[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 licenti regi 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 1? 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 Moeurs 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 Moeurs 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 nr~e Sr~ 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.