition, and utter destruction of oure said soveraygne leige lorde the kyng, and the subversion of all this realme, for the execucion and pfourmyng of the said myschevous and traiterous purpose contynuelly in hostyle maner passed fro thens from place to place to they come to Stoke, in the countie of Notyngham; where the XVI day of June last past, with baners displayed, levied warre ayenst the psone of his sovereygne and naturall leige lorde, and gave to hym myghty and stronge batell, trayterously and contrarie to all trouth, knyghthode, honour, allegeaunce, feith, and affyaunce, intendyng utterly to have slayne, murdred, and cruelly destroyed oure foresaid leige lorde and most Cristen prynce, to the uttermost and grettest adventure of the noble and roiall persone of oure seid leige lorde, destruction, dishonour, and subversion of all this realme.  For the which malicious compassed greate and heynous offence, not alloonly commytted ayen oure said sovereygne lorde, but also ayenst the unyversall and comen wele of this realme, ys requisite sore and grevous punycion; and also for an example hereafter that non other be bold in like wise to offend: Therfore be it enacted by oure sovereygne lorde the Kyng by the advyse of all the lordes sp̃uall and temporall, and the com̃ons in this present parliament assembled, and by the auctorite of the same, that the said John, late Erle of Lincoln, Sr̃ Henry Bodrugan, Thomas Broughton, knyghtes; John Beaumond, Thomas Haryngton, Robert Percy,” &c. &c., “be reputed, jugged, and taken as traytours, and convicte and attaynte of high treason,” &c. &c.  And the act proceeds to declare all their castles, lordships, manors, lands, goods, &c. &c. forfeited to the King.

No. VI.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 11th Henry VII., against Francis Lovel, late Lord Lovel.—Rot. Parl. 11th Henry VII. (A.D. 1495), vol. vi. fo. 502.

“Forasmoch as John, late Erle of Lincoln, Fraunces Lovell, late Lord Lovell, and divers other with theym, trayterously ymagynyng and compassyng the deth and destruccion of our sovereign lord the king, assembled themself with other evil disposed peopull, to the nombre of VM p̃sones, at Stoke, in the countie of Notyngham, the XXth day of June, the IId yere of the reigne of our said sovereign lord the kinge that nowe is, and then and there, for the pformaunce of their cursed myschevous and wreched purpose, in pleyne feild, at the same Stoke, in the said countie, with their baners displayed, contrary to theyr alligeaunce ayenst the king our and their naturall sovereign lord, levied and rered warre and made bataille ayenst him, for whiche traiterous and unnatural dede the said John, Erle of Lincolne, with dyvers other then and there traiterously offendyng, were late by auctorite of parliament, in a parliament holden at Westm’, the IIIde yere of the reigne of the king our sovereigne lord that now is, deemed convict and atteynt of high treason; in the whiche acte of atteyndre the said Fraunces Lovell was ignorauntly left oute and omitted, to the moost perillous ensample of other being of suche traiterous myndes.  Wherfore be it ordeyned, enacted, and established, by the lordes sp̃uall and temporall, and the comons in this p̃sent parliament assembled, and by auctorite of the same, that the said Fraunces stande and be deemed adjuged, convicte, and atteynte of high treason, for his rehersed trayterous dede, and forfeite to the kinge,” all the honours, castles, manors, lordships, possessions, hereditaments, &c. &c., which he possessed on the 20th June, in 2nd Henry VII.

This is a most extraordinary statute.  It commences with calling Lord Lovel, the “late Lord Lovell,” without there appearing to be any certain proof of his death; and it is contradictory of the act attainting the Earl of Lincoln and others (see Appendix No. V.), which alleges, that their forces amounted to 8000 men, and that the battle took place on the 16th of June; whilst in this the insurgent troops are only stated to be 5000, and the 20th of June is mentioned as the day of the battle.  It is also scarcely credible, that the attainder of Lord Lovel could have been, as alleged, inadvertently omitted in the former statute; nor is it easy to assign any plausible reason, why an avaricious sovereign like Henry VII. should allow eight years to elapse after the insurrection, without passing this act of attainder, when the unhappy nobleman’s large possessions offered so tempting a bait.  Indeed, if Henry’s object, in passing it, were to be enabled legally to seize upon them, such a statute appears unnecessary, because Lord Lovel was attainted by the act of 1st Henry VII., for fighting at Bosworth (see Appendix No. III.); and there is no reason to suppose that this attainder was ever reversed, or that he ever submitted himself to allegiance to Henry.

There is a tradition, that Lord Lovel escaped from the field of battle of Stoke, and took refuge in the north of England, and there, like Lord Clifford, lived several years in obscurity, concealed from his enemies; but it does not appear to be authenticated or supported by any historical authority.

No. VII.

Copy of a Letter given in Banks’s Dormant and Extinct Baronage, vol. ii. p. 321, from William Cowper, Esq., Clerk of the Parliament.

“Hertingfordbury Park, 9th August, 1737.

“Sir,—I met to’ther day with a memorandum I had made some years ago, perhaps not unworthy your notice.  You may remember that Lord Bacon, in his History of Henry VII., giving an account of the battle of Stoke, sais of the Lord Lovel, who was among the rebels, that he fled, and swame over the Trent on horseback, but could not recover the further side by reason of the steepenesse of the banke, and so was drowned in the river.  But another report leaves him not there, but that he lived long after in a cave or vault.

“Apropos to this; on the 6th of May, 1728, the present Duke of Rutland related in my hearing, that about twenty years then before, viz., in 1708, upon occasion of new laying a chimney, at Minster Luvel, there was discovered a large vault or room under ground, in which was the entire skeleton of a man, as having been sitting at a table, which was before him, with a book, paper, pen, &c. &c.; in another part of the room lay a cap, all much mouldered and decayed.  Which the family and others judged to be this Lord Luvel, whose exit has hitherto been so uncertain.”

See also, Additions to Camden’s Magna Britannia (by Gough), edition of 1789, vol. ii. fo. 289, where the same circumstance is narrated, with the addition, that the clothing of the body seemed to have been rich; that it was seated in a chair, with a table and a mass-book before it; and also that, upon the admission of the air, the body soon fell to dust.

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. [321]

Page 1, note 2, After the words, “and May, 1856,” add “and also in September, 1856, which was after part of this work had been sent to the press.”

„ 2.  In the last line of note *, after the words, “according to,” insert the name, “Fabyan.”

„ 3.  Before “Market Drayton,” insert “Hodnet, and.”

„ 5.  After the words, “offered battle to his enemies,” add “2,” and at the foot of the page, insert as note “2”: “A portion of the suburbs of Shrewsbury was intentionally burnt; that measure being considered requisite for the safety of the town, in consequence of the approach of Hotspur’s army.—Rot. Parl. 9 Henry IV., vol. iii. fo. 619.”

„ 5.  For note “2,” substitute “3.”

„ 10.  Instead of “fragments of human bones, armour, spurs,” read “human bones, fragments of armour, spurs.”

„ 10.  For “the Rev. J. O. Hopkins,” read “the late Rev. J. O. Hopkins.”

„ 11, note 4.  For “very many of the bones of men,” read “the bones of many men.”

„ 22, note 2.  Instead of “18th of February, 1477,” read “18th of February, 1477–8.”

„ 28, note 2.  For “the 16th of February, 1495,” read “the 16th of February, 1494–5.”

„ 35.  Insert the figures “35” at the head of the page.

„ 39, note 3.  For “28th of April, 1442,” read “29th of April, 1441.”

„ 44, note 2.  Before the name “Hall,” insert “Fabyan.”

„ 49.  For “1459,” read “1460.”

„ 50.  In the second line of the continuation of the note, before the name “Hall,” insert “Fabyan.”

Page 53, note 4.  Add, “Dugdale and Stow state that the Duke of York left London on the 2nd of December, and arrived at Sandal on Christmas eve.  If he consumed twenty-two days in his march from London to Sandal, the delay seems very extraordinary.”

„ 54, note 3.  Instead of “Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (the son of Edmund Beaufort, grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), after the death,” read “Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was the son of Edmund Beaufort (grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), who, after the death.”

„ 54.  In the seventh line of the same note, instead of “his eldest son, Henry,” read “The eldest son, Henry.”

„ 55, note 1.  After the words, “fighting on behalf of Henry VI., and there buried,” add, “Leland, in his Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 93 [p. 82], also states that Thomas Earl of Devonshire was slain at Tewkesbury, and buried there.”

„ 58.  Instead of “His army, surrendered and overwhelmed with numbers,” read “His array nearly surrounded and overwhelmed by numbers.”

„ 64, note 2.  Instead of “Quære, has not the lane been,” read “The lane is;” and instead of “which formerly stood,” read “which stands, or very recently stood.”

„ 68.  In the continuation of the note, after the words, “vol. v. fo. 464,” add, “and Fabyan, fo. 218.”

„ 72.  In the continuation of the note, for “21st of December, 1493,” read “21st of December, 1495.”

„ 73.  For “his forces courageously attacked the army,” read “his army courageously attacked the forces.”

„ 73.  At the end of note 4, add, “Fabyan, fo. 627, calls him a knyght of Wales.”

„ 92, note 1.  Instead of “the Rev. George Townsend,” read “the Rev. George Fyler Townsend;” and instead of “p. 12,” insert “pages 12 to 16.”

„ 99, note 1.  After the words, “each horseman,” add, “in marching order.”

„ 103, note 4.  After the words, “battles of Wakefield,” insert “[See Chap. IV. p. 60.]”

Page 104, note 1.  After the words, “Dugdale’s Baronage,” add “vol. i.;” and after the passage, “Leland’s Coll. vol. ii. p. 715,” omit “[500],” and insert “[498], in which is the following statement, ‘Syr John Nevel the Erle of Westmerlandes brother and Andrew Trollop were killid at this tyme.’”

„ 111.  After the words, “were restored,” add, “4,” and as a note at the foot of the page, insert, “4 Leland mentions the titles and rank conferred by Edw. IV. upon his friends and adherents, as follows:—

Thomas Blunte made Lord Montejoy
William Hastinges made Lorde Hastinges.

“‘Edward at his coronation creatid his brother George Duke of Clarence; and Richard the younger, Duke of Gloucester; the Lord Montacute, the Erle of Warwike’s brother, the Erle of Northumbreland; William Stafford Esquier, Lord Staford of Southwike; Syr [William] Herbart, Lord Herbart; and after Erle of Pembroke; and the saide Lord Staford Erle of Devonshire; the Lord Gray of Ruthine, Erle of Kent; the Lord Bourchier Erle of Essex; the Lord John of Bokingham, [323] Erle of Wyltshire; Syr Thomas Blunt Knight, the Lord Montjoye; Syr John Haward, Lord Haward; William Hastinges, Lord Hastinges and Greate Chambrelayn; and the Lorde Ryvers; Denham Esquyer, Lord Deneham; and worthy as is afore shewid.’—Lel. Collect., vol. ii. p. 715, 716 [449].”

“It is of course admitted, that Edward at his coronation ennobled his brothers the Duke of Clarence and Duke of Gloucester; but Leland appears to have expressed himself either not clearly, or not with his usual accuracy, with respect to the dates of the conferring of the titles upon several of the other personages, before mentioned, as may be easily ascertained by a reference to the works of Ralph Brooke, or Dugdale; from which it plainly appears, that although Edward did not forget eventually to reward many of his supporters and adherents with rank and titles, yet in some instances several years elapsed, after his coronation, before they were ennobled, or, as the case might be, were advanced in the peerage.”

Page 117, note 2.  Instead of “ocnnected,” read “connected.”

„ 123.  Instead of “called by Stow,” read “called by Leland and Stow.”

„ 123, note 2.  Add before the name “Stow,” the words, “Lel. Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 17 [p. 16].”

„ 127, note 4.  Instead of “des Mœurs,” read “sur les Mœurs.”

„ 140.  For “right hand to be,” read “right hard to be.”

„ 142, note 1.  For “The mills were,” read “The Mills are.”

„ 143, note 1.  After the words, “in the abbey church there,” add, “Leland, in his Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 92 [p. 81], states that she died at the Castle of Warwick, on the 22nd of December, 1476, and was buried at Tewkesbury, of which she was the patroness.”

„ 145, note 1.  For “Sanderson’s,” read “Sandford’s.”

„ 149, note 3.  For “Holme Castle,” read “Holme Ground.”

„ 162.  Introduce as note 1, to the words, “third husband of his mother,” 1 as follows:—

“Margaret Beaufort, sole daughter and heiress of John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, became Countess of Richmond by her marriage with her first husband, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond; her second husband was Sir Henry Stafford (a son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton, and a brother of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, and also a brother of John Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire); and her third husband was Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby.  The Countess of Richmond had only one child, viz., Henry Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., by her marriage with Edmund Earl of Richmond (see Pedigree No. 4, chap. ix. p. 201); and she had not any children either by her second or third husband, as if, to use the words of Sandford, in his Genealogical History, p. 319, ‘she had been designed to be the mother of a king onely.’  She lived to see her son Henry VII. and her grandson Henry VIII. successively kings, and died in the first year of the reign of the latter, on the 3rd July, 1509, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.”

Page 162.  For note “1” read “2,” and in the note, for “Ann Beam” read “Anne Beam.”

„ 170.  After the words, “town’s people,” add, “and there is reason to believe that they were got rid of, by being thrown into the river at the end of Bow Bridge, at Leicester;” “borne out of the city, and contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge, which giveth passage over a branch of Stoure, upon the west side of the towne.”—See Speed’s Annals, fo. 936; see also Thorsby’s Views in Leicestershire, p. 338: and instead of the words, “were deposited,” insert “had been deposited.”

„ 170, note 1.  After “Hutton, 143,” add “Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 410.  A tablet has been recently (in 1856) put up on one of the new buildings near Bow Bridge, with an inscription treating the locality as if it were the supposed place of the final interment of Richard III.; but although it may perhaps be a disappointment to those who have caused the tablet to be placed there, to learn that the correctness of their theory is not admitted by others, still it is only proper to mention, that there does not appear to be any authority for such a supposition: indeed, after his remains had been pulled out of the grave and got rid of at the river, it is not likely that anybody would know or care what became of them.”

„ 173.  Instead of “which he afterwards gave,” read “which was afterwards given.”

„ 180.  In note 1, instead of “chap. iv.” read chap. “v.”

„ 189.  For “the cliff occupied by his left wing, was, as before observed, almost inassailable,” read, “the cliff occupied, as before observed, by his left wing, was almost inassailable.”

„ 193, note 1.  Instead of “[500],” read “[498].”

„ 203.  After the words, “in the fifteenth century,” insert “and had no relation to the wars of York and Lancaster.”

„ 210, note 2, add “MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 16.”

„ 274.  Instead of “the Brooke Farm estate,” read “the Brooke Farm.”

Page 289.  For “ou m’a assuire,” read “on m’a assuré.”

„ 294.  After the words, “in that county,” add the figure “2.”

„ 296.  For “the Institutes of England,” read “the Institutes of the Laws of England.”

„ 298, note 1.  Instead of the words, “there were not any wolves in England,” insert “wolves did not appear in England.”  He uses the following expression respecting them: “though none of those animals appear at present in England, nor on the borders toward Scotland, though very common in that kingdom.”

INDEX.

A.

Acton, Robert, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 148.

Act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., against persons who had been engaged at the second battle of St. Alban’s, the battle of Wakefield, and the battle of Towton, 107, 301.

Act of attainder of 38th Henry VI., against persons who had been engaged at the battle of Blore Heath, and other alleged offences, 28.

Act of attainder of 14th Edward IV., against persons who had been engaged at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, 308.

Act of attainder of 1st Henry VII., against persons who had been engaged at the battle of Bosworth, 309.

Act of attainder of 3rd Henry VII., against John Earl of Lincoln, and others, who had been engaged at the battle of Stoke, 315.

Act of attainder of 11th Henry VII., against Francis Lord Lovel, for having been engaged at the battle of Stoke, 317.

Adbright, Hussee, 18, 19.

Alban’s, St., first battle of, 2 (note), 23 (note), 43 (note), 54 (note).

Alban’s, St., second battle of, 82.

Alderley, Cheshire, 245.

Amyon (or Ambien) Hill and Wood, near Market Bosworth, 160, 162.

Anjou, Margaret of.—See “Queen Margaret.”

Anjou, René Duke of, 42 (note), 147.

Anne, Queen, wife of Richard III.—See “Queen Anne.”

Arquebuse, harquebus, hacquebut, hackbut, or hagbut, 214 to 244.

Artillery, occasional use of, by the English, in sieges of the fourteenth century, 213 to 216.

Artillery, general use of, by the English, in war, in the fifteenth century, 217 to 244.

Arundel, Sir John, 133.

Audley, James Touchet, Lord, 25; slain at Blore Heath, 26.

Audley, Sir Humphrey, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

B.

Banbury, battle of, 193, 199.

Barnet, battle of, 205.

Barrow, Henry, slain at Tewkesbury, 148.

Basilisk, 220.

Battlefield, and Battlefield Church, 7 to 19.

Battlewell House and Battlewell Gate, near Evesham, 203.

Bear, formerly wild in England, 287.

Beauchamp, of Powick, William Lord, 185.

Beauchamp, Sir Richard, governor of the city and castle of Gloucester, 135.

Beaufort, Lord John, slain at Tewkesbury, 133, 142.

Beaumont, John Viscount, slain at Northampton, 46.

Beaumont, William Viscount, 103.

Beaver, formerly wild in England, 288.

Bedford, Jasper Tudor, Duke of, previously Earl of Pembroke, 69, 133, 166, 180, 186; extraordinary and abrupt changes of fortune of, 69 (note).

Berners, John Bourchier, Lord, 118.

Blore Heath, battle of, 21.

Blount, Sir Walter, slain at Shrewsbury, 7, 8, 111 (note).

Boar, wild, formerly in England, 287, 295, 297.

Bombard, 219 to 244.

Bonvile, William Lord, put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, 82, 83.

Booth, Sir Robert, said to have been slain at Blore Heath, 264, 265.

Bosworth, battle of, 157.

Bourchier, Thomas, Cardinal, and Archbishop of Canterbury, 40, 83.

Bourchier, Henry Viscount (originally Earl of Ewe, and afterwards Earl of Essex), 41, 44.

Bourchier, Humphrey Lord Cromwell, slain at Barnet, 194.

Bourchier, Sir Edward, slain at Wakefield, 29 (note), 58.

Bourchier, Sir John (afterwards Lord Berners), 29 (note), 118.

Bourchier, Sir Thomas, 161 (note).

Bourchier, Sir Humphrey, slain at Barnet, 118, 209.

Bourchier, William, Earl of Ewe, 40 (note 1), 118 (note 4), 209 (note 3).

Bourgeoise, 220.

Bouverie, Edward, Esq., battle of Northampton fought upon the estate of, 50 (note).

Brackenbury, Sir Robert, slain at Bosworth, 166.

Brandon, Sir William, slain at Bosworth, 167, 168.

Brandon, Thomas, 167 (note), 186.

Brecher, two gentlemen of that name put to death by Henry VII., after the battle of Bosworth, 171.

Brereton, Cheshire family of, 269.

Brereton, Sir William, Bart., the distinguished Parliamentary commander, 270.

Bromley, Sir Robert, Bart., battle of Stoke fought upon the estate of, 185, 190.

Broughton, Sir Thomas, slain at Stoke, 178, 187.

Bows and arrows used in war in this country as late as in the Civil War of Charles I. and the Parliament, 214.

Bows and arrows, option given by an act of Parliament of Philip and Mary, to provide a bow and arrows, or a haquebut, 215.

Buckingham, Lord Henry Stafford, of, 106.

Buckingham, Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of, 43; slain at Northampton, 46.

Buckingham, Henry Stafford, second Duke of, beheaded in first year of Richard III., 48 (note), 49, 50 (note).

Buckingham, Edward Stafford, third Duke of, beheaded in 13th year of Henry VIII., 50.

Bull, Black, a standard of Edward IV. at the battle of Towton, 117.

Burgundy, Charles Duke of, slain at the battle of Nancy, 23 (note), 177, 194, 199.

Burgundy, Margaret Duchess of, 23 (note), 177, 199.

Burton, Sir John, slain at Towton, 106.

Byron, Sir John, 167.

C.

Calverley, Sir John, 8.

Cannons, occasional use of, by the English, in sieges, in the fourteenth century, 213 to 216.

Cannons, and other firearms, general use of, by the English, in war, in the fifteenth century, 213 to 244.

Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier, Cardinal, and Archbishop of, 40, 83.

Canterbury, John Morton, Cardinal, and Archbishop of, 107.

Cary (quære Car), Sir William, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 148.

Catesby, William, put to death by Henry VII., after the battle of Bosworth, 171.

Cecily Duchess of York, extraordinary afflictions and calamities in her family, 192 to 197.

Chapel commenced at Towton Field, by Richard III., 100.

Chapel Garth, or Chapel Hill, at Towton Field, 101.

Cheadle Church, Cheshire, 267 to 281.

Cheney, Sir John, 168, 186.

Clarence, George Duke of, 110, 139, 143; put to death in the Tower, 194, 199.

Clarence, Lionel Duke of, 22, 68, 198.

Clarence, Thomas Duke of, slain at Beaugé, in France, 171.

Clifford, John Lord, slain at Dintingdale, 56, 86, 115.

Clifford, Thomas Lord, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, 56 (note), 86 (note).

Clifton, Sir Gervase, 106 (note).

Clifton, Sir Gervase, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 106, 146.

Clifton, Sir Gervase, slain at Bosworth, 166.

Clifton, Sir John, 8.

Clinton, John Lord, 41, 111.

Cobham, Sir Edward Brooke, of, called Lord Cobham, 40, 42.

Cock River, near Towton, 88, 113.

Cockaine, Sir John, 8.

College and Hospital at Battlefield, 17.

Corbet, Peter, commission to destroy wolves, 293.

Courtenay, Sir Hugh, 133; executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 148.

Courtenay, Henry, beheaded at Salisbury, 55 (note).

Courtenay, Walter, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 148.

Coventry, Parliament of, in 38th of Henry VI., 28, 41 (note), 111.

Coventry, proceedings of the Parliament of, annulled in 39th of Henry VI., 41 (note), 111.

Crackenthorpe, Sir Thomas, 106.

Crackenthorpe, Sir John, 106.

Crofts, Sir Richard, captured Edward Prince of Wales, 143.

Cromwell, Humphrey Bourchier, Lord, slain at Barnet, 194, 209.

Culverin, and hand culverin, 214 to 244.

D.

Dacre, Ralph Lord, slain at Towton, 96, 105; tomb of, at Saxton, 123, 125.

Delapré Abbey, near Northampton, 43, 50, 51.

Delves, Sir John, slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 147 (note).

Delves, John, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 147.

Denham, or Dinham, John Lord, 100, 103, 110.

Derby, Thomas Earl of, previously Thomas Lord Stanley, 28, 167.

Devonshire, Thomas Courtenay, Earl of, 55, 103; executed at York, after the battle of Towton, 106.

Devonshire, Thomas or John Courtenay, Earl of, slain at Tewkesbury, 55 (note), 133, 142, 322.

Dintingdale, engagement at, 86, 89, 90, 115.

Done, Sir John, slain at Blore Heath, 27.

Done, Richard, slain at Blore Heath, 27.

Dorset, Thomas Grey, Marquis of, 139.

Douglas, Archibald Earl, 3, 8.

Drayton, 23.

Dudley, John de Sutton, Lord, 27.

Dunbar, Earl of, 4.

Dutton, John, 27.

Dutton, Sir Thomas, 26.

E.

Edward Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI., 47, 85, 132; murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, 144.

Edward Prince of Wales, son of Richard III., 195, 199.

Edward IV., 67, 68, 83, 84, 119, 142, 199.

Edward V., believed to have been murdered in the Tower, 195, 199.

Egerton, Sir John, 27.

Egremont, Thomas Percy, Lord, slain at Northampton, 46.

Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV.—See “Queen Elizabeth.”

Elizabeth, Queen of Henry VII.—See “Queen Elizabeth.”

Elston Fields, 181.

Engines used by the English in war, 218, 221.

Essex, Henry Bourchier, Earl of, 193, 194.

Evesham, battle of, 203.

Ewe, Henry Earl of, afterwards Viscount Bourchier, and subsequently Earl of Essex.—See “Essex, Henry Bourchier, Earl of.”

Ewe, William Bourchier, Earl of, 118 (note), 209 (note).

Exeter, George Neville, Bishop of, 41, 83.

Exeter, Henry Holland, Duke of, 54, 195, 207, 208.

F.

Falconberg, William Neville, Lord, afterwards Earl of Kent, 41, 44, 48, 84, 100, 110.

Falstaff, Sir John, an imaginary character, 229 (note).

Fastolf, Sir John, a distinguished commander in the wars with the French, 228.

Ferrers of Chartley, Walter Devereux, Lord, slain at Bosworth, 166.

Ferrybridge, engagement at, 86, 114.

Fielding, Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Firearms, general use of, by the English, in the fifteenth century, 213 to 244.

Firearms used by cavalry in the French army in 1495, 218 (note).

Fitzgerald, or Geraldine, or Kildare, Lord, slain at Stoke, 187.

Fitzhenry, Sir Thomas, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Fitzhugh, Henry Lord, 105.

Fitzwalter, Lord, slain at Ferrybridge, 86, 114.

Fiskerton, near Stoke, 179, 188.

Flore, John, standard-bearer of the Duke of Somerset, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 148.

Fortescue, Sir John, Chief Justice, 107.

Foster, Chief Justice, 148.

Fowler, 219, 220.

G.

Gastons, near Tewkesbury, 149, 154.

Gausel, Sir Nicholas, 8.

Gausel, Sir Robert, 8.

Gerardine, or Fitzgerald, or Kildare, Lord, slain at Stoke, 187.

Glendowr, Owen, 3, 5, 7.

Gloucester, Richard Duke of, afterwards King Richard III., 110, 139, 141, 158, 324, 325; slain at Bosworth, 169.

Gower, John, sword-bearer of Prince Edward, slain at Tewkesbury, 148.

Grey, Lord Richard, beheaded at Pontefract, 41 (note), 105 (note).

Grey of Ruthin, Edmund Lord, afterwards Earl of Kent, 45.

Grey of Rugemont, Thomas Lord, 105.

Grey, Richard Lord Powis, 29 (note).

Grey Friars, Monastery at Northampton, 47.

Grimsby, Sir William, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

Gunpowder, early use of in war, 215 (note).

Guns, occasional use of by the English in sieges, in the 14th century, 213 to 216.

Guns, general use of by the English, in war, in the 15th century, 213 to 244.

Gupshill, near Tewkesbury, 149, 150, 152.

H.

Hall, Sir David, slain at Wakefield, 58.

Hallidown Hill, battle of, 3.

Hamden, Sir Edmund, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Hammes, Sir Edmund, 106.

Hand culverin, or hand cannon, or hand gun, 214 to 244.

Handeley, Humphrey, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 147.

Handford Hall, Cheshire, 267.

Hanson, Captain, put to death after the battle of Wakefield, 65 (note).

Hardingstone, near Northampton, 44, 50.

Harrill, Sir William, 106.

Harrington, William Bonvile, Lord, slain at Wakefield, 58, 83 (note), 194 (note), 200.

Harrington, Sir Thomas, 27, 29 (note), 33.

Harrow, John, put to death after the battle of Wakefield, 65 (note).

Hartry, Sir Nicholas, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Harquebus, arquebuse, hacquebut, hackbut, or hagbut, 214, 215.

Hastings, Edward Lord, 186.

Hastings, William Lord, 110, 139; put to death in the Tower of London, 110.

Hastings, Sir Hugh, slain at Wakefield, 58.

Havarde, Sir Edmund, 147.

Hawkstone, Roman station near, 37 (note).

Hawthorn Hall, near Wilmslow, 257, 258.

Hemp Mill Brook, at Blore Heath, 26, 34.

Henry IV., 4, 7, 8.

Henry V., 171.

Henry VI., 21, 82, 198.

Henry Prince of Wales, son of Henry IV., 7.

Hereford, imprisonment of the Bishop of, 43 (note).

Heron, Sir John, of the Ford, 60, 103; slain at Towton, 106.

Hotspur (Henry Percy), 1, 2, 7; slain at the battle of Shrewsbury, 7.

Hungerford, Robert Lord, also called Lord Molyns, 105 (note), 118.

Hungerford, Sir Walter, 161 (note).

I.

Inscription at Barnet, 211.

— Blore Heath, 35.

— Bosworth, 174.

— Evesham, 204.

— Mortimer’s Cross, 80.

— Tewkesbury, 144.

— Wybonbury, 147.

Isabel, wife of George Duke of Clarence, 139, 143, 199, 200.

Isabel, wife of Henry Earl of Ewe, afterwards Earl of Essex, 193, 198.

Ive, Roger, principal or master of the College at Battlefield, 17.

J.

Jaquette of Luxembourg, daughter of Peter of Luxembourg, Earl of St. Paul, 41 (note), 105 (note).

Joan, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, second wife of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, 24, 199.

Joan Neville, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and wife of William Earl of Arundel, 24 (note), 200.

Joan, wife of Edward the Black Prince, 198.

K.

Kent, Edmund Grey, Earl of, previously Lord Grey of Ruthin, 45.

Kent, William Neville, Earl of, previously Lord Falconberg, 41, 44, 84, 100, 110.

Kettleman’s Bridge, near Towton, 89 (note).

Kildare, or Gerardine, or Fitzgerald, Lord, slain at Stoke, 187.

King Edward IV., descent of, 67, 68, 199.

King Edward V., descent of, 199.

King Henry VI., descent of, 22, 82, 198.

King Henry VII., descent of, 158, 201.

King Richard III., descent of, 139, 158, 199.

Kiriel, Sir Thomas, put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, 83.

L.

Lancaster, House of, heraldic devices and badges of, 22.

Lancaster, House of, 22.

Latimer, Richard Neville, Lord, 186.

Legh, Sir John, 26.

Leicester, Simon de Montford, Earl of, slain at Evesham, 203, 204.

Lermouth, Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Lewkener, Sir John, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Lincoln, John de la Pole, Earl of, 177, 178, 191, 199; slain at Stoke, 187.

Lions, lionesses, and leopards, kept in the Tower of London in the reign of Edward IV., 283.

Little Warford, Cheshire, 247.

Longstrother, John, Prior of St. John of Jerusalem, 132; executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

Lovel, Francis Viscount, 166, 178; slain at or not heard of after the battle of Stoke, 187, 317, 318.

Lucy, Sir William, slain at Northampton, 46.

M.

Mackerel, Doctor, 107, 148.

March, Earl of, afterwards King Edward IV., 67, 83, 84, 119, 199.

March, Edmund Earl of, 3 (note), 198.

Marchers, the Lords, 78.

Marches of Wales, Court of, 78, 79.

Margaret, Queen of Henry VI.—See “Queen Margaret.”

Margaret Duchess of Burgundy, widow of Charles Duke of Burgundy, 23, 177, 199.

Margaret’s Camp, near Tewkesbury, 149.

Massey, Sir John, 8.

Menagerie, Royal, in the Tower of London, 283.

Milwater, John, slain at Barnet, 208.

Molyneux, Sir Richard, slain at Blore Heath, 26.

Molyns, or Molins, Lord, also called Robert Lord Hungerford, 106 (note).

Molyn, Sir Roger, 106.

Montague, John Neville, Marquis of, previously Lord Montague, then for a short time Earl of Northumberland, 27, 110, 118 (note); slain at Barnet, 208.

Montjoy, Walter Blount, Lord, 111.

Mortar, 219.

Mortimer, Sir Hugh, slain at Shrewsbury, 8.

Mortimer, Sir Hugh, slain at Wakefield, 58.

Mortimer, Sir John, slain at Wakefield, 58.

Mortimer’s Cross, battle of, 67.

Morton, John, Cardinal, and Archbishop of Canterbury, 107.

N.

Narbohew, Sir Henry, 106.

Nen, or Nene, river, near Northampton, 43, 46, 50.

Neville, George Bishop of Exeter, afterwards Archbishop of York, 41, 83.

Neville, John Lord, slain at Towton, 104, 193.

Neville, William Lord Falconberg, afterwards Earl of Kent, 41, 44, 84, 100, 110.

Neville, Sir Henry, put to death after the battle of Banbury, 193, 199.

Neville, Sir John, afterwards Lord Montague, afterwards Earl of Northumberland, afterwards Marquis Montague, 27, 110, 118 (note); slain at Barnet, 208.

Neville, Sir Thomas, slain at Wakefield, 27, 58, 200.

Newborough, Sir William, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

Nor Acres, at Towton, 96, 97.

Norfolk, John Howard, Duke of, 164, 165; slain at Bosworth, 165.

Norfolk, John Mowbray, Duke of, 82 (note), 84, 102.

Northampton, battle of, 39.

Northumberland, Henry Percy, first Earl of, 1, 3; beheaded at York, 2 (note).

Northumberland, Henry Percy, second Earl of, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, 2 (note).

Northumberland, Henry Percy, third Earl of, 99; slain at Towton, 103.

Northumberland, Henry Percy, fourth Earl of, 164, 165.

Northumberland, John Neville Earl of (for a short period), afterwards Marquis Montague, 27, 110, 118 (note); slain at Barnet, 208.

O.

Offenham Ferry, near Evesham, 203.

Ordnance, Clerk of the, 223, 225.

Ordnance, Master of the, in the reign of Henry V., Edward IV., and Richard III., 219, 223, 241.

Ordnance, occasional use of, by the English, in sieges, in the fourteenth century, 218 to 216.

Ordnance commonly used by the English in war in the 15th century, 217 to 244.

Ormonde, Sir John, 106.

Owen Glendowr, 3, 5, 7.

Oxford, John de Vere, Earl of, 165, 166 (note), 180, 186, 194.

P.

Pedigrees, 198, 199, 200, 201, 282.

Parhelion, or mock sun, seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross, 72.

Parr, Sir Thomas, 29 (note).

Parr, Thomas, slain at the battle of Barnet, 208.

Pembroke, Jasper Tudor, Earl of, afterwards Duke of Bedford, 69, 133, 166, 180, 186; extraordinary and abrupt changes of fortune of, 69 (note).

Percy, Henry, called Hotspur, 1, 2, 7, 198.

Percy, Sir Richard, slain at Towton, 106.

Pickering, Sir James, 29 (note).

Pigot, Sir Ralph, 106.

Pole, John de la, Earl of Lincoln, 177, 178, 191, 199; slain at Stoke, 187.

Pole, John de la, Duke of Suffolk, married a sister of Edward IV., 177 (note), 191, 199.

Powis, Richard Grey, Lord, 29 (note).

Q.

Queen Anne, wife of Richard III., 139 (note), 158, 196, 199, 200.

Queen Elizabeth, wife of Edward IV., 41 (note), 105 (note), 199.

Queen Elizabeth, wife of Henry VII., 158, 199, 201.

Queen Margaret, wife of Henry VI., 25, 42, 53, 82, 132, 146, 198, 201.

Queen Eleanor’s Cross, 48, 51.

R.

Ratcliffe, Sir Richard, slain at Bosworth, 166.

René, Duke of Anjou, 42 (note), 147.

Richard III., 139, 158, 199; slain at Bosworth, 169, 196.

Richmond, Henry Tudor, Earl of, afterwards Henry VII., 71 (note), 158.

Richmond, Margaret Countess of, 324.

Rivers, Anthony Wodevile, Earl, previously Lord Scales, 40 (note), 105; beheaded at Pontefract, 41 (note), 105 (note).

Rivers, Richard Wodevile, Earl, 40 (note), 105 (note).

Roe deer, formerly wild in England, 288, 297.

Roos, Thomas Lord, 56, 104.

Rose (quære Roos), Sir Henry, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 148.

Rostherne, parish of, in Cheshire, 247.

Rouse (quære Rowys), Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 148.

Rugemont, Thomas Lord Grey of, 105.

Ruthin, Edmund Lord Grey of, afterwards Earl of Kent, 45 (note).

Rutland, Edmund Earl of, murdered after the battle of Wakefield, 59, 193, 199.

S.

Sabbath days, three battles fought on, 127 (note).

Salisbury, Richard Neville, Earl of, 24; put to death after the battle of Wakefield, 58, 59.

Salisbury, Thomas de Montacute, Earl of, 24 (note), 39 (note), 228.

Salisbury, Bishop of, pacific exertions of, before the battle of Northampton, 44.

Sandal Castle, 54, 58, 63.

Savage, Sir John, 167.

Saxton, 86, 87; church and parish, 122.

Saye, James Fienes, Lord, put to death by Jack Cade, 209 (note).

Saye, William Fienes, Lord, fought at Northampton, and slain at Barnet, 42 (note), 209.

Scales, Anthony Wodevile, Lord, afterwards Earl Rivers, 40 (note), 105; beheaded at Pontefract, 41 (note), 105 (note).

Scales, Thomas Lord, 40, 42 (note); murdered in 1460, 40 (note).

Serpentine, 219.

Seymour, Sir Thomas, slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, 142, 148.

Shirley, Sir Hugh, 8.

Shrewsbury, battle of, 1.

Shrewsbury, John Talbot, first Earl of, slain at Castillon, 46 (note), 103 (note 6).

Shrewsbury, John Talbot, second Earl of, slain at Northampton, 46, 103 (note).

Shrewsbury, George Talbot, fourth Earl of, 180.

Simnel, Lambert, the impostor, 178, 187.

Simnel, Thomas, a joiner at Oxford, 178.

Simons, Richard, 178, 187.

Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of, slain at the battle of St. Alban’s, 43 (note), 54 (note).

Somerset, Henry Beaufort, Duke of, 43, 54, 103; taken prisoner and beheaded after the battle of Hexham, 43 (note), 54 (note).

Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of, 133, 141; executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

Soss Moss Hall, Cheshire, 245 to 251.

St. Alban’s, first battle of, 2 (note), 23, 43 (note), 54 (note).

St. Alban’s, second battle of, 82.

St. John, Hospital of, at Northampton, 48.

St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of, 132.

St. John, John Longstrother, Prior of, 132, 140; executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

St. Ledger, Sir Thomas, executed and attainted, 191, 195, 199.

Stafford, Edmund Earl of, slain at Shrewsbury, 8.

Stafford, Humphrey Earl of, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, 48 (note), 49, 199.

Stafford, Lord Henry, of Buckingham, 106 (note).

Standard of Edward IV., 117.

„ Henry VII., 117 (note).

„ Richard III., 117 (note).

Stanley, Sir William, 28, 31, 168.

Stanley, Thomas Lord, afterwards Earl of Derby, 28 (note), 167, 180.

Stoke, battle of, 177.

Stoke, village of, 180, 190.

Strange, George Lord, 162, 180.

Stutton, bridge of, 89.

Suffolk, John de la Pole, Duke of, married Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV., 177 note, 191, 192, 199.

Surrey, Thomas Howard, Earl of, 165.

Swartz, Martin, 178; slain at Stoke, 187.

Swartz Moor, in Lancashire, 178.

T.

Talbot, Sir Christopher, slain at Northampton, 46.

Talbot, Sir Gilbert, 165, 167.

Tewkesbury, battle of, 131.

Throgmorton, John, 148.

Towton, battle of, 81.

Towton Hall, 101.

Towton village, 87, 89, 100 note.

Tresham, Henry, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 148.

Tresham, Sir Thomas, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 148.

Trollop, Sir Andrew, 99, 103; slain at Towton, 106.

Trollop, Sir David, slain at Towton, 106.

Troutbeck, Sir William, slain at Blore Heath, 26.

Tudor, Sir Owen, slain at Mortimer’s Cross, 73, 201.

U, V.

Urnan (quære Urman), Sir John, slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 148.

Vaughan, Sir Thomas, beheaded at Pontefract, 41 (note), 105 (note).

Vaux, Sir William slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 147.

Venables, Sir Hugh, 26.

Venables, Sir Richard, 8.

Vernon, Sir Richard, 8.

Vestynden, Ralph, bearer of Edward’s the Fourth’s standard of the Black Bull at the battle of Towton, 117.

Veuglaire, 219 to 244.

W.

Wakefield, battle of, 53.

Wakefield Green, 58, 62, 63.

Wales, Edward Prince of, son of Richard III., 195, 199.

Wales, Edward Prince of, son of Henry VI., 47, 54 (note), 198; murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, 144.

Warford, Little, Cheshire, 247.

Warwick, Anne Countess of, 133, 200.

Warwick, Edward, Earl of, imprisoned and afterwards put to death by Henry VII., 172, 175, 196, 199.

Warwick, Richard Neville, Earl of (the King-Maker), 24, 39, 100, 205, 207; slain at Barnet, 208.

Wateley, Henry, slain at Tewkesbury, 148.

Well, King Richard’s, 159, 160, 164, 173.

Welles, Leo Lord, slain at Towton, 104.

Welles and Willoughby, Richard Lord, 104.

Wenlock, John Lord, 42, 100, 133, 140; death of, at the battle of Tewkesbury, 142.

Wensleydale, Fore Abbey, in, remarkable grant to the monks of, 292.

Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, first Earl of, 24 (note), 199.

Wharfe, River, 88, 113.

Wichingham, Sir William, 147.

Widevile, or Wodevile, family of, 40 (note), 105 (note).

Wigmore Castle, 76, 77, 78.

Willoughby, Robert Lord, 104.

Wilmslow Church, Cheshire, 253 to 266.

Wiltshire, James Boteler, Earl of, 56, 69; taken prisoner and beheaded, 56 (note).

Wittingham, Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.

Wolves, probable period of the extinction of, in England, 287 to 299.

Worcester, John Tibtoft, Earl of, executed in 1470, 193 (note).

Worcester, Thomas Percy, Earl of, 2; taken prisoner and executed, 8.

Wroughton, 148.

Wyche, or De la Wyche, ancient Cheshire family of, 245.

Y.

York, heraldic devices and badges of the House of, 22, 117.

York, Cecily Duchess of, strange and mournful afflictions and calamities in her family, 192 to 197.

York city, surrendered to Edward IV., 118.

York, House of, descent of the, 22.

York, Richard Duke of, 22; slain at Wakefield, 58, 64.

York, Richard Duke of, son of Edward IV., believed to have been murdered in the Tower, 195, 199.

Z.

Zouch, John Lord, 166.

THE END.

F. Pickton, Printer, Perry’s Place, 29, Oxford Street.

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. [0]

Page 24, note 1.

Instead of “Richard the oldest son, Earl of Salisbury, and afterwards Earl of Warwick,” read, “Richard the eldest son, Earl of Warwick, and after his father’s death, also Earl of Salisbury.”

„ 329, Index.

After “Bourchier, William, Earl of Ewe,” instead of “118 (note), 209 (note),” insert, “40 (note 1), 118 (note 4), 209 (note 3).”

„ 339, Index.

After “Shrewsbury, John Talbot, first Earl of, slain at Castillon, 46 (note),” add “103 (note 6).”

FOOTNOTES.

[0]  This errata slip, inserted before page 1 of the book, has been applied in this transcription.—DP.

[v]  It has been considered advisable to commence this work with an account of the battle of Shrewsbury, which was a prelude to, and had so close a relation to, the wars of York and Lancaster, that it may, without much impropriety, be considered as one of them.

[vi1]  Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters of the Reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., Preface, p. vii.

[vi2]  Ibid., Preface, p. viii.

[vii]  Most of the papers relating to the fields of battle have been transmitted to, and read, from time to time, before meetings of the Society of Antiquaries of London.  In consequence of further information, obtained in my subsequent visits to the respective scenes of action, and derived from other sources, additions in some instances, and alterations in others, have however been made in several of the papers.  For example: my visits to Towton Field amount altogether to nine; and since the paper upon it was read before the meetings of the Society, considerable additional information has been acquired respecting if, which has naturally caused some alterations to be made.

[viii]  Ralph Brooke (York Herald), William Dugdale (Norroy King at Arms), Francis Sandford (Lancaster Herald at Arms), and, in some instances, John Leland the Antiquary, are the principal authorities relied upon respecting the personages, families, and other genealogical matters mentioned in this work.

[1a]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 25th of March, 1852, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[1b]  I visited the field of battle in September and October 1851, August 1852, June 1853, June 1854, May 1855, and May 1856 and also in September, 1856, which was after part of this work had been sent to the press.

[1c]  Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, son of Henry Lord Percy and Mary his wife, sister of Henry Duke of Lancaster, was created the first Earl of Northumberland of that surname, at the coronation of King Richard II. in 1377.  He and Henry Percy his son, called Hotspur, gained the battle of Hallidown Hill, against the Scotch, in 1402.  After the battle of Shrewsbury, being supposed to be disaffected, he was committed to the Tower of London; but having been liberated from thence, he, with Lord Bardolph, came out of Scotland in the ninth year of Henry IV. with considerable forces against Henry; and at Bramham Moor was encountered by Thomas Rokeby, sheriff of Yorkshire, where the earl was taken prisoner, and Lord Bardolph dangerously wounded; and they were brought to York, where they were both beheaded in 1408.  He married two wives: the first was Margaret, daughter of Ralph Lord Neville of Raby, by whom he had issue Henry Percy (called Hotspur) slain at the battle of Shrewsbury; Thomas Percy, the second son; Ralph Percy, the third son; and Alan Percy, the fourth son, who died young.  The earl’s second wife was Maud, daughter of Thomas Lord Lucy, by whom he had not any issue.  Henry Percy (Hotspur) left issue, by his wife Elizabeth, oldest daughter of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, a son Henry, afterwards second Earl of Northumberland, who in the third year of Henry V. was restored to his honours; a staunch supporter of the Lancastrian party, and was slain at the first battle of St. Albans, on the 22nd of May, 1455; [2c] and a daughter, Elizabeth, married to John Lord Clifford, and, after his death, to Ralph Neville, second Earl of Westmoreland of that surname.

[2a]  Sir Thomas Percy, Knight, a younger brother of Henry Percy, first Earl of Northumberland, was created Earl of Worcester and Lord High Admiral of England in 1397, and taken prisoner at the battle of Shrewsbury, and beheaded in that town in 1403.

[2b]  Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 186; Carte’s History of England, vol. ii. p. 659.  The battle is stated, in Gough’s edition of Camden’s Britannia, vol. ii. p. 418, to have “began in Oldfield or Bulfield, a little north of the north gate, and raged as far as what is now called Battlefield.”  In Stow’s Annals the place is “called Oldfield, alias Bulfield, not farre from a place called Barwike.”

[2c]  The 22nd of May, according to Dugdale, vol. i. p. 166 and 342, and Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May, according to Fabyan, Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton.

[3a]  The accounts are but meagre and incomplete respecting the precise object of the insurrection; but it is usually treated by historical writers as having been set on foot with a view to dethrone Henry IV., and to place Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, a descendant of Lionel Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III., upon the throne of England.

[3b]  Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.

[4a]  Holinshed, Walsingham.

[4b]  Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.

[4c]  Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 185.

[4d]  A proclamation of Henry, issued at Burton-upon-Trent on the 16th of July, on the occasion of the rebellion of Percy, has been preserved.—See Rymer’s Fædera, vol. viii. fo. 313.

[4e]  A proclamation or royal mandate was issued at Lichfield by Henry, on the 17th of July.—See Rymer’s Fædera, vol. viii. fol. 314.

[4f]  Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 185.

[5a]  Hall, Grafton.

[5b]  “A portion of the suburbs of Shrewsbury was intentionally burnt; that measure being considered requisite for the safety of the town, in consequence of the approach of Hotspur’s army.—Rot. Parl. 9 Henry IV., vol. iii. fo. 619.”

[5c]  Stow’s Annals, Speed’s History.  It is stated in Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, although their authority for it does not seem altogether satisfactory, that Percy retired to a place called Bull Field, a short distance from Shrewsbury, an extensive common, which stretched from Upper Berwick to the east, and to have encamped there during the night of the 19th, and to have marched the next day by Harlescot and Abright Hussee, to Hateley Field, where he made a stand at the spot now called Battlefield.—See Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 186, 187.

[7]  Hall, Holinshed, Walsingham, Speed, Stow, Grafton, Sandford, p. 265; Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1426.

It is remarkable, that although in Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 280, it is stated that the battle was fought on the eve of St. Mary Magdalen (21st of July, 1403;) yet on p. 168 he states that it was fought on St. Mary Magdalen’s day (22nd of July).  See also Rymer’s Fædera, tome viii fo. 320.

It is stated in Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 187, 188, for which Otterburne is cited as their authority, that a portion of Percy’s forces was posted behind a field of peas, which would naturally form some obstacle to the attack of the royal army—“Oportebat regis exercitum, si pugnare vellet, accedere super aream satam pisis adultis; quas pisas ita nexuerant et tricaverant ut impedimento forent accedentibus prætensi laquei eorundem.”

[8a]  To save repetition, it is well to mention, that this account of the battle has been collected from Hall, Holinshed, Walsingham, Grafton, Speed, Stow, and Monstrelet, c. 7.

[8b]  Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford, was the third son of Hugh Earl of Stafford, and his wife Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, the elder Earl of Warwick, and the heir of his brothers Thomas and William, and was after their deaths without issue, the fifth Earl of Stafford and Lord of Tunbridge.  He married Anne, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of Edward III.  He was the father of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton fighting for the Lancastrian party in 1459.  The strange and mournful fatality which attended the principal members of this powerful and celebrated family, will be noticed in treating upon the latter battle, in Chap. III.

[8c]  Lelandi Collectanea, vol. ii. p. 389 [313].

[9]  In note 5 of Owen and Blakeway’s Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 194, it is stated that the church is in length 126 feet, and in breadth (with the cemetery) 65 feet.

[10a]  Lel. Coll. vol. i. p. 388.

[10b]  Grose, vol. ii. p. 356, plate 28, fig. 8.  Meyrick’s Ancient Armour, vol. i. p. 33.

[11a]  Some articles discovered there came under the notice of the Archæological Institute in August 1855.

[11b]  Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1427.

[11c]  See Frontispiece.

[11d]  Similar to the trench or pit on the north side of Saxton Church, mentioned in my paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1849, relative to the field of the battle of Towton, which pit contained the bones of many men of men slain at that sanguinary battle.  See Chap. VI.

[11e]  In a note (5) to Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 194, referring to a MS., it is stated that a pit was made there for the slain, 160 feet long, 68 feet broad, and 60 feet deep, over which the church was afterwards built; but those dimensions, and especially the depth, are evidently very greatly exaggerated.  In modern warfare, much smaller pits suffice for the dead.

[11f]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. iv. p. 181 a.

[12]  When I visited the church in May 1856, I was very sorry to hear that a subscription had been entered into, for the purpose of what was termed “renovating” this curious and interesting edifice.  As far as respects removing the modern pillars, and the plastered ceiling from the chancel, and making the latter appear more in accordance with its ancient state, few persons would object to that measure; but it ought to be borne in mind that the chancel will accommodate, and much more than accommodate, the whole number of church-goers of the very scanty population of Battlefield parish; and that the renovation or rebuilding of any other part is wholly unnecessary, with reference to the spiritual requirements of the parishioners.  It would evince great want of taste and judgment to renovate or restore the ancient nave and tower.  The remains are most valuable to the historian and archæologist.  The interval was so very short, comparatively speaking, between the erection of the church in the reign of Henry IV., and the seizure of the edifice and its contiguous college and hospital in the reign of Henry VIII., that we cannot doubt that the remains are now an authentic and interesting example of church architecture of the reign of the former monarch.  The parties who wish for or recommend the renovation of the nave, or the restoration of the whole of Battlefield Church, may possibly find some architect, who, like an old-clothes man, may undertake to “renovate” the article which he is accustomed to deal in, or, in other words, to make it “as good as new”; but when the alterations in this church are finished, they may probably furnish an example of a lamentable destruction of a very ancient, curious, and historical relic of times gone by.  As a proof of the mischief which may be done by so-called restorations, let any person of good taste, who has paid even moderate attention to archæology and church architecture, look around, and say whether, out of the numerous ancient churches which have been attempted to be restored or renovated, during the last quarter of a century, there can be found more than some five or six, where bad taste or presumption has not been evinced in the attempts of the various architects to restore or renovate them.  If this tasteless system is allowed to proceed, we may, ere long, hear of some ignorant architect who may offer to rebuild or beautify Tintern Abbey, or restore or renovate Kenilworth Castle.

[13a]  There were in 1856 only two pinnacles on the north aide, and three on the south side of the tower.

[13b]  Of the description usually called a Newel staircase.

[14a]  See Frontispiece.

[14b]  The figure of the Virgin with the dead Christ in her lap, is usually designated a “pieta,” and it is said that the sculptors of the fifteenth century were very fond of the subject.  It is mentioned in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. lxii. p. 893, and vol. xliv. September, 1855, p. 296, in noticing the Proceedings of the Archæological Institute.  A view of the church is also engraved in vol. lxii. p. 898.

[17a]  Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1426.  Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, p. 34, and Appendix xxxv.  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. iv. fo. 181 a.

[17b]  Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, p. 34.

[18a]  “Quandam placeam terræ cam omnibus ædificiis super-edificatis, infra dominium de Adbrighton-Hussee, juxta Salopiam, jacentem in campo qui vocatur Bateleyfield, in quo campo, bellum inter nos et Henricum Percy defunctum, et cæteros rebelles nostros, super extitit, et per Dei gratiam victoriam habuimus et triumphum; quæ quidem placea terræ fosso includitur, continens in longitudine et latitudine duas acras terræ, unacum duobus ingressibus et egressibus; uno, viz., extendente in longitudine de Hadenallestone directè super terram Recardi Hussee domini de Adbrigton-Hussee, in comitatu Salopiæ,” &c. &c.  In another part of the charter is the following passage: “Habendum et Tenendum dictam placeam terræ, fosso sic inclusam,” &c. &c.—Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part iii. pp. 1426, 7.

[18b]  “Idem Bogerus nuper de licentiâ regiâ habuit, ex dono et feoffamento prædicti Ricardi.”—Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part. iii. p. 1426.

[19a]  Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1426.

[19b]  “et animabus illorum, qui in dicto bello interfecti, et ibidem humati existunt, et animabus omnium fidelium defunctorum celebraturis imperpetuum.”—Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1427.

[19c]  Communicated by the Rev. J. O. Hopkins.  The author only heard of his death after this work had been sent to the press.

[19d]  Psalm lxxiv. 6, 7.

[21]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Blore Heath was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of December, 1853, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[22a]  The armorial bearings, devices, and badges of the various members of the rival Houses of York and Lancaster are fully stated in Sandford’s Genealogical History.

[22b]  The Duke of York was the son of Richard Plantagenet (called of Coningsburg) Earl of Cambridge, and Anne his wife, daughter of Roger Mortimer Earl of March and Lord of Wigmore and Clare, the son of Edmund Mortimer, third Earl of March, &c. by Philippe, only daughter and heiress of Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward the Third.  Besides which, the Duke of York was descended from Edward III. by his father’s side, in consequence of being the only son of Richard Earl of Cambridge, who was the son of Edmund (of Langley) Duke of York and Earl of Cambridge, fifth son of Edward III., by Isabel, the daughter of Peter, King of Castile and Leon.  The Duke of York married Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster.  By that marriage he became related to or connected with most of the great noblemen of England.  His wife had for brothers, Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury (father of Richard Neville Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker), William Neville Lord Falconberg, George Neville Lord Latimer, Edward Neville Lord Abergavenny, and Robert Neville Bishop of Durham; and for half brothers, Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland, and — Neville Lord of Ousley or Oversley, in Warwickshire, in right of Mary his wife.  The Duke of York’s power, with the additional aid of that of his wife’s relations, soon enabled him to bring forward his claims to the throne; and although he was cut off by death in battle, before he could compass his views, his son Edward succeeded in obtaining the crown.  The Duke left by his wife, eight sons and four daughters.  The sons were—first, Henry, who died young; second, Edward Earl of March, born at Rouen on the 29th of April, 1441, afterwards King Edward IV.; third, Edmund Earl of Rutland, murdered after the battle of Wakefield in 1460, by Lord Clifford; fourth, William, born at Fotheringay, in Northamptonshire; fifth, John, born at Fotheringay; both of the two last died when infants; sixth, George Duke of Clarence, born in the Castle of Dublin, put to death in the Tower of London on the 18th of February, 1477–8; seventh, Thomas, who died in his infancy; eighth, Richard, born at Fotheringay, 2nd of October, 1452, afterwards King Richard III., slain at the battle of Bosworth in 1485.  The daughters were—first, Anne, married to Henry Holland Duke of Exeter, but, being divorced from him in 1472, she then married Sir Thomas St. Ledger, by whom she had issue, Anne, married to George Manners Lord Roos, by whom she had Thomas Manners Earl of Rutland; second, Elizabeth, married to John de la Pole Duke of Suffolk; third, Margaret, married in 1468 to Charles Duke of Burgundy, called the Bold, or the Rash; and Ursula, of whom nothing is said by historical writers, and it is, therefore, presumed that she died young.

The Duke of York was the first nobleman in the kingdom, in point of family and power.  His claim to the throne of England was grounded on his descent from Lionel, third son of King Edward III.  Lionel’s first wife was Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, in Ireland, in whose right, he (Lionel) was created Earl of Ulster; and because he had with her the honour of Clare, in the county of Suffolk, as parcel of the inheritance of her grandmother (Elizabeth, coheir of the last Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford), he was in 1362, created Duke of Clarence, [23b] from which duchy the name of Clarencieux King of Arms, of the south parts of England, is derived.  He had issue by Elizabeth his wife, one only daughter, Philippe, before mentioned, who married Edmund Mortimer, third Earl of March, grandfather of Anne Countess of Cambridge, who was the mother of Richard Duke of York, and grandmother of King Edward IV. and of King Richard III.

The Duke of York enjoyed vast possessions in England and Ireland, in right not only of his paternal line of the houses of York and Cambridge, but also of his descent from the great and powerful families of Mortimer (Earls of March), Clare (Earls of Gloucester and of Hertford), and de Burgh (Earls of Ulster).  He was closely allied to the great and noble family of Neville, from having married Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland, besides being connected with several other noble and powerful families.

[23a]  Some historians mention the 23rd of May, as the day on which that battle was fought.

[23b]  From a place in Suffolk, called Clare, or Clarence.

[24a]  Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury was the son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland (by Joan, his second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, and widow of Sir Robert Ferrers of Oversley), and was created Earl of Salisbury after the death of Thomas de Montacute Earl of Salisbury, his wife’s father, in the fifteenth year of King Henry VI., and made Lord Chancellor in the 32nd year of his reign.  He married Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas de Montacute Earl of Salisbury, and had issue by her, four sons and six daughters: Richard the eldest son, Earl of Warwick, and after his father’s death, also Earl of Salisbury, the King Maker, slain at the battle of Barnet in 1471; second, John, Marquis Montague, also slain at the battle of Barnet; third, Thomas, married the widow of Lord Willoughby, and was slain at the battle of Wakefield; fourth, George, Bishop of Exeter, and Lord Chancellor, and afterwards Archbishop of York; Joan, the oldest daughter, was married to William Fitzalan Earl of Arundel; second, Cecily, married to Henry Beauchamp Duke of Warwick; third, Alice, married Henry Lord Fitzhugh Baron of Ravenswath; fourth, Eleanor, married Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards the first Earl of Derby of that surname; fifth, Katherine, married William Bonvile, son and heir to William Lord Bonvile and Harrington; sixth, Margaret, married John De Vere Earl of Oxford.  Richard Earl of Salisbury was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Wakefield, and beheaded at Pontefract, and his body was first interred there, and afterwards removed to Bisham Abbey, in Berkshire, which had been founded by, and was the place of interment of the Montacutes, and where the bodies of his sons, the Earl of Warwick and Marquis Montague, were also interred, after the battle of Barnet.

[24b]  Richard Neville, eighteenth Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker, was the son and heir of Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury, by Alice, daughter of Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, and married Anne, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, sixteenth Earl of Warwick.  His power was so great, that he was mainly instrumental in placing King Edward IV. upon the throne in 1461, and again in dethroning him, and replacing Henry VI. upon the throne in 1470; and he was slain fighting against Edward at the battle of Barnet, on 14th of April, 1471.  He left issue two daughters: Isabel, married to George Plantagenet Duke of Clarence, brother of King Edward IV.; and Anne, married, first, to Edward Prince of Wales, son of King Henry VI., murdered at Tewkesbury in 1471; and secondly, to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.

[25a]  Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1445.

[25b]  Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret.  He was born on the 13th of October, 1453, and was murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471.

[25c]  James Touchet Lord Audley (the son and heir of John Touchet Lord Audley, who died in the tenth year of Henry IV.) was summoned to Parliament in the eighth year of Henry V., as Lord Audley.  He attended Henry V. in his wars in France.  In the reign of Henry VI., he took part with the House of Lancaster, and was sent by Queen Margaret to intercept the Earl of Salisbury at Blore Heath, which was not more than ten or twelve miles from Lord Audley’s possession of Red Castle at Hawkstone, now belonging to the Viscount Hill, in Shropshire.  After Lord Audley’s death in that battle, his body was interred in Darley Abbey, in Derbyshire.  He left a son, John Lord Audley, who adhered to the Yorkist party, and had some offices of importance conferred upon him by Edward IV. and Richard III., and died in 1491, in the sixth year of Henry VII., leaving issue.

[25d]  For the historical authorities, see Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale’s Baronage, Sandford’s Genealogical History, Kennett’s Lives of the Kings and Queens; Leland’s Itinerary, vol. vii. fo. 32; Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. (A.D. 1459), vol. v. p. 348.  The latter contains the following passage:—“the sonday next after the fest of Seint Mathewe th’ Apostle, the 38 yere of youre moost gracious reigne, at Blore, in youre shire of Stafford, in the feldes of the same towne, called Blore-heth,” &c. &c.; see also ibid. p. 369, in which it is stated, that Queen Margaret and Edward Prince of Wales had been at Chester, and afterwards at Eccleshall, previously to the battle; and that Lord Stanley was directed, before it took place, to come with his forces, and join the Lancastrians; and that he sent his servant to the Queen and the Prince with a promise to do so in all haste, but failed, and by his failing to join them, the Lancastrians were defeated, although he was, with 2000 men, within six miles of Blore Heath, and that he staid three days at Newcastle, only six miles from Eccleshall, where the Queen and Prince of Wales then were; and that in the morning after the defeat of the Lancastrians, Lord Stanley sent a letter to the Queen and Prince, extenuating his not having assisted them with his forces; and that he then departed home again; and also that the people and tenants of the King and of the Prince, in the hundreds of Wirral and of Macclesfield, had been prevented by Lord Stanley from going to the assistance of the King; and he was also accused of having, on the night ensuing the battle, sent a letter of congratulation to the Earl of Salisbury.  If those charges were true, it looks very much as if he had been a Yorkist at heart, but disposed to keep fair with both sides.

[26a]  Sir Richard Molyneux was an ancestor of the Earl of Sefton.

[26b]  It is remarkable that Ormerod, in his Cheshire, vol. i. p. xxxii., mentions that it was Sir William Troutbeck who was slain in the battle; but in vol. ii. pp. 27 and 28, his son, Sir John Troutbeck, is mentioned as the person who was slain there; and it is stated that the former had been, and that the latter was at that time, Chamberlain of Chester.

[27a]  Stow’s Annals, p. 405.  See also Holinshed’s Chronicles, p. 649.

[27b]  Rot. Parl. vol. v. 38th of Henry VI. p. 348.  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. vii. fo. 32.

[27c]  John De Sutton Baron of Dudley (called in the act of Parliament of 38th of Henry VI. (1459) John Lord Dudley), being a firm adherent to the Lancastrian interest, and being surprised at Gloucester in the 29th year of Henry VI., by Richard Duke of York (upon his return at that time out of Ireland), was sent prisoner to the Castle of Ludlow.  (Stow’s Annals; and Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. p. 215.)  He was wounded at the battle of Blore Heath.  (Leland’s Itinerary, vol. vii. fo. 32.)  The imprisonment of the Baron of Dudley in the Tower of London in 1455, is mentioned in Fenn’s collection of original letters (sometimes called the Paston Letters), vol. i. p. 107.  It should seem, therefore, that he was twice imprisoned at the instance of the Duke of York.  After the accession of Edward IV., Dudley was, however, reconciled to the House of York, and he does not appear to have ever afterwards assisted the opposite party.  By his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Berkley of Beverstan in Gloucestershire, he had issue three sons: Edmund, who died in his father’s lifetime, leaving issue John, from whom the Earls of Warwick and Leicester derived their descent; and William Bishop of Durham; he had also a daughter, Margaret, married to George Longueville, of Little Billinge, Northamptonshire, Esq.

[27d]  Sir John Neville was afterwards Marquis Montague, and slain at the battle of Barnet in 1471; and Sir Thomas Neville was slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460.

[27e]  Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 173; Holinshed’s Chronicles, fo. 649; Baker’s Chronicles, fo. 195; Stow’s Annals, fo. 405.

[28a]  Afterwards John Lord Wenlock.

[28b]  William Stanley (afterwards Sir William Stanley, Knight) was the second son of Sir Thomas Stanley, Chamberlain to Henry VI.  Sir Thomas Stanley was summoned to Parliament as Lord Stanley, on the 20th of January, 1455–6, in the 34th of Henry VI., and died in the 37th year of that King’s reign, 1459; he married Joan, the daughter of Sir Robert Goushill, of Hoveringham, in the county of Nottingham, by whom he had three sons and three daughters, and was succeeded by his oldest son Thomas (afterwards first Earl of Derby), who was summoned to Parliament amongst the barons of this realm, on the 24th of May, 1461, in the first year of Edward IV., by the title of Baron Stanley of Latham.  (Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. iii. p. 248; Collins’s Peerage, vol. iii. p. 41, 42; and the Memoirs of the House of Stanley, published by J. Harrop in 1767, p. 31.)  It is remarkable that Dugdale does not mention any one of the family having been summoned to Parliament amongst the barons of the realm, or having been ennobled, prior to Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards first Earl of Derby.  Edmundson, in his Peerage, states that the latter was summoned to Parliament as Lord Stanley, in 1456; but it should seem that he means the father of the latter.  It is certain that the father had a title as Lord Stanley, some time during the reign of Henry VI., from the passage in the act of the Parliament of Coventry, 38th Henry VI. (1459): “William Stanley Squier sonne to Thomas late Lord Stanley;” and from “Lord Stanley” being also repeatedly mentioned, in the proceedings of that Parliament (38th Henry VI.), and William Stanley being there called the brother of Lord Stanley; which it is impossible to apply to any other Lord Stanley, except Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards first Earl of Derby, who was his brother, and who was also the son of the late Lord Stanley.—Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. pp. 348, 369, 370.  See also Rot. Parl. 39 Henry VI. (1460), vol. v. p. 382; in which the Lord Stanley then living (who was afterwards first Earl of Derby), is called “Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley;” and his deceased father is particularly designated as “Thomas Stanley, late Lord Stanley his Fader;” besides which, the deceased is more than once called “Thomas, late Lord Stanley.”  Thomas Lord Stanley, by his defection and opportunely going over, with his forces, at the battle of Bosworth, to the Earl of Richmond, was of the utmost service to him, and was the principal cause of his gaining the victory and the crown, was for so doing, created first Earl of Derby of that name, by Henry VII., in 1485, and died in 1504.  Sir William Stanley (brother of the last-mentioned Lord Stanley) also commanded a considerable body of troops, at that battle.  The aid of Sir William Stanley against Richard III. on that occasion, contributed very greatly, to place Henry upon the throne of England; yet Henry, forgetful of benefits received, caused Sir William Stanley to be beheaded on Tower Hill, on the 16th of February, 1494—5, on a very questionable charge, not of any treasonable actions, but of some alleged disloyal words.  He was of Holt Castle, in the county of Denbigh, where he had large landed possessions, besides great quantities of plate, money, jewels, and other personal property; and the forfeiture of his wealth, is generally supposed to have been no slight motive, in inducing that avaricious and tyrannical King, to put him to death.  When he fought at the battle of Blore Heath, there was exhibited a melancholy and revolting but very common effect of civil war; relatives fighting against each other; for his brothers-in-law, Sir William Troutbeck, who had married Margaret, the oldest sister, and Sir Richard Molyneux of Sefton, who had married Elizabeth, the second sister of Sir William Stanley, were both slain in that battle.

[29]  A list of the Yorkist noblemen, knights, and other persons who were by that act of attainder declared guilty of high treason, and their possessions forfeited, for having taken arms against Henry VI., or for other alleged offences, and their titles or names, are given here, in the order in which they appear in the act, viz.:—The Earl of Salisbury; Sir Thomas Neville, Sir John Neville, sons of the Earl of Salisbury; Sir Thomas Harrington, Sir John Conyers, and Sir Thomas Parr; William Stanley, Esq., Son of the late Thomas Lord Stanley [and brother of Thomas, the then Lord Stanley], and Thomas Mering, Esq., for being engaged at the battle of Blore Heath, on Sunday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle, in the 38th year of Henry VI.; also the Duke of York, the Earl of March, the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Rutland, John Clinton Lord Clinton, Sir John Wenlock, Sir James Pickering, the said Sir John Conyers, and the said Sir Thomas Parr; John Bourchier and Edward Bourchier, Esqrs., nephews of the Duke of York; Thomas Colt, of London, Gentleman; John Clay, of Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, Esq.; Roger Eaton, of Shrewsbury, Esq.; and Robert Bold, brother of Sir Henry Bold, for having been in arms with the Yorkists on Friday, the vigil of St. Edward the Confessor, in the 38th year of Henry VI., at Ludford, near Ludlow; Alice, the wife of the Earl of Salisbury; Sir William Oldhall, and Thomas Vaughan, of London, Esq., for having, the former at Middleham, on the 1st of August, in the 37th year of Henry VI., and the two latter at London, on the 4th of June, compassed and imagined the death of the King, and abetted and incited the Duke of York, and the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, to rebellion.  Richard Grey Lord Powis, [29b] Sir Henry Radford, and Walter Devereux, Esq., who had appeared in arms at Ludford with the Yorkists, but upon the dispersion of the latter had immediately made submission to Henry VI., and had solicited mercy, had their lives spared, but the act, as originally drawn, declared all their possessions forfeited. [29c]  Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. fo. 348.

[29b]  Richard Grey Lord Powis, was an adherent to the house of York, for which he was attainted by the Parliament of Coventry of 38th Henry VI.; but of which the acts and proceedings were annulled by the act of 39th Henry VI.  He was with the Earls of Warwick and Kent at the siege of Alnwick Castle, then held by the Lancastrians in 2nd Edward IV.  He married Margaret, daughter of James Lord Audley, and died in the 6th Edward IV., leaving issue.

[29c]  The King, however, did not give his assent to the latter part of it, against Richard Grey Lord Powis, and Walter Devereux.

[30a]  Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. (1459) vol. v. fo. 348.

[30b]  Ibid. vol. v. fo. 369.

[34a]  Rot. Parl. 38th Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. p. 369, 370.

[34b]  I visited the field of battle on the 28th of August, 1852, the 17th of June, 1853, the 10th of June, 1854, the 11th of May, 1855, the 16th of May and the 30th of September, 1856.

[35]  Chap. x. soc. 85.

[36]  Mr. George Goodall lives upon a farm at Moreton Say, in Shropshire, three miles from Market Drayton.  He showed me the sword, and stated that he had had it 28 years, and that it had previously been for a long period in the possession of his uncle, and was said to have been dug up upon the field of the battle of Blore Heath, but that he did not know at what date it had been discovered.  He also informed me, that some pieces of armour had been formerly found in a pit near to, but not upon, the field of battle.

The blade of the sword is 2 feet 10¾ inches long, and close to the hilt, it is about 1⅛ inch wide.  The blade is fluted on both sides, and with one edge, to within 11 inches of the point, and from thence it has two edges, as if it had been calculated for thrusting and not for cutting.  The pommel is ornamented with a ribbed sloping pattern, and the guard is also ornamented, and is 4½ inches in length.  The whole is of steel or iron.  The hilt is 5½ inches long, and 3 inches in circumference; and there is a substance resembling the hard shell-like skin or covering of some kind of fish remaining round the gripe of the hilt.  The whole of the sword is tolerably perfect, except that for some inches from the point it is injured by rust.

I cannot possibly doubt the veracity of those who spoke to me respecting it, but they may have been misinformed as to its history.  It certainly may have been found at Blore Heath, but does not bear any ancient marks upon it, and from its appearance, make, and state of preservation, I am disposed to think, that it is of a date considerably more modern, than that of the battle of Blore Heath.

[37]  Any person desirous of visiting both the fields of battle of Shrewsbury and of Blore Heath, may easily do so, by going from Shrewsbury to Battlefield, and from thence to Hodnet, and then proceeding by Market Drayton, and Blore Heath, to the Whitmore station, in Staffordshire, upon the London and North-Western Railway; or vice versâ.  In either ease, he will have an opportunity, if disposed to archæological pursuits, of visiting on the way, a remarkable and curious relic of antiquity, called the Bury Walls, upon the estate of the Viscount Hill, and not more than half a mile from his park (Hawkstone).  The place called Bury Walls, is generally believed to have been a Roman station, and its extraordinary and almost perfect ramparts, mounds, and ditches, are very interesting, and rarely to be found equalled in this country.  The beautiful scenery of Hawkstone Park and grounds, well merits the attention of persons travelling in that vicinity, whether they are archæologists or not; and, thanks to the liberality and kindness of the noble owner, strangers are allowed access to the walks and views, without any other restriction, than some trivial ones, with respect to the mode of enjoying themselves, such as taking refreshments or convivial practices, which are generally considered objectionable, and are much better avoided in a nobleman’s park.

[39a]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Northampton was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries on the 31st of January, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[39b]  Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker, the son and heir of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, by Alice his wife, daughter of Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, was slain at the battle of Barnet, on the 14th of April, 1471.—See Chap. II.

[39c]  Edward Earl of March, born on the 29th of April, 1441, was the oldest son of Richard Duke of York, by Cecily his wife, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland; and after the death of his father he claimed the throne, in consequence of being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III.  He was afterwards King Edward IV.—See Chap. V., and Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, Chap. IX.

[39d]  Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, third son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan, his second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, was put to death after the battle of Wakefield, in 1460.—See Chap. IX

[40a]  Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, was of the blood royal of England, being a son of William Lord Bourchier, (Earl of Ewe in Normandy) and Anne his wife, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (sixth son of Edward III.), and Eleanor his wife, daughter of Humphry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Constable of England, and widow of Edmund Earl of Stafford.  He was a brother of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, afterwards of Essex, and became Bishop of Ely, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1454, and retained that see until he died, very aged, in 1486, having held it thirty-two years, and in the reigns of five kings.  He was also Lord Chancellor and a cardinal.

[40b]  Called “Lord Cobham” by Hall and Holinshed; and by Sandford, p. 296; and “Edward Broke Lord Cobham” by Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. ii. p. 159.  But see Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. iii p. 281, where he is called “Sir Edward Brooke, Knight, called Sir Edward Brooke of Cobham,” the son of Sir Thomas Brooke and Joan his wife.  According to Dugdale, he favoured the title of the Duke of York, upon his return out of Ireland, in the 29th year of Henry VI.; took part with the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, on purpose to raise an army, which, under the pretence of removing evil counsellors from the King, might advance the duke to the throne.  He fought against the Lancastrians at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; and, after the accession to the throne of Edward IV., attended him into the North, when the Lancastrians were endeavouring to make head again, and had got possession of some strong places in Northumberland, in 1462.  He died in the fourth year of Edward IV., and was succeeded by John Brooke, his son and heir, who had first summons to Parliament by the title of Lord Cobham, in the twelfth year of Edward IV.; consequently, although the son was ennobled, there does not appear to be any good authority for Hall’s and Holinshed’s designating the father as Lord Cobham.  “Now, as they passed through Kent, there came to them the Lord Cobham, John Gilford, William Pech, Robert Horne, and manie other gentlemen.”—Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 653.

[40c]  Thomas Lord Scales, of Nucels, in Herefordshire, was a commander of celebrity in the French wars.  After being compelled to surrender the Tower of London, subsequently to the battle of Northampton, in 1460, he endeavoured to escape by water; but, being discovered by some of the Earl of Warwick’s men, was captured and put to death by them.  His daughter and heiress, Elizabeth, was married, first, to Henry Bourchier, second son of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex; and afterwards to Anthony Wideville or Wodeville, eldest son of Richard Wideville or Wodeville, Earl Rivers, by Jaquette his wife, daughter of Peter of Luxembourg, Earl of St. Paul, and widow of John Duke of Bedford, Regent of France and third son of King Henry IV., who succeeded to the earldom of Rivers after his father’s death.  Anthony Wodeville became, in right of his wife Elizabeth (daughter of Thomas Lord Scales), Lord Scales, and afterwards Earl Rivers.  He was brother of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV.  (See Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 139, note 3; Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 618, vol. iii. pp. 231–233; Catalogue of Nobility, by Ralph Brooke, pp. 193, 194.)  He was, when Earl Rivers, beheaded at Pontefract, by order of the Council, during the Protectorate, and, as is believed, at the instigation of Richard Duke of Gloucester, without any trial, on the 13th of June, 1483.  Lord Richard Grey (son of the Queen Dowager Elizabeth, by her first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby, son of Edward Grey, Lord Ferrers, of Groby) and Sir Thomas Vaughan were executed there at the same time.  The Wodevilles were originally of the Lancastrian party; and Sir John Grey of Groby, the first husband of Elizabeth, lost his life fighting for that party, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but, after Elizabeth’s charms had made a conquest of the heart of Edward, and he had married her, the Wodevilles became staunch Yorkists.

[41a]  William Neville, Lord Falconberg, afterwards Earl of Kent, was a younger son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and was an uncle of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker.  He was a decided Yorkist, distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, and was created Earl of Kent in the first year of Edward IV., and died in the second year of that king’s reign.

[41b]  John Clinton, Lord Clinton, served in more than one expedition into France, was originally a Lancastrian, but forsook that party in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI. for that of the Duke of York, for which he was attainted, and his lands declared confiscated by the Parliament of Coventry, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., 1459; but all the acts and proceedings of that Parliament were declared void by an act of Parliament of 39th Henry VI.  (See Rot. Parl. 39 Henry VI. (1460), vol. v. p. 374.)  His estates and honours were restored on the accession of Edward IV.

[41c]  Henry Bourchier, originally Earl of Ewe in Normandy, afterwards Lord Bourchier, son and heir of William Lord Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, by Anne, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of Edward III., was brother of Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Ely, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was created Viscount Bourchier in the twenty-fifth year of Henry VI., and was also created Earl of Essex in the first year of Edward IV., and died in 1483.

[41d]  George Neville was consecrated Bishop of Exeter in 1455, became Lord Chancellor in 1460, and was afterwards Archbishop of York, in 1466.  He was the fourth son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and brother of Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick.  He was Bishop of Exeter before he was twenty-five years old, and Lord Chancellor in 1460, before he had completed his thirtieth year, and died in 1476.

[42a]  Hall, Holinshed, Stow.

[42b]  Hall, fo. 176; Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 654.  “Then the Earles of March and Warwike, with the Lords Fauconbrige, Clinton, Bourcher called the Earle of Ewe, the Pryor of Saint John’s, Audley, Burgavenny, Say, and Scrope, the Archbishop, the Pope’s Legate, the Bishops of Excester, Ely, Salisbury, and Rochester, addressed them forth to the King at Northampton, leaving the Earle of Salisbury to be governour of the citie in their absence.  The Lord Scales and Hungerford, that before the comming of the Earles were in the citie of London, and would have had the governance thereof, went to the Tower of London, and with them the Lords Vessy, Lovell, Delaware, Kendale a Gascoigne; Knights, Sir Edmond Hampden, Thomas Brune Sherife of Kent, John Bruin of Kent, Gervais Clifton Treasurer of the King’s House, Thomas Tyrell, the Dutches of Excester, and many other.  Then was the Tower of London besieged both by water and land, that no victualls might come to them.  And they that were within the Tower cast wild fire into the city, and shot many small gunnes, whereby they brent and slew men, women, and children, in the streetes; also they of the city layd great guns on the further side of the Thames against the Tower, and brake the walls in divers places.”—Stow’s Annals, pp. 408 and 409.

[42c]  Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, Queen of Henry VI., was the daughter of Renè, Duke of Anjou; was married to Henry VI. at Southwick, in Hampshire, on the 22nd of April, 1445, and was crowned at Westminster on the 30th of May following.  On the 13th of October, 1453, Edward, the only child of the marriage, was born.  After the defeat of the Lancastrians at the battle of Tewkesbury, and his murder, on the 4th of May, 1471, Margaret fled, and took sanctuary in a poor religious house, and was brought from thence prisoner to London, and Henry died in the Tower very soon after the battle.  A considerable time afterwards she was sent home to her father, Duke Renè, having been ransomed by Louis XI. King of France for 50,000 crowns; and nothing more, connected with England, occurred respecting her, during the remainder of her life, which was passed in retirement, and she died in France, in 1482.

[43a]  Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the eldest son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s on the 22nd of May, [43g] 1455), by Eleanor his wife (daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick), had a military command and served in the wars in France.  He fought at the battle of Towton, in 1461, on the side of the Lancastrians, and after the defeat there, escaped with Henry VI. into Scotland, was afterwards pardoned by Edward IV., but, having revolted, was taken at the battle of Hexham, and beheaded in 1463.  After his death, his brother Edmund (the second son) was also Duke of Somerset, and was beheaded after the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471, in which battle John (the third son) was slain.

[43b]  Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, was the son and heir of Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford, by Anne Plantagenet, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of Edward III., and was created first Duke of Buckingham, of that family, in 1443, and declared to take precedence of all other dukes in England.  He married Anne, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland.

The strange and mournful fatality which attended the principal members of fire generations of this nobleman’s powerful and eminent family, will be mentioned afterwards in this chapter.

[43c]  Stow’s Annals, fo. 409.

[43d]  Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 654

[43e]  The Bishop of Hereford also encouraged the King’s adherents to fight, for which he was, after the battle, imprisoned in Warwick Castle, and remained a long time a prisoner.—Stow’s Annals, fo. 409.

[43f]  Stow’s Annals, fo. 409.

[43g]  The 22nd of May according to Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. i. pp. 166 and 342; and Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May according to Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton.

[44a]  “She caused her army to issue out of the towne and to passe the ryver of Nene; and there in the newe felde, betweene Harsyngton [Hardingstone] and Sandifford, the capitaynes strongely emparked themselfes with high bankes and depe trenches.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 176.  See a similar account in Holinshed’s Chronicles, fo. 654.  The meadows and Delapré Abbey are in the pariah of Hardingstone.  I have not been able to learn that there is any place or ford there, called Sandiford.  It probably was a ford of the river Nen, the name and situation of which are now forgotten.

[44b]  Fabyan Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Speed, and Dugdale, vol. i. p. 305, and vol. ii. p. 161.  It is remarkable that Dugdale, in different parts of his Baronage, does not always give the date consistently.  He calls it the 9th of July, in vol. i. p. 305, and vol. ii. p. 161; the 27th of July, in vol. i. p. 166; the 10th of July, in vol. i. p. 331 (where he professes to give a copy of the epitaph of the Earl of Shrewsbury, slain in the battle of Northampton); and the 10th of July, in vol. ii. p. 54; and Ralph Brooke, p. 197, and Stow, p. 409, also call it the 10th of July.

[45a]  Edmund Lord Grey, of Ruthen, was the grandson and heir of Sir Reginald Grey (being the son of Sir John Grey, his eldest son, who died in his lifetime, by his first wife Margaret, daughter of William Lord Roos), and was created Earl of Kent, in the fifth year of Edward IV.  His desertion from the cause of Henry VI. is mentioned by Leland, who states that “In the tyme of the civile war, betwixt King Henry the VI. and King Edwarde the IV., there was a battaille faught hard without the south suburbes of Northampton,” and that the Lord Fanhope took King Henry’s part; and Leland proceeds thus:—“The Lorde Gray, of Ruthine, did the same in countenance.  But a litle afore the feeld he practisid with King Edward, & other, saying that he had a title to the Lorde Fannope’s landes at Antehil and there aboute, or depraving hym with false accusations, so wrought with King Edwarde, that he, with al his strong band of Walschemen, felle to King Edwardes part, upon promise that if Edwarde wan the feelde, he shaul have Antehil and such landes as Fannope had there.”

“Edwarde wan the feelde, and Gray opteinid Antehille cum pertinentiis: and stil encreasing in favour with King Edwarde, was at the laste, made by hym Erle of Kente.”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 120 [113].—Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, is the place meant as having belonged to Lord Fanhope.

[45b]  Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 654.

[45c]  Stow’s Annals, fo. 409.  Speed’s History, fo. 844.

[46a]  The number of the slain and drowned is stated to have amounted to nearly 10,000.  There seems to have been, from times of very remote antiquity, a bridge over the river at Northampton, near the castle; but from the narrow and inconvenient form of bridges at the date of the battle, it could not afford much chance of escape to many of the fugitives.  The present bridge is modern, and not upon the site of the old one.

[46b]  “The Erles of March, Warwick, and Salisbyri, cam from Calays to Dovar, and so to London and Northampton, and there faute with owte the town, where the Duke of Bokingham, the Erle of Shrobbesbyri, the Viscount Beaumont, the Lorde Egremont, were slayn, and many knighttes and squyers with other, and the King taken prisoner.”—Leland’s Coll. vol. ii. fo. 497 [714].

[46c]  John Talbot, second Earl of Shrewsbury, was the son and heir of John Talbot, first Earl of Shrewsbury, the celebrated commander, renowned for his warlike exploits in France, and slain by a cannon shot at the battle of Castillon, near Bourdeaux, on the 7th [46f] of July, 1453, and of his wife Maud, daughter and heiress of Thomas Neville, Lord Furnival.

[46d]  He was originally John Lord Beaumont, son of Henry Lord Beaumont and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Lord Willoughby of Eresby, and was in the eighteenth year of Henry VI. advanced to the dignity of a Viscount (a title not previously used in England), by the title of Viscount Beaumont, with precedence over all Barons of the realm; after his death at the battle of Northampton, he was succeeded in his title, and his principles, by his son and heir, William Viscount Beaumont, who fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Towton, for which he was included in the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., but was restored by Parliament in the first, and died in the twenty-fourth year of Henry VII.

[46e]  Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, originally Sir Thomas Percy, Knight (the third son of Henry, the second Earl of Northumberland, who was slain at the first battle of Saint Alban’s in 1455, and Eleanor his wife, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and widow of Richard Lord Spencer), was created Lord Egremont, in the twenty-eighth year of Henry VI.

[46f]  On the 7th of July, 1453, according to Ralph Brooke, p. 196; on the 20th of July, according to Dugdale, vol. i. p. 330; but on the 7th of July, on the same page, where he professes to give a copy of the epitaph of the Earl of Shrewsbury, slain in the battle near Bourdeaux, from his monument at Whitchurch, in Shropshire.

[47a]  Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of King Henry VI. and Queen Margaret (usually called Margaret of Anjou).  He was born in the King’s palace at Westminster, on the 13th of October, 1453, in the thirty-first year of Henry VI., and was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 16th of March, in the thirty-second year of his lather’s reign.  At the age of seventeen he was affianced in France to Anne Neville, the second daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker.  The murder of Prince Edward, immediately after the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471, will be noticed in Chapter VII.  After his death, Anne, his widow, was married to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.

[47b]  Catalogue of Nobility, by Ralph Brooke.  The Grey Friars Monastery was in the north-east quarter of the town, but is now demolished, and most of its site is built upon; but it stood in that part of the town which now lies between Newland and Victoria Streets, and to the eastward of the upper end of Grey Friars Street and of Lady’s Lane: a small portion of an ancient wall, with buttresses, and some little remains of masonry, built up in the walls of the adjoining houses, are now visible, contiguous to a deep hollow or depression, which lies on the northward side of Victoria Street, and formed part of the monastic edifice.  Its site has also been identified by stone coffins discovered near there, in excavating the soil for building purposes.

[48a]  Catalogue of Nobility, by Ralph Brooke.

[48b]  The Hospital of St. John in Bridge Street, is one of the old charitable institutions which is still kept up.  The ancient edifice, with its handsome rose window, and its curious little chapel, are well worth a visit.

[48c]  Leland states:—“There was a great bataille faught in Henry the 6th tyme at Northampton on the Hille withoute the southe Gate, where is a right goodly Crosse, caullid as I remembre the Quene’s Crosse, and many Walschmen were drounid yn Avon Ryver at this conflict.  Many of them that were slayn were buried at De la pray: and sum at St. Johns Hospitale.”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 9 [10].  The battle was certainly fought at the southward side of the town, and near Queen Eleanor’s Cross, yet there seems to be some want of care on Leland’s part, in stating that the battle was fought on a hill near the cross.  Although not far from the cross, the place where it was fought is not a hill, although the ground has a gradual ascent from the river and Delapré Abbey, up to the cross, which stands rather elevated, and is a conspicuous object from the abbey, and its park and grounds.  Again, he is evidently incorrect in mentioning the river Avon, instead of the river Nen or Nene.

[48d]  The descent of the Duke of Buckingham from King Edward III. was as follows:—Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, a nobleman of immense possessions, had two daughters, his coheiresses.  Eleanor, the eldest daughter, married Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of King Edward III.  Thomas Duke of Gloucester had by her, amongst other issue, a daughter Anne, whose first husband Edmund Stafford, fifth Earl of Stafford, was slain at the battle of Shrewsbury.  They had a son, Humphrey, first Duke of Buckingham, who married Anne, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and was slain at the battle of Northampton.  Their eldest son was Humphrey Earl of Stafford, who married Margaret, daughter of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and was slain at the first battle of Saint Alban’s.  Their son Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham, married Katherine, daughter of Richard Wideville or Wodeville, Earl of Rivers, and was executed in the first year of Richard III.  Besides the descent of Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham, from Edward III., as above mentioned, he was also descended from him, through his (the Duke of Buckingham’s) mother, Margaret Beaufort, from John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset (son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward III.), by Katherine Swinford, but born before their marriage, in which defect of a legitimate title, by his maternal descent, his case resembled that of King Henry VII.  The Duke of Buckingham, however, from one or both of those sources of descent, probably flattered himself with the hope of one day being King of England; and it has been very reasonably suggested, that it was fortunate for the Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., that his first expedition and attempt to land in England, was a total failure, and terminated in the execution of the Duke of Buckingham; for if that powerful and ambitious nobleman had succeeded in deposing Richard III., it is very probable that he would have attempted to have seized the throne, in his own right.

Mary, the second daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, married Henry Earl of Derby, afterwards King Henry IV.; and it should be here observed, that the Duke of Buckingham was entitled, by descent from Eleanor, eldest daughter of the Earl of Hereford, to at least half of his great possessions.  After the line of Henry IV. had become extinct, the other half was vested in Edward IV. and his heirs; but Buckingham considered himself entitled to it, as heir at law of Mary, the second daughter of the Earl of Hereford.  Shakespeare seldom wrote without a meaning, and from what is above stated, his object in the drama of Richard III. will be at once apparent, in causing the Duke of Gloucester to offer the following inducement to the Duke of Buckingham to support his claim to the throne:—

“And look when I am King, claim thou of me
The earldom of Hereford, and all the moveables
Whereof the King, my brother, was possessed.”

Shakespeare’s King Richard III., act iii. scene 1.

It seems probable that in Shakespeare’s time the word “moveables” was not used in the same sense in which we now use it, for at present that word would be considered strangely inapplicable to lands, castles, manors, &c.

[49]  Historians have not always agreed, respecting the place where the Duke of Buckingham was executed: some have stated that the execution took place at Salisbury, and others at Shrewsbury.  It is certain that he was captured in Shropshire.  The most authentic of the old historical writers, however, state, and apparently upon good grounds, that he was sent a prisoner to Salisbury, where Richard III. then was; and that he was beheaded upon a new scaffold in the open market-place of Salisbury, on the 2nd of November, 1483.—See Fabyan Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Speed, and Stow.

It is well worthy of notice, that in the year 1838, an interesting discovery took place at Salisbury.  Under a brick floor, about eight inches below the surface, at the Saracen’s Head Inn, in that city, during some repairs then in progress, the remains of a man were discovered interred there; but the skull and the bones of the right arm were not with the rest of the skeleton.  The bones had belonged to a man who appeared to have been decapitated, and were supposed to have been those of the Duke of Buckingham.—See the Liverpool Courier of the 12th of September, 1838, in which the above particulars appear copied from the Salopian Journal.  There is nothing surprising in the fact of the bones of the arm, as well as the skull, being wanting, because formerly the different members and quarters, as well as the heads of persons executed, were not unfrequently severed from the bodies, and fixed up in conspicuous places.  That was done even as recently as in the time of the wicked Judge Jeffreys, after the suppression of the Duke of Monmouth’s rebellion.  In the case of the Duke of Buckingham, it was very probable, as he was beheaded in 1483 for high treason, in taking arms and making war against the King, that the duke’s right arm would also be fixed up wherever his head was placed.

[50a]  Hall, Holinshed; Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 9 [10].  “The King, lying in the Friers at Northampton, ordained a strong and mighty field in the meadows beside the Nunry, having the river at his back.”—Stow’s Annals, fo. 409.

[50b]  I beg to tender my thanks to Edward Bouverie, Esq., for the courtesy and attention which I received from him, when inspecting the mansion, and visiting the park and grounds, in the hope of discovering some indications of the position, occupied by one or both of the hostile armies.  I visited the field of battle on the 29th and 30th of May, 1855; and on the 31st of May, 1856.

[51]  Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.  See Chap. II.

[53a]  The paper on the Field of the Battle of Wakefield was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London on the 20th of January, 1853, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[53b]  Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.  See Chap. II.

[53c]  Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of Henry VI., to whom she was married in 1445.  See Chap. III.

[53d]  “appointing his son, the Earl of March, to follow him, with all his power, and came to his Castle of Sandale, near Wakefield (in Yorkshire), on Christmas Eve.”—Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. Title York, p. 161.  Stow’s Annals, fo. 412.  Dugdale and Stow state that the Duke of York left London on the 2nd of December, and arrived at Sandal on Christmas eve.  If he consumed twenty-two days in his march from London to Sandal, the delay seems very extraordinary.

[54a]  According to Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. iii. p. 161, Edward, the young Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret, accompanied her.

[54b]  Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter and Earl of Huntingdon, the son of John Holland, Duke of Exeter, by his first wife, Anne, daughter of Edmund Earl of Stafford, was one of the principal leaders of the Lancastrian party; he fought at the battle of Wakefield, and at that of Towton; and after the disastrous result of the latter, fled with Henry VI., Queen Margaret, the Duke of Somerset, and others, to Scotland; was attainted in the first year of Edward IV., and his lands and possessions were forfeited.  He afterwards again appeared in turbulent scenes in England, fought at the battle of Barnet, was wounded and left for dead, from seven in the morning, until four in the afternoon, when he was brought to the house of one of his servants named Ruthland, where he was attended by a surgeon; he was conveyed to sanctuary at Westminster; and afterwards went abroad, where he lived in such poverty and distress, as to be obliged at one time to beg his bread; and in 1473, his corpse was found stripped naked on the seashore, near Dover.  It is shocking to think that he fought at the battle of Wakefield against his wife’s father, and at those of Towton and Barnet against her brother; besides fighting against some of his own near relations on several occasions.  He married Anne, daughter of Richard Duke of York, and sister of Edward IV., but had no issue; she was divorced from him, and she afterwards married Sir Thomas St. Ledger, and was the ancestress of the House of Manners, Dukes of Rutland.

[54c]  Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was the son of Edmund Beaufort (grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), who, after the death of his eldest brother, John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, without issue male, was created first Marquis of Dorset, and in the twenty-fifth year of Henry VI. was made Duke of Somerset, and was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd of May, [54d] 1455, fighting on the part of Henry VI., and had issue by his wife Eleanor, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, four sons and several daughters.  The eldest son, Henry was, after his father’s death, Duke of Somerset, Marquis of Dorset, and Lord of Chirk and Chirkland, in the marches of Wales.  He was one of the Lancastrian commanders at the battle of Wakefield, and, as there is every reason to believe, also at the second battle of St. Alban’s, although that circumstance is not distinctly mentioned by historians.  He was also a principal commander and fought at the battle of Towton; and after the defeat there, escaped into Scotland, and was afterwards pardoned by Edward IV.; but having revolted from Edward to the Lancastrians, and having, with the Lords Roos, Molyns, and Hungerford, Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and Sir Richard Tunstal, fought at the battle of Hexham, he was taken prisoner by John Marquis Montague, and was beheaded in 1463.  Edmund, the second son, was also Duke of Somerset after his brother, and was beheaded after the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471; John, the third son was slain in that battle; and Thomas, the fourth son, died without issue.  The family was noted for its strong attachment and exertions in the cause of the House of Lancaster.

[54d]  The 22nd of May, according to Dugdale, vol. i. pp. 166 and 342; and Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May, according to Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton.

[55]  Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, a strong supporter of the House of Lancaster, fought at the battle of Wakefield.  He afterwards fought at the battle of Towton, on the 29th of March, 1461, was taken prisoner, and beheaded at York.  Some degree of confusion seems to exist, respecting the Earl of Devonshire who fought at Wakefield and at Towton, and the Earl of Devonshire who afterwards fought at Tewkesbury.  The old historians state, that the former, being taken prisoner, was beheaded after the battle of Towton; and that seems to be in no small degree confirmed by the act of attainder against him and the other Lancastrian leaders, of the 1st of Edward IV., in which he is called “Thomas Courtenay, late Earl of Devonshire;” the word “late” being also used with reference to other noblemen, and persons who were dead, and were attainted for having been engaged in that battle.  In the Catalogue of Nobility, by Ralph Brooke, p. 61, it is stated that Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, son of Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, being at the battle of Towton, “was taken prisoner, and beheaded at York;” that he married Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset and Marquis of Dorset, by whom he had issue three sons and two daughters; that “Thomas, the eldest sonne, being at the battle of Towton with King Henry VI. against King Edward IV., was there taken prisoner, and his head smitten off;” that Henry, the second son, was also beheaded at Salisbury, in the 8th of Edward IV.; and that John, the third son, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury.  It seems probable, that that account is correct; and it is rather corroborated by the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., in which “Thomas Courteney, late Earl of Devonshire,” and also “Sir John Courtney,” were attainted for having been engaged at the battle of Towton.

But the account given by Sandford in his Genealogical History, page 313, differs in some respects from it.  He states that Thomas Courtenay, seventh Earl of Devon, married Margaret, second daughter of John Earl of Somerset, and, siding with King Henry VI. against the Yorkists, was by King Edward IV. taken prisoner at the battle of Towton, and beheaded at York, the 3rd of April (an. 1 Edward IV.), in the year 1461; and that their children were, Thomas Earl of Devon, made prisoner at the same battle, and being attainted in a Parliament at Westminster, the 4th of November, an. 1 Edward IV., soon after lost his head; that Henry Courtenay, the second son, had his head cut off in the same quarrel at Salisbury; and that John Courtenay, the third son, fell in the battle of Tewkesbury.  Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. i. p. 641, however, states, that Thomas Earl of Devonshire was, for being at the battle of Towton with his father, attainted by the act of 1st Edward IV., but did not suffer death, as it seems, for it appears that he was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, fighting on behalf of Henry VI., and there buried.  Leland, in his Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 93 [p. 82], also states that Thomas Earl of Devonshire was slain at Tewkesbury, and buried there.  It is stated in Banks’ Dormant and Extinct Baronage, vol. iii, p. 249, that Thomas Earl of Devon, a firm Lancastrian, died just before the accession of Edward IV. to the throne, and had by his wife Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, five daughters and three sons: Thomas, his successor; Henry, beheaded for his attachment to the House of Lancaster; and John, slain on the same side, at the battle of Tewkesbury.  Is it not probable, that the personage who fought at Tewkesbury, called the Earl of Devonshire, was only the nominal earl of that title, and that he was the same person who, as Sir John Courteney, fought at Towton, and was attainted in the 1st of Edward IV., and who was afterwards called by the Lancastrians, the Earl of Devonshire?

[56a]  James Boteler or Butler, the son and heir of James, fourth Earl of Ormond, was created Earl of Wiltshire in the 27th of Henry VI.  In the 30th of Henry VI., by the death of his father, he also became Earl of Ormond.  He was a staunch Lancastrian, and fought for that party at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; also at the battle of Wakefield, and again at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.  He appears also to have been at the battle of Towton.  (See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. iii. p. 235.)  After that battle he was captured by the Yorkists, and was beheaded upon the 1st of May, 1461, at Newcastle.  It is very remarkable, that although historians state that he fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Wakefield, and although he was attainted by the act 1st Edward IV. (1461), his name is not included amongst those of the noblemen and others, who were attainted for taking a part in the battle of Wakefield.  His attainder was, ostensibly at least, for a different offence; viz., for inducing the enemies of the King to enter the realm, and make war against him. [56d]  The fact of the Earl of Wiltshire having fought at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross, is mentioned not only by the old historians, but also in Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. vol. v. p. 462; but that is not alleged in the act, as the reason for his attainder.  It does not seem easy to understand how he could be engaged at the battle of Wakefield, and be so soon afterwards at the head of forces fighting at Mortimer’s Cross.  See, however, Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. p. 235; Stow’s Annals, fo. 412; and Speed’s History, fo. 847.

[56b]  John Lord Clifford (son of Thomas Clifford, Lord Clifford, by Joan his wife, daughter of Thomas Lord Dacre of Gillesland, who took part with Henry VI., and was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd [56e] of May, 1455) fought at the battle of Wakefield for the Lancastrian party, and was slain at the engagement at Dintingdale (between Ferrybridge and Towton, and near the latter place), on the 28th of March, 1461, being the day before the battle of Towton.  He left by Margaret his wife, daughter and heiress of Henry Bromflete Lord Vesci, Henry his son and heir, who, when a little child, was placed with a shepherd in the north of England, and brought up as a poor boy, in careful concealment, for fear of the enemies of his family, and could not read or write; he remained in obscurity, until the first year of Henry VII., when he was restored to his rank and possessions.

[56c]  Thomas Lord Roos, or Ros, or Ross (it has been occasionally spelt each way), of Hamlake, son of Thomas Lord Roos, by his wife Eleanor, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, was a supporter of the House of Lancaster; and was at the battle of Wakefield, and was also with Henry VI. at York, when tidings came of the complete defeat of the Lancastrians at the battle of Towton; and then escaped with him into Scotland.  He returned again into England, and died at Newcastle in the first year of King Edward IV.  He was attainted in the first year of that King’s reign, and his possessions of Belvoir Castle, &c., were bestowed upon Lord Hastings; who, on first going to view the latter, was repelled by a gentleman named Harrington, a person of some power in those parts, a friend of Lord Roos; but Lord Hastings went there again with some forces, and greatly injured the castle and roofs, and took away the lead to his house at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, which he was building at considerable cost; and Belvoir Castle remained in a state of ruin, and uninhabitable, until the Earl of Rutland [in Henry VIII.’s time] repaired it.  (See Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 114 [107].)  Thomas Lord Roos married Philippa, daughter of John Lord Tiptoft and Powis, and Joyce his wife (daughter of Edward Charlton, Lord Powis, and sister of John Earl of Worcester), by whom he had several children: the eldest son, Edmund, from his fidelity to the House of Lancaster, was constrained to flee beyond the sea.  It seems that Edmund afterwards got privately into England, and joined the Duke of Somerset, Sir Ralph Percy, and others, in the insurrection in the North, in the fourth year of Edward IV.  Little more seems to be known of him, except that he was not within the realm in the first year of Henry VII., when he petitioned for, and obtained, an act of Parliament for the reversal of the attainder, and he died at Enfield in the year 1508.

[56d]  1 Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 478.

[56e]  Called the 23rd of May by some writers.

[57]  Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland.  See Chap. VI.

[58a]  See Speed, Stow, Grafton; Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. iii. p. 236, Title “Bonvile”; Sandford’s Genealogical History, pp. 297, 372.  Fabyan, however, states it to have been on the 30th of December; and it is so stated twice in Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. vol. v. pp. 466, 477.

[58b]  Sandford, pp. 297, 373; Baker’s Chronicles.  The battle is stated by Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, and Stow, to have taken place upon the plain field or ground between the castle and the town of Wakefield; which corresponds with the place where Wakefield Green was, before it was enclosed.

[58c]  William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, married Katharine, fifth daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury; was the son of William Bonvile, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heir of William Lord Harrington, and was the grandson of William Lord Bonvile, who survived his son and grandson, but was put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in 1460–1.  William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, left by Katharine his wife, a daughter, Cecily, who became the wife of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, and afterwards of Henry Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire.

[58d]  Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury.  (See Chap. II.)  In the second year of Edward IV., the Earl of Salisbury’s body, with that of Alice his wife, and that of Thomas his son, were interred at Bisham Abbey, in Berkshire.

[59a]  Shakespeare’s Third Part of Henry VI. act. 1, scene 4 (Sandal Castle, near Wakefield).

[59b]  See Chap. VI.

[60a]  See Chap. VI.

[60b]  See Chap. VI.

[60c]   Rot. Parl. 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 447.  See Appendix No. 1.

[61a]   That was my impression on the occasion of my first visit to Sandal, and I so communicated it in my paper on the Battle of Wakefield, read before the Society of Antiquaries; but after a second and third visit to Sandal, and to the field of battle, I altered my opinion, and I now consider it certain, that the Lancastrians advanced on the westward side of the Calder, and that Wakefield and the bridge were in their possession at the time of the battle.

[61b]  On the 29th of July, 1853, I paid a second visit, and on the 4th of August, 1854, a third visit, to Sandal, and to the field of the battle of Wakefield.

[62]  Leland, in his quaint language, gives a tolerably accurate account of the place where the battle was fought, when he says:—“There was a sore Batell faught in the South Feeldes by this Bridge, and yn the flite of the Duke of Yorkes parte, other the Duke hymself or his Sone the erle of Rutheland was slayne a litle above the Barres beyond the Bridge going up into the Toune of Wakefeld that standith ful fairely upon a clyving ground.  At this place is set up a crosee, ‘in rei memoriam,’”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 34 [40].

[63]  See Chapters I. and VI.

[64a]  Additions to Camden’s Britannia, Gough’s edition of 1789, vol. iii. fo. 39.  Leland says, “at this place is set up a crosse, ‘in rei memoriam’”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 45 [42]; but whether he means in memory of the Duke of York, or of the young Earl of Rutland, or of the battle, seems to admit of doubt.

[64b]  Quære?—The lane is occasionally called “Cock and Bottle Lane,” from the sign of an old public-house which stands, or very recently stood in the neighbourhood?

[64c]  His body was ultimately interred at Fotheringay.  Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. p. 161.  Ralph Brooke seems to intend to make a similar statement in his Catalogue of Nobility, fo. 267; and see Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 373.  It was first interred at Pontefract, and afterwards at Fotheringay; and it seems extraordinary that the Lancastrians, who practised such an indignity to his memory, as fixing his head upon the gate of York, should take the trouble of carrying his headless corpse to Pontefract for interment; but we learn from more than one historical source, that the corpse was first buried at Pontefract, and afterwards removed, and interred at Fotheringay.  After the battle of Towton, Edward IV. had the Duke of York’s head taken down from York gate, and interred with the body.  Leland adverts to the removal of the duke’s body from Pontefract to Fotheringay by Edward IV., as follows:—

“causid the body of his father Duke of York to be brought from Pontefract thither” [Fotheringay], “and to be layid on the north side of the Highe Altare, where is also buried, King Edward IV.’s mother, in a vaulte, over the which is a pratie chappelle.” [65b]  The body of the young Earl of Rutland was also first interred at Pontefract, and afterwards at Fotheringay.—Sandford’s Genealogical History, pp. 374 and 375.  Catalogue of the Nobility, &c., by Ralph Brooke, p. 189.

[65a]  John Harrow of London, and a Captain named Hanson, were taken prisoners at the battle, and were beheaded with the Earl of Salisbury, at Pontefract, and their heads were set upon the gates of York.—See Fabyan’s Chronicles, fo. 210.

[65b]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 6.

[67a]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 18th of January, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[67b]  Edward was Earl of March and Ulster, and Lord of Wigmore and Clare, and afterwards King Edward IV.; and, although not usually called Duke of York by historians, there does not seem to be any reason why he was not so called, between the time of his father’s death, and his accession to the throne of England.  Edward was the eldest son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, and was born at Rouen, in Normandy, on the 29th of April, 1441.  His claim to the throne of England was founded upon his being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward III.  (See Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, in Chap. IX.)  His reign commenced on the 4th of March, 1461 (see Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 464 and Fabyan, fo. 218); he was crowned at Westminster on the 29th of June, 1461, and died on the 9th of April, 1483, in the forty-second year of his age, and the twenty-second of his reign.

[69a]  James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire.  See Chap. IV.

[69b]  The following it a copy of a paper upon the extraordinary and abrupt changes of fortune of Jasper Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of Bedford, in the fifteenth century, written by the author of this work, and read by him in person, on the 31st of March, 1856, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, for which the thanks of the meeting were voted to him:—

“Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield, from the place of his birth, was a nobleman celebrated for his descent, and for the royal and illustrious alliances of his family.  He was one of the noble personages who lived and distinguished himself in the fifteenth century: a period memorable in the history of England, for foreign and domestic wars, and civil dissensions, and for the strange mutations of fortune, which its princes and nobles were doomed to experience; and perhaps we may search the pages of history, in fruitless endeavours to discover an instance of any nobleman, who experienced such abrupt and extraordinary vicissitudes, and such sudden and astonishing transitions, on several occasions, from power and wealth, to exile and poverty, and again from the miseries of a poor outlaw and fugitive, to rank, possessions, and honours, as fell to the lot of Jasper Earl of Pembroke.

“It matters now little to us, whether in the wars of York and Lancaster, and the violence and exasperation of the contending factions, the one party or the other was in the right; but under every possible circumstance, whether the cause which he espoused was successful or unfortunate, he uniformly supported the Lancastrian interest; and when we consider how many personages of high rank fought during those lamentable conflicts, sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, and joined the winning party, as seemed best to suit their own interests, we must at least give him credit for consistency, and perhaps for sincerity.  One reason of some moment, may, however, be found for his strenuous and consistent support of the Lancastrian party.  He was half-brother of King Henry VI., being the son of Sir Owen Tudor, who was descended from persons of the first consideration, and of a family of great antiquity in Wales, by his wife Queen Katherine, daughter of Charles VI. King of France, and widow of Henry V. King of England, and had by Queen Katherine, two sons, the oldest of whom was Edmund Earl of Richmond, usually denominated Edmund of Hadham, who married Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, son of John Earl of Somerset, a son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward III., by whom he had a son, Henry Earl of Richmond, who was afterwards King Henry VII.; and the second son of Sir Owen Tudor was Jasper Tutor, who was, in consequence of his father’s marriage with Queen Katherine, uncle of King Henry VII.  King Henry VI. created Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke; and in consequence of his recovering the castle of Denbigh, and other strongholds in Wales, out of the hands of the adversaries of Henry, he obtained a grant of 1000 marks, payable out of the lordships of Denbigh and Radnor.

“The Earl of Pembroke appeared in 1460–1, in arms, with James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire, and a considerable army, as supporters of Henry VI.; and on the 2nd of February, in that year, fought at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross, against the Yorkists, under the command of Edward Earl of March, afterwards King Edward IV.; but the Lancastrian army was completely defeated, and the two earls were compelled to escape by flight.  It may be fairly presumed, that he was not present at the battle of Towton in 1461, as he was not included in the list of those persons who were attainted by the act of Parliament of 1st Edward IV. (1461), Rot. Parl. vol. v. fo. 477, for taking a part in that battle; yet he seems nevertheless to have been exerting himself in arms for Henry VI. about that time, because in a subsequent part of the same act of Parliament, he was attainted for having with others, as alleged, at different times since the 4th of March in that year, incited the enemies of King Edward IV. to enter the realm and to commence hostilities against him; and also for having made war against the King ‘at a place called Tutehill, besid’ the Toune of Carnarvan, in Wales, on Friday next after the Fest of Translacion of Seint Edward last past, rered werre ayenst the same our Soverayne Lord, purposying then and there to have proceeded to his destruction, of fals and cruell violence ayenst their feith and Liegeaunce.’  From that passage it can scarcely be doubted, that an engagement between some forces of the hostile factions, took place near Carnarvon, in 1461, but I am not aware that any historian has handed down to us, any account of it, or even noticed it: an additional proof, if any were wanting, that much more bloodshed and misery were experienced in this country, during the Wars of the Roses, than our old annalists and chroniclers have recorded.  The Earl of Pembroke lost his rank, his possessions, and, in a word, his all, by the attainder, for all that he had was confiscated.  His earldom was conferred upon William Herbert of Ragland; and Jasper Tudor became an outlaw and a fugitive, and, as is very forcibly expressed by Baker, in his Chronicles, ‘The Earl of Pembroke went from country to country, little better than a vagabond.’

“Again the scene suddenly changed.  In 1470, William Herbert, the rival Earl of Pembroke, was captured by the Lancastrians at the battle of Edgecott, in Northamptonshire (usually called the battle of Banbury, from its contiguity to that town), and was beheaded.  Jasper Tudor, who still claimed the title of Earl of Pembroke, landed in the west with George Duke of Clarence (who then sided with the Earl of Warwick in the Lancastrian interest), and King Edward was driven from his throne and kingdom by the Earl of Warwick.  Jasper Tudor was shortly afterwards restored to his rank and title, and a second time became Earl of Pembroke, resumed his possessions in Wales; and finding his nephew, Henry Earl of Richmond, then scarcely ten years of age, in the care of the widow of his deceased rival, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, he removed him from her superintendence, took him and presented him to Henry VI., who, on seeing him, is said (with what truth may well be doubted) to have made a speech almost prophetic of Richmond’s future fortunes.

“Another sudden and startling change occurred in this strange and wonderful drama.  Edward IV. returned to England in 1471, and obtained a decisive victory over the Earl of Warwick, at Barnet.  Queen Margaret landed at Weymouth; the Lancastrians once more took up arms, and Pembroke proceeded to raise forces in Pembrokeshire, with the intention of succouring her.  The disastrous battle of Tewkesbury, and the consequent utter ruin of the Lancastrian party, compelled him to retire to Chepstow, and to disband his forces.  He then had a very narrow escape with his life.  Edward IV. sent Roger Vaughan, a valiant person, to surprise Pembroke there; but he captured Vaughan, beheaded him, and proceeded from thence to the town of Pembroke.  Still he was in imminent danger.  Morgan ap Thomas pursued him, and commenced the siege of that town; but David ap Thomas, who was the brother of Morgan ap Thomas, although of the opposite party, came to his assistance, and succeeded in raising the siege, and Pembroke got from thence in eight days, and sailed with his nephew, the young Earl of Richmond, from Tenby, intending to proceed to France.  His ill fortune still prevailed: the winds drove them upon the coast of Brittany; they were forced to put into a port of that country, and could not be well excused from paying their respects to the Duke of Brittany; but when they would have taken their departure, they were given to understand, that they were not at liberty to proceed.  The Duke of Brittany considering, that these two noblemen might be of some advantage to him, assigned to them the town of Vannes for their residence.  They were outwardly treated with all respect due to their birth and rank, but were narrowly watched.  Pembroke’s exile was a protracted one, and he remained abroad, an outlaw, a fugitive, and in poverty, during several years, most of which he passed in Brittany, but a short time was spent in France, just before his return to England as after mentioned.  His earldom was conferred by Edward IV. upon his son, Prince Edward, and was afterwards held by Richard III.  At length, in consequence of the death of Edward, the odium and unpopularity in which Richard was held by many, and the English nation being at last weary of civil war, violence, and bloodshed, the prospect was opened, of his return to England, and of the accession to the throne of his nephew, Henry Earl of Richmond.

“In October, 1483, an attempt was made, to effect a hostile landing in England, by the Earl of Richmond, with some forces, which were intended to have been supported by the rising of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, and others.  That expedition was an utter and disastrous failure.  Richmond’s fleet was dispersed by a storm; and although the ship in which he sailed appeared off Poole, in Dorsetshire, he found it dangerous, as well as useless, to attempt to land, and was compelled to return to Brittany.  The insurrection was suppressed, the duke was executed, and Jasper Tudor, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes, was doomed for some time longer, to remain in banishment.  The old historians do not expressly mention his having been with Richmond, in that expedition; but it seems quite impossible, to doubt the fact, of his having accompanied him.

“Once more the scene changed in this most strange and eventful drama.  In 1485, the Earl of Richmond, with Jasper Tudor and some few troops from France, landed at Milford, in South Wales, and having been joined by their friends and supporters, the battle of Bosworth (at which the latter had a principal command) placed Richmond on the throne of England, by the title of Henry VII.

“By that event Jasper Tudor found himself for the third time, Earl of Pembroke.  He was restored to his honours and possessions, created Duke of Bedford, made one of the Privy Council, and one of the Commissioners for executing the office of High Steward of England, on the occasion of the ceremony of the coronation of Henry; also Justice of South Wales, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and had besides considerable and valuable possessions, lands, and offices, conferred upon him.

“In 1487, he was joint general, with John De Vere, Earl of Oxford, at the battle of Stoke, where the Earl of Lincoln was defeated.  He was afterwards again appointed joint general with the Earl of Oxford, of the army sent into Flanders, in aid of the Emperor Maximilian, against the French.  He married Katharine, sixth daughter of Richard Widevile or Wodevile, Earl of Rivers, sister of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV., and widow of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was executed, as before mentioned, in 1483.

“He continued to enjoy his titles, ranks, and great possessions, until his death, which took place on the 21st of December, 1495.  He did not leave any issue, and was interred in the Abbey of Keynsham.  Is it possible to find, in the whole history of the English peerage, a nobleman who experienced more strange and astonishing vicissitudes of fortune?  Well may it be said that truth is stranger than fiction!”

[72a]  Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 462.

[72b]  The year, according to the present style, was 1461; but at that time the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March following; and until that day arrived, the then year would be called 1460.

[72c]  I have three times visited the field of battle of Mortimer’s Cross: viz., in May 1854, May 1855, and May 1856.

[73a]  On the occasion of my last visit to the field of battle, on the 24th of May, 1856, I witnessed there a rare and very beautiful natural phenomenon; a species of rainbow, of remarkable grandeur, appeared, not as an arch in the sky, as is usual, but forming a splendid and broad border to the horizon, and encircling and appearing to rest with its under edge upon the earth, towards the north, and to touch with its upper edge a canopy of clouds, the darkness of which formed a striking contrast, which set off its brilliant prismatic colours to great advantage.  Its beauty and singularity strikingly brought to my mind, the remarkable phenomenon, seen by Edward, on the same spot, so many years before.

[73b]  Many years afterwards, at the battle of Barnet, Edward’s device was accidentally of great service, because in the mist, the star with rays, the device of the Earl of Oxford, who was fighting on the side of Lancaster, was mistaken for that of Edward, the sun in splendour; and the Lancastrian archers, deceived by the resemblance, shot at the followers of the Earl of Oxford, and the mistake contributed considerably to the loss of the battle by the Lancastrians.

[73c]  Hall says, “he fiercely set on his enemies, and them shortly discomfited.”

[73d]  He is called Sir Owen Tudor by Hall, Holinshed, Speed, and Grafton, in their respective accounts of the battle, and he is also so called by Sandford in his Genealogical History, p. 297, and Sir Owen ap Merydeth ap Tudor, ibid. p. 242, which are certainly high authorities for believing that he was a knight; but Sandford elsewhere calls him “Owen Tudor” only, ibid. p. 283, 284.  Yet Baker, in the part of his Chronicles in which the marriage of Owen Tudor with Katherine, widow of King Henry V., is mentioned, calls him “Owen Tudor an Esquire of Wales.”  He is also called “a Squyer of Wales” in Leland’s Collectanea, vol. ii. fo. 492 [708].  Ralph Brooke, in his Catalogue of the Nobility, &c., says that Katherine married “a noble Gentleman named Owen Theoder of Wales.”  Fabyan, fo. 627, calls him a knyght of Wales.

[73e]  “Owen Meredith, alias Tudor, buried in the Grey Freyers in navi Ecclesiæ, in sacello sine ulla sepulchri memoria.—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. iv. fo. 175 a [83].

“Owen Meridik, corruptly cawlled Owen Thider, Father to Edmund Erle of Richemount, and Graund Fathar to Kynge Henry the Seventhe, buried in the Grey Freres, in the Northe Syde of the Body of the Churche in a Chapell.”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. viii. fo. 76 b [35].

[74a]  The authorities for the historical parts of the paper, are Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, Baker, Leland, Ralph Brooke, Dugdale, and Sandford.  It is remarkable, that Fabyan does not give an account of the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.

[74b]  This spot is sometimes called West Field.

[75a]  It seems to be very clear that the taking of that route was to enable them to ravage the Earl of March’s possessions there.

[76a]  Politely communicated by the Rev. R. D. Evans, rector of Kingsland, who stated that the discovery of them took place when he was a boy.  I visited in 1855 a large mount in front of the rectory-house, in which, as he informed me, he had found (but not of late years) pieces of iron.  Leland states, “There was a Castle at Kingesland a 2 miles West North West from Leominster, the ditches whereof and part of the Keepe be yet seene by the West part of Kingsland Church.  Constant Fame sayth that King Merewald sometimes laye at this place since of later tymes it longid to the E. of Marche, now to the King.”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. iv. part 2, fo. 178 a [90].  Kingsland Church well merits inspection, as it contains several objects of interest to an antiquary.  It is said to have been erected by one of the Mortimers in the reign of Edward I.—See an account of it in the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1826, vol. xcvi. part 2, pp. 393, 583.

[76b]  There is in the Museum at Hereford, an ancient spur, found in the neighbourhood of Mortimer’s Cross, but not upon the field of battle, of the description called the prick spur, of steel, plated with silver, presented to the Museum in 1839, and which I saw in the Museum in May 1855.

[77]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. viii. fo. 32.

[78a]  Blackstone’s Commentaries, 3rd edition (by Stephen), vol. ii. p. 584.

[78b]  Burn’s Law Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 108.  The same observations equally apply to the Lords Marchers on the boundaries between England and Scotland.

[79a]  Carte’s England, vol. iii. p. 135.  There was also a seal of the Marches, which was abrogated by the act 4th Henry VII., which enacted that all grants and writings of lands or things pertaining to the earldom of March, should be under the Broad Seal, and not under a special seal.

[79b]  Statute 27th Henry VIII. c. 27.  But, notwithstanding the abolition of the local jurisdiction and of the almost lawless powers of the Lords Marchers, by the effect of the act 27th Henry VIII. c. 27, the Court of the Lord President and Council of the Marches of Wales, was still kept up.  It was a court of extensive jurisdiction, which was erected by King Edward IV., in honour of the Earls of March, from whom he was descended; and he appointed it to be held at Ludlow; and in the thirty-third year of Henry VIII., the court was confirmed by act of Parliament, which enacted, “that there shall be and remain a President and Council, in the dominion of Wales, and marches of the same.”  The first President is said to have been Anthony Widevile, Earl Rivers, in the 18th of Edward IV.; and the last was the Earl of Macclesfield, in 1689: the court having been abolished by act of Parliament of 1st William and Mary.

[80a]  Some parts of the inscription seem open to objection.  From what has been already mentioned in a former note, it may easily be conjectured why the year is stated to be 1460, instead of 1461, as a modern historical writer would have designated it; but it does not appear easy to assign a reason, why the name “Mortimer” is inscribed instead of “Plantagenet.”

[80b]  The inscription is not altogether accurate, in stating that the battle of Mortimer’s Cross fixed Edward IV. on the throne of England.  He certainly was proclaimed King by his partisans, in London, soon after that battle, but he was indebted to the subsequent battle of Towton, for his being really placed upon the throne.  The statute 1st Edward IV., passed in 1461, declares the 4th of March to be the date when Edward IV. commenced his reign; “the fourth day of the moneth of Marche last past toke upon hym to use his right and title to the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship and entred into the exercise of the Roiall estate, dignite, preemynence and power of the same coroune, and to the Reigne and governaunce of the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship; and the same fourth day of March amoeved Henry late called King Henry the Sixt son to Henry, son to the seid Henry late Erle of Derby, son to the seid John of Gaunt, from the occupation, usurpation, intrusion, reigne, and governaunce of the same Reame of Englond and Lordship.”  Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. 1461, vol. v. fo. 464.  See also Fabyan, fo. 218.

[81a]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Towton was read before meetings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 11th and 18th of January, 1849, and the thanks of the meetings were voted for it to the author.  Several additions have, however, been made in it, and some material alterations and corrections have been introduced, in consequence of further information acquired by the author, during his subsequent visits to the field of battle.

[81b]  I visited the field of battle on the 28th of July and 7th of August, 1848, and again in the years 1849, 1850, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, and 1856.  In one of those visits (on the 2nd of August, 1853) I walked with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, entirely across the field of battle, commencing on the ground occupied by the left wing of the Lancastrians, along the whole line, to the spot occupied by their right wing; and we descended from thence through the meadows to the river Cock.  Any antiquary inclined to pursue the same walk, should leave the Ferrybridge road, between Dintingdale and Towton, and enter the fields at the spot, where he may observe one of them of very large size, nearly opposite a white farmhouse standing on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road.  He may easily procure a countryman, for a small gratuity, to act as guide to him, if he has doubts about getting well over one or two fences, which, however, really do not present much difficulty.  The Lancastrians evidently had selected the highest ground, commanding an extensive prospect, with the depression or valley after mentioned, in front of a considerable portion of their line.  It was clearly the strongest position near Towton.

[82a]  Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1455.—See Chap. III.

[82b]  Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker.  (See Chap. II.)  John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was also one of the commanders on the side of the Yorkists, at the second battle of St. Alban’s.

[82c]  The second battle of St. Alban’s was fought on Shrove Tuesday, the 17th of February, 1460–1.

[82d]  The claims of King Henry VI. to the throne of England were grounded upon his descent from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III., by Blanche his wife.  (See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.)  Henry was the eldest son of King Henry V. and Queen Katherine, born at Windsor in 1421; succeeded to the crown, when an infant, upon his father’s death, on the 31st of August, 1422; was crowned at Westminster, on the 6th of November, 1429: and also at Notre Dame at Paris, on the 17th of November, 1431; was deposed on the 4th of March, 1461 (see Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 464), and was reinstated upon the throne for a short period in 1470 and 1471; but with the battles of Barnet, fought on the 14th of April, and of Tewkesbury on the 4th of May, 1471, all further chance of his reigning was extinguished, and he died in the Tower of London soon after the latter battle.

[83a]  William Lord Bonvile was the father of William Bonvile, who married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Lord Harrington, by whom he had a son, William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, who was slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460.—See Chap. IV.

[83b]  Sir Thomas Kiriel was a commander of note and bravery in the wars in France.  See Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 78, and vol. iii. fos. 26, 27.

[83c]  Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March (though usually designated by that title by historians, became in fact, Duke of York, upon his father’s death), was the eldest son of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife.  He was afterwards King Edward IV., and died on the 9th of April, 1483.—See Chap. V., and Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, Chap. IX.

[83d]  Thomas Bourchier was originally Bishop of Ely, and afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1454, and retained that see until he died very aged in 1486, having held it 32 years, and in the reigns of five kings.  He was also Lord Chancellor and a Cardinal.—See Chap. III.

[83e]  George Neville, fourth son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was Bishop of Exeter and Lord Chancellor in 1460, and afterwards (in 1466) Archbishop of York.—See Chap. III.

[84a]  John Mowbray, third Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Nottingham, and Earl Marshal of England, the son of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and Katherine his wife, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, married Eleanor, daughter of William Lord Bourchier, and sister of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex.  He fought for the Yorkist party at the second battle of St. Alban’s in 1460–1, and died in the first year of Edward IV., 1461, and was buried in the Abbey of Thetford.  His son, John Mowbray, Earl of Surrey, succeeded him as Duke of Norfolk.

[84b]  William Neville, Lord Falconberg, was the second son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, a daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; he had served in France, and fought at the battles of Northampton and Towton, and was created Earl of Kent in the first year of Edward IV., and afterwards made High Admiral of England, and a Knight of the Garter, for the important services which he had rendered to the House of York.  He died about the second year of Edward IV., and was buried at the Priory of Gisborough, in Yorkshire.  His being uncle to Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker, may account for his fighting on the side of Edward IV., and having a principal command at the battles of Northampton and of Towton.—See Chap. III.

[84c]  According to the present style, the year was 1461; but at that time, the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March, and consequently, until that day arrived, the year was then called 1460.

[85a]  Rot. Parl. 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. p. 464.  See also Fabyan’s Chronicles, fo. 218.

[85b]  Edward Prince of Wales, the only child of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret, was born on the 13th of October, 1453; created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty second year of Henry VI.; and was murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471.—See Chaps. III. and VII.; and Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.

[86a]  See observations in a note infra in this chapter, respecting Lord Fitzwalter.

[86b]  John Lord Clifford was the son of Thomas Lord Clifford, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chap. IV.

[86c]  Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.

[87a]  “This feeld was as much fought in Saxton Paroch, as in Towton, yet it berith the name of Towton.”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 47.

[87b]  Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 478.  Appendix No. 1.

[87c]  In order to avoid a repetition of references, the authorities referred to in this paper for the historical facts, are Hall, Holinshed, Leland, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, John Habington, Hist. Croy. Cont., Francis Biondi, Fabyan, Grafton, Baker, and Rotuli Parl.

[88a]  Upon this eminence, close to the village, is a small wood called Benshar Wood.

[88b]  I could not learn anything respecting the comparative antiquity of the bridge, but I consider it very improbable that there was any bridge over the Cock in 1461.

[89]  I visited the bridge and the river Cock at Stutton, in 1849.  I consider it very probable that a portion of the Lancastrians, in retreating, passed the Cock at that place either by a bridge or ford.

There is also a small bridge called Kettleman’s Bridge, near Tadcaster, at the confluence of the rivers Cock and Wharf.  It is not very long since an attempt was made, to show that it was a Roman bridge.  I examined it carefully in August 1853, and, so far from considering it Roman, I do not even believe it to be a very old one.  Similar bridges are not uncommon in some parts of Yorkshire.  There is one which I have often seen, over the brook called Hock Beck, on the right side of and very near the road leading from Harrogate to Fewstone, which, though considerably narrower, resembles it very much.  There was also another, very recently, which is now destroyed, over the same brook, at a place called Knox Mill, near Harrogate, on the right side of the road leading from Harrogate to Killingwell and Ripley; and I am informed that there is now another of the same kind at Fewstone.

[90a]  John Lord Clifford, son of Thomas Lord Clifford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s in 1455.  John Lord Clifford fought at the battle of Wakefield.—See Chap. IV.

[90b]  Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, and J. Habington.

[90c]  Shakespeare’s Third Part of Henry VI., act ii. scene 6.

[91]  Before arriving at the depression, and close to it, on the right or eastward side of the road, some small quantities of stone, have been also dug in another place: but that quarry has never been of any large extent, and remained a considerable time without being worked, although the working of it on a small scale has been recently resumed.

[92a]  It is scarcely possible to understand why it is stated, in a short paper, by the Rev. George Fyler Townsend, professing to give some account of the battle, and communicated at the meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York, in July 1846 (see report of the proceedings, pages 12 to 16), that the Lancastrians were drawn up at “Dartingdale,” or “Tartingdale,” between Towton and Saxton.  I was informed, in reply to my inquiries made in the neighbourhood, that no person living near there, ever heard of such names.  The rev. writer seems to have confused those names with Towton Dale.  He also erroneously states, that the Lords Clifford, Northumberland, and Dacre, drew up their men, and that those “three Lancastrian leaders all met their deaths in this battle.”  It apparently escaped his recollection, that Lord Clifford was slain on the previous day.

[92b]  Mr. Kendall, of Towton Hall, informed me that he has seen, in clearing out the drains there, many large pieces of oak dug out, black with age, and with lying in peaty soil.

[93]  Dr. Whitaker’s Loidis and Elmete (History of Leeds), vol. i. p. 157.

[94a]  Modern Universal British Traveller, published by T. Cooke, 1779, p. 554.  The articles respecting England by Charles Burlington, Esq.  On the 31st of July, 1851, on the occasion of one of my visits to Towton Field, I was informed by the wife of a farmer named Lawn, who had formerly occupied as tenant, part of the field of battle, that a youth belonging to the family, had not long previously found there, and brought to her, the finger-bones of a man.

[94b]  Whitaker’s Loidis and Elmete (History of Leeds) vol. i. p. 157.

[94c]  Kindly communicated by the Rev. William Jepson Newman.

[95a]  Politely communicated by Colonel Grant, R.A., in 1854.

[95b]  A representation of the spur is given in the Archæologia, vol. ii. plate 20.

[96]  Ralph Lord Dacre, slain at the battle of Towton, was the son and heir of Thomas Lord Dacre, of the North, (according to Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. p. 23; vol. iii. p. 244; there was another family called Lord Dacre, of the South, of the name of Fynes or Fienes), and succeeded his father in the title, in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VI.  After the battle of Towton, Ralph Lord Dacre was attainted by the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., and all his possessions were forfeited to the crown; viz., “the mannor of Barton, and moiety of the mannor of Hoffe in com. Westmorl; as also the Castle of Naworth, with the manners of Irthington, Dacre, Kirke Oswald, Farlam Blakenwayt, Lasyngby, Brampton, Burgh upon the Sands, Aykton, Roclyffe, Glasenby, Blockhall, and Castel-Caryot. in com. Cumbr: and the mannors of Halton, Fyshwike, Eccleston, and Over-Kellet, in com. Lanc.”  (Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii p. 23.)  To him succeeded in the title, his brother, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Knight, who conducted himself so submissively and usefully to the House of York, as to make his peace with Edward IV., and had the office of Master Forester of the forest of Inglewood, in Cumberland, conferred upon him for life, in the ninth year of Edward IV., and he afterwards held several other important offices.  He was one of the persons included in the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., passed against the Lancastrians who took a part in the battle of Towton.  He, however, succeeded in getting the attainder against himself reversed by the act of 12th and 13th of Edward IV. Rot. Parl. vol. vi. A.D. 1472–3, fo. 43.  Humphrey Lord Dacre, was one of the lords who, in the Parliament Chamber in the eleventh year of Edward IV., swore to be faithful to Prince Edward, eldest son of Edward IV.  In the second year of Richard III., he was constituted Warden of the Marches; and having been summoned to Parliament in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and first of Richard III., died in the first year of Henry VII.

[97]  Whitaker’s Loidis and Elmete (History of Leeds), vol. i. fo. 156.

[98a]  Amongst others, I have to express my thanks to John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall, for both oral and written communications on the subject.  I was induced, for the sake of accuracy, both to see and write to him for information respecting the field of battle, and he was good enough to read over the paper upon it, as originally drawn, and to make a few corrections in it, and also to favour me with some notes which I have incorporated into the account.

I have also to thank the Rev. Dr. Carter, of Saxton Parsonage, for his kindness and attention, in giving me some useful information, and for taking the trouble of reading over the part of this paper, which related to Saxton Church and Churchyard.

[98b]  Dr. Whitaker’s Loidis and Elmete (History of Leeds), vol. i. fo. 157.

[99a]  It is certain that at Towton, the archers were originally placed in front of the other troops, and it seems naturally to follow, that when the main bodies came to close quarters, the archers would be withdrawn to the rear.  If so, that would make a very considerable difference in the extent of the front of each army.  I am informed that in modern warfare, the space usually allowed for each foot soldier is about one foot nine inches, and for each horseman in marching order, about four feet six inches.

[99b]  Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, of that family, was the son of Henry, second Earl of Northumberland, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Eleanor, second daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and was brother of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.

[99c]  Sir Andrew Trollop, as he is called by several writers, but called Andrew Trollop, only, by others, was a military commander of considerable repute, and had served in France.  He had originally joined the Duke of York, but seceded with some forces to Henry VI., from the encampment of the Yorkists, at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459.  The act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not notice his having been engaged at the battle of Towton, but includes in the list of Lancastrians, who had taken a part at the battle of Wakefield, “Andrew Trollop late of Guysnes Squier,” whom we may fairly conclude, was the same person, and who, in the interval between the two battles, may possibly have received the honour of knighthood.

[100a]  Sir John Wenlock was originally a supporter of the Lancastrian party, fought, and was severely wounded, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd of May (called by some historical writers, the 23rd of May), 1455.  He was appointed to several offices of distinction, and was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VI.; but afterwards, going over to the Yorkists, he was in arms for that party at the encampment at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459, for which, he was attainted by the Parliament held at Coventry, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI.  However, he lost little by that; for having accompanied Edward IV., and distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, in 1461, he obtained the office of Chief Butler of England, and the stewardship of the castle and lordship of Berkhampsted, in Hertfordshire; he was created Baron Wenlock, in the first year of Edward IV., and also made one of the Privy Council.  He afterwards again changed sides, and appeared in arms for Henry VI., at the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471; when, in consequence of his not having with his troops supported the Duke of Somerset, the duke, with his axe, beat out Lord Wenlock’s brains.  He seems not to have left any issue.  He had considerable possessions in the neighbourhood of Luton, in Bedfordshire; and the Wenlock Chapel in Luton Church, which is a very beautiful structure and well worth visiting, is said to have been erected by him.

[100b]  Sir John Dinham or Denham, was a distinguished military commander, and a decided partisan of the Yorkists; and in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., being at Calais, he proceeded suddenly, by the direction of the Earl of Warwick, to Sandwich, and there surprised Lord Rivers, and his son Lord Scales, of the opposite party, and took several King’s ships lying in the harbour, and brought them to Calais.  After Edward IV. had obtained the crown, Sir John Denham was so much esteemed by him, that in the sixth year of that King’s reign, he was summoned to Parliament as Baron Denham; he had several grants of valuable offices, and also of considerable possessions, then in the crown, by reason of the death of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Devonshire, without issue, and of the forfeiture of Thomas Courtenay, late Earl of Devonshire.  After having been made a Knight of the Garter, he died in the seventeenth year of Henry VII.  He is called “John Lord Dynham” in Rot. Parl. 12 and 13 Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 16.

[100c]  “Towton Village is a mile from Saxton, wher is a great Chapell begon by Richard III. but not finishid.  Syr John Multon’s lather layid the first stone of it.  In this Chappelle were buried also many of the men slayn at Palme Sunday Feeld.”—Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 47 [44].

[101a]  Communicated by John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall.

[101b]  There is a statement in Thomas Sprott’s Fragment, printed by Hearne, that the battle commenced at four o’clock in the afternoon, continued all night, and terminated on the following afternoon, which is quoted in Turner’s History of England, vol. iii. p. 229; but that statement, which seems to be only the tale of an anonymous writer, is not entitled to any weight, when put into the scale, against the accounts given by the old historians, respecting the commencement and termination of the battle.  Mr. Turner has even improved upon the statement, and says that the armies fought by the light of fire and torches.  Armies in those days did not usually fight by torch or fire light.  When did any old historical writer mention such an event occurring in any of the wars of the English, of that century?  The statement seems to be completely erroneous; and the mistake has perhaps arisen from confounding the engagement which took place at Dintingdale, on the 28th of March (and possibly at four o’clock in the afternoon), with the great battle on the 29th of March.  It is, however, not unlikely, that each army endeavoured to harass the other, by frequent discharges of cannon, during the night before the battle.  As some proof of the probability of such an occurrence, we are expressly told in Holinshed’s Chronicles, p. 684, that during the night before the battle of Barnet, the Lancastrians continually discharged cannons at the camp of Edward IV., and by Leland (see 1 Lel. Coll. fo. 504), that they fired guns at each other all the night.

[103a]  Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter.  See Chap. IV.

[103b]  Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.  See Chaps. III. and IV.

[103c]  Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.  See Chap. IV.

[103d]  Sir John Heron of the Ford, was of an ancient and influential Border family; and for many generations the members of the family enjoyed considerable landed possessions in Northumberland, and often signalised their valour in the wars of the Borders.  He fought on the Lancastrian side at the battles of Wakefield [see Chap. IV. p. 60] and Towton, and was attainted by the act of 1st Edward IV.; but his son, Roger Heron, obtained a reversal of the attainder by an act of Parliament of 12th and 13th Edward IV., Rot. Parl. 1472–3, vol. vi. fo. 47.

[103e]  Stow’s Annals, p. 415.

[103f]  This appears to be an error: John Talbot, third Earl of Shrewsbury, was the son of John Talbot, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460 (see Chap. III.), and grandson of John Talbot, the first Earl of Shrewsbury, renowned for his warlike exploits in France, and slain by a cannon shot at the battle of Castillon, near Bourdeaux, on the 7th of July, 1453.  According to Ralph Brooke, in his Catalogue of the Nobility, &c., p. 197, John, the third Earl of Shrewsbury, was not slain at Towton, but died at Coventry in 1473, and was buried at Worksop.  See also Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 332, where his death in the 13th of Edward IV. is mentioned.

[103g]  William Viscount Beaumont, was the son and heir of John Viscount Beaumont, slain at the battle of Northampton on the 9th of July, 1460, fighting on the Lancastrian side (see Chap. III.); and married—first, Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Scrope, brother to Lord Scrope of Bolton; and secondly, Joan, daughter of Humphrey Duke of Buckingham.  William Viscount Beaumont fought for that party at the battle of Towton, and, according to Dugdale, was taken prisoner there.  He was attainted by the act of attainder of the first year of Edward IV.  He took part with John Earl of Oxford, for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Barnet, in 1471, and fled into Scotland, and afterwards into France, landed with the Earl of Oxford in Cornwall, and assisted him in holding St. Michael’s Mount against Edward IV.; but upon its surrender, he was brought prisoner, with the earl, to the King.  Upon the accession to the throne of Henry VII., he was restored by an act of Parliament; and died without issue, in the twenty-fourth year of that king’s reign.

[104a]  Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, was the brother and heir presumptive to Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland.  Many years ago, when I wrote the paper on the battle of Stoke, I, on the authority of Hall and Holinshed, mentioned the Earl of Westmoreland, as having been slain at Towton; Fabyan also says that the earl was slain there.  I am now satisfied, that those writers have erroneously mentioned the death of the Earl of Westmoreland, who did not die until the second year of Richard III.; and that, instead of him, they meant Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, who was the second Earl of Westmoreland’s brother and heir presumptive.  See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Leland’s Coll. vol. ii. p. 715 [498], in which is the following statement, ‘Syr John Nevel the Erle of Westmerlandes brother and Andrew Trollop were killid at this tyme.’; see also the act of attainder against the Lancastrian leaders, Rot. Parl. 1st Edward IV. vol. v. p. 476, which does not name the Earl of Westmoreland, but it does include, “John, late Lord Nevill”; besides which, Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland, was summoned to the very Parliament which passed this act of attainder; consequently, it cannot be supposed that he had taken a part in the battle.  See also the act of reversal of the attainder, Rot. Parl. 12th and 13th Edward IV. vol. vi. p. 24, of “Rauf Nevyll, first begoten son of John Nevyll Knyght, late Lord Nevyll,” attainted by the name of “John, late Lord Nevyll,” who was afterwards third Earl of Westmoreland.

[104b]  According to Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. ii. pp. 85 and 86, Robert Lord Willoughby of Eresby, a valiant and celebrated commander, distinguished in the French wars, died in the thirtieth year of Henry VI., leaving Joan, the wife of Sir Richard Welles, his daughter and heir; and, the issue male of the principal branch being thus extinct, Sir Robert Willoughby, son of Thomas, a younger brother of the last Robert Lord Willoughby, became the next heir male, and is stated to have died on the 30th of May, in the fifth year of Edward IV.  (Quære—Could it have been Thomas, the younger brother, who was called Lord Willoughby, and slain at the battle of Towton?)  The death of Lord Willoughby is mentioned in Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 219; and in note 12 at the foot, it is stated that “Richard Welles, a son of Lord Welles, in 1455, was summoned as Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife Joanna, heir of the great warrior, Robert Lord Willoughby.”  See note respecting Leo Lord Welles, infra, note 3.  Dugdale, however, does not mention Sir Richard Welles or Lord Willoughby, as having been engaged at Towton Field.

[104c]  Leo Lord Welles, of the Lancastrian party, slain at Towton Field, and attainted by Parliament in first of Edward IV., was grandson and heir of John Lord Welles, whose oldest son, Eudo, died in his lifetime.  Leo Lord Welles left issue (by Joan his first wife, daughter and heir of Sir Robert Waterton), Sir Richard Welles, his next heir, who, in the fourth year of Edward IV. (having also the title of Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife, Joan, daughter and heir of Robert Lord Willoughby), had, through the King’s special favour, restoration of the goods, &c., of which his father died seized; and the next year had restitution of various manors, lordships, property, &c., which had come to the crown by the attainder of his lather, Leo Lord Welles.  In the ninth year of Edward IV., the said Richard Lord Welles, and his son and heir, Sir Robert Welles, were concerned in the insurrection of the Lancastrians in Lincolnshire, and, with Sir Thomas Dimock, were beheaded.  According to Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 12, this Richard Lord Welles, was summoned to Parliament by the name of Richard Welles, Lord Willoughby, from the thirty-third year of Henry VI., to the 6th of Edward IV., inclusive.

[104d]  Thomas Lord Roos.  See Chap. IV.

[105a]  Anthony Widevile, or Wodevile, had summons to Parliament by the title of Lord Scales, in right of his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Lord Scales, of Nucells, widow of Henry Bourchier, and was afterwards Earl Rivers.  He was brother of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV.  He was not slain at Towton Field, although he seems to have taken a part in the battle.  (See Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 219, note 13.)  He was the son and heir of Richard Widevile, or Wodevile, Earl Rivers, and Jaquette his wife, daughter of Peter Earl of St. Pol, and widow of John Duke of Bedford, third son of King Henry IV.; and he was, when Earl Rivers, beheaded at Pontefract, by order of the Council, during the Protectorate, and, as is believed, at the instigation of Richard Duke of Gloucester, on the 13th of June, 1483.  Lord Richard Grey (son of the Queen Dowager Elizabeth, by her first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby), and Sir Thomas Vaughan, were executed there, at the same time.  The Wodeviles were originally of the Lancastrian party; and Sir John Grey of Groby, the first husband of Elizabeth afterwards the Queen of Edward IV., lost his life fighting for that party, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but after Elizabeth’s charms had made a conquest of the heart of Edward, and he had married her, the Wodeviles became staunch Yorkists.

[105b]  Thomas Lord Grey of Rugemont, called “Thomas Grey, Knight, Lord Rugemond Grey,” in the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., was originally Sir Thomas Grey, Knight, grandson of Reginald Lord Grey of Ruthin, and a younger brother of Edmund Grey, first Earl of Kent, and was advanced to the dignity of Baron of Rugemont Grey, in the twenty-eighth year of Henry VI.; being a zealous Lancastrian, he was, after the battle of Towton, included in the act of attainder, and having died without issue, his title became extinct.  He is charged in the act of attainder, with other treasonable acts committed after the battle of Towton; and amongst others, with having on the 26th of June then last, in conjunction with Thomas Lord Roos, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Sir John Fortescue, Sir William Talboys, Sir Edward Mountford, Thomas Neville, Clerk; Humphrey Neville, Esq.; and Thomas Elwick, Esq., made war against the King at Ryton and Branspeth, in the bishoprick of Durham.  Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. (A.D. 1461), vol. v. p. 476.  See Appendix No. I.

[105c]  There appears to be an error in the statement of Stow, that Lord Fitzhugh perished at the battle of Towton; because William Lord Fitzhugh, who married Margery, daughter of William Lord Willoughby of Eresby, died in the thirty-first year of the reign of Henry VI., and was succeeded by his son and heir, Henry Lord Fitzhugh, who was a supporter of the Lancastrian party during the life of Henry VI.; but after the accession of Edward IV., was held in respect by him, and was employed by him in the fourth year of his reign at the siege of Dunstanborough Castle, and other matters of importance; and died in the twelfth year of that King’s reign.  He married Alice, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and sister of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker.  The act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not include Lord Fitzhugh, from which circumstance, a presumption arises, that he was not engaged in the battle.

[105d]  It does not appear from the Baronages, that in 1461, there was any nobleman called Lord Molineux; nor is any such mentioned in the act of attainder of the first year of Edward IV.  It has probably been written by mistake for Lord Molins, or Molyns, by which title Robert Lord Hungerford had been commonly called, in consequence of his marriage with Alianore, daughter and heir of William Lord Molyns, who was slain in France, in the seventh year of Henry VI.  Robert Lord Hungerford, called Lord Molyns, however, was not slain at Towton Field, although he fought there.  Upon the loss of the day, he fled to York, where King Henry then was, and proceeded with him from thence to Scotland, and was attainted in the first year of Edward IV.  He again appeared in arms, in the north of England, for the Lancastrian party, was engaged at the battle of Hexham in 1463, taken prisoner there, and conveyed to Newcastle, where he was beheaded, and was buried in the north aisle of Salisbury Cathedral.  By lady Alianore, his wife, he left three sons.  The eldest, Thomas, took part with the Earl of Warwick, upon his defection from Edward IV., and, endeavouring to effect the restoration of Henry VI., was taken and tried for high treason, at Salisbury, in the eighth year of Edward IV., was condemned and beheaded.  But in the first year of Henry VII., his attainder, and that of his father, were reversed in Parliament, and his heir had restitution of his lands and honours.

[106a]  Lord Henry Buckingham.  (Quære—Meant for Lord Henry Stafford, of Buckingham, one of the family of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham?)  Henry Stafford, who was the second son of Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham (beheaded in the first year of Richard III.), and brother of Edward Stafford, third Duke of Buckingham, could not have been the person meant, because he was living long after the battle of Towton, and was created Earl of Wiltshire, in the first year of Henry VIII.  (See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 170.)  We can, however, scarcely doubt, that one of the family was slain at that battle; and Lord Henry of Buckingham, is also mentioned amongst the slain, in the first volume of Fenn’s Original Letters, fo. 220; John Stafford and Humphrey Stafford, apparently also of that family, are there mentioned, as having been engaged in that battle on the part of Edward IV.

[106b]  Sir John Heron of the Ford, before mentioned.

[106c]  Quære—Is Sir Gervase Clifton mentioned in error in the list, by Stow?  A knight of that name was executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, and another perished at the battle of Bosworth.  See Chapters VII. and VIII.

[106d]  Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.  See Chap. IV.

[106e]  Rot Parl. 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 477.  See Appendix No. L

[107a]  John Morton, mentioned above as the Parson of “Blokesworth” [Bloxworth] in Dorsetshire, was afterwards Bishop of Ely, and in the reign of Henry VII., was Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury, and also a Cardinal.  It is remarkable, that several priests and ecclesiastics are included in the above-mentioned act of attainder; but there does not appear to be any foundation for Lord Campbell’s assertion, that any of them fought at the battle of Towton, nor, from the general deportment and actions of Morton, does such a line of conduct seem probable, with respect to him.  I believe that not any ancient historian has stated that ecclesiastics were in arms, and fought for or against the House of Lancaster; they might, however, be very useful with their tenants, vassals, advice, influence, and exertions.  In Lord Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors, vol. i. p. 418, it is, however, correctly stated, that John Morton “had the rich living of Blokesworth” conferred upon him in the reign of Henry VI.  His attainder, and also that of Ralph Mackerell, Clerk, were reversed in the twelfth and thirteenth year of Edward IV.—Rot. Parl. vol. vi. 12 and 13 Edward IV. pp. 26 and 27.

[107b]  Sir John Fortescue was a lawyer of great talents and eminence, and was made Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, in the reign of Henry VI.  He was a judge of high integrity, and an excellent man, and, what was rare in that age, he was a literary character; some of his works are of merit, and have been handed down to us.  At the time of the battle of Towton, he was no longer a young man, and, however much he might have devoted his talents and exertions to the Lancastrian party, before the battle, it seems a great stretch of credulity to think, that the judge was actually screwed up in armour, and “mixed in the moody fight,” and “displayed undaunted valour at Towton,” as Lord Campbell states.  The latter appears also to labour under the same mistake, with respect to Fortescue’s fighting propensities at Towton, as with respect to those of John Morton, who was a priest, as already mentioned.—See Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors, vol. i. p. 369.

[109]  Rot. Parl. 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 477–478.  See Appendix No. I.

[110]  William Lord Hastings, was the son of Sir Leonard Hastings, Knight, by Alice his wife, daughter of Lord Camois, and was a valiant and active partisan of the House of York, distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, and on other occasions, and was created Baron Hastings, Lord Chamberlain of the Household, and Chamberlain of Wales, in the first year of Edward IV., and had large possessions bestowed upon him by that king; amongst which was a grant of the manor of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in Leicestershire, which had lately belonged to James Earl of Wiltshire, then attainted, (where Hastings subsequently either erected or restored the castle there, for his own residence, pursuant to the King’s license, of first Edward IV., to make several castles), also of the honour, castle, and lordship of Belvior, and other possessions in Leicestershire, and elsewhere.  He adhered to Edward IV. in his adversity, when he was compelled, by the Earl of Warwick, to fly to the Continent in 1470, and accompanied him on his return to England.  He also fought at the battle of Barnet in 1471, where he had the command of 3000 horse, and at that of Tewkesbury, where he was one of the principal commanders.  He was Lieutenant of Calais, and enjoyed several offices of great importance and trust, and was greatly in the confidence of King Edward IV.; and it is generally believed that his faithful attachment to the young princes, the sons of that king, was the reason why Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., caused him to be put to death.  He was beheaded on a log of wood, in the Tower of London, without any trial, on the 13th of June, 1483, and is buried in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, near the grave of Edward IV.  He married Catherine, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury (beheaded after the battle of Wakefield, in 1460), and widow of William Lord Bonvile (put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, on 17th February, 1460–1), by whom he left issue three sons and a daughter.

[111a]  Walter Blount, Lord Montjoy, who was of the family of Sir Walter Blount, slain at the battle of Shrewsbury, died in 1474, leaving Edward Blount, his grandson (the son of William, his son, who died in his father’s lifetime), his next heir.

[111b]  Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. fo. 349.  See Chap. II. and Chap. III.

[111c]  Rot. Parl. 39 Henry VI. (1460), vol. v. fo. 374.

[111d]  Leland mentions the titles and rank conferred by Edw. IV. upon his friends and adherents, as follows:—

Thomas Blunte made Lord Montejoy
William Hastinges made Lorde Hastinges.

“‘Edward at his coronation creatid his brother George Duke of Clarence; and Richard the younger, Duke of Gloucester; the Lord Montacute, the Erle of Warwike’s brother, the Erle of Northumbreland; William Stafford Esquier, Lord Staford of Southwike; Syr [William] Herbart, Lord Herbart; and after Erle of Pembroke; and the saide Lord Staford Erle of Devonshire; the Lord Gray of Ruthine, Erle of Kent; the Lord Bourchier Erle of Essex; the Lord John of Bokingham, [323] Erle of Wyltshire; Syr Thomas Blunt Knight, the Lord Montjoye; Syr John Haward, Lord Haward; William Hastinges, Lord Hastinges and Greate Chambrelayn; and the Lorde Ryvers; Denham Esquyer, Lord Deneham; and worthy as is afore shewid.’—Lel. Collect., vol. ii. p. 715, 716 [449].”

“It is of course admitted, that Edward at his coronation ennobled his brothers the Duke of Clarence and Duke of Gloucester; but Leland appears to have expressed himself either not clearly, or not with his usual accuracy, with respect to the dates of the conferring of the titles upon several of the other personages, before mentioned, as may be easily ascertained by a reference to the works of Ralph Brooke, or Dugdale; from which it plainly appears, that although Edward did not forget eventually to reward many of his supporters and adherents with rank and titles, yet in some instances several years elapsed, after his coronation, before they were ennobled, or, as the case might be, were advanced in the peerage.”

[112]  “Quei che restarono vivi presero la strada del ponte di Tadcaster, ma, non potendo arrivarvi, e credendo guadabile un picciolo rio detto Cocke vi s’annegarono la maggior parte: affermatosi costantemente essersi passato sopra il dosso de’ corpi morti, l’acque del detto rio, e del fiume Vuarf in cui eglisgorga, tinte in maniera, che parvero di puro sangue.”—G. F. Biondi, fo. 249.

[113]  Hist. Croyl. Continuatio, fo. 533.

[114a]  His design was to have dislodged the body of Yorkists under Lord Fitzwalter’s command, posted at Ferrybridge, and to have prevented their army from passing the Aire there.  It is remarkable that we do not read of any other forces having been sent to his support, from the main army of the Lancastrians.

[114b]  In a note to Rapin’s History of England, translated by Tindal, it is stated, with reference to the engagement at Ferrybridge, “there was at this time no Lord Fitzwalter, for Walter Lord Fitzwalter died in 1432, and Sir John Ratcliffe, son of Ann, daughter of the said Lord Fitzwalter, had not summons to Parliament till the first of Henry VII.  This Sir John, or his son, is probably the same whom Rapin, and other of our historians, call by anticipation Lord Fitzwalter.  See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 223, and vol. ii. p. 285.”  But although it may readily be admitted, that it does not appear from our Baronages, that there was a Lord Fitzwalter in 1461, their silence seems scarcely sufficient to outweigh the clear and unqualified statements, of several of our old annalists and chroniclers, that a Lord Fitzwalter held a command of importance in the Yorkist army, and was slain in the action at Ferrybridge.  Stow not only mentions that circumstance, but also states that Lord Fitzwalter was one of the noblemen who, on the 12th of March (before the battle of Towton), left London with Edward, and accompanied him on his march northward.  Besides which, in Leland’s Itinerary, vol. i. fo. 105 [99] (see also Camden’s Magna Britannia, vol. iii. p. 49), in noticing Ferrybridge, it is stated, “wher the first Lord Fitzgualter of the Radecliffes was killid, flying from Cok beck Felde;” and, although the last part of the passage is not quite accurate, still the statement is of some value; and in Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, which are considered authentic records of the respective dates, at which they purport to have been written, Lord Fitzwalter is mentioned, in a letter from Clement Paston to John Paston, of the 23rd of January, 1460 (but, according to our present mode of reckoning, 1461), as having ridden northwards, and is said to have taken two hundred of Sir Andrew Trollop’s men; and the existence of a Lord Fitzwalter seems still more confirmed by another of those letters, which was written by William Paston and Thomas Playter, to John Paston, dated the 4th of April, 1461, giving the contents of a letter of credence from King Edward IV. to the Duchess of York, respecting the battle of Towton, which distinctly mentions that Lord Fitzwalter was slain, and that he had been engaged on Edward’s part.  (See Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. pp. 205, 219.)  As so many old writers have mentioned the existence of a Lord Fitzwalter at that period, it seems improbable that all of them could have been in error.

[115a]  The Bastard of Salisbury, who also held a principal command in the Yorkist forces, was also slain there.  Some historians tell us that the Earl of Warwick stabbed his horse on hearing of the disaster at Ferrybridge.  It is an improbable tale.  We may perhaps safely admit, that he, as a warrior, knew the value of a good horse too well to destroy it wantonly and uselessly.

[115b]  P. 125.  In one of my visits to Dintingdale, I met with a labouring man there, who informed me that he recollected the discovery, about eighteen years before, of a pit or hole, at Dintingdale, on or close to the turnpike road, containing human bones.  As I received that information from him in August, 1853, the discovery must have taken place about 1835.

[116a]  If, as is very probable, the high road at that time turned off near Dintingdale towards Saxton, it is all but certain, that the Yorkists had succeeded in getting possession of that village before Lord Clifford could retreat thither, and they consequently could easily intercept him at Dintingdale.

[116b]  Rot. Parl. 38th Henry VI. vol. v. p. 347.

[116c]  Stow, 409.  Speed, 844.

[116d]  1 Lel. Coll. 502 [719].

[116e]  Lel. Coll. 503 [721].

[116f]  1 Lel. Coll. 504 [722].  1 Holinshed, 684.

[116g]  1 Holinshed 687.

[116h]  Rot. Parl. 1st Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 276.  See Appendix, No. III.; and Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 82; in which he mentions cannon balls having been dug up there.

[116i]  Rot. Parl. 3rd Henry VII. vol. vi. p. 397.  See Appendix No. V.

[117a]  Rot. Parl. 4th Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 545; the 7th and 8th Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 613; and the 13th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 93.

[117b]  Edward IV. also used the Lion argent as one of the devices of the House of York, in consequence of its having been borne by the Mortimers, Earls of March, from whom he was descended; also the Dragon sejant sable, armed or, in consequence of his descent from the De Burghs, Earls of Ulster, whose cognizance was a Dragon; the falcon argent within a fetter-lock closed; the White Rose; the Sun in its glory, after the parhelion had been seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross; and (occasionally) the White Hart attired, accolled with a coronet, and chained or, on a mount vert, in honour of King Richard II., who used it, and who had nominated Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, great-grandfather of Edward IV., his successor to the crown of England.  It is worthy of remark, that besides the circumstance of Edward IV. having had the Black Bull on his standard at the battle of Towton, his brother, Richard III., seems to have had, at the battle of Bosworth, on one of his standards, the Dun Cow (perhaps in allusion to the family tradition of the Earls of Warwick, with which family he was connected through Anne his wife, the daughter of Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick).  See Holinshed, Hall, and Baker, who mention that Henry VII., after the battle of Bosworth, offered at St. Paul’s three standards, described as follows: viz., first, the figure of St. George; second, a Red Dragon, on white and green sarcenet; third, a Dun Cow upon yellow tartan.  Hutton, in his Bosworth Field, p. 147, states, without giving his authority, that Henry VII., on his arrival in London, carried in front Richard III.’s three standards, the chief of which was St. George, and erected them in St. Paul’s Church; and also on p. 110, that Richmond’s (afterwards Henry VII.) standard at the battle of Bosworth, was a Red Dragon, upon green and white silk; and we know from other sources, that the Dragon Rouge was a favourite device of Henry VII.  It seems, therefore, tolerably certain, that of the before-mentioned three standards, the second, or Red Dragon, was that of Henry VII., and we may reasonably conclude, that the other two were those captured from Richard III.

[118a]  Robert Lord Hungerford married, in the lifetime of his father (Walter Lord Hungerford), Alianore, daughter and heir of William Lord Molins, or Molyns, and was, in consequence of that marriage, occasionally called Lord Molyns, and took part with the Lancastrians, at the battle of Towton.  Upon the loss of the day, he fled to York, where King Henry then was, and from thence proceeded with him to Scotland.  He was attainted by the act of Parliament of 1st Edward IV.  In 1463, the Lancastrians again attempting to make head, and having got possession of several castles in the North, he once more appeared in arms, and was the chief of those who defended Alnwick Castle, with five hundred or six hundred Frenchmen; and soon afterwards was engaged at the battle of Hexham, in 1463; was taken prisoner, conveyed to Newcastle, and beheaded there, and was buried in the north aisle of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury.

[118b]  Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 217.

[118c]  Ibid. p. 217.  Sir John Neville is called Lord Montague, in the authority quoted; but it seems incorrect to have done so, at that period, because he appears not to have been then created Marquis Montague.  He was the brother of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), was a great supporter of Edward IV., and was created Lord Montague in the first year of Edward IV.  He was afterwards created Earl of Northumberland in the fourth year of that King’s reign; but he resigned that title, and was created Marquis of Montague in the tenth year of his reign.  He was slain, with his brother, on the 14th of April, 1471, at the battle of Gladmore Heath, usually called the battle of Barnet, having changed sides, and then fought against Edward IV.

[118d]  Originally Sir John Bourchier, afterwards Lord Berners, he was fourth son of William Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, was brother of Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, afterwards of Essex, and was at first of the Lancastrian party, and fought for Henry VI. at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but after that time, he espoused the cause of the Yorkists.  He married Margery, daughter and heir of Richard Lord Berners, and had summons to Parliament in the thirty-third year of Henry VI., and afterwards, by the title of Lord Berners.  He died in the 14th of Edward IV.  His oldest son, Humphrey, was slain at the battle of Barnet, fighting on King Edward’s part, in 1471.

[119] See Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 381.  Carte, in his History of England, vol. ii. p. 758, gives the 28th of April, 1442, as the date of Edward’s birth.

[122a]  It seems remarkable that the Yorkists were allowed to ascend the elevated ground from Saxton, and to come in front of the Lancastrians, without, as far as can be discovered from history, experiencing any check or resistance from the latter; but that may, perhaps, be accounted for, if the Lancastrians acted on the defensive upon a preconcerted plan, and did not choose to leave what they had purposely selected as a good position, and which certainly possessed considerable advantages.

[122b]  It is, however, very probable that the action at Dintingdale was soon over, and if so, the Lancastrians may not have had sufficient time to have sent succours to Lord Clifford.

[122c]  See also 1 Leland’s Itinerary, fo. 47 [45]:—

“In the Chyrch Yard were many of the Bones of men that were killid at Palmesunday feld buried.

“They lay afore in 5 Pittes, yet appering half a mile of by North in Saxton Feldes.”

[123a]  Their numbers show it to be quite impossible, that they could have any relation to some bones, which Leland and Stow mention, as having been removed by Mr. Hungate, from the field of Towton.  The quantity of the latter must have been insignificant.

[123b]  Lel. Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 17 [p. 16].  Stow, fo. 416.

[123c]  In the engraving it is called by mistake, “at Towton,” instead of “at Saxton.”

[125a]  Drake’s Eboracum, p. 111.

[125b]  This is evidently an error.  It is remarkable that Dr. Whitaker calls it in that place the 20th of March, but the 29th in an engraving of the lid of the tomb, introduced almost immediately before.

[125c]  Whitaker’s Loidis and Elmete (History of Leeds), vol. i. p. 156.  Dr. Whitaker states, that in this reading he was greatly assisted by the following copy of the inscription which he had obtained from Hopkinson’s MSS., as it was partly read and partly guessed at, by a transcriber, about the time of Charles I.:—

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DNS. DE DACRE ET GREYSTOCKE, HEROS, MILES STRENUUS
QUI OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI, VIDELICET
DOMINICA PALMARUM CUJUS ANIME P’PITIETUR DEUS.  AMEN.

Dr. Whitaker also states his conviction that the word “heros” is a mistake for “verus,” and that “strenuus,” for which there has been no room in the line, has been another guess for the former epithet, “a true knight,” being the genuine language of chivalry.—Ibid., p. 156.

[127a]  Such, for example, amongst others, as the murders of the Earl of Rutland, Edward Prince of Wales, Lord Hastings, &c. &c.

[127b]  It is remarkable that three of the battles during those wars were fought on Sundays, viz., Blore Heath, Towton, and Barnet.

[127c]  See some of the instances mentioned in Rot. Parl. 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 476.

[127d]  Voltaire’s Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations, tome xviii. p. 44.

[128a]  Hall’s Chronicles (edit. of 1809), fo. 256.

[128b]  Shakespeare’s Third Part of King Henry VI. act ii. scene 5.

[131a]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Tewkesbury was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of March, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[131b]  I have paid six visits to the field of battle—two in May 1854, two in May 1856, and two in May 1856.

[131c]  The authorities for the historical part of this paper are Hall, Holinshed, Stow, Speed; Leland’s Collectanea, vol. ii.; Grafton, Baker, Dugdale, Sandford, and Ralph Brooke.

[132a]  The 13th of April is mentioned by some, and the 14th of April by other writers, as the day on which Margaret landed.  If, as is probable, it occurred on the 14th of April, it was the same day as that on which the battle of Barnet was fought.

[132b]  Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was daughter of René Duke of Anjou, and was married to Henry VI. on the 22nd of April, 1445.—See Chap. III.

[132c]  Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of King Henry VI. and Queen Margaret (usually called Margaret of Anjou).  He was born in the King’s Palace at Westminster, on the 13th of October, 1453, in the thirty-first year of Henry VI., and was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty-second year of his father’s reign.  At the age of seventeen, he was affianced in France to Anne Neville, the second daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker.  The murder of Prince Edward, immediately after the battle of Tewkesbury, will be noticed further on in this chapter.  After his death, Anne his widow was married to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.

[132d]  The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, otherwise called Knights of Rhodes, also called Knights Hospitallers, constituted an order of military ecclesiastics, of great renown, power, and wealth, before the Reformation.  Their prior was esteemed the first baron in the kingdom.  It may easily be imagined, that the support of the head of these powerful religious knights, was of no small moment to Margaret.  Their chief establishment was at Clerkenwell, and it has given the name to St. John’s Square, St. John’s Street, and to the church of St. John, Clerkenwell. [132f]  Of the magnificent priory which they possessed there, the only remains above ground are the ancient and curious gateway, called St. John’s Gate, and a single buttress of the old building in Jerusalem Court, leading into St. John’s Street.  This religious body ceased to exist in England and in Ireland, in 1540; the act 32nd Henry VIII. c. 24, having been passed, by which their order was dissolved, and their lands and property vested in the King.  Sir William Weston, Knight, was the last prior of that body in England.  They are said to have been the last religious fraternity who surrendered their possessions to the grasp of Henry VIII.

[132e]  See Holinshed’s Chronicles and Speed’s History.  Hall, Dugdale, and Grafton, however, state, that Queen Margaret proceeded to the Cistercian Abbey of Beaulieu, and took sanctuary there.  In Baker’s Chronicles, it is stated that she first went to the Abbey of Cerne, and then to “Bewley” [Beaulieu] in Hampshire.

[132f]  The ancient crypt still exists under the church, and it is said to be curious and interesting.

[133a]  Anne Countess of Warwick arrived at Portsmouth, and went from thence to Southampton, intending to have joined the Queen at Weymouth; but having received intelligence of the total defeat of the Lancastrians, the deaths of her husband the King-Making Earl of Warwick, and of his brother the Marquis Montague, at the fatal battle of Barnet, she crossed the water into the New Forest, and took sanctuary in the Abbey of Beaulieu, in Hampshire.

[133b]  Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the second son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, was the brother and heir of Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, beheaded after the battle of Hexham in 1463.—See Chaps. III. and IV.

[133c]  Lord John Beaufort was the third son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chaps. III. and IV.

[133d]  Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.—See Chap. IV.

[133e]  John Lord Wenlock.  He fought on the Lancastrian side, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, in which he was severely wounded; for the Yorkists, at the battle of Towton, in 1461; and appeared again in arms for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471.—See Chap. VI.

[133f]  Jasper Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield, was second son of Sir Owen Tudor, and Katherine, widow of King Henry V., and half-brother to King Henry VI.  Full particulars are given of him in Chap. V. page 69, note 2.

[134a]  Called by Holinshed, by mistake, Chichester.

[134b]  Holinshed calls it Thursday the 1st of May; but there is evidently some little confusion in his dates, as to Edward’s movements.  Holinshed states that the battle of Tewkesbury was fought on Saturday the 4th of May; and if so, it is impossible that the preceding Thursday could have been the 1st of May.  He must either have meant Wednesday the 1st of May, or Thursday the 2nd of May.

[135]  Originally Sir William Beauchamp, Knight, son of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick and Alcester.  In the twenty-fifth year of Henry VI. he was advanced to the title and dignity of Lord Beauchamp of Powick, and constituted Justice of South Wales, and had a grant of an annuity of £60 per annum, out of the fee farm of the city of Gloucester, to him and his heirs for ever, for the better support of that honour; and in the 28th of Henry VI. he was made Lord Treasurer of England, but did not hold that office full two years.  He died in 1475, and left by Margaret, his wife, the above-mentioned Sir Richard Beauchamp, his son and heir, then forty years of age.

[136a]  “In her passage towarde Tewkesbury the Lord Beaucampe toke from her rereward, more ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to her no smal prejudice.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 31.

[136b]  Holinshed’s Chronicles.

[137a]  The proximity of the enemy must also have rendered it very dangerous even to have attempted to cross the river Avon, notwithstanding it had a bridge over it.

[137b]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. iv. fo. 173 b. [79].

[137c]  There has been for ages, a bridge over the Avon, at Tewkesbury, over which the road towards Hereford passes, not far from the place where it joins the Severn; but there was not one over the Severn, until centuries after the battle of Tewkesbury.  The want of a bridge over the latter river at Tewkesbury, was long felt as a great inconvenience.  However, in 1823, an act of Parliament was passed for erecting a bridge over it; but, after making some progress, it was found that the estimates of the expense were erroneous, and that a large additional sum of money would be requisite to complete the bridge, and roads leading to it; a new act was passed, containing additional powers, under which the iron bridge was completed, and it was accordingly opened for passengers in 1826.

[138a]  Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 686.

[138b]  Holinshed says that Edward “lodged that night in a field not past three miles distant from them;” but Hall says that King Edward “was come within a mile to Tewkesbury.”  A medium distance between the three miles and the one mile, would perhaps be correct.

[138c]  Holinshed.  See also the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV. (1475), in which the battle is stated to have been fought on the 4th of May.—Rot. Parl. 14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fos. 145 and 146.  Hall, however, calls it the 3rd of May.

The date of the 4th of May appeared upon the tomb of Sir John Delves, who was slain in the battle, and his body and that of his son are said to have been first interred at Tewkesbury, and afterwards at Wybonbury, in Cheshire.—Pennant’s Journey from Chester to London, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’ Mag. Brit. Cheshire, p. 828; Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268.

[139a]  Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., the eighth and youngest son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October, 1452.  The Duchess of York, upon hearing of the deaths of her husband the Duke of York, and of her son the Earl of Rutland, at Wakefield, in 1460, sent her younger sons, George, afterwards Duke of Clarence, and Richard, afterwards Duke of Gloucester, abroad to Utrecht, where they remained under the protection of Philip Duke of Burgundy, until the accession of Edward IV. to the throne of England, enabled them to return with safety.  Richard was created Duke of Gloucester and Lord Admiral of England, in 1461.  He distinguished himself by his valour at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury.  He married Anne, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales.  His reign commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483; and was slain at the battle of Bosworth on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months.  Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign.  He did not leave any issue; Edward, his only child by Queen Anne, who was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, on the 24th of August, 1483, died before him.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

[139b]  George Duke of Clarence, the sixth son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, married Isabel, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), was attainted by Parliament, in 17th year of Edward IV., and was put to death in the Tower of London, on the 18th of February, 1477–78.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

[139c]  Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, was the eldest son of Sir John Grey, of Groby (eldest son of Edward Lord Ferrers of Groby), slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Elizabeth Wideville, or Wodeville, afterwards the Queen of Edward IV.  He married Cecily, daughter and heir of William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, and great-grand-daughter of William Lord Bonvile, who was put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in 1460–1.  He was created Lord Harrington and Bonvile, by Edward IV., in the fifteenth year of his reign, and in the same year was also created Marquis of Dorset.  After Richard III. had obtained the crown, Dorset was attainted of high treason; but took sanctuary, and got privately away, and fled into Brittany, with a view to taking part with Henry Earl of Richmond.  At the instigation of his mother, the Queen Dowager, he appeared for a time to waver, and inclined to leave the party of the Earl of Richmond in despair of his success, and to return to England, and make his peace with Richard III.; but eventually remained abroad, until after the fall of Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, and the accession to the throne of Henry VII.; who then soon sent to Paris for Dorset, who, together with Sir John Bourchier (the brother of the Bishop of Exeter), had been left there by Henry, in pledge for money borrowed there.  He returned to England, was restored to his honours, and made one of the Privy Council of Henry VII.  He died in the tenth year of Henry VII., 1494, and Cecily his widow afterwards married Henry Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire, second son of Henry, second Duke of Buckingham, who was beheaded in the first year of Richard III.

[139d]  William Lord Hastings.—See Chap. VI.

[140a]  The park of Tewkesbury is mentioned by Leland: “Fordehampton, a faire place, upon Severne, in dextra ripa, a mile beneth Theokesbyri, and agayn the parke of Theokesbyri, standing in læva ripa.”—Lel. Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 94 [83].

[140b]  Holinshed’s Chronicles.

[141a]  Holinshed, with reference to Gloucester’s gaining this advantage over Somerset, uses the expression, “winning the hedge and ditch of him, entered the close, and with great violence, put him and his people up towards the hill, from whence they were descended.”

[141b]  Holinshed’s Chronicles.

[142a]  Holinshed’s Chronicles.  The mills are shown in the engraving of Tewkesbury, given in Dyde’s History of Tewkesbury.

[142b]  Sir John Delves was of the old Cheshire family of Delves of Doddington.

[142c]  Lel. Collect, vol. ii. fo. 506.  Stow’s Annals, p. 424.

[142d]  Lel. Collect, vol. ii. fo. 506.

[143a]  It will be recollected that the Duke of Clarence was put to death in 1477–78, in the Tower of London.  He was interred at Tewkesbury.  See Stow’s Annals, p. 431; the Catalogue of Nobility, &c. by Ralph Brooke, p. 52; Additions to Camden’s Britannia, by Gough, edition of 1789, vol. i. p. 269; Sandford, p. 413; Rapin, vol. i. (in Notis, p. 624).  Those accounts appear to be corroborated by the circumstance, that the Duke’s wife Isabel was interred in a stone arched vault, near the high altar, in the Abbey Church there.  Leland, in his Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 92 [p. 81], states that she died at the Castle of Warwick, on the 22nd of December, 1476, and was buried at Tewkesbury, of which she was the patroness.  The entrance to the vault is covered by a large blue stone, under which is a flight of eight steps, which lead to the vault, which was opened and examined in 1826, on the occasion of some repairs, when the skulls and some bones of a man and a woman were discovered in it; besides which there were also six large stones at the south end of it, which apparently had been placed there, in order to support two coffins abreast; which adds not a little to the supposition that he was buried in the same tomb with the Duchess.  Sandford expressly states that the Duke was buried at Tewkesbury, near the body of his Duchess.  It was evident that the vault had been long previously entered, probably at the time of the dissolution of abbeys, or of the parliamentarian wars, and rifled of every thing worth taking away.  The floor of the vault was paved; and extending nearly the length and breadth of it, was the representation of a cross, formed by the insertion of bricks, some of which contained the arms of England, of the Clares, &c.; and others contained representations of fleurs-de-lis, birds, ornamented letters, &c.  Under the belief that the mortal remains so discovered, were those of the ill-fated Duke of Clarence, and of Isabel his wife, the skulls and bones were collected, placed in an ancient stone coffin, and the vault again closed up.  It furnishes us with an impressive moral, and appears like an awful and just retribution, that so soon after the Duke had assisted in, or at least countenanced, the murder of Prince Edward, after the battle of Tewkesbury, his own death by violence, by the tyrannical orders of his brother, Edward IV., should have occurred, and his corpse should have been deposited in the Abbey Church, within sight of which the murder was committed.

[144]  Fabyan says, that it was the King’s servants who committed the murder.  If, as seems improbable, he means domestic servants, it does not make any difference in the crime, whether the noblemen present committed the murder with their own hands, or sanctioned its commission by domestics.

[145a]  It is said that human bones were found there; but it is unfortunate that no full and detailed account seems to have been preserved of the examination of the grave, or what kind of human bones, whether male or female, old or young, were discovered, for they might have done much to throw light upon the subject.  I could not obtain any further information relative to it, from the person who showed me through the Abbey Church.  The practice of interring corpses in stone coffins continued a considerable time after the date of the battle of Tewkesbury.  The corpse of Richard III. was interred, after the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, in a stone coffin, in the Grey Friars Church at Leicester.  His remains were, at the time of the destruction of religious houses, disturbed, and the stone coffin was converted into a watering-trough, at the White Horse Inn, in Gallow Tree Gate, and was so used until it was broken to pieces.—Hutton’s Battle of Bosworth, pp. 142, 143.  See also Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 410, where he mentions that the stone coffin was made a drinking-trough for horses at a common inn.

[145b]  Additions to Camden’s Britannia, by Gough, published in 1789, vol. i. p. 269.  That account evidently refers to a prior examination to that already noticed, as having occurred before the inscription (of which a copy has been given) was placed there, in 1796, because Gough’s edition of Camden’s Mag. Brit. was published in 1789.

At present there is not any monument to the memory of the Duke of Clarence or his wife, nor did I hear that any was known to have ever been there.

[146a]  Hall, p. 32.  Holinshed says it occurred on the 7th.

[146b]  Hall and Holinshed; Lel. Collect, vol. ii. p. 506.

[146c]  Sir Thomas Tresham is stated, in the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV. (1475), to have been of Sywell, in the county of Northampton.  Rot. Parl. 14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 145.  Quære—if he were the same Sir Thomas Tresham, or a son of the Sir Thomas Tresham attainted in the 1st of Edward IV. (1461), for having been engaged at the battle of Towton against Edward, but whose attainder was reversed in the 7th and 8th Edw. IV. (1467 and 1468)?

[146d]  Stowe, p. 425; Lel. Collect. vol. ii. p. 506.  There appears to be an error in those writers with respect to the name of the son and heir of Sir John Delves, as they call the former James instead of John Delves.  See Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. pp. 255, 266, 269.  An act of attainder, passed in 14th of Edward IV. (1475), against the Lancastrians, includes John Delves, describing him as late of Uttoxeter, in the county of Stafford, Esquire.  Rot. Parl. 14th Edward IV. vol. vi fo. 145.  Although they were of a Cheshire family, yet, as it had originally come from Staffordshire, it is not improbable that Sir John Delves, or his son John Delves, had possessions in both counties.  Their ancestor, Sir John Delves, obtained in 1364, a royal license to make a castellated mansion, or castellet, at Doddington, of which there are still some remains, a view of which is given in Omerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 269.

[146e]  These streets are Church Street, High Street, and Barton Street.  Not many years ago, an old building, called the Tolsey or Town Hall (there is now a narrow street, called, from that building, Tolzey Lane, close to its site) and two small houses, of mean appearance, occupied a portion of the space, in the centre of the town, but being found inconvenient, and even dangerous, the liberality of Sir William Codrington, then one of the representatives of the town in Parliament, enabled the corporation to remove them, and a commodious market-house has been erected, by subscription, on the east side of the open space, which is now used for the purposes of a market.—Dyde’e History of Tewkesbury, pp. 82 and 83.

[147a]  In the parish church of Wybonbury, in Cheshire, there were, prior to the repairs and alterations made in 1591 and 1793, some monuments of the family of Delves, amongst which, was one to the memory of Sir John Delves (mentioning his death on the 4th of May, 1471), and of Ellen his wife, and of John his son and heir.—See Pennant’s Journey from Chester to London, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’ Mag. Brit. Cheshire, 823; Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268.  Consequently it appears that the bodies of both the father and son were first buried at Tewkesbury, and afterwards removed and interred at Wybonbury.  According to Pennant, p. 38, the following was a copy of the inscription:—

HIC JACET JOHANNES DELVES, MILES, ET ELENA UXOR EJUS, NEC NON
JOHANNES DELVES ARMIGER FILIUS ET HERES PREDICTI JOHIS QUI
QUIDEM JOHANNES MILES OBIIT QUARTO DIE MAII ANNO DNI.
MCCCCLXXI.  QUORUM ANIMABUS PROPITIETUR DEUS.  AMEN.

[148a]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 93 [82].

[149a]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 95 [83].

[149b]  It is here called a mile-post, because on that part of the road, wooden mile-posts (not mile-stones) are used.

[149c]  It is occasionally spelt “Home.”  Some parts of the elevated ground are now called Holme Ground, or Holme Hill.  “Ther was at the south-west ende of the Abbay a Castel caullid Holme.  The tyme of the Building of it is oncerteyne.” [149d]

“There hath beene yn tyme of mynd sum Partes of the Castel stonding now sum ruines of the Botoms of Waulles appere.  Now it is caullid Holme Hylle.  George Duke of Clarence, Brother to King Edward, had thought to have brought Avon aboute the Towne and to have enlarged the Town.” [149d]

[149d]  Lel. Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 96 [84].

[150a]  The elevated ground above mentioned, which includes the place called “Margaret’s Camp,” seems to be the same which (although it has no very great pretensions to be called a hill) is alluded to by Holinshed, when he states that the Lancastrian forces were driven up towards the hill from whence they descended.

[150b]  The winding or circuitous state of the old road, seems in some degree to corroborate the statement of Holinshed, as to the Lancastrian camp being defended with “cumbersome lanes, deep ditches,” &c. &c.; indeed it is remarkable, that even now, there are ditches of very awkward size and depth, on the north and west sides of the garden at Gupshill Farm.

[150c]  It is called from that circumstance by the country people “the Island.”

[151]  It seems strange, that Mr. Dyde, in his History of Tewkesbury, suggests, that Margaret’s encampment was at a place adjoining the town and abbey, called the Vineyard.  Little as we may truly think of the Duke of Somerset’s talents as a military commander, he could scarcely have made so ridiculous a mistake, as to have fixed upon so low and insecure a spot, as the Vineyard, commanded by the high ground of Holme Hill, and with the little river the Swilgate not in his front, but in his rear.  What Mr. Dyde has mistaken for intrenchments, are nothing more than some trifling inequalities in a spot of ground close to the abbey, which in all probability, was formerly used as a garden or vineyard, as its name implies.

[152]  There are two hamlets in the parish of Tewkesbury, viz., one called the Mythe, and the other Southwick and the Park, situated on the westward of the town, and on the road leading towards Cheltenham; and it is in the latter portion of the parish that Margaret’s Camp is situated.

[153a]  The ball is almost a perfect globe, except at one spot, where it is rather defective, and may perhaps have been eaten into by rust.

[153b]  Holinshed.

[153c]  Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 31.

[154a]  Holinshed.

[154b]  MS. Chronicle of John Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society, p. 18.

[154c]  vol. vi. fo. 92 and 93.

[154d]  The fact of that part of the elevated ground where Margaret’s Camp is situated, being even now called “Gupshill,” may also be well worthy of notice; because it is far from improbable, that it may be only a corruption of the other word “Gastons.”

[154e]  Holinshed.

[157a]  The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Bosworth was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, on the 3rd of November, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[157b]  Its real name is Redmoor Plain, so called from the colour of the soil.  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A., page 68.

[158a]  Richard III., the youngest son of Richard Duke of York by Cecily his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October, 1452, and was created Duke of Gloucester in 1461.  He married Anne, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales (son of Henry VI.).  His reign commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483, and was slain at the battle of Bosworth, on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months.  Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign.  He did not leave any issue: Edward Prince of Wales, his only child by Queen Anne, having died before him.—See Chap. VII. and Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

[158b]  Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, was the son of Edmund of Hadham, Earl of Richmond, by his wife Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, descended from an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, and was born at the Castle of Pembroke about 1455.  His pretensions to the crown of England, were founded upon his descent, through the Beauforts, from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III.  (See Pedigree No. 4 in Chap. IX.)  But nothing could be more wild and contrary to the laws and constitution of England, than such a claim; because he claimed through his great-grandfather, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, who was the son of John of Gaunt, by Katharine Swinford, but born before their marriage; and, although the issue were declared legitimate for general purposes, by a charter of 20th Richard II. (which was confirmed by an act of Parliament—see Rot. Parl. 20th Richard II. vol. iii. fo. 343; Sandford’s Genealogical History, pp. 313, 314; Coke’s Inst. vol. 4, p. xxxvii.; Blackstone’s Com. by Stephens, 3rd edit. vol. ii. p. 417), it contained an express exception as to the royal dignities; the words in the charter, as given at length by Coke and Sandford, are, “excepta dignitate regali;” and it is remarkable, that these words seem to have been intentionally omitted in the printed copy of the act in Rot. Parl. vol. iii. fo. 243; (Quære—were the words cunningly obliterated from the roll by the order of Henry VII.?); besides which, several personages, amongst whom were the daughters of Edward IV., and after them the son and daughter of George Duke of Clarence, were living, and in the due order of the succession.  By the battle of Bosworth, Richmond became King Henry VII.; he was crowned on the 30th of October, 1485; and married the Princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King Edward IV. (the marriage gave him his best title to the throne); and he died at Richmond on the 21st of April, 1509, in the fifty-third year of his age, having reigned twenty-three years and about eight months.—See Pedigree No. 4, Chap. IX.  There is something remarkable with respect to the number and rank of the personages who were candidates for the hand of the Princess Elizabeth:—1stly, she was intended by her father, King Edward IV., to be the bride of George Neville, Duke of Bedford, the son of John Neville, Marquis Montague (slain at the battle of Barnet); 2ndly, she was affianced to Charles, the Dauphin of France, son of King Louis XI.; 3rdly, she was courted by her uncle, King Richard III., who probably intended, as has been the fashion of royalty in Portugal, to obtain the Pope’s permission to marry a niece; 4thly, she married King Henry VII., and, consequently, became a Queen, on the 19th of January, 1486.

[159]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A., Advertisement, pp. iii. and iv.

[160a]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 69; and see ibid., Advertisement, pp. iv. and v., where an error is pointed out in his statement as to the number of acres.

[160b]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, pp. 69 and 70.

[160c]  Ibid., p. 87.

[160d]  Ibid., additional particulars, p. 241.

[160e]  Some land occupied as part of Sutton Field Farm, by Mr. Cooper, a farmer of respectability, is called Cornhill Furze, and lies on the north side of the road leading from Shenton to Sutton Cheney.

[161a]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 88.

[161b]  On his way from Lichfield to Tamworth, he was joined by Sir Thomas Bourchier and Sir Walter Hungerford, who had deserted Richard’s party, and with some difficulty joined the Earl of Richmond.

[161c]  Thomas Lord Stanley.  See Chap. II.

[161d]  Sir William Stanley.  See Chap. II.

[161e]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, Additional Particulars, pp. 195, 196.

[162a]  “Margaret Beaufort, sole daughter and heiress of John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, became Countess of Richmond by her marriage with her first husband, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond; her second husband was Sir Henry Stafford (a son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton, and a brother of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, and also a brother of John Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire); and her third husband was Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby.  The Countess of Richmond had only one child, viz., Henry Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., by her marriage with Edmund Earl of Richmond (see Pedigree No. 4, chap. ix. p. 201); and she had not any children either by her second or third husband, as if, to use the words of Sandford, in his Genealogical History, p. 319, ‘she had been designed to be the mother of a king onely.’  She lived to see her son Henry VII. and her grandson Henry VIII. successively kings, and died in the first year of the reign of the latter, on the 3rd July, 1509, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.”

[162b]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, Additional Particulars, pp. 196, 197.  Baker, in his Chronicles calls the hill, Anne Beam; and, considering the age when he wrote, the spelling is not so very much amiss.  It is now called Ambien Hill, and also Amyon Hill.

[163a]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 94.

[163b]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 97.

[163c]  Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow.

[163d]  Hutton, p. 96.

[163e]  Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow.  It must be borne in mind, that the morass formed part of what is at present the wood, and that a portion of the latter extends nearly to the well.  Henry’s army, in advancing, would naturally bear away a little to the left, in order to avoid the morass.

[163f]  Hutton, p. 69.

[163g]  Ibid., pp. 87, 94.

[164]  Baker, in his Chronicles, fo. 232, states, that Richard’s “vanguard was led by the Duke of Norfolk, which consisted of one thousand two hundred bowmen, flanked with two hundred cuyrassiers, under the conduct of the Earl of Surrey; the battel King Richard led himself, which consisted of a thousand bill-men empaled with two thousand pikes; the rereward was led by Sir Thomas Brackenbury, consisting of two thousand mingled, with two wings of horsemen, containing fifteen hundred, all of them cast into square maniples, expecting the Lord Stanley’s coming with two thousand, most of them horsemen.”  Instead of Sir Thomas Brackenbury, Baker probably meant Sir Robert Brackenbury, who lost his life in the battle; but in either case, he appears to be in error, as to the commander of the rear of Richard’s army, which not only other old historians, but even Baker, on the next page, states, to have been commanded by the Earl of Northumberland.  “In this battel Henry, Earl of Northumberland, who led King Richard’s rereward, never strook stroke.”—Baker, fo. 233.

[165a]  Philippe de Commines, 5me livre, fo. 151.

[165b]  Rot. Parl. 1 Henry VII. (A.D. 1485) vol. vi. folios 275 and 276.  See Appendix No. 3.

[165c]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, pp. 82 and 97.

[165d]  John Howard was a son of Sir Robert Howard, by Margaret, daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and was a faithful supporter of Edward IV., who created him a baron in 1461.  Richard III. created him Duke of Norfolk on the 14th of June, 1483.  He had the honour of being placed in the vanguard of Richard’s army at the battle of Bosworth.

[165e]  Thomas Howard, son of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, before mentioned, was created Earl of Surrey in the first year of Richard III.  He also had the honour of having a principal command in Richard’s vanguard; and, according to some accounts, he was taken prisoner, but, according to others, he escaped from the field, and afterwards, upon an amnesty being published, he submitted to Henry.  He was imprisoned for a considerable period, but was at length reconciled to Henry VII., and was made Lord Treasurer of England in the sixteenth year of his reign; and was created Duke of Norfolk in 1514, the fifth year of Henry VIII.’s reign.

[165f]  Henry Percy, fourth Earl of Northumberland of that name, was the son and heir of Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, slain at the battle of Towton.  (See Chap. VI.)  At the battle of Bosworth he commanded the rear of Richard’s army, but he is considered to have been lukewarm and indifferent, and his forces are said not to have struck a blow; he immediately submitted to Henry, and was taken into favour by him, and was made one of his Privy Council, and was slain in the fourth year of his reign at a place called Cock Edge, near Thirsk, in Yorkshire, by the populace, in an insurrection on account of a tax imposed by Parliament, which the King had ordered him to levy.

[166a]  Francis Viscount Lovel escaped from Bosworth Field, and fought at the battle of Stoke in 1487, and was slain there, or at least never appeared afterwards.  (See Chap. IX.)

[166b]  John Lord Zouch was attainted for taking part with Richard at the battle of Bosworth, but his attainder was reversed in 4th Henry VII.—See Rot. Parl. 4th Henry VII. (A.D. 1488), vol. vi. fo. 24, and 11th Henry VII. (A.D. 1495), vol. vi. fo. 484.  He died in the fourth or fifth year of Edward VI.

[166c]  Sir Walter Devereux, in the twenty-sixth year of Henry VI. married Anne, sole daughter and heiress of William Lord Ferrers of Chartley, in Staffordshire, she being then aged eleven years and eight months, had livery of her lands, and in 1st Edward IV. was advanced to the dignity of a baron by the title of Lord Ferrers.  At his death at Bosworth Field, he left by his wife Anne a son John, who succeeded him in his title and honours.

[166d]  Probably of the family of Ratcliffes, Barons Fitzwalter.  See Chap. VI.

[166e]  Sir Gervase Clifton was of an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, of which the members still remain settled in that county.  His father, Sir Gervase Clifton, fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Tewkesbury, and was afterwards executed there.  See Chap. VII.

[166f]  Sir Robert Brackenbury was Constable of the Tower of London and Master of the Mint.  He stood high in the estimation of Richard III., who employed him in several matters of importance.

[166g]  Jasper (called of Hatfield) Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of Bedford.  See Chap. V.  He, with his nephew the Earl of Richmond, commanded the main body at the battle of Bosworth.

[166h]  John De Vere, thirteenth Earl of Oxford.  He was the son of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford (beheaded in the first year of Edward IV.), and of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Howard the younger, and was a staunch Lancastrian, fought on the part of Henry VI. at the battle of Barnet in 1471, afterwards held St. Michael’s Mount, on the coast of Cornwall, against Edward IV., and on its surrender was sent prisoner to the Castle of Hammes in Picardy.  He was attainted in the fourteenth year of Edward IV.  He afterwards escaped from Hammes and joined Henry Earl of Richmond, whom he accompanied to England in 1485, and commanded the van of Richmond’s army, consisting principally of archers, at the battle of Bosworth.  After the accession to the throne of Henry VII. he was restored to his rank and possessions; was joint commander with Jasper Duke of Bedford against the Earl of Lincoln at the battle of Stoke; and also held a joint command with him of the forces sent by Henry VII. in aid of the Emperor Maximilian against the French; and was also, in the twelfth year of Henry VII. one of the chief commanders against Lord Audley and the insurgents at the battle of Blackheath.  In the first year of Henry VIII. he obtained a confirmation of the office of Lord Chamberlain.  He married, first, Margaret, daughter of Richard Earl of Salisbury; and, secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Richard Scrope, and widow of William Viscount Beaumont, and died on the 10th of March, in the fourth of Henry VIII., without leaving any living issue, and was succeeded by his nephew, John de Vere.

[167a]  Sir William Brandon was the son of Sir William Brandon, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Wingfield, and was, with his brother Thomas Brandon, concerned in the insurrection of the Duke of Buckingham against Richard III. in 1483.  Upon its miscarriage the brothers fled into Brittany.  After the death of Sir William at Bosworth Field, Thomas was made one of the esquires of the body of Henry VII., and had the honour of carrying his buckler at the battle of Stoke, and about the end of his reign was made a Knight of the Garter.  He died in the first year of Henry VIII., and left a son, who was created Viscount Lisle in the fifth year of Henry VIII., and afterwards raised to the dignity of Duke of Suffolk.

[167b]  Sir Gilbert Talbot was the brother of John, third Earl of Shrewsbury, and uncle and guardian of George, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, then a minor, and commanded Henry’s right wing at the battle of Bosworth.

[167c]  Sir John Savage, commonly called “Sir John Savage, Junior,” of Clifton, now usually called Rock Savage, in Cheshire, was a nephew of Thomas Lord Stanley, and had the command of Henry’s left wing at the battle of Bosworth.  He was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VII., and was slain at the siege of Boulogne in 1492.—Stow’s Annals, fo. 469 and 488; Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. i. pp. 525 and 527.

[167d]  He died in 1488 without issue, leaving a brother, Sir Nicholas Byron, his heir, who was the ancestor of the late Lord Byron, the celebrated poet.

[167e]  Thomas Lord Stanley.  (See Chap. II.)  There is a very remarkable peculiarity connected with Lord Stanley’s (and the same observation applies in some degree also to Sir William Stanley’s) defection from Richard, and with his joining the Earl of Richmond, which has never been explained, as far as I am aware, by any author.  Richard thought that he could secure Lord Stanley in his interest, by conferring benefits upon him, and made him Constable of England for life, with an annuity of £100 a year payable out of the revenue of the county of Lancaster, and created him a Knight of the Garter.  The reasons usually assigned by historians for Lord Stanley’s defection are, his attachment to the memory of Edward IV., and his being faithful to the young King Edward V.; the attempt believed to have been made by Richard to cause him to be destroyed at the council (when Lord Hastings was seized and beheaded) in 1483; and his being then committed to prison for a time by Richard—all which are said to have rankled in his mind; besides the influence which his wife exercised over him in favour of the Earl of Richmond, Lord Stanley having married to his second wife the Countess of Richmond, the mother of the earl.  The date of Lord Stanley’s marriage with the Countess of Richmond does not appear to be stated in the Baronages, but it certainly occurred at least ten years before the reign of Richard III., because the Countess of Richmond is mentioned as being the wife of Lord Stanley in Rot. Parl. 13th Edward IV. (1473) vol. vi. fo. 77.  No plan for an insurrection could be better arranged than that of the Duke of Buckingham in the first year of Richard III. (1483), yet nothing could have worse success.  But if Lord Stanley and his brother had brought forward their power, and had taken an active part in it, the probability is, that Richard would at that time have been dethroned.  Neither Lord Stanley nor Sir William Stanley, however, appears to have taken the slightest step, or to have been in any shape concerned in that insurrection; yet precisely the same reasons which are assigned for Lord Stanley’s defection from Richard at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, appear equally to apply to influence him in 1483, when the Duke of Buckingham took up arms.  It is very difficult to account for Lord Stanley’s then remaining quiescent, unless we may infer that there was a feeling of jealousy in his mind, and that he suspected that as the Duke of Buckingham was a more powerful nobleman than himself and was of the blood royal of England (see Chap. III. pp. 48, 49, note 4), it was possible that he might, if successful, claim the crown in his own right; or that Lord Stanley did not consider that the feeling of the noblemen and gentry against Richard, was then sufficiently ripe or decided for an insurrection; or that he was watching events, with the purpose of adhering at last to the strongest.

[168a]  When Richard made his charge it should seem that he advanced from his right centre, because the ancient historians state that he “rode out of the syde of the range of his battaile” (Hall, fo. 34; Grafton, fo. 851); “rode out of the side of the range of his battel” (Holinshed, fo. 759).

[168b]  Sir William Stanley, whose services were so opportunely given, and of such inestimable value, was requited by Henry’s putting him to death, in 1496, on a very questionable and frivolous charge.  See Chap. II.

[169a]  The historical authorities for this paper are Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, Sandford, and vol. vi.  Rot. Parl.

[169b]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 75.

[169c]  Ibid. 129.

[170]  Baker, 235; Stow; Hutton, 143.  Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 410.  A tablet has been recently (in 1856) put up on one of the new buildings near Bow Bridge, with an inscription treating the locality as if it were the supposed place of the final interment of Richard III.; but although it may perhaps be a disappointment to those who have caused the tablet to be placed there, to learn that the correctness of their theory is not admitted by others, still it is only proper to mention, that there does not appear to be any authority for such a supposition: indeed, after his remains had been pulled out of the grave and got rid of at the river, it is not likely that anybody would know or care what became of them.

[171]  William Catesby was a lawyer of eminence in the reign of Richard III., was one of his chief counsellors, and was the Speaker of the House of Commons in the only Parliament held in the reign of Richard III.  He was a descendant from an ancient family at Lapworth, near Birmingham.  He is usually called Sir William Catesby by historians; but is certainly only treated as an esquire, not as a knight, in the act of attainder of 1st Henry VII. (see Rot. Parl. 1st Henry VII. A.D. 1485, vol. vi. fo. 275, Appendix No. 3), and in the act of the reversal of the attainder in favour of his son and heir, George Catesby, in the 11th year of the reign of Henry VII. (see Rot. Parl. 11th Henry VIII. A.D. 1495, vol. vi. fo. 490; in which the latter is called the son and heir “of William Catysby Squier,” which seems tolerably conclusive of his not having been knighted).

[172a]  Rot. Parl. 1st Henry VII. (in November, 1485), vol. v. fo. 276.  See Appendix No. 3.

[172b]  As if to make the injustice and mockery of such a proceeding the more glaring, the act of Parliament states the battle to have been fought in the first year of Henry’s reign (1485); but it might perhaps have perplexed Henry to have asked him at what exact date the first year of his reign commenced, and how men could commit treason against him before the commencement of it.

[173]  Grose’s Military Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 356, and plate 30.

[174]  Mr. Hutton’s contrast of their characters contains much truth:—“But were I allowed to treat royalty with plainness, Richard was an accomplished rascal, and Henry not one jot better.”—Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 73.

[175]  Carte, vol. ii. p. 866.

[176a]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, p. 179.

[176b]  Shakespeare’s Richard III. act i. scene 4.

[177a]  A copy of the paper, but in rather a more extended form, upon the Field of the Battle of Stoke was presented by the author, to the Society of Antiquaries of London, at a meeting, on the 17th of December, 1846, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

[177b]  John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, was the eldest son of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, second daughter of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and sister of Edward IV. and of Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 2, infra, in this chapter.

[177c]  Margaret, the widow of Charles Duke of Burgundy, was the third daughter of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, formerly Cecily Neville.—See Pedigree No. 2, infra, in this chapter.

[178a]  For the descent of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4, infra, in this chapter.

[178b]  It has been said, that at first Lambert was intended to have personated Richard Duke of York, one of the young princes, the son of King Edward IV., who had been imprisoned in the Tower, but that the difference in their ages rendered it inexpedient.

[178c]  Rot. Parl. 3 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 397.—See Appendix No. V.

[178d]  Francis Viscount Lovel was the son of John Lord Lovel; the latter was one of those Lancastrians who accompanied the Lords Scales and Hungerford to London, in hopes of gaining the citizens, and were obliged to take refuge in the Tower, in 1460; he died in the fourth year of Edward IV., leaving by Joan his wife, sister of William Viscount Beaumont, Francis, his son and heir.  Francis Lord Lovel accompanied Richard Duke of Gloucester, in the expedition to Scotland, in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and was advanced to the dignity of Viscount Lovel.  In the reign of Richard III. he was made Lord Chamberlain, and had other important offices conferred upon him.  He fought for Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485 (see Chap. VIII.), and, having escaped from thence, took sanctuary at St. John’s, at Colchester.  He afterwards quitted it privately, and got away to Sir Thomas Broughton’s house in Lancashire, and lurked there for some months, from whence he proceeded to Flanders, to Margaret Duchess of Burgundy; and from thence went with Martin Swartz into Ireland, joined in the insurrection of the Earl of Lincoln, and was slain at the battle of Stoke.  (See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 560.)  He married Anne, the daughter of Henry Lord Fitzhugh, Baron of Ravenswath (by Alice his wife, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury), but did not leave any issue.

[179a]  Rot. Parl. 11th Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502.—See Appendix No. VI.

[179b]  See Collection of “Documents relating to Lambert Symnell’s Rebellion in the second year of King Henry VII.,” selected from the Municipal Archives of York, by Robert Davies, Esq., F.S.A.; communicated to the Meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York, in 1846; published in 1847, pp. 27, 28.

[180a]  Jasper Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.

[180b]  John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

[180c]  Thomas Lord Stanley.—See Chaps. III. and VIII.

[180d]  George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, was son of John, third earl, and grandson of John, second Earl Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.

[180e]  Lel. Coll. vol. iv. fo. 210.—See Appendix No. IV.

[181]  After the earl’s forces had crossed the Trent at Fiskerton, and found themselves upon its right bank, Stoke Marsh, now enclosed, lay immediately before them; and beyond it, little more than a quarter of a mile distant, was the foot of the eminence already mentioned.

[182a]  On the right, an artificial mount of small size, exists in the contiguous field, which is traditionally considered as having been occupied by some of the hostile forces, previous to the battle of Stoke.  The small mount is said to have been thrown up or added to, for the purposes of a windmill, which once stood there.

[182b]  For the Pedigree of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4, infra, in this chapter.

[185a]  4 Lelandi Collect, p. 211.—See Appendix No. IV.

[185b]  4 Lel. Col. p. 210, 212.—See Appendix No. IV.

[186a]  Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, formerly Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.

[186b]  John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

[186c]  George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury.  He was the son of John, third Earl, and grandson of John, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.

[186d]  Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the son of Sir Henry Neville (the son of George Lord Latimer, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick), and died in the twenty-second year of Henry VIII.

[186e]  Edward Lord Hastings, son of William Lord Hastings (put to death by Richard Duke of Gloucester, in 1488—see Chap. VI.) by Katherine, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of William Bonvile Lord Harrington, was created Earl of Huntingdon, in the twenty-first, and died in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VIII.

[186f]  Thomas Stanley, first Earl of Derby.—See Chap. II.

[186g]  Sir Edward Fielding was the son and heir of Sir William Fielding, who fell at the battle of Tewkesbury, fighting for the Lancastrian party, and was interred there; he was the ancestor of William Fielding, created Earl of Denbigh, in the twentieth year of James I.

[186h]  See Chap. VIII.

[186i]  Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. p. 299.  There was also another person of the name of Brandon, and probably of the same family—Robert Brandon, who appears to have distinguished himself at the battle of Stoke, because he was knighted on the occasion.—See Leland’s Collectanea, vol. iv. p. 210, Appendix No. IV.

[186j]  Rot. Parl. 3 Henry VII. part 15, vol. vi. fo. 397.  See Appendix No. V.  But see Rot. Parl. 11 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502.  Appendix No. VI., where the 20th of June is mentioned as the date of the battle.

[187a]  Rot. Parl. 3 Henry VII., vol. vi. fo. 397.  See Appendix No. V.  See also Hutton’s Bosworth Field, pp. 82, 97: An act of attainder was passed against the adherents of Richard III., after the battle of Bosworth, which mentions the use of guns amongst other arms, by them.—Rot. Parl. 1 Henry VII., vol. vi. p. 276.  See Appendix No. III.

[187b]  Hall, Holinshed, Bacon, Pol. Virgil, Baker.

[187c]  Lambert Simnel was made a turnspit in the King’s kitchen, and was afterwards made a falconer; the priest, his tutor, was never again heard of.

[188a]  Lelandi Collectanea, p. 214.  See Appendix No. IV. and No. VII.

[188b]  Hall’s Chronicles, and Bacon, mention a rumour of his being drowned in swimming the Trent; but the latter adds, “But another report leaves him not there, but that he lived long after, in a cave or vault;” and in the 2nd volume, p. 321, Banks’s Dormant and Extinct Baronage, is a copy of a letter, dated 1737, from William Cooper, Esq., clerk of the Parliament, detailing some interesting particulars of the discovery, in 1708, of a human skeleton, in a vault at Minster Lovel, in Oxfordshire, which formerly belonged to Lord Lovel, supposed by many, to be the remains of that unfortunate nobleman.  See Appendix No. VII.

[188c]  Buck’s Life of Richard III.

[188d]  Hall, Holinshed, Dugdale.—See Chap. VIII.

[188e]  Hall, Dugdale’s Baronage.

[189]  Lel. Col. vol. iv. p. 213.  See Appendix No. IV.

[190]  I have paid four visits to the field of the battle of Stoke, viz., in June, 1823; June, 1824; August, 1825; and September, 1827.

[191a]  A passage, calculated to mislead, exists in a work, called The Beauties of England and Wales.  It contains an assertion, unsupported by any proof, “that the battle must have been fought in the plain, between Stoke and Thorpe, rather than Stoke and Elston.”  The clear and unqualified statements of the old chroniclers and annalists, that it was fought at Stoke, the evidence of the relics dug up, and the tradition of the neighbourhood, make it however quite certain that it could not have been fought in the place suggested in that work.

[191b]  Rot. Parl. 17 Edward IV. and 1 Richard III.

[191c]  Ralph Brooke, Sandford, Dugdale, Baker.

[192a]  Dugdale, Speed.

[192b]  Buck.

[192c]  Of coarse, I pay no attention to Henry’s proclamation, published in Drake’s Eboracum, p. 122, which is so incorrect, as to assert, that the Earl of Lincoln, the Earl of Surrey, and Lord Lovel, were slain there.

[192d]  Rot. Parl. 1 Henry VII., vol. vi.  See Appendix No. III.

[192e]  See 4 Lel. Coll. p. 210.  He also attended Henry VII. in his first progress into Yorkshire.  See 4 Lel. Coll. p. 186.

[193a]  Sir John Neville (commonly called John Lord Neville), was the brother and heir presumptive of Ralph Neville, second Earl of Westmoreland.—Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Lel. Coll. vol. ii. p. 715 [498]; act of attainder, 1 Edward IV. (1461), Rot. Parl. vol. v. p. 476; act of reversal of the attainder, 12th and 13th Edward IV., Rot. Parl. vol. vi. p. 24.  A remarkable error exists in Hall’s, Holinshed’s, and Fabyan’s Chronicles, in which it is stated, that the Earl of Westmoreland perished at the battle of Towton; but, in fact, the first Earl of Westmoreland of that family, died in 4th Henry VI., and the second Earl of Westmoreland, in 2nd Richard III.—Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300.  Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, married Anne, the widow of his nephew, John Neville (the son and heir apparent of Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland), who died before his father.—See Chap. VI.

[193b]  It is stated by Dugdale, in vol. i. p. 248, that John Tibtoft, Earl of Worcester, married her niece, Cecily, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of Henry de Beauchamp, Duke of Warwick, and was executed on Tower Hill, in 1470; but that is scarcely reconcileable with what Dugdale afterwards states of his marriage in vol. ii. p. 41.

[194a]  He is called William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, in the Catalogue of Nobility, by Ralph Brooke, p. 205; and William Lord Harrington, by Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. iii. p. 236; and William Lord Bonvile, in the same work, vol. i. pp. 581 and 585.  He was the son of William Bonvile, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heiress of William Lord Harrington, and the grandson of William Lord Bonvile, who was put to death by Queen Margaret and the Lancastrian leaders, after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in 1461.—See Chaps. IV. and VI.

[194b]  Catalogue of Nobility, &c., by Ralph Brooke, p. 174; and Dugdale’s Bar. vol. i. p. 304.  A descrepancy is, however, apparent in Dugdale’s work, as he, in another place, erroneously states, that the Earl of Oxford married Katherine Neville—vol. i. p. 198.

[195a]  Horatio Walpole, Earl of Orford, in his work, called Historic Doubts, has attempted to disprove the charge against Richard III. of the murder of his nephews, the two princes, in the Tower of London.  The work is curious and interesting; but that author seems to have failed in removing from Richard, the stigma of this shocking crime.  “Si l’on a fait de lui, des jugemens téméraires, c’est lui, qui en est coupable.  Il est certain qu’il enferma ses neveux dans la Tour; ils ne pararent plus, c’est à lui d’en répondre;” [195b] and perhaps few persons can read the remarks on the Historic Doubts, published by the Rev. Dr. Milles, and the Rev. Robert Masters, in the 1st and 2nd vols. Archæologia, pp. 361 and 198, without perceiving, that what the author of the Historic Doubts relies on as proofs of Richard III.’s innocence, are very ably rebutted by those writers; and that what he terms the coronation roll of King Richard III., in which are items for robes, &c. for King Edward V. (from which he would infer, that the latter monarch was alive, and even present at the coronation of the former), is only a wardrobe account of Piers Curteys, the king’s wardrober, kept from the time of the death of Edward IV., of which the deliveries for the expected coronation, of course, form a considerable part; but that the robes, &c., alluded to were prepared for the use of Edward V., at his own intended coronation, and not at that of his uncle, who took effectual measures, that, notwithstanding Piers Curteys’s arrangements, they should never be used for the purpose which he contemplated.  That idea receives a strong confirmation from Sir Thomas More, who, in his History of the Life and Reign of Edward V., mentions the preparations for his coronation.

[195b]  Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations, Œuvres de Voltaire, tome 18me, p. 48.

[196a]  Hall, Bacon, Baker; Catalogue of Nobility, &c. by Ralph Brooke; Dugdale’a Bar., Sir T. More, Hutton, Pol. Virgil, Sandford, Banks, Walpole; Acts of Attainder, Rot. Parl. 17 Edward IV., 1 Richard III., 1 Henry VII., and 3 Henry VII.—See Pedigrees, Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

[196b]  She outlived her husband, Richard Duke of York, thirty-five years, died at the Castle of Berkhampsted, on the 31st of May, 1495, an. 10th of Henry VII., and was interred by the body of her husband, at Fotheringay.—Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 369.

[197]  Precis du Siècle de Louis XV., Œurres de Voltaire, tome 22, pp. 210 and 223.

[204]  It will perhaps occur to the reader, from what has been already mentioned, that the words “Near this spot,” would be more appropriate and correct, than “On this spot.”

[205]  Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick.—See Chap. II. p. 24, note 2.

[206a]  George Duke of Clarence.—See Chap. VII.

[206b]  Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 684.

[206c]  Lel. Coll. vol. fo. 504; Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 684; MS. Chronicle by Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society, p. 16.  Holinshed, however, states, that Edward would not allow his guns to be fired during the night, in order that the enemy might not be aware of the exact position of the Yorkists.

[207a]  See note 2, p. 206.

[207b]  Richard Duke of Gloucester.—See Chaps. VII. and VIII.

[207c]  William Lord Hastings.—See Chap. VI.

[207d]  John Neville, Marquis Montague.—See Chap. II. p. 27, note 4; and Chap. VI. p. 118, note 2.

[207e]  John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

[207f]  Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter.—See Chap. IV. p. 54, note 2.

[207g]  Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.—See Chap. VII.

[207h]  Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 684.  In Mr. Hutton’s interesting work upon the Battle of Bosworth, Introduction, p. xxx., he gives a different account, and states that Warwick’s left extended towards the east, and far outflanked Edward’s right.

[208]  Edward’s device of the Sun in Splendour, was adopted from the parhelion seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.—See Chap. V. pp. 72, 73.

[209a]  Humphrey Bourchier, third son of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex, married Joan, daughter of Richard Stanhope, and niece and co-heir of Ralph Lord Cromwell, of Tatshall, had summons to Parliament, in 1, 2, 6, and 9th of Edward IV., by the title of Lord Cromwell, was slain at the battle of Barnet, left no issue, and was interred in Westminster Abbey.—Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. fo. 133.

[209b]  William Fienes, Lord Saye, succeeded his father, James Fienes Lord Saye, who was put to death by Jack Cade and his mob, in Cheapside, in London, in 1451.  His son, William Lord Saye, upon the arrival in England of the Earls of March and Warwick, in 1460, joined them, and marched with them against King Henry VI., to Northampton.  In 1463, he attended King Edward, with his army, to the North, for the recovery of the castles in Northumberland, then held by the Lancastrians, and in the same year, was made Vice-Admiral under the Earl of Warwick, then High Admiral.  He accompanied Edward the Fourth, in 1470, when he was driven out of the kingdom by the Earl of Warwick, and afterwards landed with Edward at Ravenspur, and fought for him, and was slain at the battle of Barnet.

[209c]  John Bourchier, Lord Berners, was the fourth son of William Bourchier, Earl of Ewe (see Chap. VI. p. 118, note 3).  John Lord Berners’ eldest son, Sir Humphrey Bourchier, slain in his father’s lifetime, fighting on Edward’s part, at the battle of Barnet, was interred in Westminster Abbey, and left by Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and heir of Sir Frederick Tilney, and widow of Sir Thomas Howard, John Bourchier, Lord Berners, his son and heir, and another son, Sir Thomas Bourchier, who joined Henry Earl of Richmond, upon his march towards Bosworth Field, and took part with him in that battle.—Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. ii. fo. 132.

[209d]  There were slain on Edward’s part, at the battle of Barnet, according to Holinshed—Lord Cromwell, Lord Saye, Lord Montjoye’s son and heir, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of Lord Berners; according to Speed, Lord Cromwell, Lord Bourchier, Lord Barnes [Quære—Berners], son and heir to the Lord Saye, and Sir John Lisle; according to Stow, Humphrey Bourchier Lord Cromwell, Henry Bourchier, son of Lord Berners, and Sir John Lisle; according to Hall, and to Grafton, Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of Lord Berners, but no other person of any note; according to a letter from Sir John Paston to his mother, published in Fenn’s Collections of Original Letters, vol. ii. p. 65, Lord Cromwell, Lord Saye, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier; and, according to Warkworth’s Chronicle, Lord Cromwell son and heir to the Earl of Essex, Lord Barnes’ [Quære Berners’] son and heir, Lord Saye, and others.

[210a]  Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act iii. scene 3.  It is remarkable, that in the same tragedy, in act ii. scene 3, Shakespeare conveys the same sentiment, but in different words, “Thou setter-up and plucker-down of Kings.”

[210b]  Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 684; Lel. Col. vol. i. p. 504.  MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 16.

[210c]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, Introduction xxxv.

[210d]  Hutton’s Bosworth Field, Introduction xxxiv.

[210e]  According to Lysons, antiquaries have differed in their opinions, nevertheless, concerning the exact spot where the battle was fought: some supposing that it was fought near the obelisk; others, on Monkey Mead Plain, more to the north, within Enfield Chase.  Lysons’ Environs of London, vol. iv. p. 2.

[211]  A respectable person, who had formerly long resided close to it, mentioned to me the circumstance, of its having been removed, as above stated, and also that he had known it during fifty-six years.  He also stated, in reply to my inquiries, that he did not know of his own knowledge, that any relics of the battle had been discovered; but that he had heard of such discoveries formerly.

In strict order of dates, the account of the Field of the Battle of Barnet, ought to have preceded that of the Field of the Battle of Tewkesbury; but that could not be done without inconvenience, because the manuscript of the other parts of the work had been written, and the arrangements had been made for printing them, before the author had visited the place where the battle of Barnet was fought, or had written an account of it.

[213]  The paper upon the General Use of Firearms by the English, in the fifteenth century, was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 1st of February, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[215a]  Vol. i. p. 150.

[215b]  Statute of 4th and 6th Philip and Mary, c. ii. s. 17.

[215c]  See Hallam’s State of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. i. pp. 361 and 363.  See also Archæologia, vol. xxxii. p. 379.  In Hallam’s talented work on the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. i. pp. 361 and 363, and in the notes to them, are some valuable observations on the early introduction of gunpowder.  He appears to consider it of eastern invention, and ascribes to the Moors, with every appearance of probability, the introduction of it into Europe, and mentions some very early instances of the use of cannons in the fourteenth century.  He even refers to a writer who seems to mention the use of gunpowder in engines of war, in 1249.

An interesting proof of the use of cannon and other engines by the French during the siege of a fortress in the fourteenth century, is given in the Rotuli Parliamentorum of the 1st Richard II. (1377).  A parliamentary proceeding, in the nature of an impeachment, was instituted against William de Weston, an English commander, who had been intrusted by King Edward III. (“jadys Roy d’Engl.’ aiel ñre Sr le Roy q’ore est”) with the custody of the castle of Outhrewyk, and who was charged with having improperly surrendered it to the enemy; “en temps de mesme nr̃e Sr̃ le Roy q’ore est, verray heir au dit aiel.”  In the answer of William de Weston, which is given at length, it is stated, that he had not sufficient forces to defend the castle; and also that the enemy, in besieging it, had “IX grosses canons, un grant engyn, et un trebuchet,” * * * “Et deins brief temps apres, ils comenceront a traire & getter de lour canons & engyns & ensi continneront de jonr en autre lour assalt” * * * “les murs en plusours lieux feurent enfebles par lour mervaillouses ordinances” * * * “Item mesme celui nuyt les enemys firont attrere toutes lours ordinances des engins, trebuchett, et canons.” [216b]

There is not any evidence of the period when the invention of gunpowder took place; but the general opinion of antiquaries appears to be, that it was a discovery of very remote antiquity; that its use may be dated back centuries before its first application to the purposes of war; and that for a very long period of time after its invention, it was merely used (more particularly in Asia) for recreative fireworks, and brilliant spectacles.  Whilst on the subject of fireworks, it may be advisable to mention here, that they were in common use in Europe in the fifteenth century.  Fireworks are mentioned by Philip de Commines, [216c] as having been thrown for amusement into the air, and afterwards running flaming on the ground, at Estampes, after the battle of Montl’hery, in 1465.  We also learn from the same authority, an instance in 1494, of fireworks having been exhibited at Venice, from the steeples of the city, and pieces of artillery having been discharged. [216d]

[216a]  The defective construction of guns during very many years after the battle of Crescy, and the want of skill in the art of gunnery, as well as the silence of the English and French historians, seem almost conclusive against the use of them at that battle, although the contrary has been asserted.

There is an interesting and valuable paper, which was written by the Rev. Joseph Hunter, F.S.A., and published in the Archæologia, vol. xxxii. p. 379, which contains many proofs of the use of gunpowder and cannons in the time of Edward III.; but, although it must be admitted that the evidence which he adduces is quite sufficient to show that they were then in use for the purpose of besieging towns and fortresses, he does not bring forward any proofs, or even any strong reason, for our supposing that they were ever used in the open field, during the reign of Edward III.

[216b]  Rot. Parl. 1 Richard II., 1377, vol. iii. p. 10.  It also furnishes another proof, in addition to others, of the French employing Genoese cross-bowmen in their wars; as 700 of them are there mentioned, as employed by the French at the siege.

[216c]  Philip de Commines, book 1, ch. v. pp. 13 and 14.

[216d]  Ibid. book 7, ch. xv. p. 215.

[217a]  Grose’s Military Antiquities, vol. i. p. 168, and vol. ii. p. 291.

[217b]  It is by no means improbable, that the “bastons à feu,” the nature of which, is not clear, adverted to by Monstrelet, as with the convoy brought up by the English, in besieging Orleans in 1428, were some kind of portable firearms.  He several times uses that expression, particularly in describing the wars of the Burgundians and French.  It ought, however, to be mentioned here, that with reference to the attack by the Burgundians upon Paris, in 1460, he uses the expression, “canons serpentines, et autres bastons de pouldre et a feu, avec trait de bastons inuasibles a main.”  During the early part and middle of the fifteenth century, if gun-carriages were occasionally used, they certainly were not always adopted; and when cannons had to be transported from place to place, they were frequently conveyed in carts or waggons; and we learn from the ancient historical writers, that at that period, for want of carts and waggons, the besiegers were occasionally obliged, on raising a siege, to abandon their cannons.

[218a]  Philip de Commines, in book 5, c. iii. p. 118, in enumerating the strength of the Swiss army, and the other confederates, against Charles Duke of Burgundy, in 1476, before Morat, says, that they had “dix mille coulevrines,” by which, as has been correctly observed by Mr. Grose, it is impossible that he could have meant 10,000 of such unwieldly engines as cannons; he evidently meant hand-guns or firearms, sufficiently light to be portable.  It is also certain that firearms (haquebuts or harquebusses), so small as to be used on horseback (the origin of the modern carbine and pistol), were used on the Continent, in the year 1495; because on the retreat of the French after the battle of Fernova, in Italy, fought in that year, the rear of their army was defended by 300 Germans, many of whom had “coulevrines,” and others on horseback were armed with “haquebutes.”—Philip de Commines, book 8, c. 7, p. 235.

[219a]  The bombard appears, however, occasionally to have been used to denote any kind of cannon.

[219b]  Rymer’s Fædera, vol. viii. fo. 159.

[219c]  Ibid. fo. 158.

[220]  Grose’s Military Antiquities, vol. i. p. 399, note u.

[224]  See pages 218 and 221, as to the occasional use of the word “engines” to denote other descriptions of instruments used in war by the English, as well as firearms.

[227]  See pages 218 and 221, as to the occasional use of the word engine, to denote other instruments used in war by the English besides firearms.

[228]  Sir John Fastolf, was of Caistor Castle, near Yarmouth, in Norfolk, of an old and respectable family, and a reliant soldier, who distinguished himself in the wars in France, in the reign of Henry VI., and especially on the 12th of February, 1429, when having the command of a body of men, convoying provisions and supplies for the English, who were engaged in the siege of Orleans, he was attacked on his march thither, near Rovray St. Denis, by a much superior body of French and Scotch: but he obtained the victory, and succeeded in delivering the convoy in safety to the besiegers.  He died on the 6th of November, 1459, aged about 80 years.  There are some interesting particulars respecting him given in Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. pp. 52, 54, 72, 104, 120, 125, 150, 155, 164, 166, 170, 182, 240; and vol. ii. p. 48.  Notwithstanding there is a degree of similarity in the names, Sir John Fastolf, who lived in the time of Henry VI., must not, however, be confounded with the fictitious character so admirably drawn by Shakespeare, the Sir John Falstaff, represented by him as living in the time of Henry IV., and dying in the reign of Henry V.  As far as I can discover, there is not any old historian who mentions such a person as the imaginary Sir John Falstaff, or any person of a name similar to the latter, living at that period, whose habits and associates resemble those of the amusing character described by Shakespeare: a character which seems to have been only the offspring of our immortal Bard’s playful imagination.

[234] See supra in this chapter, p. 228.

[238] See also Grose’s Military Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 291, where the passage is referred to.

[240]  It appears from the above, that the wages of a Doctor of Laws (John Coke) were then two shillings, and of a public Notary one shilling per day.

[241]  In the Harleian Manuscripts there are several documents of the reign of Edward V. and Richard III. in which guns, serpentines, artillery, gunpowder, &c., are mentioned.

[242]  See pages 223 and 224.

[245a]  The paper upon the family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 18th of October, 1848, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

[245b]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 302; Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Cheshire (note f), p. 356.

[245c]  Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Cheshire, p. 482; Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 302.

[245d]  Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Cheshire, p. 482, referring to Heraldic Collections, by W. Smith, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant in the Heralds’ College, p. 78; and in a note in third vol. of Ormerod’s Cheshire, p. 302, he mentions the same fact respecting that embassy.

[246a]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 302 (note), in which he mentions the above arms to have been allowed them in 1663–64, and states that a pedigree of the family is given in Harl. MSS. 2040, 267.

[246b]  Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Cheshire, p. 356.

It may be well to mention here, with reference to the family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, that Richard Wyche, of Davenham, had a son, Richard.  The latter was a merchant in London, married the daughter of Sir Richard Saltingstall, Knt., the Lord Major, and died in 1621, leaving twelve sons and six daughters, of whom the Right Hon. Sir Peter Wyche, Knt., was the sixth son.  Sir Peter was gentleman of the privy chamber to Charles I., for twelve years ambassador at Constantinople, and afterwards comptroller of the household, and a privy councillor.  He died in 1643, leaving two sons and a daughter, of whom the elder son, Sir Peter Wyche, was envoy to the court of Muscovy, in 1669.  The younger, Sir Cyrill Wyche, Knt. (named after his godfather, the Patriarch of Constantinople), established the Norfolk branch of the family, sat for many years in Parliament, was secretary to the lieutenancy in Ireland, and one of the lords justices there.  The second Sir Peter Wyche had four sons, of whom John was envoy extraordinary at Hamburgh; Barnard, from whom a branch of the family in Leicestershire descended, and Peter and George, died unmarried.  Sir Cyrill Wyche, the son of John, was appointed by Queen Anne to be resident at Hamburgh, when only nineteen years of age; and in the reign of George I., he was minister and envoy extraordinary to the circle of Lower Saxony, also envoy extraordinary to the court of Russia; and was created a Baronet whilst at the Hans Towns, December 20th, 1729, but dying without surviving male issue, in 1756, the baronetcy became extinct.—Burke’s Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, title “Wyche.”

[246c]  Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Cheshire, p. 356.

[246d]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 302.

[246e]  Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Chesh., p. 356 (n. f).

[247]  In consequence of his death, on the 15th of June, 1852, after this paper was written, the farm now belongs to the author.

[250a]  In this closet is a curious substitute for what was unknown when the hall was built—a water-closet.  A narrow flue descended into the garden from the closet, and was so built as to appear on the outside as part of the stack or range of chimney-flues; the stone side-supporters of its seat remain; and the soil and every thing offensive used to fall from it through the flue to the ground on the outside, at a hole below in the stone-work, which still remains, and which was purposely left open at the bottom of the chimney-stack, from whence it could be removed when found necessary.  I have seen similar (which are, I believe, not uncommon), at Carlisle Castle, adjoining the apartment said to have been the place of confinement of Mary Queen of Scots, at the ancient tower, forming part of Brimstage Old Hall, in Cheshire; at Ludlow Castle, Goodrich Castle, Stoke Saye Castle, and several other old castles in England.

[250b]  Such as Chorley Hall, Little Moreton Hall, and Moat Hall, and the site of Alderley Hall; the latter was burned down in 1779, and all vestiges of the walls of the mansion are gone.

[253a]  The paper upon the old church of Wilmslow was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 3rd of May, 1849, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

[255a]  At present they are not all perfect.

[255b]  The piscine is very rarely found on the north side of any church or chapel.

[256]  As the ancient family of Handford, of Handford, in the adjoining pariah of Cheadle, bore the etoile or star in their arms, it might be inferred that the ornament had been introduced from that circumstance, if the stars had been painted on shields (like armorial bearings); but that is not the case; as they are painted on circular ornaments.

[257a]  Now nearly hidden from view by a quantity of ivy, which has carelessly been suffered to grow over it.

[257b]  I seldom see such an example of bad taste, without thinking of a passage, written in some work of imagination (it may be one of Goldsmith’s, for ought I know), which I read when a boy, mentioning an inscription by churchwardens, to the following effect, “Repaired and beautified by Samuel Smear and Daniel Daub, churchwardens.”

[258]  Why should we not here notice the grave of a brave man, a native of Styal, in the parish of Wilmslow, who did honour to Cheshire and to his regiment?  In the churchyard, near the south side of the chancel is a raised tomb, to the memory of Captain John Worrell, son of Henry and Mary Worrell, of Styal.  The following is a copy of the principal part of it:—

“who departed this life, September 28th, 1760, aged 77.  He served 50 years in his Majestie’s regiment of Carbineers, and carried and brought off, with honour, the standard, at the memorable battle of Malplaquet.  His gallant behaviour as a soldier, and his private virtue as a member of society, gained him the esteem of every brave and honest man.”

[259a]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 311.

[259b]  “Henry Trafford, D.D., built the chancel, 1522; made the tomb north of the communion rails.  He was a younger brother of the Traffords, of Trafford.”—Parl. Reg.; see Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 311 (note p).  Is it possible that we are intended, by the above passage, to understand that he made the tomb on the north side of the communion rails, in anticipation of his own death?

[261]  A portion of a large pillar at the head of the tomb, appears to have been cut away, as if to admit of part of it being placed there.

[262a]  Lysons’ Cheshire, p. 451.

[262b]  By his death, since this paper was read, the advowson now belongs to his son, Sir Humphrey De Trafford, Bart.

[263a]  He died in 1856, having, not long before his death, sold the estate.

[263b]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 311 (note).

[264a]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 311.

[264b] See Chapter II. p. 26.

[264c]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 311.

[264d]  Although Ormerod (in vol. i. xxxii. note y, and vol. iii. p. 311,) mentions the date on the tomb as 1460, I found it impossible to ascertain whether that had ever been the case, because the two last letters of that part of the brass which contained the date, are missing.  The date of the battle is given in 5 Rot. Parl. 38th Henry VI. p. 348 (a very high authority), as Sunday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle, in the 38th year of Henry VI., which was in 1459.  In Holinshed’s Chronicles it is stated to have been fought on the day of St. Tecla, 23rd September, 1459; and in Hall’s and in Grafton’s Chronicles, St. Tecla’s day is also mentioned to have been the day of the battle; and in Baker’s Chronicles and Stow’s Annals, though the month and day are not named, 1459 is given as the year in which it was fought; Carte, the historian, also gives the date as Sunday, the 23rd September, 1459.

[265a]  Ormerod states (vol. iii. p. 311, note y), that the inscription possesses considerable interest, as being the memorial of the first Cheshire male ancestor of the Booths, and of the heiress of Dunham Massey and the Bollin; and that it is the only inscription now remaining in the county, relating to any of the warriors who fell at Blore Heath.

[265b]  A rubbing from the brass of Sir Robert Booth’s monument, which I exhibited to the meeting, was kindly lent to me for the purpose, by the rector, the Rev. William Brownlow, to whom I am much obliged, for several valuable suggestions and information relative to the church; amongst which I may mention, that it appears, from the churchwardens’ accounts, that, during the civil war, the pipes of the organ of the church were broken up by the Parliamentarian troops, to make bullets.

[266]  Poem of the Borough, p. 21.

[267a]  The paper upon Handford Hall and Cheadle Church, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 3rd of January, 1850; and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

[268a]  Cheetham Papers, vol. i. p. 122.

[268b]  Ibid., p. 161.

[268c]  He afterwards spells it “Handford”: vol. i. p. 189.

[268d]  Lysons’ Mag. Brit., Cheshire, p. 555; Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. pp. 326, 327.

[269a]  Archæologia, vol. xxxiii. p. 55.

[269b]  Archæologia, vol. xxxiii. p. 73.  It is enclosed by a screen of carved oak, round the upper part of which is inscribed, “Pray, good people, for the prosperous estate of Sir Randulph Brereton of this work edificatour wyth his wyfe Dame Helenor,” &c.

[269c]  Archæologia, vol. xxxiii. p. 73.

[270a]  Archæologia, vol. xxxiii. pp. 74, 75, 76.

[271a]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. pp. 326, 327; and Burke’s Extinct and Dormant Batonetage.  But in Lyons’ Cheshire, p. 555, the dates are given as, creation 1626, extinction 1678.

[271b]  Extracted from the one in Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 327.

[271c]  Archæologia, vol. xxxiii. p. 65.

[272a]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 327.

[272b]  Since writing the above, I have again (on the 28th January, 1850) visited the old hall at Handford, and examined the escutcheon there, under circumstances more favourable for examination; and I ascertained that it contains on the dexter side, 1st and 4th the arms, as above described, of Brereton proper; 2nd and 3rd, a cheveron between three crescents; and on the sinister side the wife’s arms, as above described.

[273a]  Edmondson’s Heraldry, vol. ii., where the crescent is (as to some, at least, of the Cheshire Breretons) stated to be “charged with a mullet, or.”  Edmondson also states that the muzzle of the crest (Bear’s head and neck) is “studded or.”  Ormerod also mentions an additional crest of this branch of the family, “a Griphon with wings elevated gules, standing on a chapeau gules, turned up or;” but if so, it is not introduced at the old hall.

[273b]  The ancient family of Praers was of Barthomley, and also of Baddiley, in Cheshire, now extinct.  John Honford, of Honford, married Margery, daughter of William Praers, of Baddiley, Sheriff of Cheshire in 23rd Edward III.—Ormerod, vol. iii. pp. 162, 327.

[273c]  On again inspecting it (on 28th January, 1850), I ascertained that the crest is charged, on the neck, with a cross crosslet, seemingly (for it is not distinct) within an annulet or a crescent.

[274]  In consequence of his death, on the 15th of June, 1852, after this paper was written, the estate now belongs to the author.

[275]  Prior to the erection of the bridge, there however was, and had been, as far back as could be recollected, a plank, with a handrail, over the stream, by which foot-passengers could cross.

[279a]  Ormerod’s Cheshire, vol. iii. p. 322.  He afterwards, in a note (ibid. p. 328), gives the following, as a description (from the original grant) of the crest:—“Crest, on a wreath, an eagle’s head couped or, holding in its beak an eagle’s leg and claws, unguled gules.”

[279b]  It is fair to conclude, from the occurrence of those initials and of the rebus, that the date of the erection of the chapel may have been coeval with the building of Handford Hall, in 1562.

[281a]  Small round-headed arches, very similar to those on the staircase of Handford Hall, are to be seen, carved on the pulpit of Wilmslow Church, and on the back of the ancient pew (which has the date 1557) in the Booth or Earl of Stamford’s Chapel, in the chancel; but the arches are of course not cut through the wood, in either instance, in Wilmslow Church, as they are on the staircase of Handford Hall.

[283a]  The letter upon the office of Keeper of the Menagerie in the Tower of London, in the reign of Edward IV., was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 29th of November, 1849, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

[283b]  Richard Duke of Gloucester became King Richard III. on the 18th of June, 1483.—See Chaps. VII. and VIII.

[287a]  The paper upon the probable period of the extinction of Wolves in England, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool on the 15th of December, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

[287b]  Pennant’s British Zoology, vol. i. p. 65, and the authorities there cited.

[287c]  Goldsmith’s Natural History, vol. iii. p. 180; Coke’s Institutes, vol. iv. p. 316; Pennant’s British Zoology, vol. i. p. 48.  By our cruel forest laws after the Conquest, the penalty for killing a stag or boar, was the loss of eyes.—Hallam’s View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. ii. 8th edition, 8vo, p. 94.  Charles I. turned out wild boars in the New Forest, Hampshire, but they were all destroyed in the civil wars.—Pennant’s British Zoology, vol. i. p. 48.  An attempt was made in the last century, to reintroduce wild swine into England, for some were turned loose by General Howe, in his forests in Hampshire; but the attempt was a failure, for the country people destroyed them.—Bingley’s British Quadrupeds, p. 449.

[288a]  Pennant’s British Quadrupeds, vol. i. p. 86.  Holinshed, in his Chronicles, written in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, states that the beaver was to be met with in Scotland, at the time when he wrote.  “There are likewise martins, bevers, foxes, and wezels.”—See his Description of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 11.

[288b]  Leland’s Itinerary, vol. vii. pp. 16 [28], and 63 [81].

[288c]  It is said to have been killed by Sir Ewen Cameron.—See Pennant’s British Zoology, vol. i. p. 63, and the authorities there cited; Pennant’s History of Quadrupeds, vol. i. p. 231.

[288d]  Pennant’s British Zoology, vol. i. p. 64; Pennant’s History of Quadrupeds, vol. i. p. 231, citing Smith’s History of Cork, vol. ii. p. 226.  But in Notes and Queries, published in 1856, 2nd series, No. 14, p. 282, and No. 32, p. 120, correspondents state, that wolves were not extinct in the mountains of Wicklow, until many years after 1710.

[289]  Camden’s Magna Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 16.

[290a]  Camden’s Magna Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 445, under the title “Strathnavern.”

[290b]  Ibid., vol. iii. p. 464.

[290c]  Camden’s Magna Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 16.

[291a]  Hume’s History of England, vol. i., quarto edition, p. 136.

[291b]  Brougham’s Lives of Men of Letters and Science of the Time of George III., p. 216.

[292a]  Dr. Whitaker’s History of Whalley, 3rd edition, p. 200 (note), referring to Burton’s Monast. Ebor. under Fors Abbey; Dr. Whitaker’s History of Richmondshire, vol. i. p. 409.  It is remarkable that so laborious and talented an antiquary as Dr. Whitaker, states that the above was the last positive evidence which he had met with of the existence of wolves in England.  He also disputes the vulgar opinion of their extirpation by Edgar.

[292b]  Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 504.

[292c]  Ibid., p. 701.

[293]  Fædera (modern edition), tome i. pt. ii. p. 591; ibid. folio edition of 1705, tome ii. p. 168.

[294a]  Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 466.

[294b]  Camden’s Mag. Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. ii. p. 302; Lysons’ Mag. Brit., title Derbyshire, pp. clxix and 280, quoting Dodsworth’s Collections from Exchequer Records.

[294c]  Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 549.

[294d]  Ibid. p. 466.

[295a]  Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 467.

[295b]  Baker’s Chronicles, fo. 218.  We cannot reasonably doubt that the wild boar, being a favourite beast of chase, and not being so destructive an animal as the wolf, would remain in this country a considerable time after the wolf was destroyed.

[297]  Coke’s Institutes of the Laws of England, vol. iv. pp. 315, 316.

[298]  Camden states that when he wrote wolves did not appear in England (Mag. Britannia, Gough’s edit. vol. iii. p. 16); but, as there were then abundance of them in Scotland, it was clear that they could not be prevented from roaming from thence into England, and breeding there.

[315a]  Of Speke Hall, according to Banks, vol. ii. p. 395.

[315b]  He was of Cornwall, according to Carte, vol. ii. p. 829.

[321]  The errata has been applied in this transcription.—DP.

[323]  John Stafford, a younger son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, was created Earl of Wiltshire in the ninth year, and died in the thirteenth year, of Edward IV.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VISITS TO FIELDS OF BATTLE, IN ENGLAND, OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

back

back

back

back

back

back

back

back

back

Table of Contents

- VISITS TO FIELDS OF BATTLE, IN ENGLAND, OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY;

- PREFACE.

- CONTENTS.

- CHAPTER I.

- CHAPTER II. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF BLORE HEATH. [21]

- CHAPTER III. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON. [39a]

- CHAPTER IV. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD. [53a]

- CHAPTER V. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF MORTIMER’S CROSS. [67a]

- CHAPTER VI. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF TOWTON. [81a]

- CHAPTER VII. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF TEWKESBURY. [131a]

- CHAPTER VIII. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH. [157a]

- CHAPTER IX. THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF STOKE. [177a]

- THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF EVESHAM.

- THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF BARNET.

- CHAPTER X. ON THE GENERAL USE OF FIREARMS BY THE ENGLISH, IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [213]

- CHRONOLOGICAL REFERENCES. 1400 TO 1500.

- CHAPTER XI. THE ANCIENT FAMILY OF WYCHE, OR DE LA WYCHE, OF ALDERLEY, CHESHIRE. [245a]

- CHAPTER XII. WILMSLOW CHURCH, CHESHIRE. [253a]

- CHAPTER XIII. HANDFORD HALL AND CHEADLE CHURCH, CHESHIRE. [267a]

- CHAPTER XIV.

- PART I. THE OFFICE OF KEEPER OF THE ROYAL MENAGERIE, IN THE REIGN OF EDWARD IV. [283a]

- PART II. ON THE PROBABLE PERIOD OF THE EXTINCTION OF WOLVES IN ENGLAND. [287a]

- APPENDIX.

- No. I.

- No. II.

- No. III.

- No. IV.

- No. V.

- No. VI.

- No. VII.

- ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. [321]

- INDEX.

- A.

- B.

- C.

- D.

- E.

- F.

- G.

- H.

- I.

- J.

- K.

- L.

- M.

- N.

- O.

- P.

- Q.

- R.

- S.

- T.

- U, V.

- W.

- Y.

- Z.

- ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. [0]

- FOOTNOTES.

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE