THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
BLORE HEATH. {21}
“There Dutton Dutton kills, a Done doth kill a Done,
A Booth a Booth, and Leigh by Leigh is overthrown,
A Venables against a Venables doth stand,
A Troutbeck fighteth with a Troutbeck hand to hand,
There Molineux doth make a Molineux to die,
And Egerton the strength of Egerton doth try.
O! Cheshire wer’t thou mad, of thine own native gore
So much until this day thou never shed’st before!
Above two thousand men upon the earth were thrown,
Of which the greatest part were naturally thine own.
The stout Lord Audley slain, with many a captain there,
To Salisbury it sorts the Palm away to bear.”
MICHAEL DRAYTON’S _Polyolbion_, Song 22nd.
ENGLAND exhibited, during a great part of the fifteenth century, the
mournful spectacle of a country harassed by rival parties, and exposed to
all the horrors of civil war. Hostile competitors contended for a prize
of no common value; for the crown and dominions of England were to be the
reward of the conqueror.
King Henry VI. was descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the
fourth son of King Edward III., and the persons supporting the claim of
the House of Lancaster to the throne, were from that circumstance called
Lancastrians. {22a} On the other hand, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of
York, with the assistance of some of his powerful relations and
connections, was cautiously but vigilantly taking measures calculated to
secure his accession to the crown, although at first he did not openly
bring forward his pretensions to it. They were founded upon the fact of
the Duke of York’s being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third
son of King Edward III.; {22b} and the adherents and supporters of the
Duke of York, and of his sons after his death, received the appellation
of Yorkists.
The adverse parties encountered each other at St. Alban’s on the 22nd
{23a} of May, 1455, where a battle was fought, and the Duke of York
obtained the victory. A hollow and ineffectual truce, and an outward
reconciliation, ensued, only to be broken in rather more than four years
afterwards, when the hostile parties once more took up arms, and at Blore
Heath, on the borders of Staffordshire, again met in mortal conflict.
Blore Heath, celebrated for the battle fought in 1459, is in the parish
of Drayton in Hales, or Market Drayton, on the high road leading from the
small market town of Drayton, towards Newcastle. It is in Staffordshire,
two miles and a half distant from Drayton, and about two miles from the
division of the counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire. It is eight
miles and a half distant from Eccleshall, and is, as Stow in his _Annals_
correctly states, near Mucklestone, being only one mile and a half from
the latter place.
The town of Drayton is in Shropshire; but the parish of Market Drayton,
or Drayton in Hales, comprises parts both of Shropshire and
Staffordshire, and includes Blore Heath, which, though formerly a heath,
is now completely enclosed and cultivated.
In the autumn of 1459, Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury {24a} marched
from Middleham Castle, in Yorkshire, with a considerable army, in support
of the cause of the Duke of York, and entered Staffordshire with the
ultimate intention of effecting a junction at Ludlow, with Richard
Neville Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker, {24b} and also with the
Duke of York, who had collected an army in Herefordshire, and in the
marches of Wales. The Earl of Salisbury, and his son the Earl of
Warwick, were noblemen of very great power and possessions, and were then
the principal leaders of the Duke of York’s party, and abettors of the
scheme of deposing King Henry VI., and placing the Duke of York upon the
throne of England.
At that time King Henry VI. was at Coleshill, in Warwickshire, and Queen
Margaret {25a} and Edward the young Prince of Wales {25b} were at
Eccleshall, in Staffordshire; and by her orders, or by those of her
council, James Touchet Lord Audley, {25c} with a superior force, raised
principally in Cheshire and Shropshire, amounting, as we are told, to as
many as 10,000 men, took up a position on the road to Drayton, in order
to intercept the earl in his march. {25d} The earl’s army was inferior
in number to that of his antagonist, which was strongly posted, as will
be more fully explained afterwards, with a small stream in its front.
This stream had rather steep banks, which rendered it very hazardous for
the earl and his army to cross it, and attack the Lancastrians, with a
fair prospect of success. In consequence of those difficulties, the earl
resorted to a military stratagem, with the most fortunate result.
Early on the morning of Sunday, the 23rd of September, 1459 (St. Tecla’s
day), he caused his archers to shoot flights of arrows against the
Lancastrians. He then feigned a retreat with his army, which induced
Lord Audley, in his eagerness to pursue them, to pass over the stream
with a considerable portion of his forces, and whilst they were on the
ascent of the ground on the other side of the stream, and were disordered
with effecting the passage, and before he could get the remainder of his
forces over it, or put that portion which had crossed into order, they
were so vigorously attacked by the Yorkists, that the Lancastrians were
completely defeated, and Lord Audley, with 2400 of his forces, perished
on the field.
There were slain in the battle, besides Lord Audley, Hugh Venables of
Kinderton, Thomas Dutton of Dutton, Richard Molyneux {26a} of Sefton,
William Troutbeck, {26b} John Legh of Booths, John Done of Wickington,
and John Egerton of Egerton, Knights; Richard Done of Croton, and John
Dutton [called Duttes by Stow], Esquires; and many other persons. {27a}
The battle was most disastrous to the Cheshire men, the greatest loss
having fallen upon persons of that county, who had received the young
Prince’s badge of the silver swan, which had been distributed by Queen
Margaret amongst the principal partisans of the Lancastrian party. {27a}
John Lord Dudley was wounded, {27b} and he, and several knights and
gentlemen of the Lancastrian party, were taken prisoners. {27c}
Sir John Neville {27d} and Sir Thomas Neville, {27d} sons of the Earl of
Salisbury, were wounded in the battle, and were, with Sir Thomas
Harrington, travelling to the north, when they were taken by some of the
Lancastrians, and sent prisoners to Chester; but in consequence of a
message from the Welsh marchmen, there being good reason to anticipate
that the prisoners would be rescued by force, they were speedily set at
liberty. {27e}
A Parliament, principally consisting of adherents and supporters of the
Lancastrian faction, was held at Coventry, in the 38th year of Henry VI.
(1459), and passed an act of attainder against the Duke of York, the Earl
of March, the Earl of Rutland, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of
Warwick, Lord Clinton, Sir John Wenlock, {28a} William Stanley {28b}
(brother of Thomas Lord Stanley), and other leaders of the Yorkists, {29}
for various alleged offences; and the following is an extract from so
much of it as relates to the battle of Blore Heath:—
“litle before the Erle of Salesburies departyng from the Castell of
Middelham in youre counte of York hiderward, ye of youre knyghtly
corage, withoute delaye toke the Felde, with such of youre Lordes as
then was nygh aboute you, and in Pryncely manere with grete celerite,
spedde the journay, toward the parties that the seid Erle of
Salesbury drue and entended to come to, which caused hym to dyverte
from his first enterprise and purpose, and to take another wey to
assemble with the seid Duc of York, and Erle of Warrewyk, that their
commyng togider myght make a myghtyer felde. In which progresse the
seid Erle of Salesbury, and Thomas Nevill, John Nevill, Knyhtes,
sonnes to the seid Erle of Salisbury; Thomas Harryngton, Knyght; John
Conyers, Knyght; Thomas Parre, Knyght; William Stanley, Squier, sonne
to Thomas late Lord Stanley; and Thomas Meryng, late of Tong in the
shire of York, Squier, accompanyed with grete multitude of people, to
the nombre of VM. persones and moo, arraied in manere of werre, with
their Standardes displaied, entendying to destroye youre moost Roiall
persone, the Sonday next after the Fest of Seint Mathewe th’ apostle,
the XXXVIIIth yere of youre moost gracious reigne, at Blore, in youre
shire of Stafford, in the feldes of the same Toune, called Bloreheth,
falsely and traiterously rered werre ayenst you, and than and there
in accomplishment of their fals and traiterous purpose, slough James
Lord Audeley, and many other Knyghtes, and Squiers, and other youre
Liege people, and more despite didde, many of their throtes cutte,
which were sent thider by your commaundement, to resiste the fals and
traiterous purpose of the Erle of Salesbury, and also toke John Lord
Dudley, and other dyvers, Knyghtes, and Squiers, prisoners, send
thider also by youre commaundement.” {30a}
The Parliamentary Rolls of the same Parliament of Coventry, {30b} contain
a bill of impeachment, which, though it never passed into an act, the
royal assent having been refused, is interesting and important, as
showing that, although Thomas Lord Stanley had not then taken up arms
for, or avowed himself a partisan of, the Duke of York’s faction, yet he
was so considered by that Parliament; besides which, his brother William
Stanley came, with many of Lord Stanley’s servants and tenants, and
fought on the side of the Yorkists, at Blore Heath. It is material to
bear in mind, that Thomas Lord Stanley (afterwards first Earl of Derby,
of that surname), married Eleanor Neville, daughter of the Earl of
Salisbury, and sister of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King Maker); which
circumstance, in addition to the violence of party, may easily account
for the conduct of Lord Stanley, and of his brother William Stanley, on
the occasion of that battle.
“To the Kyng oure Soverayne Lord; shewen the Commens in this present
Parlement assembled. That where it pleased youre Highnes to send to
the Lord Stanley, by the servaunt of the same Lord fro Notyngham,
chargyng hym that upon his feyth and legeaunce he shuld come to youre
Highnesse in all haste, with such felysshep as he myght make. The
said Lord Stanley, notwithstondyng the said commaundement, came not
to you; but William Stanley his brother went, with many of the seid
Lordes Servauntz and Tenauntz, grete nombre of people, to the Erle of
Salesbury, which were with the same Erle at the distressyng of youre
true Leige people at Bloreheth.
“Also where youre said Highnes gaffe in commaundement, to youre first
bogoten sonne, Edward Prynce of Wales, to assemble youre people, and
his Tenauntz, to resiste the malice of your Rebelles, and theruppon
the same noble Prynce sent to the said Lord Stanley, to come to hym
in all haste possible, with such felysshep as he myght make. The
said Lord Stanley puttyng the seid mater in delay, feyntly excused
hym, seying he was not than redy. Howe be it of his owen confession
he had before a commaundement fro youre Highnes, to be redy to come
to the same, with his said felsship, upon a day warnyng; which delay
and absence, was a grete cause of the losse and distresse of your
seid people, atte Bloreheth.
“Also where the seid Lord had sent his servaunt, to oure Soverayne
Lady the Queue, and to the seid noble Prynce to Chestre, seying that
he shuld come to theym in all haste; and after that, he sent to
theym, Richard Hokesley his servaunt, to Egglesshall, certifying
theym, that he wold come to theyme in all haste; and desired, for
asmoche as he understode that he was had in jelosye, that he myght
have the vaward ageyne the Erle of Salisbury, and his felysshep; and
the seid noble Prynce, by th’ advice of his Counsell, consideryng
that the felysship of the said Lord Stanley was fewer in nombre, than
the felysship of the said Erle, willed and desired hym to come to the
said noble Prynce and his felysship, that they beyng all togedyr,
myght come to have assisted youre Highnes, which was promysed
feithfully be his seid servaunt, shuld be perfourmed in all haste;
which notwithstondyng was not perfourmed; but in defaute therof,
youre people were distressed at Bloreheth aforesaid, as is well
knowen. Howe be hit, that the seid Lord Stanley, was within VI mile
of the said Heth, the same tyme, accompanyed with IIM: men, and
rested hym with the same felysship be the space of III dayes after at
Newcastell, but VI myle oute of Egglesshall, where the Quene and the
Prynce then were; and the said Lord Stanley, on the morne next after
the distresse at Bloreheth, sent a letter for his excuse to oure
Soverayne Lady the Quene, and the said noble Prynce; which said
letter, your said Highnes had sent to him, commaundyng hym by the
same, to have come to youre said Highnes with his felyshep in all
haste: which came nethir to youre Highnes, to the Quene, nor to the
seid Prynce, but soo departed home agayne.
“Also when the seid Erle of Salisbury and his felysship, had
distressed youre said people at Bloreheth, the said Lord Stanley sent
a letter to the said Erle to Drayton, the same nyght, thankyng God of
the good spede of the said Erle, rejoysing him gretely of the same,
trustyng to God that he shuld be with the same Erle in other place,
to stond hym in as good stede, as he shuld have doon yef he had been
with theym there; which letter the seid Erle sent to Sir Thomas
Haryngton, and he shewed hit openly, seying; Sirres, be mery, for yet
we have moo frendis.
“Also where as a squier of the seid Erles, on the Monday next after
the said distresse, told to a Knyght of youres, which was taken
prisoner by the felysship of the seid Erle at Bloreheth, that a man
of the Lord Stanley’s, had been with the seid Erle at Drayton, in the
mornyng of the same day, and brought hym word fro the seid Lord
Stanley, that your Highnes had sent for hym, and that he wold ride to
you with his felysship. And yef eny man wold resiste or lette the
seid Erle to come to your high presence, for his excuse, accordyng to
th’ entent of the said Erle; that than the said Lord Stanley and his
felysship, shuld lyve and dye with the said Erle, ayenst his
resistours.
“Also where the said noble Prynce, in fullfillyng of your high
commaundement, sent as well for your people and his Tenauntez in
Werall Hundred, as in Maxfeld Hundred in Cheshire; the said people
and Tenauntez, were lette by the seid Lord Stanley, so that they
myght not come to youre Highnes, nor to ye presence of the said noble
Prynce.
“Also where a servaunt and oon of the Cokys of the said Lorde
Stanleys was hurte atte Bloreheth beyng with William Stanley in the
felysship of the said Erle of Salesbury, and left behynde at Drayton;
declared openly to dyvers gentilmen of the felysshep of th’ erlez of
Shrewysbury that he was sent to the said Erle of Salesbury, in the
name of the said Lord Stanley, with moo of his felysship.
“Also where certayne persones, beyng of the lyvere and clothyng of
the said Lord Stanley, were take at the Forest of Morff, in
Shropscshire; the day afore theire deth confessed, that they were
commanded in the name and behalve of the seid Lord Stanley, to attend
and awayte upon the seid William Stanley to assist the seid Erle, in
such matier, as he intended to execute.
“Of all which matiers, doon and commytted by the said Lord Stanley;
we youre said commens accuse and enpeche hym, and pray youre moost
high Regalie, that the same Lord be commytted to prison, there to
abide after the fourme of lawe. {34a}
“Le Roy s’advisera.” {34a}
[“Responsio.”
I have in several successive years {34b} paid visits to the field of
battle. At the distance of two miles and a half on the road from
Drayton, and soon after entering Staffordshire, the stream before
mentioned, which is scarcely large enough to be considered a river,
crosses the road; and more than once when I have visited it, it contained
so little water, that I could easily have skipped over it. It is called
Hemp Mill Brook, and is a tributary of the river Tern; its banks are
rather steep, and it flows through a narrow valley, over which the road
is now carried by a modern bridge. At present, from the raising and
improving of the road, and probably from its having been in some degree
turned, the descent on either side to the bridge is not great; but at the
period when the battle was fought, the position of the Lancastrians must
have been strong, in consequence of the height of the banks of Hemp Mill
Brook, the depression of the valley, and the abrupt ascent from the
stream on the Drayton side, where the Lancastrians were posted; and there
is no reason to suppose that at that period there was a bridge over the
stream. The place is evidently much changed, yet even now sufficient
remains to show that they were strongly posted.
The exact spot where the battle was fought is easily identified. After
the traveller has crossed the modern bridge and ascended the rising
ground at Blore Heath, by the road leading from Drayton towards
Newcastle, he will observe, at a couple of fields’ breadth beyond the
stream, and on the right side of the road, a field called the Cross
Field, which at present is entered by the third gate on the right from
the bridge. This field extends from the road in a curved form backwards,
and slopes down the declivity, until it reaches the stream at another
point at a little distance from the bridge.
The battle of Blore Heath was fought on the spot where the Cross Field
and the other fields near it on each side of the road now are; but, as
the name implies, it should seem that the field of battle was open and
unenclosed, in 1459. Near the middle of the Cross Field, Lord Audley is
said to have been slain. A square pedestal, seemingly of great age, with
a rude stone cross standing upon it, now much battered and injured, has
been erected to mark the spot where he fell. On the pedestal is the
following inscription, which is a good deal worn by time:—
ON THIS SPOT
WAS FOUGHT THE BATTLE OF
BLORE HEATH
IN 1459;
LORD AUDLEY
WHO COMMANDED FOR THE SIDE OF LANCASTER
WAS DEFEATED & SLAIN.
TO PERPETUATE THE MEMORY
OF THE ACTION & THE PLACE,
THIS ANCIENT MONUMENT
WAS REPAIRED IN
1765,
AT THE CHARGE OF THE LORD OF THE MANOR,
CHARLES BOOTHBY SCHRYMSHER.
Plot, in his _Natural History of Staffordshire_, {35} published in 1686,
mentions, amongst the antiquities of that county, “The stone set up upon
Blore Heath, in memory of the fall of James Lord Audley, slain just in
that place;” which is an additional proof of an ancient monument having
been there, during a long period of time.
Opposite the gate of the Cross Field, and at the distance of a field’s
breadth, on the other side of the road, is a farmhouse and farm called
Audley Cross Farm, of which that field forms a part. The farm belongs to
Sir John N. L. Chetwode, Bart., and is occupied by Mr. William Hughes, a
respectable and intelligent farmer, with whom I have had several
conversations, during the visits which I made to the field of battle, as
I was in hopes of hearing from him of some relics having been dug up; but
he had not held the farm many years, and was not aware of any discoveries
of that nature having been recently made. He, however, informed me, that
some relics of the battle had formerly been discovered. On the 16th of
May, 1856, I saw in the possession of Mr. George Goodall, a respectable
farmer residing in that neighbourhood, a sword in tolerable preservation,
which is said to have been found on the field of battle. {36}
Near the back of the farmhouse, in a little enclosure, is a small raised
mount of earth, of a long square shape, on which a thorn-tree of rather
large size is growing, which is said to have been raised in memory of
some person of distinction who was slain there. If that be so, the
probability is, that he was one of the Yorkists, because it is a little
in the rear of the spot where their right wing must have been.
It is impossible for any one, to read the accounts of the old chroniclers
and annalists, and to inspect the field of battle, without being struck
with the remarkable resemblance, between the spot, and the descriptions
of it, meagre as they may be, which they have left us. The stream
crossing the high road, by which the Earl of Salisbury would naturally
advance from Cheshire and Staffordshire, on his march towards Ludlow, the
strong position of the Lancastrians, the name of Blore Heath (still
preserved ages after the place had ceased to be a heath), and its
contiguity to Mucklestone, as well as to Drayton, all which circumstances
are mentioned by the ancient historians, combine, independently of
tradition, to place the locality beyond dispute. {37}