Roe deer, formerly wild in England, 288, 297.
Roos, Thomas Lord, 56, 104.
Rose (_quære_ Roos), Sir Henry, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury,
146, 148.
Rostherne, parish of, in Cheshire, 247.
Rouse (_quære_ Rowys), Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 148.
Rugemont, Thomas Lord Grey of, 105.
Ruthin, Edmund Lord Grey of, afterwards Earl of Kent, 45 (note).
Rutland, Edmund Earl of, murdered after the battle of Wakefield, 59, 193,
199.
S.
Sabbath days, three battles fought on, 127 (note).
Salisbury, Richard Neville, Earl of, 24; put to death after the battle of
Wakefield, 58, 59.
Salisbury, Thomas de Montacute, Earl of, 24 (note), 39 (note), 228.
Salisbury, Bishop of, pacific exertions of, before the battle of
Northampton, 44.
Sandal Castle, 54, 58, 63.
Savage, Sir John, 167.
Saxton, 86, 87; church and parish, 122.
Saye, James Fienes, Lord, put to death by Jack Cade, 209 (note).
Saye, William Fienes, Lord, fought at Northampton, and slain at Barnet,
42 (note), 209.
Scales, Anthony Wodevile, Lord, afterwards Earl Rivers, 40 (note), 105;
beheaded at Pontefract, 41 (note), 105 (note).
Scales, Thomas Lord, 40, 42 (note); murdered in 1460, 40 (note).
Serpentine, 219.
Seymour, Sir Thomas, slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, 142, 148.
Shirley, Sir Hugh, 8.
Shrewsbury, battle of, 1.
Shrewsbury, John Talbot, first Earl of, slain at Castillon, 46 (note),
103 (note 6).
Shrewsbury, John Talbot, second Earl of, slain at Northampton, 46, 103
(note).
Shrewsbury, George Talbot, fourth Earl of, 180.
Simnel, Lambert, the impostor, 178, 187.
Simnel, Thomas, a joiner at Oxford, 178.
Simons, Richard, 178, 187.
Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of, slain at the battle of St. Alban’s,
43 (note), 54 (note).
Somerset, Henry Beaufort, Duke of, 43, 54, 103; taken prisoner and
beheaded after the battle of Hexham, 43 (note), 54 (note).
Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of, 133, 141; executed after the battle
of Tewkesbury, 146.
Soss Moss Hall, Cheshire, 245 to 251.
St. Alban’s, first battle of, 2 (note), 23, 43 (note), 54 (note).
St. Alban’s, second battle of, 82.
St. John, Hospital of, at Northampton, 48.
St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of, 132.
St. John, John Longstrother, Prior of, 132, 140; executed after the
battle of Tewkesbury, 146.
St. Ledger, Sir Thomas, executed and attainted, 191, 195, 199.
Stafford, Edmund Earl of, slain at Shrewsbury, 8.
Stafford, Humphrey Earl of, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, 48
(note), 49, 199.
Stafford, Lord Henry, of Buckingham, 106 (note).
Standard of Edward IV., 117.
„ Henry VII., 117 (note).
„ Richard III., 117 (note).
Stanley, Sir William, 28, 31, 168.
Stanley, Thomas Lord, afterwards Earl of Derby, 28 (note), 167, 180.
Stoke, battle of, 177.
Stoke, village of, 180, 190.
Strange, George Lord, 162, 180.
Stutton, bridge of, 89.
Suffolk, John de la Pole, Duke of, married Elizabeth, sister of Edward
IV., 177 note, 191, 192, 199.
Surrey, Thomas Howard, Earl of, 165.
Swartz, Martin, 178; slain at Stoke, 187.
Swartz Moor, in Lancashire, 178.
T.
Talbot, Sir Christopher, slain at Northampton, 46.
Talbot, Sir Gilbert, 165, 167.
Tewkesbury, battle of, 131.
Throgmorton, John, 148.
Towton, battle of, 81.
Towton Hall, 101.
Towton village, 87, 89, 100 note.
Tresham, Henry, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 148.
Tresham, Sir Thomas, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146, 148.
Trollop, Sir Andrew, 99, 103; slain at Towton, 106.
Trollop, Sir David, slain at Towton, 106.
Troutbeck, Sir William, slain at Blore Heath, 26.
Tudor, Sir Owen, slain at Mortimer’s Cross, 73, 201.
U, V.
Urnan (_quære_ Urman), Sir John, slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 148.
Vaughan, Sir Thomas, beheaded at Pontefract, 41 (note), 105 (note).
Vaux, Sir William slain at Tewkesbury, 142, 147.
Venables, Sir Hugh, 26.
Venables, Sir Richard, 8.
Vernon, Sir Richard, 8.
Vestynden, Ralph, bearer of Edward’s the Fourth’s standard of the Black
Bull at the battle of Towton, 117.
Veuglaire, 219 to 244.
W.
Wakefield, battle of, 53.
Wakefield Green, 58, 62, 63.
Wales, Edward Prince of, son of Richard III., 195, 199.
Wales, Edward Prince of, son of Henry VI., 47, 54 (note), 198; murdered
after the battle of Tewkesbury, 144.
Warford, Little, Cheshire, 247.
Warwick, Anne Countess of, 133, 200.
Warwick, Edward, Earl of, imprisoned and afterwards put to death by Henry
VII., 172, 175, 196, 199.
Warwick, Richard Neville, Earl of (the King-Maker), 24, 39, 100, 205,
207; slain at Barnet, 208.
Wateley, Henry, slain at Tewkesbury, 148.
Well, King Richard’s, 159, 160, 164, 173.
Welles, Leo Lord, slain at Towton, 104.
Welles and Willoughby, Richard Lord, 104.
Wenlock, John Lord, 42, 100, 133, 140; death of, at the battle of
Tewkesbury, 142.
Wensleydale, Fore Abbey, in, remarkable grant to the monks of, 292.
Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, first Earl of, 24 (note), 199.
Wharfe, River, 88, 113.
Wichingham, Sir William, 147.
Widevile, or Wodevile, family of, 40 (note), 105 (note).
Wigmore Castle, 76, 77, 78.
Willoughby, Robert Lord, 104.
Wilmslow Church, Cheshire, 253 to 266.
Wiltshire, James Boteler, Earl of, 56, 69; taken prisoner and beheaded,
56 (note).
Wittingham, Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury, 142.
Wolves, probable period of the extinction of, in England, 287 to 299.
Worcester, John Tibtoft, Earl of, executed in 1470, 193 (note).
Worcester, Thomas Percy, Earl of, 2; taken prisoner and executed, 8.
Wroughton, 148.
Wyche, or De la Wyche, ancient Cheshire family of, 245.
Y.
York, heraldic devices and badges of the House of, 22, 117.
York, Cecily Duchess of, strange and mournful afflictions and calamities
in her family, 192 to 197.
York city, surrendered to Edward IV., 118.
York, House of, descent of the, 22.
York, Richard Duke of, 22; slain at Wakefield, 58, 64.
York, Richard Duke of, son of Edward IV., believed to have been murdered
in the Tower, 195, 199.
Z.
Zouch, John Lord, 166.
* * * * *
THE END.
* * * * *
* * * * *
F. PICKTON, Printer, Perry’s Place, 29, Oxford Street.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. {0}
Page 24, note 1. Instead of “Richard the oldest son, Earl of
Salisbury, and afterwards Earl of Warwick,”
read, “Richard the eldest son, Earl of Warwick,
and after his father’s death, also Earl of
Salisbury.”
„ 329, Index. After “Bourchier, William, Earl of Ewe,”
instead of “118 (note), 209 (note),” insert,
“40 (note 1), 118 (note 4), 209 (note 3).”
„ 339, Index. After “Shrewsbury, John Talbot, first Earl of,
slain at Castillon, 46 (note),” add “103 (note
6).”
FOOTNOTES.
{0} This errata slip, inserted before page 1 of the book, has been
applied in this transcription.—DP.
{v} It has been considered advisable to commence this work with an
account of the battle of Shrewsbury, which was a prelude to, and had so
close a relation to, the wars of York and Lancaster, that it may, without
much impropriety, be considered as one of them.
{vi1} Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters of the Reigns of Henry
VI._, _Edward IV._, _and Richard III._, Preface, p. vii.
{vi2} _Ibid._, Preface, p. viii.
{vii} Most of the papers relating to the fields of battle have been
transmitted to, and read, from time to time, before meetings of the
Society of Antiquaries of London. In consequence of further information,
obtained in my subsequent visits to the respective scenes of action, and
derived from other sources, additions in some instances, and alterations
in others, have however been made in several of the papers. For example:
my visits to Towton Field amount altogether to nine; and since the paper
upon it was read before the meetings of the Society, considerable
additional information has been acquired respecting if, which has
naturally caused some alterations to be made.
{viii} Ralph Brooke (York Herald), William Dugdale (Norroy King at
Arms), Francis Sandford (Lancaster Herald at Arms), and, in some
instances, John Leland the Antiquary, are the principal authorities
relied upon respecting the personages, families, and other genealogical
matters mentioned in this work.
{1a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury was read
before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 25th of
March, 1852, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the
author.
{1b} I visited the field of battle in September and October 1851, August
1852, June 1853, June 1854, May 1855, and May 1856 and also in September,
1856, which was after part of this work had been sent to the press.
{1c} Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, son of Henry Lord Percy and
Mary his wife, sister of Henry Duke of Lancaster, was created the first
Earl of Northumberland of that surname, at the coronation of King Richard
II. in 1377. He and Henry Percy his son, called Hotspur, gained the
battle of Hallidown Hill, against the Scotch, in 1402. After the battle
of Shrewsbury, being supposed to be disaffected, he was committed to the
Tower of London; but having been liberated from thence, he, with Lord
Bardolph, came out of Scotland in the ninth year of Henry IV. with
considerable forces against Henry; and at Bramham Moor was encountered by
Thomas Rokeby, sheriff of Yorkshire, where the earl was taken prisoner,
and Lord Bardolph dangerously wounded; and they were brought to York,
where they were both beheaded in 1408. He married two wives: the first
was Margaret, daughter of Ralph Lord Neville of Raby, by whom he had
issue Henry Percy (called Hotspur) slain at the battle of Shrewsbury;
Thomas Percy, the second son; Ralph Percy, the third son; and Alan Percy,
the fourth son, who died young. The earl’s second wife was Maud,
daughter of Thomas Lord Lucy, by whom he had not any issue. Henry Percy
(Hotspur) left issue, by his wife Elizabeth, oldest daughter of Edmund
Mortimer, Earl of March, a son Henry, afterwards second Earl of
Northumberland, who in the third year of Henry V. was restored to his
honours; a staunch supporter of the Lancastrian party, and was slain at
the first battle of St. Albans, on the 22nd of May, 1455; {2c} and a
daughter, Elizabeth, married to John Lord Clifford, and, after his death,
to Ralph Neville, second Earl of Westmoreland of that surname.
{2a} Sir Thomas Percy, Knight, a younger brother of Henry Percy, first
Earl of Northumberland, was created Earl of Worcester and Lord High
Admiral of England in 1397, and taken prisoner at the battle of
Shrewsbury, and beheaded in that town in 1403.
{2b} Owen and Blakeway’s _History of Shrewsbury_, vol. i. p. 186;
Carte’s _History of England_, vol. ii. p. 659. The battle is stated, in
Gough’s edition of Camden’s _Britannia_, vol. ii. p. 418, to have “began
in Oldfield or Bulfield, a little north of the north gate, and raged as
far as what is now called Battlefield.” In Stow’s _Annals_ the place is
“called Oldfield, _alias_ Bulfield, not farre from a place called
Barwike.”
{2c} The 22nd of May, according to Dugdale, vol. i. p. 166 and 342, and
Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May, according to Fabyan, Hall,
Holinshed, and Grafton.
{3a} The accounts are but meagre and incomplete respecting the precise
object of the insurrection; but it is usually treated by historical
writers as having been set on foot with a view to dethrone Henry IV., and
to place Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, a descendant of Lionel Duke of
Clarence, son of Edward III., upon the throne of England.
{3b} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.
{4a} Holinshed, Walsingham.
{4b} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.
{4c} Owen and Blakeway’s _History of Shrewsbury_, vol. i. p. 185.
{4d} A proclamation of Henry, issued at Burton-upon-Trent on the 16th of
July, on the occasion of the rebellion of Percy, has been preserved.—See
Rymer’s _Fædera_, vol. viii. fo. 313.
{4e} A proclamation or royal mandate was issued at Lichfield by Henry,
on the 17th of July.—See Rymer’s _Fædera_, vol. viii. fol. 314.
{4f} Owen and Blakeway’s _History of Shrewsbury_, vol. i. p. 185.
{5a} Hall, Grafton.
{5b} “A portion of the suburbs of Shrewsbury was intentionally burnt;
that measure being considered requisite for the safety of the town, in
consequence of the approach of Hotspur’s army.—_Rot. Parl._ 9 Henry IV.,
vol. iii. fo. 619.”
{5c} Stow’s _Annals_, Speed’s _History_. It is stated in Owen and
Blakeway’s _History of Shrewsbury_, although their authority for it does
not seem altogether satisfactory, that Percy retired to a place called
Bull Field, a short distance from Shrewsbury, an extensive common, which
stretched from Upper Berwick to the east, and to have encamped there
during the night of the 19th, and to have marched the next day by
Harlescot and Abright Hussee, to Hateley Field, where he made a stand at
the spot now called Battlefield.—See Owen and Blakeway’s _History of
Shrewsbury_, vol. i. p. 186, 187.
{7} Hall, Holinshed, Walsingham, Speed, Stow, Grafton, Sandford, p. 265;
Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1426.
It is remarkable, that although in Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 280,
it is stated that the battle was fought on the eve of St. Mary Magdalen
(21st of July, 1403;) yet on p. 168 he states that it was fought on St.
Mary Magdalen’s day (22nd of July). See also Rymer’s _Fædera_, tome viii
fo. 320.
It is stated in Owen and Blakeway’s _History of Shrewsbury_, vol. i. p.
187, 188, for which Otterburne is cited as their authority, that a
portion of Percy’s forces was posted behind a field of peas, which would
naturally form some obstacle to the attack of the royal army—“Oportebat
regis exercitum, si pugnare vellet, accedere super aream satam pisis
adultis; quas pisas ita nexuerant et tricaverant ut impedimento forent
accedentibus prætensi laquei eorundem.”
{8a} To save repetition, it is well to mention, that this account of the
battle has been collected from Hall, Holinshed, Walsingham, Grafton,
Speed, Stow, and Monstrelet, c. 7.
{8b} Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford, was the third son of Hugh Earl
of Stafford, and his wife Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, the
elder Earl of Warwick, and the heir of his brothers Thomas and William,
and was after their deaths without issue, the fifth Earl of Stafford and
Lord of Tunbridge. He married Anne, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock,
Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of Edward III. He was the father of
Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of
Northampton fighting for the Lancastrian party in 1459. The strange and
mournful fatality which attended the principal members of this powerful
and celebrated family, will be noticed in treating upon the latter
battle, in Chap. III.
{8c} Lelandi _Collectanea_, vol. ii. p. 389 [313].
{9} In note 5 of Owen and Blakeway’s _Shrewsbury_, vol. i. p. 194, it is
stated that the church is in length 126 feet, and in breadth (with the
cemetery) 65 feet.
{10a} Lel. _Coll._ vol. i. p. 388.
{10b} Grose, vol. ii. p. 356, plate 28, fig. 8. Meyrick’s _Ancient
Armour_, vol. i. p. 33.
{11a} Some articles discovered there came under the notice of the
Archæological Institute in August 1855.
{11b} Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1427.
{11c} See _Frontispiece_.
{11d} Similar to the trench or pit on the north side of Saxton Church,
mentioned in my paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1849,
relative to the field of the battle of Towton, which pit contained the
bones of many men of men slain at that sanguinary battle. See Chap. VI.
{11e} In a note (5) to Owen and Blakeway’s _History of Shrewsbury_, vol.
i. p. 194, referring to a MS., it is stated that a pit was made there for
the slain, 160 feet long, 68 feet broad, and 60 feet deep, over which the
church was afterwards built; but those dimensions, and especially the
depth, are evidently very greatly exaggerated. In modern warfare, much
smaller pits suffice for the dead.
{11f} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. iv. p. 181 _a_.
{12} When I visited the church in May 1856, I was very sorry to hear
that a subscription had been entered into, for the purpose of what was
termed “renovating” this curious and interesting edifice. As far as
respects removing the modern pillars, and the plastered ceiling from the
chancel, and making the latter appear more in accordance with its ancient
state, few persons would object to that measure; but it ought to be borne
in mind that the chancel will accommodate, and much more than
accommodate, the whole number of church-goers of the very scanty
population of Battlefield parish; and that the renovation or rebuilding
of any other part is wholly unnecessary, with reference to the spiritual
requirements of the parishioners. It would evince great want of taste
and judgment to renovate or restore the ancient nave and tower. The
remains are most valuable to the historian and archæologist. The
interval was so very short, comparatively speaking, between the erection
of the church in the reign of Henry IV., and the seizure of the edifice
and its contiguous college and hospital in the reign of Henry VIII., that
we cannot doubt that the remains are now an authentic and interesting
example of church architecture of the reign of the former monarch. The
parties who wish for or recommend the renovation of the nave, or the
restoration of the whole of Battlefield Church, may possibly find some
architect, who, like an old-clothes man, may undertake to “renovate” the
article which he is accustomed to deal in, or, in other words, to make it
“as good as new”; but when the alterations in this church are finished,
they may probably furnish an example of a lamentable destruction of a
very ancient, curious, and historical relic of times gone by. As a proof
of the mischief which may be done by so-called restorations, let any
person of good taste, who has paid even moderate attention to archæology
and church architecture, look around, and say whether, out of the
numerous ancient churches which have been attempted to be restored or
renovated, during the last quarter of a century, there can be found more
than some five or six, where bad taste or presumption has not been
evinced in the attempts of the various architects to restore or renovate
them. If this tasteless system is allowed to proceed, we may, ere long,
hear of some ignorant architect who may offer to rebuild or beautify
Tintern Abbey, or restore or renovate Kenilworth Castle.
{13a} There were in 1856 only two pinnacles on the north aide, and three
on the south side of the tower.
{13b} Of the description usually called a Newel staircase.
{14a} See _Frontispiece_.
{14b} The figure of the Virgin with the dead Christ in her lap, is
usually designated a “pieta,” and it is said that the sculptors of the
fifteenth century were very fond of the subject. It is mentioned in the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_, vol. lxii. p. 893, and vol. xliv. September,
1855, p. 296, in noticing the Proceedings of the Archæological Institute.
A view of the church is also engraved in vol. lxii. p. 898.
{17a} Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1426. Dukes’
_Antiquities of Shropshire_, p. 34, and Appendix xxxv. Leland’s
_Itinerary_, vol. iv. fo. 181 _a_.
{17b} Dukes’ _Antiquities of Shropshire_, p. 34.
{18a} “Quandam placeam terræ cam omnibus ædificiis super-edificatis,
infra dominium de Adbrighton-Hussee, juxta Salopiam, jacentem in campo
qui vocatur Bateleyfield, in quo campo, bellum inter nos et Henricum
Percy defunctum, et cæteros rebelles nostros, super extitit, et per Dei
gratiam victoriam habuimus et triumphum; quæ quidem placea terræ fosso
includitur, continens in longitudine et latitudine duas acras terræ,
unacum duobus ingressibus et egressibus; uno, viz., extendente in
longitudine de Hadenallestone directè super terram Recardi Hussee domini
de Adbrigton-Hussee, in comitatu Salopiæ,” &c. &c. In another part of
the charter is the following passage: “Habendum et Tenendum dictam
placeam terræ, fosso sic inclusam,” &c. &c.—Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol.
vi. part iii. pp. 1426, 7.
{18b} “Idem Bogerus nuper de licentiâ regiâ habuit, ex dono et
feoffamento prædicti Ricardi.”—Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol. vi. part.
iii. p. 1426.
{19a} Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1426.
{19b} “et animabus illorum, qui in dicto bello interfecti, et ibidem
humati existunt, et animabus omnium fidelium defunctorum celebraturis
imperpetuum.”—Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1427.
{19c} Communicated by the Rev. J. O. Hopkins. The author only heard of
his death after this work had been sent to the press.
{19d} Psalm lxxiv. 6, 7.
{21} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Blore Heath was read
before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of
December, 1853, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the
author.
{22a} The armorial bearings, devices, and badges of the various members
of the rival Houses of York and Lancaster are fully stated in Sandford’s
_Genealogical History_.
{22b} The Duke of York was the son of Richard Plantagenet (called of
Coningsburg) Earl of Cambridge, and Anne his wife, daughter of Roger
Mortimer Earl of March and Lord of Wigmore and Clare, the son of Edmund
Mortimer, third Earl of March, &c. by Philippe, only daughter and heiress
of Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward the Third. Besides
which, the Duke of York was descended from Edward III. by his father’s
side, in consequence of being the only son of Richard Earl of Cambridge,
who was the son of Edmund (of Langley) Duke of York and Earl of
Cambridge, fifth son of Edward III., by Isabel, the daughter of Peter,
King of Castile and Leon. The Duke of York married Cecily, daughter of
Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife,
daughter of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. By that marriage he became
related to or connected with most of the great noblemen of England. His
wife had for brothers, Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury (father of
Richard Neville Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker), William Neville
Lord Falconberg, George Neville Lord Latimer, Edward Neville Lord
Abergavenny, and Robert Neville Bishop of Durham; and for half brothers,
Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland, and — Neville Lord of Ousley or
Oversley, in Warwickshire, in right of Mary his wife. The Duke of York’s
power, with the additional aid of that of his wife’s relations, soon
enabled him to bring forward his claims to the throne; and although he
was cut off by death in battle, before he could compass his views, his
son Edward succeeded in obtaining the crown. The Duke left by his wife,
eight sons and four daughters. The sons were—first, Henry, who died
young; second, Edward Earl of March, born at Rouen on the 29th of April,
1441, afterwards King Edward IV.; third, Edmund Earl of Rutland, murdered
after the battle of Wakefield in 1460, by Lord Clifford; fourth, William,
born at Fotheringay, in Northamptonshire; fifth, John, born at
Fotheringay; both of the two last died when infants; sixth, George Duke
of Clarence, born in the Castle of Dublin, put to death in the Tower of
London on the 18th of February, 1477–8; seventh, Thomas, who died in his
infancy; eighth, Richard, born at Fotheringay, 2nd of October, 1452,
afterwards King Richard III., slain at the battle of Bosworth in 1485.
The daughters were—first, Anne, married to Henry Holland Duke of Exeter,
but, being divorced from him in 1472, she then married Sir Thomas St.
Ledger, by whom she had issue, Anne, married to George Manners Lord Roos,
by whom she had Thomas Manners Earl of Rutland; second, Elizabeth,
married to John de la Pole Duke of Suffolk; third, Margaret, married in
1468 to Charles Duke of Burgundy, called the Bold, or the Rash; and
Ursula, of whom nothing is said by historical writers, and it is,
therefore, presumed that she died young.
The Duke of York was the first nobleman in the kingdom, in point of
family and power. His claim to the throne of England was grounded on his
descent from Lionel, third son of King Edward III. Lionel’s first wife
was Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster,
in Ireland, in whose right, he (Lionel) was created Earl of Ulster; and
because he had with her the honour of Clare, in the county of Suffolk, as
parcel of the inheritance of her grandmother (Elizabeth, coheir of the
last Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford), he was in 1362,
created Duke of Clarence, {23b} from which duchy the name of Clarencieux
King of Arms, of the south parts of England, is derived. He had issue by
Elizabeth his wife, one only daughter, Philippe, before mentioned, who
married Edmund Mortimer, third Earl of March, grandfather of Anne
Countess of Cambridge, who was the mother of Richard Duke of York, and
grandmother of King Edward IV. and of King Richard III.
The Duke of York enjoyed vast possessions in England and Ireland, in
right not only of his paternal line of the houses of York and Cambridge,
but also of his descent from the great and powerful families of Mortimer
(Earls of March), Clare (Earls of Gloucester and of Hertford), and de
Burgh (Earls of Ulster). He was closely allied to the great and noble
family of Neville, from having married Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville
Earl of Westmoreland, besides being connected with several other noble
and powerful families.
{23a} Some historians mention the 23rd of May, as the day on which that
battle was fought.
{23b} From a place in Suffolk, called Clare, or Clarence.
{24a} Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury was the son of Ralph Neville,
first Earl of Westmoreland (by Joan, his second wife, daughter of John of
Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, and widow of Sir Robert Ferrers of Oversley),
and was created Earl of Salisbury after the death of Thomas de Montacute
Earl of Salisbury, his wife’s father, in the fifteenth year of King Henry
VI., and made Lord Chancellor in the 32nd year of his reign. He married
Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas de Montacute Earl of Salisbury, and
had issue by her, four sons and six daughters: Richard the eldest son,
Earl of Warwick, and after his father’s death, also Earl of Salisbury,
the King Maker, slain at the battle of Barnet in 1471; second, John,
Marquis Montague, also slain at the battle of Barnet; third, Thomas,
married the widow of Lord Willoughby, and was slain at the battle of
Wakefield; fourth, George, Bishop of Exeter, and Lord Chancellor, and
afterwards Archbishop of York; Joan, the oldest daughter, was married to
William Fitzalan Earl of Arundel; second, Cecily, married to Henry
Beauchamp Duke of Warwick; third, Alice, married Henry Lord Fitzhugh
Baron of Ravenswath; fourth, Eleanor, married Thomas Lord Stanley,
afterwards the first Earl of Derby of that surname; fifth, Katherine,
married William Bonvile, son and heir to William Lord Bonvile and
Harrington; sixth, Margaret, married John De Vere Earl of Oxford.
Richard Earl of Salisbury was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of
Wakefield, and beheaded at Pontefract, and his body was first interred
there, and afterwards removed to Bisham Abbey, in Berkshire, which had
been founded by, and was the place of interment of the Montacutes, and
where the bodies of his sons, the Earl of Warwick and Marquis Montague,
were also interred, after the battle of Barnet.
{24b} Richard Neville, eighteenth Earl of Warwick, called the King
Maker, was the son and heir of Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury, by
Alice, daughter of Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, and married
Anne, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, sixteenth Earl of Warwick. His
power was so great, that he was mainly instrumental in placing King
Edward IV. upon the throne in 1461, and again in dethroning him, and
replacing Henry VI. upon the throne in 1470; and he was slain fighting
against Edward at the battle of Barnet, on 14th of April, 1471. He left
issue two daughters: Isabel, married to George Plantagenet Duke of
Clarence, brother of King Edward IV.; and Anne, married, first, to Edward
Prince of Wales, son of King Henry VI., murdered at Tewkesbury in 1471;
and secondly, to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.
{25a} Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of
Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1445.
{25b} Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of Henry VI. and Queen
Margaret. He was born on the 13th of October, 1453, and was murdered
after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471.
{25c} James Touchet Lord Audley (the son and heir of John Touchet Lord
Audley, who died in the tenth year of Henry IV.) was summoned to
Parliament in the eighth year of Henry V., as Lord Audley. He attended
Henry V. in his wars in France. In the reign of Henry VI., he took part
with the House of Lancaster, and was sent by Queen Margaret to intercept
the Earl of Salisbury at Blore Heath, which was not more than ten or
twelve miles from Lord Audley’s possession of Red Castle at Hawkstone,
now belonging to the Viscount Hill, in Shropshire. After Lord Audley’s
death in that battle, his body was interred in Darley Abbey, in
Derbyshire. He left a son, John Lord Audley, who adhered to the Yorkist
party, and had some offices of importance conferred upon him by Edward
IV. and Richard III., and died in 1491, in the sixth year of Henry VII.,
leaving issue.
{25d} For the historical authorities, see Hall, Holinshed, Grafton,
Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale’s _Baronage_, Sandford’s _Genealogical
History_, Kennett’s _Lives of the Kings and Queens_; Leland’s
_Itinerary_, vol. vii. fo. 32; _Rot. Parl._ 38 Henry VI. (A.D. 1459),
vol. v. p. 348. The latter contains the following passage:—“the sonday
next after the fest of Seint Mathewe th’ Apostle, the 38 yere of youre
moost gracious reigne, at Blore, in youre shire of Stafford, in the
feldes of the same towne, called Blore-heth,” &c. &c.; see also _ibid._
p. 369, in which it is stated, that Queen Margaret and Edward Prince of
Wales had been at Chester, and afterwards at Eccleshall, previously to
the battle; and that Lord Stanley was directed, before it took place, to
come with his forces, and join the Lancastrians; and that he sent his
servant to the Queen and the Prince with a promise to do so in all haste,
but failed, and by his failing to join them, the Lancastrians were
defeated, although he was, with 2000 men, within six miles of Blore
Heath, and that he staid three days at Newcastle, only six miles from
Eccleshall, where the Queen and Prince of Wales then were; and that in
the morning after the defeat of the Lancastrians, Lord Stanley sent a
letter to the Queen and Prince, extenuating his not having assisted them
with his forces; and that he then departed home again; and also that the
people and tenants of the King and of the Prince, in the hundreds of
Wirral and of Macclesfield, had been prevented by Lord Stanley from going
to the assistance of the King; and he was also accused of having, on the
night ensuing the battle, sent a letter of congratulation to the Earl of
Salisbury. If those charges were true, it looks very much as if he had
been a Yorkist at heart, but disposed to keep fair with both sides.
{26a} Sir Richard Molyneux was an ancestor of the Earl of Sefton.
{26b} It is remarkable that Ormerod, in his _Cheshire_, vol. i. p.
xxxii., mentions that it was Sir William Troutbeck who was slain in the
battle; but in vol. ii. pp. 27 and 28, his son, Sir John Troutbeck, is
mentioned as the person who was slain there; and it is stated that the
former had been, and that the latter was at that time, Chamberlain of
Chester.
{27a} Stow’s _Annals_, p. 405. See also Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, p.
649.
{27b} _Rot. Parl._ vol. v. 38th of Henry VI. p. 348. Leland’s
_Itinerary_, vol. vii. fo. 32.
{27c} John De Sutton Baron of Dudley (called in the act of Parliament of
38th of Henry VI. (1459) John Lord Dudley), being a firm adherent to the
Lancastrian interest, and being surprised at Gloucester in the 29th year
of Henry VI., by Richard Duke of York (upon his return at that time out
of Ireland), was sent prisoner to the Castle of Ludlow. (Stow’s
_Annals_; and Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 215.) He was wounded at
the battle of Blore Heath. (Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. vii. fo. 32.)
The imprisonment of the Baron of Dudley in the Tower of London in 1455,
is mentioned in Fenn’s collection of original letters (sometimes called
the _Paston Letters_), vol. i. p. 107. It should seem, therefore, that
he was twice imprisoned at the instance of the Duke of York. After the
accession of Edward IV., Dudley was, however, reconciled to the House of
York, and he does not appear to have ever afterwards assisted the
opposite party. By his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Berkley of
Beverstan in Gloucestershire, he had issue three sons: Edmund, who died
in his father’s lifetime, leaving issue John, from whom the Earls of
Warwick and Leicester derived their descent; and William Bishop of
Durham; he had also a daughter, Margaret, married to George Longueville,
of Little Billinge, Northamptonshire, Esq.
{27d} Sir John Neville was afterwards Marquis Montague, and slain at the
battle of Barnet in 1471; and Sir Thomas Neville was slain at the battle
of Wakefield in 1460.
{27e} Hall’s _Chronicles_, fo. 173; Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, fo. 649;
Baker’s _Chronicles_, fo. 195; Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 405.
{28a} Afterwards John Lord Wenlock.
{28b} William Stanley (afterwards Sir William Stanley, Knight) was the
second son of Sir Thomas Stanley, Chamberlain to Henry VI. Sir Thomas
Stanley was summoned to Parliament as Lord Stanley, on the 20th of
January, 1455–6, in the 34th of Henry VI., and died in the 37th year of
that King’s reign, 1459; he married Joan, the daughter of Sir Robert
Goushill, of Hoveringham, in the county of Nottingham, by whom he had
three sons and three daughters, and was succeeded by his oldest son
Thomas (afterwards first Earl of Derby), who was summoned to Parliament
amongst the barons of this realm, on the 24th of May, 1461, in the first
year of Edward IV., by the title of Baron Stanley of Latham. (Dugdale’s
_Baronage_, vol. iii. p. 248; Collins’s _Peerage_, vol. iii. p. 41, 42;
and the _Memoirs of the House of Stanley_, published by J. Harrop in
1767, p. 31.) It is remarkable that Dugdale does not mention any one of
the family having been summoned to Parliament amongst the barons of the
realm, or having been ennobled, prior to Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards
first Earl of Derby. Edmundson, in his _Peerage_, states that the latter
was summoned to Parliament as Lord Stanley, in 1456; but it should seem
that he means the father of the latter. It is certain that the father
had a title as Lord Stanley, some time during the reign of Henry VI.,
from the passage in the act of the Parliament of Coventry, 38th Henry VI.
(1459): “William Stanley Squier sonne to Thomas late Lord Stanley;” and
from “Lord Stanley” being also repeatedly mentioned, in the proceedings
of that Parliament (38th Henry VI.), and William Stanley being there
called the brother of Lord Stanley; which it is impossible to apply to
any other Lord Stanley, except Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards first Earl
of Derby, who was his brother, and who was also the son of the late Lord
Stanley.—_Rot. Parl._ 38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. pp. 348, 369, 370.
See also _Rot. Parl._ 39 Henry VI. (1460), vol. v. p. 382; in which the
Lord Stanley then living (who was afterwards first Earl of Derby), is
called “Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley;” and his deceased father is
particularly designated as “Thomas Stanley, late Lord Stanley his Fader;”
besides which, the deceased is more than once called “Thomas, late Lord
Stanley.” Thomas Lord Stanley, by his defection and opportunely going
over, with his forces, at the battle of Bosworth, to the Earl of
Richmond, was of the utmost service to him, and was the principal cause
of his gaining the victory and the crown, was for so doing, created first
Earl of Derby of that name, by Henry VII., in 1485, and died in 1504.
Sir William Stanley (brother of the last-mentioned Lord Stanley) also
commanded a considerable body of troops, at that battle. The aid of Sir
William Stanley against Richard III. on that occasion, contributed very
greatly, to place Henry upon the throne of England; yet Henry, forgetful
of benefits received, caused Sir William Stanley to be beheaded on Tower
Hill, on the 16th of February, 1494—5, on a very questionable charge, not
of any treasonable actions, but of some alleged disloyal words. He was
of Holt Castle, in the county of Denbigh, where he had large landed
possessions, besides great quantities of plate, money, jewels, and other
personal property; and the forfeiture of his wealth, is generally
supposed to have been no slight motive, in inducing that avaricious and
tyrannical King, to put him to death. When he fought at the battle of
Blore Heath, there was exhibited a melancholy and revolting but very
common effect of civil war; relatives fighting against each other; for
his brothers-in-law, Sir William Troutbeck, who had married Margaret, the
oldest sister, and Sir Richard Molyneux of Sefton, who had married
Elizabeth, the second sister of Sir William Stanley, were both slain in
that battle.
{29} A list of the Yorkist noblemen, knights, and other persons who were
by that act of attainder declared guilty of high treason, and their
possessions forfeited, for having taken arms against Henry VI., or for
other alleged offences, and their titles or names, are given here, in the
order in which they appear in the act, viz.:—The Earl of Salisbury; Sir
Thomas Neville, Sir John Neville, sons of the Earl of Salisbury; Sir
Thomas Harrington, Sir John Conyers, and Sir Thomas Parr; William
Stanley, Esq., Son of the late Thomas Lord Stanley [and brother of
Thomas, the then Lord Stanley], and Thomas Mering, Esq., for being
engaged at the battle of Blore Heath, on Sunday next after the Feast of
St. Matthew the Apostle, in the 38th year of Henry VI.; also the Duke of
York, the Earl of March, the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Salisbury, the
Earl of Rutland, John Clinton Lord Clinton, Sir John Wenlock, Sir James
Pickering, the said Sir John Conyers, and the said Sir Thomas Parr; John
Bourchier and Edward Bourchier, Esqrs., nephews of the Duke of York;
Thomas Colt, of London, Gentleman; John Clay, of Cheshunt, in
Hertfordshire, Esq.; Roger Eaton, of Shrewsbury, Esq.; and Robert Bold,
brother of Sir Henry Bold, for having been in arms with the Yorkists on
Friday, the vigil of St. Edward the Confessor, in the 38th year of Henry
VI., at Ludford, near Ludlow; Alice, the wife of the Earl of Salisbury;
Sir William Oldhall, and Thomas Vaughan, of London, Esq., for having, the
former at Middleham, on the 1st of August, in the 37th year of Henry VI.,
and the two latter at London, on the 4th of June, compassed and imagined
the death of the King, and abetted and incited the Duke of York, and the
Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, to rebellion. Richard Grey Lord Powis,
{29b} Sir Henry Radford, and Walter Devereux, Esq., who had appeared in
arms at Ludford with the Yorkists, but upon the dispersion of the latter
had immediately made submission to Henry VI., and had solicited mercy,
had their lives spared, but the act, as originally drawn, declared all
their possessions forfeited. {29c} _Rot. Parl._ 38 Henry VI. (1459),
vol. v. fo. 348.
{29b} Richard Grey Lord Powis, was an adherent to the house of York, for
which he was attainted by the Parliament of Coventry of 38th Henry VI.;
but of which the acts and proceedings were annulled by the act of 39th
Henry VI. He was with the Earls of Warwick and Kent at the siege of
Alnwick Castle, then held by the Lancastrians in 2nd Edward IV. He
married Margaret, daughter of James Lord Audley, and died in the 6th
Edward IV., leaving issue.
{29c} The King, however, did not give his assent to the latter part of
it, against Richard Grey Lord Powis, and Walter Devereux.
{30a} _Rot. Parl._ 38 Henry VI. (1459) vol. v. fo. 348.
{30b} Ibid. vol. v. fo. 369.
{34a} _Rot. Parl._ 38th Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. p. 369, 370.
{34b} I visited the field of battle on the 28th of August, 1852, the
17th of June, 1853, the 10th of June, 1854, the 11th of May, 1855, the
16th of May and the 30th of September, 1856.
{35} Chap. x. soc. 85.
{36} Mr. George Goodall lives upon a farm at Moreton Say, in Shropshire,
three miles from Market Drayton. He showed me the sword, and stated that
he had had it 28 years, and that it had previously been for a long period
in the possession of his uncle, and was said to have been dug up upon the
field of the battle of Blore Heath, but that he did not know at what date
it had been discovered. He also informed me, that some pieces of armour
had been formerly found in a pit near to, but not upon, the field of
battle.
The blade of the sword is 2 feet 10¾ inches long, and close to the hilt,
it is about 1⅛ inch wide. The blade is fluted on both sides, and with
one edge, to within 11 inches of the point, and from thence it has two
edges, as if it had been calculated for thrusting and not for cutting.
The pommel is ornamented with a ribbed sloping pattern, and the guard is
also ornamented, and is 4½ inches in length. The whole is of steel or
iron. The hilt is 5½ inches long, and 3 inches in circumference; and
there is a substance resembling the hard shell-like skin or covering of
some kind of fish remaining round the gripe of the hilt. The whole of
the sword is tolerably perfect, except that for some inches from the
point it is injured by rust.
I cannot possibly doubt the veracity of those who spoke to me respecting
it, but they may have been misinformed as to its history. It certainly
may have been found at Blore Heath, but does not bear any ancient marks
upon it, and from its appearance, make, and state of preservation, I am
disposed to think, that it is of a date considerably more modern, than
that of the battle of Blore Heath.
{37} Any person desirous of visiting both the fields of battle of
Shrewsbury and of Blore Heath, may easily do so, by going from Shrewsbury
to Battlefield, and from thence to Hodnet, and then proceeding by Market
Drayton, and Blore Heath, to the Whitmore station, in Staffordshire, upon
the London and North-Western Railway; or _vice versâ_. In either ease,
he will have an opportunity, if disposed to archæological pursuits, of
visiting on the way, a remarkable and curious relic of antiquity, called
the Bury Walls, upon the estate of the Viscount Hill, and not more than
half a mile from his park (Hawkstone). The place called Bury Walls, is
generally believed to have been a Roman station, and its extraordinary
and almost perfect ramparts, mounds, and ditches, are very interesting,
and rarely to be found equalled in this country. The beautiful scenery
of Hawkstone Park and grounds, well merits the attention of persons
travelling in that vicinity, whether they are archæologists or not; and,
thanks to the liberality and kindness of the noble owner, strangers are
allowed access to the walks and views, without any other restriction,
than some trivial ones, with respect to the mode of enjoying themselves,
such as taking refreshments or convivial practices, which are generally
considered objectionable, and are much better avoided in a nobleman’s
park.
{39a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Northampton was read by
the author in person, before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries on
the 31st of January, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for
it to the author.
{39b} Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker,
the son and heir of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, by Alice his
wife, daughter of Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, was slain at
the battle of Barnet, on the 14th of April, 1471.—_See_ Chap. II.
{39c} Edward Earl of March, born on the 29th of April, 1441, was the
oldest son of Richard Duke of York, by Cecily his wife, daughter of Ralph
Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland; and after the death of his father he
claimed the throne, in consequence of being descended from Lionel Duke of
Clarence, third son of Edward III. He was afterwards King Edward
IV.—_See_ Chap. V., and Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, Chap. IX.
{39d} Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, third son of Ralph Neville,
first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan, his second wife, daughter of John of
Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, was put to death after the battle of Wakefield,
in 1460.—_See_ Chap. IX
{40a} Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, was of the blood royal
of England, being a son of William Lord Bourchier, (Earl of Ewe in
Normandy) and Anne his wife, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of
Gloucester (sixth son of Edward III.), and Eleanor his wife, daughter of
Humphry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Constable of England, and widow of
Edmund Earl of Stafford. He was a brother of Henry Bourchier, Earl of
Ewe, afterwards of Essex, and became Bishop of Ely, and afterwards
Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1454, and retained that see until he died,
very aged, in 1486, having held it thirty-two years, and in the reigns of
five kings. He was also Lord Chancellor and a cardinal.
{40b} Called “Lord Cobham” by Hall and Holinshed; and by Sandford, p.
296; and “Edward Broke Lord Cobham” by Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol.
ii. p. 159. But see Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. iii p. 281, where he is
called “Sir Edward Brooke, Knight, called Sir Edward Brooke of Cobham,”
the son of Sir Thomas Brooke and Joan his wife. According to Dugdale, he
favoured the title of the Duke of York, upon his return out of Ireland,
in the 29th year of Henry VI.; took part with the Earls of Salisbury and
Warwick, on purpose to raise an army, which, under the pretence of
removing evil counsellors from the King, might advance the duke to the
throne. He fought against the Lancastrians at the first battle of St.
Alban’s, in 1455; and, after the accession to the throne of Edward IV.,
attended him into the North, when the Lancastrians were endeavouring to
make head again, and had got possession of some strong places in
Northumberland, in 1462. He died in the fourth year of Edward IV., and
was succeeded by John Brooke, his son and heir, who had first summons to
Parliament by the title of Lord Cobham, in the twelfth year of Edward
IV.; consequently, although the son was ennobled, there does not appear
to be any good authority for Hall’s and Holinshed’s designating the
father as Lord Cobham. “Now, as they passed through Kent, there came to
them the Lord Cobham, John Gilford, William Pech, Robert Horne, and manie
other gentlemen.”—Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 653.
{40c} Thomas Lord Scales, of Nucels, in Herefordshire, was a commander
of celebrity in the French wars. After being compelled to surrender the
Tower of London, subsequently to the battle of Northampton, in 1460, he
endeavoured to escape by water; but, being discovered by some of the Earl
of Warwick’s men, was captured and put to death by them. His daughter
and heiress, Elizabeth, was married, first, to Henry Bourchier, second
son of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex; and afterwards to Anthony
Wideville or Wodeville, eldest son of Richard Wideville or Wodeville,
Earl Rivers, by Jaquette his wife, daughter of Peter of Luxembourg, Earl
of St. Paul, and widow of John Duke of Bedford, Regent of France and
third son of King Henry IV., who succeeded to the earldom of Rivers after
his father’s death. Anthony Wodeville became, in right of his wife
Elizabeth (daughter of Thomas Lord Scales), Lord Scales, and afterwards
Earl Rivers. He was brother of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV. (See
Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. p. 139, note 3;
Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 618, vol. iii. pp. 231–233; _Catalogue
of Nobility_, by Ralph Brooke, pp. 193, 194.) He was, when Earl Rivers,
beheaded at Pontefract, by order of the Council, during the Protectorate,
and, as is believed, at the instigation of Richard Duke of Gloucester,
without any trial, on the 13th of June, 1483. Lord Richard Grey (son of
the Queen Dowager Elizabeth, by her first husband, Sir John Grey of
Groby, son of Edward Grey, Lord Ferrers, of Groby) and Sir Thomas Vaughan
were executed there at the same time. The Wodevilles were originally of
the Lancastrian party; and Sir John Grey of Groby, the first husband of
Elizabeth, lost his life fighting for that party, at the first battle of
St. Alban’s, in 1455; but, after Elizabeth’s charms had made a conquest
of the heart of Edward, and he had married her, the Wodevilles became
staunch Yorkists.
{41a} William Neville, Lord Falconberg, afterwards Earl of Kent, was a
younger son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his
second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and was an
uncle of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker. He was
a decided Yorkist, distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, and was
created Earl of Kent in the first year of Edward IV., and died in the
second year of that king’s reign.
{41b} John Clinton, Lord Clinton, served in more than one expedition
into France, was originally a Lancastrian, but forsook that party in the
thirty-eighth year of Henry VI. for that of the Duke of York, for which
he was attainted, and his lands declared confiscated by the Parliament of
Coventry, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., 1459; but all the acts
and proceedings of that Parliament were declared void by an act of
Parliament of 39th Henry VI. (See _Rot. Parl._ 39 Henry VI. (1460), vol.
v. p. 374.) His estates and honours were restored on the accession of
Edward IV.
{41c} Henry Bourchier, originally Earl of Ewe in Normandy, afterwards
Lord Bourchier, son and heir of William Lord Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, by
Anne, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of
Edward III., was brother of Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Ely, afterwards
Archbishop of Canterbury, was created Viscount Bourchier in the
twenty-fifth year of Henry VI., and was also created Earl of Essex in the
first year of Edward IV., and died in 1483.
{41d} George Neville was consecrated Bishop of Exeter in 1455, became
Lord Chancellor in 1460, and was afterwards Archbishop of York, in 1466.
He was the fourth son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and brother
of Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick. He was Bishop of Exeter
before he was twenty-five years old, and Lord Chancellor in 1460, before
he had completed his thirtieth year, and died in 1476.
{42a} Hall, Holinshed, Stow.
{42b} Hall, fo. 176; Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 654. “Then the Earles of
March and Warwike, with the Lords Fauconbrige, Clinton, Bourcher called
the Earle of Ewe, the Pryor of Saint John’s, Audley, Burgavenny, Say, and
Scrope, the Archbishop, the Pope’s Legate, the Bishops of Excester, Ely,
Salisbury, and Rochester, addressed them forth to the King at
Northampton, leaving the Earle of Salisbury to be governour of the citie
in their absence. The Lord Scales and Hungerford, that before the
comming of the Earles were in the citie of London, and would have had the
governance thereof, went to the Tower of London, and with them the Lords
Vessy, Lovell, Delaware, Kendale a Gascoigne; Knights, Sir Edmond
Hampden, Thomas Brune Sherife of Kent, John Bruin of Kent, Gervais
Clifton Treasurer of the King’s House, Thomas Tyrell, the Dutches of
Excester, and many other. Then was the Tower of London besieged both by
water and land, that no victualls might come to them. And they that were
within the Tower cast wild fire into the city, and shot many small
gunnes, whereby they brent and slew men, women, and children, in the
streetes; also they of the city layd great guns on the further side of
the Thames against the Tower, and brake the walls in divers
places.”—Stow’s _Annals_, pp. 408 and 409.
{42c} Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, Queen of Henry VI.,
was the daughter of Renè, Duke of Anjou; was married to Henry VI. at
Southwick, in Hampshire, on the 22nd of April, 1445, and was crowned at
Westminster on the 30th of May following. On the 13th of October, 1453,
Edward, the only child of the marriage, was born. After the defeat of
the Lancastrians at the battle of Tewkesbury, and his murder, on the 4th
of May, 1471, Margaret fled, and took sanctuary in a poor religious
house, and was brought from thence prisoner to London, and Henry died in
the Tower very soon after the battle. A considerable time afterwards she
was sent home to her father, Duke Renè, having been ransomed by Louis XI.
King of France for 50,000 crowns; and nothing more, connected with
England, occurred respecting her, during the remainder of her life, which
was passed in retirement, and she died in France, in 1482.
{43a} Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the eldest son of Edmund
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s on
the 22nd of May, {43g} 1455), by Eleanor his wife (daughter of Richard
Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick), had a military command and served in the
wars in France. He fought at the battle of Towton, in 1461, on the side
of the Lancastrians, and after the defeat there, escaped with Henry VI.
into Scotland, was afterwards pardoned by Edward IV., but, having
revolted, was taken at the battle of Hexham, and beheaded in 1463. After
his death, his brother Edmund (the second son) was also Duke of Somerset,
and was beheaded after the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471, in which battle
John (the third son) was slain.
{43b} Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, was the son and heir of
Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford, by Anne Plantagenet, daughter of
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of Edward III., and
was created first Duke of Buckingham, of that family, in 1443, and
declared to take precedence of all other dukes in England. He married
Anne, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland.
The strange and mournful fatality which attended the principal members of
fire generations of this nobleman’s powerful and eminent family, will be
mentioned afterwards in this chapter.
{43c} Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 409.
{43d} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 654
{43e} The Bishop of Hereford also encouraged the King’s adherents to
fight, for which he was, after the battle, imprisoned in Warwick Castle,
and remained a long time a prisoner.—Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 409.
{43f} Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 409.
{43g} The 22nd of May according to Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol. i.
pp. 166 and 342; and Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May according to
Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton.
{44a} “She caused her army to issue out of the towne and to passe the
ryver of Nene; and there in the newe felde, betweene Harsyngton
[Hardingstone] and Sandifford, the capitaynes strongely emparked
themselfes with high bankes and depe trenches.”—Hall’s _Chronicles_, fo.
176. See a similar account in Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, fo. 654. The
meadows and Delapré Abbey are in the pariah of Hardingstone. I have not
been able to learn that there is any place or ford there, called
Sandiford. It probably was a ford of the river Nen, the name and
situation of which are now forgotten.
{44b} Fabyan Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Speed, and Dugdale, vol. i. p.
305, and vol. ii. p. 161. It is remarkable that Dugdale, in different
parts of his _Baronage_, does not always give the date consistently. He
calls it the 9th of July, in vol. i. p. 305, and vol. ii. p. 161; the
27th of July, in vol. i. p. 166; the 10th of July, in vol. i. p. 331
(where he professes to give a copy of the epitaph of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, slain in the battle of Northampton); and the 10th of July, in
vol. ii. p. 54; and Ralph Brooke, p. 197, and Stow, p. 409, also call it
the 10th of July.
{45a} Edmund Lord Grey, of Ruthen, was the grandson and heir of Sir
Reginald Grey (being the son of Sir John Grey, his eldest son, who died
in his lifetime, by his first wife Margaret, daughter of William Lord
Roos), and was created Earl of Kent, in the fifth year of Edward IV. His
desertion from the cause of Henry VI. is mentioned by Leland, who states
that “In the tyme of the civile war, betwixt King Henry the VI. and King
Edwarde the IV., there was a battaille faught hard without the south
suburbes of Northampton,” and that the Lord Fanhope took King Henry’s
part; and Leland proceeds thus:—“The Lorde Gray, of Ruthine, did the same
in countenance. But a litle afore the feeld he practisid with King
Edward, & other, saying that he had a title to the Lorde Fannope’s landes
at Antehil and there aboute, or depraving hym with false accusations, so
wrought with King Edwarde, that he, with al his strong band of
Walschemen, felle to King Edwardes part, upon promise that if Edwarde wan
the feelde, he shaul have Antehil and such landes as Fannope had there.”
“Edwarde wan the feelde, and Gray opteinid Antehille _cum pertinentiis_:
and stil encreasing in favour with King Edwarde, was at the laste, made
by hym Erle of Kente.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 120
[113].—Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, is the place meant as having belonged
to Lord Fanhope.
{45b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 654.
{45c} Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 409. Speed’s _History_, fo. 844.
{46a} The number of the slain and drowned is stated to have amounted to
nearly 10,000. There seems to have been, from times of very remote
antiquity, a bridge over the river at Northampton, near the castle; but
from the narrow and inconvenient form of bridges at the date of the
battle, it could not afford much chance of escape to many of the
fugitives. The present bridge is modern, and not upon the site of the
old one.
{46b} “The Erles of March, Warwick, and Salisbyri, cam from Calays to
Dovar, and so to London and Northampton, and there faute with owte the
town, where the Duke of Bokingham, the Erle of Shrobbesbyri, the Viscount
Beaumont, the Lorde Egremont, were slayn, and many knighttes and squyers
with other, and the King taken prisoner.”—Leland’s _Coll._ vol. ii. fo.
497 [714].
{46c} John Talbot, second Earl of Shrewsbury, was the son and heir of
John Talbot, first Earl of Shrewsbury, the celebrated commander, renowned
for his warlike exploits in France, and slain by a cannon shot at the
battle of Castillon, near Bourdeaux, on the 7th {46f} of July, 1453, and
of his wife Maud, daughter and heiress of Thomas Neville, Lord Furnival.
{46d} He was originally John Lord Beaumont, son of Henry Lord Beaumont
and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Lord Willoughby of Eresby,
and was in the eighteenth year of Henry VI. advanced to the dignity of a
Viscount (a title not previously used in England), by the title of
Viscount Beaumont, with precedence over all Barons of the realm; after
his death at the battle of Northampton, he was succeeded in his title,
and his principles, by his son and heir, William Viscount Beaumont, who
fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Towton, for which he was
included in the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., but was restored by
Parliament in the first, and died in the twenty-fourth year of Henry VII.
{46e} Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, originally Sir Thomas Percy, Knight
(the third son of Henry, the second Earl of Northumberland, who was slain
at the first battle of Saint Alban’s in 1455, and Eleanor his wife,
daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and widow of
Richard Lord Spencer), was created Lord Egremont, in the twenty-eighth
year of Henry VI.
{46f} On the 7th of July, 1453, according to Ralph Brooke, p. 196; on
the 20th of July, according to Dugdale, vol. i. p. 330; but on the 7th of
July, on the same page, where he professes to give a copy of the epitaph
of the Earl of Shrewsbury, slain in the battle near Bourdeaux, from his
monument at Whitchurch, in Shropshire.
{47a} Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of King Henry VI. and
Queen Margaret (usually called Margaret of Anjou). He was born in the
King’s palace at Westminster, on the 13th of October, 1453, in the
thirty-first year of Henry VI., and was created Prince of Wales and Earl
of Chester on the 16th of March, in the thirty-second year of his
lather’s reign. At the age of seventeen he was affianced in France to
Anne Neville, the second daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick, called the
King-Maker. The murder of Prince Edward, immediately after the battle of
Tewkesbury in 1471, will be noticed in Chapter VII. After his death,
Anne, his widow, was married to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards
King Richard III.
{47b} _Catalogue of Nobility_, by Ralph Brooke. The Grey Friars
Monastery was in the north-east quarter of the town, but is now
demolished, and most of its site is built upon; but it stood in that part
of the town which now lies between Newland and Victoria Streets, and to
the eastward of the upper end of Grey Friars Street and of Lady’s Lane: a
small portion of an ancient wall, with buttresses, and some little
remains of masonry, built up in the walls of the adjoining houses, are
now visible, contiguous to a deep hollow or depression, which lies on the
northward side of Victoria Street, and formed part of the monastic
edifice. Its site has also been identified by stone coffins discovered
near there, in excavating the soil for building purposes.
{48a} _Catalogue of Nobility_, by Ralph Brooke.
{48b} The Hospital of St. John in Bridge Street, is one of the old
charitable institutions which is still kept up. The ancient edifice,
with its handsome rose window, and its curious little chapel, are well
worth a visit.
{48c} Leland states:—“There was a great bataille faught in Henry the 6th
tyme at Northampton on the Hille withoute the southe Gate, where is a
right goodly Crosse, caullid as I remembre the Quene’s Crosse, and many
Walschmen were drounid yn Avon Ryver at this conflict. Many of them that
were slayn were buried at De la pray: and sum at St. Johns
Hospitale.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 9 [10]. The battle was
certainly fought at the southward side of the town, and near Queen
Eleanor’s Cross, yet there seems to be some want of care on Leland’s
part, in stating that the battle was fought on a hill near the cross.
Although not far from the cross, the place where it was fought is not a
hill, although the ground has a gradual ascent from the river and Delapré
Abbey, up to the cross, which stands rather elevated, and is a
conspicuous object from the abbey, and its park and grounds. Again, he
is evidently incorrect in mentioning the river Avon, instead of the river
Nen or Nene.
{48d} The descent of the Duke of Buckingham from King Edward III. was as
follows:—Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, a nobleman of immense
possessions, had two daughters, his coheiresses. Eleanor, the eldest
daughter, married Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of
King Edward III. Thomas Duke of Gloucester had by her, amongst other
issue, a daughter Anne, whose first husband Edmund Stafford, fifth Earl
of Stafford, was slain at the battle of Shrewsbury. They had a son,
Humphrey, first Duke of Buckingham, who married Anne, daughter of Ralph
Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and was slain at the battle of
Northampton. Their eldest son was Humphrey Earl of Stafford, who married
Margaret, daughter of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and was slain at
the first battle of Saint Alban’s. Their son Henry Stafford, second Duke
of Buckingham, married Katherine, daughter of Richard Wideville or
Wodeville, Earl of Rivers, and was executed in the first year of Richard
III. Besides the descent of Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham,
from Edward III., as above mentioned, he was also descended from him,
through his (the Duke of Buckingham’s) mother, Margaret Beaufort, from
John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset (son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
fourth son of Edward III.), by Katherine Swinford, but born before their
marriage, in which defect of a legitimate title, by his maternal descent,
his case resembled that of King Henry VII. The Duke of Buckingham,
however, from one or both of those sources of descent, probably flattered
himself with the hope of one day being King of England; and it has been
very reasonably suggested, that it was fortunate for the Earl of
Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., that his first expedition and
attempt to land in England, was a total failure, and terminated in the
execution of the Duke of Buckingham; for if that powerful and ambitious
nobleman had succeeded in deposing Richard III., it is very probable that
he would have attempted to have seized the throne, in his own right.
Mary, the second daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, married
Henry Earl of Derby, afterwards King Henry IV.; and it should be here
observed, that the Duke of Buckingham was entitled, by descent from
Eleanor, eldest daughter of the Earl of Hereford, to at least half of his
great possessions. After the line of Henry IV. had become extinct, the
other half was vested in Edward IV. and his heirs; but Buckingham
considered himself entitled to it, as heir at law of Mary, the second
daughter of the Earl of Hereford. Shakespeare seldom wrote without a
meaning, and from what is above stated, his object in the drama of
_Richard III._ will be at once apparent, in causing the Duke of
Gloucester to offer the following inducement to the Duke of Buckingham to
support his claim to the throne:—
“And look when I am King, claim thou of me
The earldom of Hereford, and all the moveables
Whereof the King, my brother, was possessed.”
SHAKESPEARE’S _King Richard III._, act iii. scene 1.
It seems probable that in Shakespeare’s time the word “moveables” was not
used in the same sense in which we now use it, for at present that word
would be considered strangely inapplicable to lands, castles, manors, &c.
{49} Historians have not always agreed, respecting the place where the
Duke of Buckingham was executed: some have stated that the execution took
place at Salisbury, and others at Shrewsbury. It is certain that he was
captured in Shropshire. The most authentic of the old historical
writers, however, state, and apparently upon good grounds, that he was
sent a prisoner to Salisbury, where Richard III. then was; and that he
was beheaded upon a new scaffold in the open market-place of Salisbury,
on the 2nd of November, 1483.—See Fabyan Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Speed,
and Stow.
It is well worthy of notice, that in the year 1838, an interesting
discovery took place at Salisbury. Under a brick floor, about eight
inches below the surface, at the Saracen’s Head Inn, in that city, during
some repairs then in progress, the remains of a man were discovered
interred there; but the skull and the bones of the right arm were not
with the rest of the skeleton. The bones had belonged to a man who
appeared to have been decapitated, and were supposed to have been those
of the Duke of Buckingham.—See the Liverpool _Courier_ of the 12th of
September, 1838, in which the above particulars appear copied from the
Salopian _Journal_. There is nothing surprising in the fact of the bones
of the arm, as well as the skull, being wanting, because formerly the
different members and quarters, as well as the heads of persons executed,
were not unfrequently severed from the bodies, and fixed up in
conspicuous places. That was done even as recently as in the time of the
wicked Judge Jeffreys, after the suppression of the Duke of Monmouth’s
rebellion. In the case of the Duke of Buckingham, it was very probable,
as he was beheaded in 1483 for high treason, in taking arms and making
war against the King, that the duke’s right arm would also be fixed up
wherever his head was placed.
{50a} Hall, Holinshed; Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 9 [10]. “The
King, lying in the Friers at Northampton, ordained a strong and mighty
field in the meadows beside the Nunry, having the river at his
back.”—Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 409.
{50b} I beg to tender my thanks to Edward Bouverie, Esq., for the
courtesy and attention which I received from him, when inspecting the
mansion, and visiting the park and grounds, in the hope of discovering
some indications of the position, occupied by one or both of the hostile
armies. I visited the field of battle on the 29th and 30th of May, 1855;
and on the 31st of May, 1856.
{51} Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. See Chap. II.
{53a} The paper on the Field of the Battle of Wakefield was read before
a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London on the 20th of January,
1853, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.
{53b} Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. See Chap. II.
{53c} Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of
Henry VI., to whom she was married in 1445. See Chap. III.
{53d} “appointing his son, the Earl of March, to follow him, with all
his power, and came to his Castle of Sandale, near Wakefield (in
Yorkshire), on Christmas Eve.”—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. Title York,
p. 161. Stow’s Annals, fo. 412. Dugdale and Stow state that the Duke of
York left London on the 2nd of December, and arrived at Sandal on
Christmas eve. If he consumed twenty-two days in his march from London
to Sandal, the delay seems very extraordinary.
{54a} According to Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. iii. p. 161, Edward, the
young Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret, accompanied
her.
{54b} Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter and Earl of Huntingdon, the son of
John Holland, Duke of Exeter, by his first wife, Anne, daughter of Edmund
Earl of Stafford, was one of the principal leaders of the Lancastrian
party; he fought at the battle of Wakefield, and at that of Towton; and
after the disastrous result of the latter, fled with Henry VI., Queen
Margaret, the Duke of Somerset, and others, to Scotland; was attainted in
the first year of Edward IV., and his lands and possessions were
forfeited. He afterwards again appeared in turbulent scenes in England,
fought at the battle of Barnet, was wounded and left for dead, from seven
in the morning, until four in the afternoon, when he was brought to the
house of one of his servants named Ruthland, where he was attended by a
surgeon; he was conveyed to sanctuary at Westminster; and afterwards went
abroad, where he lived in such poverty and distress, as to be obliged at
one time to beg his bread; and in 1473, his corpse was found stripped
naked on the seashore, near Dover. It is shocking to think that he
fought at the battle of Wakefield against his wife’s father, and at those
of Towton and Barnet against her brother; besides fighting against some
of his own near relations on several occasions. He married Anne,
daughter of Richard Duke of York, and sister of Edward IV., but had no
issue; she was divorced from him, and she afterwards married Sir Thomas
St. Ledger, and was the ancestress of the House of Manners, Dukes of
Rutland.
{54c} Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was the son of Edmund Beaufort
(grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), who, after the death of
his eldest brother, John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, without issue
male, was created first Marquis of Dorset, and in the twenty-fifth year
of Henry VI. was made Duke of Somerset, and was slain at the first battle
of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd of May, {54d} 1455, fighting on the part of
Henry VI., and had issue by his wife Eleanor, daughter of Richard
Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, four sons and several daughters. The eldest
son, Henry was, after his father’s death, Duke of Somerset, Marquis of
Dorset, and Lord of Chirk and Chirkland, in the marches of Wales. He was
one of the Lancastrian commanders at the battle of Wakefield, and, as
there is every reason to believe, also at the second battle of St.
Alban’s, although that circumstance is not distinctly mentioned by
historians. He was also a principal commander and fought at the battle
of Towton; and after the defeat there, escaped into Scotland, and was
afterwards pardoned by Edward IV.; but having revolted from Edward to the
Lancastrians, and having, with the Lords Roos, Molyns, and Hungerford,
Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and Sir Richard Tunstal, fought
at the battle of Hexham, he was taken prisoner by John Marquis Montague,
and was beheaded in 1463. Edmund, the second son, was also Duke of
Somerset after his brother, and was beheaded after the battle of
Tewkesbury, in 1471; John, the third son was slain in that battle; and
Thomas, the fourth son, died without issue. The family was noted for its
strong attachment and exertions in the cause of the House of Lancaster.
{54d} The 22nd of May, according to Dugdale, vol. i. pp. 166 and 342;
and Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May, according to Hall, Holinshed,
and Grafton.
{55} Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, a strong supporter of the
House of Lancaster, fought at the battle of Wakefield. He afterwards
fought at the battle of Towton, on the 29th of March, 1461, was taken
prisoner, and beheaded at York. Some degree of confusion seems to exist,
respecting the Earl of Devonshire who fought at Wakefield and at Towton,
and the Earl of Devonshire who afterwards fought at Tewkesbury. The old
historians state, that the former, being taken prisoner, was beheaded
after the battle of Towton; and that seems to be in no small degree
confirmed by the act of attainder against him and the other Lancastrian
leaders, of the 1st of Edward IV., in which he is called “Thomas
Courtenay, late Earl of Devonshire;” the word “late” being also used with
reference to other noblemen, and persons who were dead, and were
attainted for having been engaged in that battle. In the _Catalogue of
Nobility_, by Ralph Brooke, p. 61, it is stated that Thomas Courtenay,
Earl of Devonshire, son of Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, being at
the battle of Towton, “was taken prisoner, and beheaded at York;” that he
married Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset and Marquis
of Dorset, by whom he had issue three sons and two daughters; that
“Thomas, the eldest sonne, being at the battle of Towton with King Henry
VI. against King Edward IV., was there taken prisoner, and his head
smitten off;” that Henry, the second son, was also beheaded at Salisbury,
in the 8th of Edward IV.; and that John, the third son, was slain at the
battle of Tewkesbury. It seems probable, that that account is correct;
and it is rather corroborated by the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV.,
in which “Thomas Courteney, late Earl of Devonshire,” and also “Sir John
Courtney,” were attainted for having been engaged at the battle of
Towton.
But the account given by Sandford in his _Genealogical History_, page
313, differs in some respects from it. He states that Thomas Courtenay,
seventh Earl of Devon, married Margaret, second daughter of John Earl of
Somerset, and, siding with King Henry VI. against the Yorkists, was by
King Edward IV. taken prisoner at the battle of Towton, and beheaded at
York, the 3rd of April (_an._ 1 Edward IV.), in the year 1461; and that
their children were, Thomas Earl of Devon, made prisoner at the same
battle, and being attainted in a Parliament at Westminster, the 4th of
November, _an._ 1 Edward IV., soon after lost his head; that Henry
Courtenay, the second son, had his head cut off in the same quarrel at
Salisbury; and that John Courtenay, the third son, fell in the battle of
Tewkesbury. Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 641, however, states,
that Thomas Earl of Devonshire was, for being at the battle of Towton
with his father, attainted by the act of 1st Edward IV., but did not
suffer death, as it seems, for it appears that he was slain at the battle
of Tewkesbury, fighting on behalf of Henry VI., and there buried.
Leland, in his _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 93 [p. 82], also states that
Thomas Earl of Devonshire was slain at Tewkesbury, and buried there. It
is stated in Banks’ _Dormant and Extinct Baronage_, vol. iii, p. 249,
that Thomas Earl of Devon, a firm Lancastrian, died just before the
accession of Edward IV. to the throne, and had by his wife Margaret,
daughter of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, five daughters and three
sons: Thomas, his successor; Henry, beheaded for his attachment to the
House of Lancaster; and John, slain on the same side, at the battle of
Tewkesbury. Is it not probable, that the personage who fought at
Tewkesbury, called the Earl of Devonshire, was only the nominal earl of
that title, and that he was the same person who, as Sir John Courteney,
fought at Towton, and was attainted in the 1st of Edward IV., and who was
afterwards called by the Lancastrians, the Earl of Devonshire?
{56a} James Boteler or Butler, the son and heir of James, fourth Earl of
Ormond, was created Earl of Wiltshire in the 27th of Henry VI. In the
30th of Henry VI., by the death of his father, he also became Earl of
Ormond. He was a staunch Lancastrian, and fought for that party at the
first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; also at the battle of Wakefield,
and again at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross. He appears also to have
been at the battle of Towton. (See Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. iii. p.
235.) After that battle he was captured by the Yorkists, and was
beheaded upon the 1st of May, 1461, at Newcastle. It is very remarkable,
that although historians state that he fought on the Lancastrian side at
the battle of Wakefield, and although he was attainted by the act 1st
Edward IV. (1461), his name is not included amongst those of the noblemen
and others, who were attainted for taking a part in the battle of
Wakefield. His attainder was, ostensibly at least, for a different
offence; viz., for inducing the enemies of the King to enter the realm,
and make war against him. {56d} The fact of the Earl of Wiltshire having
fought at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross, is mentioned not only by the
old historians, but also in _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. vol. v. p. 462; but
that is not alleged in the act, as the reason for his attainder. It does
not seem easy to understand how he could be engaged at the battle of
Wakefield, and be so soon afterwards at the head of forces fighting at
Mortimer’s Cross. See, however, Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 235;
Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 412; and Speed’s _History_, fo. 847.
{56b} John Lord Clifford (son of Thomas Clifford, Lord Clifford, by Joan
his wife, daughter of Thomas Lord Dacre of Gillesland, who took part with
Henry VI., and was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd
{56e} of May, 1455) fought at the battle of Wakefield for the Lancastrian
party, and was slain at the engagement at Dintingdale (between
Ferrybridge and Towton, and near the latter place), on the 28th of March,
1461, being the day before the battle of Towton. He left by Margaret his
wife, daughter and heiress of Henry Bromflete Lord Vesci, Henry his son
and heir, who, when a little child, was placed with a shepherd in the
north of England, and brought up as a poor boy, in careful concealment,
for fear of the enemies of his family, and could not read or write; he
remained in obscurity, until the first year of Henry VII., when he was
restored to his rank and possessions.
{56c} Thomas Lord Roos, or Ros, or Ross (it has been occasionally spelt
each way), of Hamlake, son of Thomas Lord Roos, by his wife Eleanor,
daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, was a supporter of the
House of Lancaster; and was at the battle of Wakefield, and was also with
Henry VI. at York, when tidings came of the complete defeat of the
Lancastrians at the battle of Towton; and then escaped with him into
Scotland. He returned again into England, and died at Newcastle in the
first year of King Edward IV. He was attainted in the first year of that
King’s reign, and his possessions of Belvoir Castle, &c., were bestowed
upon Lord Hastings; who, on first going to view the latter, was repelled
by a gentleman named Harrington, a person of some power in those parts, a
friend of Lord Roos; but Lord Hastings went there again with some forces,
and greatly injured the castle and roofs, and took away the lead to his
house at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, which he was building at considerable cost;
and Belvoir Castle remained in a state of ruin, and uninhabitable, until
the Earl of Rutland [in Henry VIII.’s time] repaired it. (See Leland’s
_Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 114 [107].) Thomas Lord Roos married Philippa,
daughter of John Lord Tiptoft and Powis, and Joyce his wife (daughter of
Edward Charlton, Lord Powis, and sister of John Earl of Worcester), by
whom he had several children: the eldest son, Edmund, from his fidelity
to the House of Lancaster, was constrained to flee beyond the sea. It
seems that Edmund afterwards got privately into England, and joined the
Duke of Somerset, Sir Ralph Percy, and others, in the insurrection in the
North, in the fourth year of Edward IV. Little more seems to be known of
him, except that he was not within the realm in the first year of Henry
VII., when he petitioned for, and obtained, an act of Parliament for the
reversal of the attainder, and he died at Enfield in the year 1508.
{56d} 1 _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 478.
{56e} Called the 23rd of May by some writers.
{57} Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland. See Chap. VI.
{58a} See Speed, Stow, Grafton; Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. iii. p. 236,
Title “Bonvile”; Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, pp. 297, 372.
Fabyan, however, states it to have been on the 30th of December; and it
is so stated twice in _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. vol. v. pp. 466, 477.
{58b} Sandford, pp. 297, 373; Baker’s _Chronicles_. The battle is
stated by Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, and Stow, to have taken place upon
the plain field or ground between the castle and the town of Wakefield;
which corresponds with the place where Wakefield Green was, before it was
enclosed.
{58c} William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, married Katharine, fifth
daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury; was the son of William
Bonvile, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heir of William Lord
Harrington, and was the grandson of William Lord Bonvile, who survived
his son and grandson, but was put to death after the second battle of St.
Alban’s, in 1460–1. William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, left by Katharine
his wife, a daughter, Cecily, who became the wife of Thomas Grey, Marquis
of Dorset, and afterwards of Henry Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire.
{58d} Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. (See Chap. II.) In the
second year of Edward IV., the Earl of Salisbury’s body, with that of
Alice his wife, and that of Thomas his son, were interred at Bisham
Abbey, in Berkshire.
{59a} Shakespeare’s _Third Part of Henry VI._ act. 1, scene 4 (Sandal
Castle, near Wakefield).
{59b} See Chap. VI.
{60a} See Chap. VI.
{60b} See Chap. VI.
{60c} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 447. See
Appendix No. 1.
{61a} That was my impression on the occasion of my first visit to
Sandal, and I so communicated it in my paper on the Battle of Wakefield,
read before the Society of Antiquaries; but after a second and third
visit to Sandal, and to the field of battle, I altered my opinion, and I
now consider it certain, that the Lancastrians advanced on the westward
side of the Calder, and that Wakefield and the bridge were in their
possession at the time of the battle.
{61b} On the 29th of July, 1853, I paid a second visit, and on the 4th
of August, 1854, a third visit, to Sandal, and to the field of the battle
of Wakefield.
{62} Leland, in his quaint language, gives a tolerably accurate account
of the place where the battle was fought, when he says:—“There was a sore
Batell faught in the South Feeldes by this Bridge, and yn the flite of
the Duke of Yorkes parte, other the Duke hymself or his Sone the erle of
Rutheland was slayne a litle above the Barres beyond the Bridge going up
into the Toune of Wakefeld that standith ful fairely upon a clyving
ground. At this place is set up a crosee, ‘in rei memoriam,’”—Leland’s
_Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 34 [40].
{63} See Chapters I. and VI.
{64a} Additions to Camden’s _Britannia_, Gough’s edition of 1789, vol.
iii. fo. 39. Leland says, “at this place is set up a crosse, ‘in rei
memoriam’”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 45 [42]; but whether he
means in memory of the Duke of York, or of the young Earl of Rutland, or
of the battle, seems to admit of doubt.
{64b} _Quære_?—The lane is occasionally called “Cock and Bottle Lane,”
from the sign of an old public-house which stands, or very recently stood
in the neighbourhood?
{64c} His body was ultimately interred at Fotheringay. Dugdale’s
_Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 161. Ralph Brooke seems to intend to make a
similar statement in his _Catalogue of Nobility_, fo. 267; and see
Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 373. It was first interred at
Pontefract, and afterwards at Fotheringay; and it seems extraordinary
that the Lancastrians, who practised such an indignity to his memory, as
fixing his head upon the gate of York, should take the trouble of
carrying his headless corpse to Pontefract for interment; but we learn
from more than one historical source, that the corpse was first buried at
Pontefract, and afterwards removed, and interred at Fotheringay. After
the battle of Towton, Edward IV. had the Duke of York’s head taken down
from York gate, and interred with the body. Leland adverts to the
removal of the duke’s body from Pontefract to Fotheringay by Edward IV.,
as follows:—
“causid the body of his father Duke of York to be brought from
Pontefract thither” [Fotheringay], “and to be layid on the north side
of the Highe Altare, where is also buried, King Edward IV.’s mother,
in a vaulte, over the which is a pratie chappelle.” {65b} The body
of the young Earl of Rutland was also first interred at Pontefract,
and afterwards at Fotheringay.—Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, pp.
374 and 375. _Catalogue of the Nobility_, &c., by Ralph Brooke, p.
189.
{65a} John Harrow of London, and a Captain named Hanson, were taken
prisoners at the battle, and were beheaded with the Earl of Salisbury, at
Pontefract, and their heads were set upon the gates of York.—See Fabyan’s
_Chronicles_, fo. 210.
{65b} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 6.
{67a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross was
read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the
18th of January, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to
the author.
{67b} Edward was Earl of March and Ulster, and Lord of Wigmore and
Clare, and afterwards King Edward IV.; and, although not usually called
Duke of York by historians, there does not seem to be any reason why he
was not so called, between the time of his father’s death, and his
accession to the throne of England. Edward was the eldest son of Richard
Plantagenet, Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, and was born at Rouen, in
Normandy, on the 29th of April, 1441. His claim to the throne of England
was founded upon his being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third
son of King Edward III. (See Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, in Chap. IX.) His
reign commenced on the 4th of March, 1461 (see _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV.
vol. v. fo. 464 and Fabyan, fo. 218); he was crowned at Westminster on
the 29th of June, 1461, and died on the 9th of April, 1483, in the
forty-second year of his age, and the twenty-second of his reign.
{69a} James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire. See Chap. IV.
{69b} The following it a copy of a paper upon the extraordinary and
abrupt changes of fortune of Jasper Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of
Bedford, in the fifteenth century, written by the author of this work,
and read by him in person, on the 31st of March, 1856, before a meeting
of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, for which the
thanks of the meeting were voted to him:—
“Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield,
from the place of his birth, was a nobleman celebrated for his
descent, and for the royal and illustrious alliances of his family.
He was one of the noble personages who lived and distinguished
himself in the fifteenth century: a period memorable in the history
of England, for foreign and domestic wars, and civil dissensions, and
for the strange mutations of fortune, which its princes and nobles
were doomed to experience; and perhaps we may search the pages of
history, in fruitless endeavours to discover an instance of any
nobleman, who experienced such abrupt and extraordinary vicissitudes,
and such sudden and astonishing transitions, on several occasions,
from power and wealth, to exile and poverty, and again from the
miseries of a poor outlaw and fugitive, to rank, possessions, and
honours, as fell to the lot of Jasper Earl of Pembroke.
“It matters now little to us, whether in the wars of York and
Lancaster, and the violence and exasperation of the contending
factions, the one party or the other was in the right; but under
every possible circumstance, whether the cause which he espoused was
successful or unfortunate, he uniformly supported the Lancastrian
interest; and when we consider how many personages of high rank
fought during those lamentable conflicts, sometimes on one side and
sometimes on the other, and joined the winning party, as seemed best
to suit their own interests, we must at least give him credit for
consistency, and perhaps for sincerity. One reason of some moment,
may, however, be found for his strenuous and consistent support of
the Lancastrian party. He was half-brother of King Henry VI., being
the son of Sir Owen Tudor, who was descended from persons of the
first consideration, and of a family of great antiquity in Wales, by
his wife Queen Katherine, daughter of Charles VI. King of France, and
widow of Henry V. King of England, and had by Queen Katherine, two
sons, the oldest of whom was Edmund Earl of Richmond, usually
denominated Edmund of Hadham, who married Margaret, daughter of John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, son of John Earl of Somerset, a son of
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward III., by whom
he had a son, Henry Earl of Richmond, who was afterwards King Henry
VII.; and the second son of Sir Owen Tudor was Jasper Tutor, who was,
in consequence of his father’s marriage with Queen Katherine, uncle
of King Henry VII. King Henry VI. created Jasper Tudor, Earl of
Pembroke; and in consequence of his recovering the castle of Denbigh,
and other strongholds in Wales, out of the hands of the adversaries
of Henry, he obtained a grant of 1000 marks, payable out of the
lordships of Denbigh and Radnor.
“The Earl of Pembroke appeared in 1460–1, in arms, with James Butler,
Earl of Wiltshire, and a considerable army, as supporters of Henry
VI.; and on the 2nd of February, in that year, fought at the battle
of Mortimer’s Cross, against the Yorkists, under the command of
Edward Earl of March, afterwards King Edward IV.; but the Lancastrian
army was completely defeated, and the two earls were compelled to
escape by flight. It may be fairly presumed, that he was not present
at the battle of Towton in 1461, as he was not included in the list
of those persons who were attainted by the act of Parliament of 1st
Edward IV. (1461), _Rot. Parl._ vol. v. fo. 477, for taking a part in
that battle; yet he seems nevertheless to have been exerting himself
in arms for Henry VI. about that time, because in a subsequent part
of the same act of Parliament, he was attainted for having with
others, as alleged, at different times since the 4th of March in that
year, incited the enemies of King Edward IV. to enter the realm and
to commence hostilities against him; and also for having made war
against the King ‘at a place called Tutehill, besid’ the Toune of
Carnarvan, in Wales, on Friday next after the Fest of Translacion of
Seint Edward last past, rered werre ayenst the same our Soverayne
Lord, purposying then and there to have proceeded to his destruction,
of fals and cruell violence ayenst their feith and Liegeaunce.’ From
that passage it can scarcely be doubted, that an engagement between
some forces of the hostile factions, took place near Carnarvon, in
1461, but I am not aware that any historian has handed down to us,
any account of it, or even noticed it: an additional proof, if any
were wanting, that much more bloodshed and misery were experienced in
this country, during the Wars of the Roses, than our old annalists
and chroniclers have recorded. The Earl of Pembroke lost his rank,
his possessions, and, in a word, his all, by the attainder, for all
that he had was confiscated. His earldom was conferred upon William
Herbert of Ragland; and Jasper Tudor became an outlaw and a fugitive,
and, as is very forcibly expressed by Baker, in his _Chronicles_,
‘The Earl of Pembroke went from country to country, little better
than a vagabond.’
“Again the scene suddenly changed. In 1470, William Herbert, the
rival Earl of Pembroke, was captured by the Lancastrians at the
battle of Edgecott, in Northamptonshire (usually called the battle of
Banbury, from its contiguity to that town), and was beheaded. Jasper
Tudor, who still claimed the title of Earl of Pembroke, landed in the
west with George Duke of Clarence (who then sided with the Earl of
Warwick in the Lancastrian interest), and King Edward was driven from
his throne and kingdom by the Earl of Warwick. Jasper Tudor was
shortly afterwards restored to his rank and title, and a second time
became Earl of Pembroke, resumed his possessions in Wales; and
finding his nephew, Henry Earl of Richmond, then scarcely ten years
of age, in the care of the widow of his deceased rival, William
Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, he removed him from her superintendence,
took him and presented him to Henry VI., who, on seeing him, is said
(with what truth may well be doubted) to have made a speech almost
prophetic of Richmond’s future fortunes.
“Another sudden and startling change occurred in this strange and
wonderful drama. Edward IV. returned to England in 1471, and
obtained a decisive victory over the Earl of Warwick, at Barnet.
Queen Margaret landed at Weymouth; the Lancastrians once more took up
arms, and Pembroke proceeded to raise forces in Pembrokeshire, with
the intention of succouring her. The disastrous battle of
Tewkesbury, and the consequent utter ruin of the Lancastrian party,
compelled him to retire to Chepstow, and to disband his forces. He
then had a very narrow escape with his life. Edward IV. sent Roger
Vaughan, a valiant person, to surprise Pembroke there; but he
captured Vaughan, beheaded him, and proceeded from thence to the town
of Pembroke. Still he was in imminent danger. Morgan ap Thomas
pursued him, and commenced the siege of that town; but David ap
Thomas, who was the brother of Morgan ap Thomas, although of the
opposite party, came to his assistance, and succeeded in raising the
siege, and Pembroke got from thence in eight days, and sailed with
his nephew, the young Earl of Richmond, from Tenby, intending to
proceed to France. His ill fortune still prevailed: the winds drove
them upon the coast of Brittany; they were forced to put into a port
of that country, and could not be well excused from paying their
respects to the Duke of Brittany; but when they would have taken
their departure, they were given to understand, that they were not at
liberty to proceed. The Duke of Brittany considering, that these two
noblemen might be of some advantage to him, assigned to them the town
of Vannes for their residence. They were outwardly treated with all
respect due to their birth and rank, but were narrowly watched.
Pembroke’s exile was a protracted one, and he remained abroad, an
outlaw, a fugitive, and in poverty, during several years, most of
which he passed in Brittany, but a short time was spent in France,
just before his return to England as after mentioned. His earldom
was conferred by Edward IV. upon his son, Prince Edward, and was
afterwards held by Richard III. At length, in consequence of the
death of Edward, the odium and unpopularity in which Richard was held
by many, and the English nation being at last weary of civil war,
violence, and bloodshed, the prospect was opened, of his return to
England, and of the accession to the throne of his nephew, Henry Earl
of Richmond.
“In October, 1483, an attempt was made, to effect a hostile landing
in England, by the Earl of Richmond, with some forces, which were
intended to have been supported by the rising of Henry Stafford, Duke
of Buckingham, and others. That expedition was an utter and
disastrous failure. Richmond’s fleet was dispersed by a storm; and
although the ship in which he sailed appeared off Poole, in
Dorsetshire, he found it dangerous, as well as useless, to attempt to
land, and was compelled to return to Brittany. The insurrection was
suppressed, the duke was executed, and Jasper Tudor, with the
bitterness of disappointed hopes, was doomed for some time longer, to
remain in banishment. The old historians do not expressly mention
his having been with Richmond, in that expedition; but it seems quite
impossible, to doubt the fact, of his having accompanied him.
“Once more the scene changed in this most strange and eventful drama.
In 1485, the Earl of Richmond, with Jasper Tudor and some few troops
from France, landed at Milford, in South Wales, and having been
joined by their friends and supporters, the battle of Bosworth (at
which the latter had a principal command) placed Richmond on the
throne of England, by the title of Henry VII.
“By that event Jasper Tudor found himself for the third time, Earl of
Pembroke. He was restored to his honours and possessions, created
Duke of Bedford, made one of the Privy Council, and one of the
Commissioners for executing the office of High Steward of England, on
the occasion of the ceremony of the coronation of Henry; also Justice
of South Wales, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and had besides
considerable and valuable possessions, lands, and offices, conferred
upon him.
“In 1487, he was joint general, with John De Vere, Earl of Oxford, at
the battle of Stoke, where the Earl of Lincoln was defeated. He was
afterwards again appointed joint general with the Earl of Oxford, of
the army sent into Flanders, in aid of the Emperor Maximilian,
against the French. He married Katharine, sixth daughter of Richard
Widevile or Wodevile, Earl of Rivers, sister of Elizabeth, Queen of
Edward IV., and widow of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was
executed, as before mentioned, in 1483.
“He continued to enjoy his titles, ranks, and great possessions,
until his death, which took place on the 21st of December, 1495. He
did not leave any issue, and was interred in the Abbey of Keynsham.
Is it possible to find, in the whole history of the English peerage,
a nobleman who experienced more strange and astonishing vicissitudes
of fortune? Well may it be said that truth is stranger than
fiction!”
{72a} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 462.
{72b} The year, according to the present style, was 1461; but at that
time the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March following;
and until that day arrived, the then year would be called 1460.
{72c} I have three times visited the field of battle of Mortimer’s
Cross: viz., in May 1854, May 1855, and May 1856.
{73a} On the occasion of my last visit to the field of battle, on the
24th of May, 1856, I witnessed there a rare and very beautiful natural
phenomenon; a species of rainbow, of remarkable grandeur, appeared, not
as an arch in the sky, as is usual, but forming a splendid and broad
border to the horizon, and encircling and appearing to rest with its
under edge upon the earth, towards the north, and to touch with its upper
edge a canopy of clouds, the darkness of which formed a striking
contrast, which set off its brilliant prismatic colours to great
advantage. Its beauty and singularity strikingly brought to my mind, the
remarkable phenomenon, seen by Edward, on the same spot, so many years
before.
{73b} Many years afterwards, at the battle of Barnet, Edward’s device
was accidentally of great service, because in the mist, the star with
rays, the device of the Earl of Oxford, who was fighting on the side of
Lancaster, was mistaken for that of Edward, the sun in splendour; and the
Lancastrian archers, deceived by the resemblance, shot at the followers
of the Earl of Oxford, and the mistake contributed considerably to the
loss of the battle by the Lancastrians.
{73c} Hall says, “he fiercely set on his enemies, and them shortly
discomfited.”
{73d} He is called Sir Owen Tudor by Hall, Holinshed, Speed, and
Grafton, in their respective accounts of the battle, and he is also so
called by Sandford in his _Genealogical History_, p. 297, and Sir Owen ap
Merydeth ap Tudor, _ibid._ p. 242, which are certainly high authorities
for believing that he was a knight; but Sandford elsewhere calls him
“Owen Tudor” only, _ibid._ p. 283, 284. Yet Baker, in the part of his
_Chronicles_ in which the marriage of Owen Tudor with Katherine, widow of
King Henry V., is mentioned, calls him “Owen Tudor an Esquire of Wales.”
He is also called “a Squyer of Wales” in Leland’s _Collectanea_, vol. ii.
fo. 492 [708]. Ralph Brooke, in his _Catalogue of the Nobility_, &c.,
says that Katherine married “a noble Gentleman named Owen Theoder of
Wales.” Fabyan, fo. 627, calls him a knyght of Wales.
{73e} “Owen Meredith, _alias_ Tudor, buried in the Grey Freyers in navi
Ecclesiæ, in sacello sine ulla sepulchri memoria.—Leland’s _Itinerary_,
vol. iv. fo. 175 _a_ [83].
“Owen Meridik, corruptly cawlled Owen Thider, Father to Edmund Erle of
Richemount, and Graund Fathar to Kynge Henry the Seventhe, buried in the
Grey Freres, in the Northe Syde of the Body of the Churche in a
Chapell.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. viii. fo. 76 _b_ [35].
{74a} The authorities for the historical parts of the paper, are
Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, Baker, Leland, Ralph Brooke, Dugdale, and
Sandford. It is remarkable, that Fabyan does not give an account of the
battle of Mortimer’s Cross.
{74b} This spot is sometimes called West Field.
{75a} It seems to be very clear that the taking of that route was to
enable them to ravage the Earl of March’s possessions there.
{76a} Politely communicated by the Rev. R. D. Evans, rector of
Kingsland, who stated that the discovery of them took place when he was a
boy. I visited in 1855 a large mount in front of the rectory-house, in
which, as he informed me, he had found (but not of late years) pieces of
iron. Leland states, “There was a Castle at Kingesland a 2 miles West
North West from Leominster, the ditches whereof and part of the Keepe be
yet seene by the West part of Kingsland Church. Constant Fame sayth that
King Merewald sometimes laye at this place since of later tymes it longid
to the E. of Marche, now to the King.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. iv.
part 2, fo. 178 _a_ [90]. Kingsland Church well merits inspection, as it
contains several objects of interest to an antiquary. It is said to have
been erected by one of the Mortimers in the reign of Edward I.—See an
account of it in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ of 1826, vol. xcvi. part 2,
pp. 393, 583.
{76b} There is in the Museum at Hereford, an ancient spur, found in the
neighbourhood of Mortimer’s Cross, but not upon the field of battle, of
the description called the prick spur, of steel, plated with silver,
presented to the Museum in 1839, and which I saw in the Museum in May
1855.
{77} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. viii. fo. 32.
{78a} Blackstone’s _Commentaries_, 3rd edition (by Stephen), vol. ii. p.
584.
{78b} Burn’s _Law Dictionary_, vol. ii. p. 108. The same observations
equally apply to the Lords Marchers on the boundaries between England and
Scotland.
{79a} Carte’s _England_, vol. iii. p. 135. There was also a seal of the
Marches, which was abrogated by the act 4th Henry VII., which enacted
that all grants and writings of lands or things pertaining to the earldom
of March, should be under the Broad Seal, and not under a special seal.
{79b} Statute 27th Henry VIII. c. 27. But, notwithstanding the
abolition of the local jurisdiction and of the almost lawless powers of
the Lords Marchers, by the effect of the act 27th Henry VIII. c. 27, the
Court of the Lord President and Council of the Marches of Wales, was
still kept up. It was a court of extensive jurisdiction, which was
erected by King Edward IV., in honour of the Earls of March, from whom he
was descended; and he appointed it to be held at Ludlow; and in the
thirty-third year of Henry VIII., the court was confirmed by act of
Parliament, which enacted, “that there shall be and remain a President
and Council, in the dominion of Wales, and marches of the same.” The
first President is said to have been Anthony Widevile, Earl Rivers, in
the 18th of Edward IV.; and the last was the Earl of Macclesfield, in
1689: the court having been abolished by act of Parliament of 1st William
and Mary.
{80a} Some parts of the inscription seem open to objection. From what
has been already mentioned in a former note, it may easily be conjectured
why the year is stated to be 1460, instead of 1461, as a modern
historical writer would have designated it; but it does not appear easy
to assign a reason, why the name “Mortimer” is inscribed instead of
“Plantagenet.”
{80b} The inscription is not altogether accurate, in stating that the
battle of Mortimer’s Cross fixed Edward IV. on the throne of England. He
certainly was proclaimed King by his partisans, in London, soon after
that battle, but he was indebted to the subsequent battle of Towton, for
his being really placed upon the throne. The statute 1st Edward IV.,
passed in 1461, declares the 4th of March to be the date when Edward IV.
commenced his reign; “the fourth day of the moneth of Marche last past
toke upon hym to use his right and title to the seid Reame of Englond and
Lordship and entred into the exercise of the Roiall estate, dignite,
preemynence and power of the same coroune, and to the Reigne and
governaunce of the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship; and the same
fourth day of March amoeved Henry late called King Henry the Sixt son to
Henry, son to the seid Henry late Erle of Derby, son to the seid John of
Gaunt, from the occupation, usurpation, intrusion, reigne, and
governaunce of the same Reame of Englond and Lordship.” _Rot. Parl._ 1
Edward IV. 1461, vol. v. fo. 464. See also Fabyan, fo. 218.
{81a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Towton was read before
meetings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 11th and 18th of
January, 1849, and the thanks of the meetings were voted for it to the
author. Several additions have, however, been made in it, and some
material alterations and corrections have been introduced, in consequence
of further information acquired by the author, during his subsequent
visits to the field of battle.
{81b} I visited the field of battle on the 28th of July and 7th of
August, 1848, and again in the years 1849, 1850, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855,
and 1856. In one of those visits (on the 2nd of August, 1853) I walked
with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, entirely across the field of battle,
commencing on the ground occupied by the left wing of the Lancastrians,
along the whole line, to the spot occupied by their right wing; and we
descended from thence through the meadows to the river Cock. Any
antiquary inclined to pursue the same walk, should leave the Ferrybridge
road, between Dintingdale and Towton, and enter the fields at the spot,
where he may observe one of them of very large size, nearly opposite a
white farmhouse standing on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road.
He may easily procure a countryman, for a small gratuity, to act as guide
to him, if he has doubts about getting well over one or two fences,
which, however, really do not present much difficulty. The Lancastrians
evidently had selected the highest ground, commanding an extensive
prospect, with the depression or valley after mentioned, in front of a
considerable portion of their line. It was clearly the strongest
position near Towton.
{82a} Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of
Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1455.—See Chap.
III.
{82b} Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker. (See
Chap. II.) John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was also one of the commanders
on the side of the Yorkists, at the second battle of St. Alban’s.
{82c} The second battle of St. Alban’s was fought on Shrove Tuesday, the
17th of February, 1460–1.
{82d} The claims of King Henry VI. to the throne of England were
grounded upon his descent from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward
III., by Blanche his wife. (See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.) Henry was
the eldest son of King Henry V. and Queen Katherine, born at Windsor in
1421; succeeded to the crown, when an infant, upon his father’s death, on
the 31st of August, 1422; was crowned at Westminster, on the 6th of
November, 1429: and also at Notre Dame at Paris, on the 17th of November,
1431; was deposed on the 4th of March, 1461 (see _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward
IV. vol. v. fo. 464), and was reinstated upon the throne for a short
period in 1470 and 1471; but with the battles of Barnet, fought on the
14th of April, and of Tewkesbury on the 4th of May, 1471, all further
chance of his reigning was extinguished, and he died in the Tower of
London soon after the latter battle.
{83a} William Lord Bonvile was the father of William Bonvile, who
married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Lord Harrington, by whom
he had a son, William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, who was slain at the
battle of Wakefield in 1460.—See Chap. IV.
{83b} Sir Thomas Kiriel was a commander of note and bravery in the wars
in France. See Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 78, and vol. iii. fos. 26, 27.
{83c} Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March (though usually designated by
that title by historians, became in fact, Duke of York, upon his father’s
death), was the eldest son of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife.
He was afterwards King Edward IV., and died on the 9th of April,
1483.—See Chap. V., and Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, Chap. IX.
{83d} Thomas Bourchier was originally Bishop of Ely, and afterwards
became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1454, and retained that see until he
died very aged in 1486, having held it 32 years, and in the reigns of
five kings. He was also Lord Chancellor and a Cardinal.—See Chap. III.
{83e} George Neville, fourth son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury,
was Bishop of Exeter and Lord Chancellor in 1460, and afterwards (in
1466) Archbishop of York.—See Chap. III.
{84a} John Mowbray, third Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Nottingham, and Earl
Marshal of England, the son of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and
Katherine his wife, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of
Westmoreland, married Eleanor, daughter of William Lord Bourchier, and
sister of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex. He fought for the Yorkist
party at the second battle of St. Alban’s in 1460–1, and died in the
first year of Edward IV., 1461, and was buried in the Abbey of Thetford.
His son, John Mowbray, Earl of Surrey, succeeded him as Duke of Norfolk.
{84b} William Neville, Lord Falconberg, was the second son of Ralph
Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, a daughter
of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; he had served in France, and fought
at the battles of Northampton and Towton, and was created Earl of Kent in
the first year of Edward IV., and afterwards made High Admiral of
England, and a Knight of the Garter, for the important services which he
had rendered to the House of York. He died about the second year of
Edward IV., and was buried at the Priory of Gisborough, in Yorkshire.
His being uncle to Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker, may
account for his fighting on the side of Edward IV., and having a
principal command at the battles of Northampton and of Towton.—See Chap.
III.
{84c} According to the present style, the year was 1461; but at that
time, the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March, and
consequently, until that day arrived, the year was then called 1460.
{85a} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. p. 464. See also
Fabyan’s _Chronicles_, fo. 218.
{85b} Edward Prince of Wales, the only child of Henry VI. and Queen
Margaret, was born on the 13th of October, 1453; created Prince of Wales
and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty second year of
Henry VI.; and was murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of
May, 1471.—See Chaps. III. and VII.; and Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.
{86a} See observations in a note _infra_ in this chapter, respecting
Lord Fitzwalter.
{86b} John Lord Clifford was the son of Thomas Lord Clifford, who was
slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chap. IV.
{86c} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.
{87a} “This feeld was as much fought in Saxton Paroch, as in Towton, yet
it berith the name of Towton.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 47.
{87b} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 478. Appendix No.
1.
{87c} In order to avoid a repetition of references, the authorities
referred to in this paper for the historical facts, are Hall, Holinshed,
Leland, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, John Habington, _Hist. Croy. Cont._,
Francis Biondi, Fabyan, Grafton, Baker, and _Rotuli Parl._
{88a} Upon this eminence, close to the village, is a small wood called
Benshar Wood.
{88b} I could not learn anything respecting the comparative antiquity of
the bridge, but I consider it very improbable that there was any bridge
over the Cock in 1461.
{89} I visited the bridge and the river Cock at Stutton, in 1849. I
consider it very probable that a portion of the Lancastrians, in
retreating, passed the Cock at that place either by a bridge or ford.
There is also a small bridge called Kettleman’s Bridge, near Tadcaster,
at the confluence of the rivers Cock and Wharf. It is not very long
since an attempt was made, to show that it was a Roman bridge. I
examined it carefully in August 1853, and, so far from considering it
Roman, I do not even believe it to be a very old one. Similar bridges
are not uncommon in some parts of Yorkshire. There is one which I have
often seen, over the brook called Hock Beck, on the right side of and
very near the road leading from Harrogate to Fewstone, which, though
considerably narrower, resembles it very much. There was also another,
very recently, which is now destroyed, over the same brook, at a place
called Knox Mill, near Harrogate, on the right side of the road leading
from Harrogate to Killingwell and Ripley; and I am informed that there is
now another of the same kind at Fewstone.
{90a} John Lord Clifford, son of Thomas Lord Clifford, slain at the
first battle of St. Alban’s in 1455. John Lord Clifford fought at the
battle of Wakefield.—See Chap. IV.
{90b} Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, and J. Habington.
{90c} Shakespeare’s _Third Part of Henry VI._, act ii. scene 6.
{91} Before arriving at the depression, and close to it, on the right or
eastward side of the road, some small quantities of stone, have been also
dug in another place: but that quarry has never been of any large extent,
and remained a considerable time without being worked, although the
working of it on a small scale has been recently resumed.
{92a} It is scarcely possible to understand why it is stated, in a short
paper, by the Rev. George Fyler Townsend, professing to give some account
of the battle, and communicated at the meeting of the Archæological
Institute, held at York, in July 1846 (see report of the proceedings,
pages 12 to 16), that the Lancastrians were drawn up at “Dartingdale,” or
“Tartingdale,” between Towton and Saxton. I was informed, in reply to my
inquiries made in the neighbourhood, that no person living near there,
ever heard of such names. The rev. writer seems to have confused those
names with Towton Dale. He also erroneously states, that the Lords
Clifford, Northumberland, and Dacre, drew up their men, and that those
“three Lancastrian leaders all met their deaths in this battle.” It
apparently escaped his recollection, that Lord Clifford was slain on the
previous day.
{92b} Mr. Kendall, of Towton Hall, informed me that he has seen, in
clearing out the drains there, many large pieces of oak dug out, black
with age, and with lying in peaty soil.
{93} Dr. Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. p.
157.
{94a} _Modern Universal British Traveller_, published by T. Cooke, 1779,
p. 554. The articles respecting England by Charles Burlington, Esq. On
the 31st of July, 1851, on the occasion of one of my visits to Towton
Field, I was informed by the wife of a farmer named Lawn, who had
formerly occupied as tenant, part of the field of battle, that a youth
belonging to the family, had not long previously found there, and brought
to her, the finger-bones of a man.
{94b} Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_) vol. i. p.
157.
{94c} Kindly communicated by the Rev. William Jepson Newman.
{95a} Politely communicated by Colonel Grant, R.A., in 1854.
{95b} A representation of the spur is given in the _Archæologia_, vol.
ii. plate 20.
{96} Ralph Lord Dacre, slain at the battle of Towton, was the son and
heir of Thomas Lord Dacre, of the North, (according to Dugdale’s
_Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 23; vol. iii. p. 244; there was another family
called Lord Dacre, of the South, of the name of Fynes or Fienes), and
succeeded his father in the title, in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VI.
After the battle of Towton, Ralph Lord Dacre was attainted by the act of
attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., and all his possessions were
forfeited to the crown; viz., “the mannor of Barton, and moiety of the
mannor of Hoffe in com. Westmorl; as also the Castle of Naworth, with the
manners of Irthington, Dacre, Kirke Oswald, Farlam Blakenwayt, Lasyngby,
Brampton, Burgh upon the Sands, Aykton, Roclyffe, Glasenby, Blockhall,
and Castel-Caryot. in com. Cumbr: and the mannors of Halton, Fyshwike,
Eccleston, and Over-Kellet, in com. Lanc.” (Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol.
ii p. 23.) To him succeeded in the title, his brother, Sir Humphrey
Dacre, Knight, who conducted himself so submissively and usefully to the
House of York, as to make his peace with Edward IV., and had the office
of Master Forester of the forest of Inglewood, in Cumberland, conferred
upon him for life, in the ninth year of Edward IV., and he afterwards
held several other important offices. He was one of the persons included
in the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., passed against the
Lancastrians who took a part in the battle of Towton. He, however,
succeeded in getting the attainder against himself reversed by the act of
12th and 13th of Edward IV. _Rot. Parl._ vol. vi. A.D. 1472–3, fo. 43.
Humphrey Lord Dacre, was one of the lords who, in the Parliament Chamber
in the eleventh year of Edward IV., swore to be faithful to Prince
Edward, eldest son of Edward IV. In the second year of Richard III., he
was constituted Warden of the Marches; and having been summoned to
Parliament in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and first of Richard
III., died in the first year of Henry VII.
{97} Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. fo.
156.
{98a} Amongst others, I have to express my thanks to John Kendall, Esq.,
of Towton Hall, for both oral and written communications on the subject.
I was induced, for the sake of accuracy, both to see and write to him for
information respecting the field of battle, and he was good enough to
read over the paper upon it, as originally drawn, and to make a few
corrections in it, and also to favour me with some notes which I have
incorporated into the account.
I have also to thank the Rev. Dr. Carter, of Saxton Parsonage, for his
kindness and attention, in giving me some useful information, and for
taking the trouble of reading over the part of this paper, which related
to Saxton Church and Churchyard.
{98b} Dr. Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i.
fo. 157.
{99a} It is certain that at Towton, the archers were originally placed
in front of the other troops, and it seems naturally to follow, that when
the main bodies came to close quarters, the archers would be withdrawn to
the rear. If so, that would make a very considerable difference in the
extent of the front of each army. I am informed that in modern warfare,
the space usually allowed for each foot soldier is about one foot nine
inches, and for each horseman in marching order, about four feet six
inches.
{99b} Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, of that family, was the
son of Henry, second Earl of Northumberland, slain at the first battle of
St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Eleanor, second daughter of Ralph Neville,
first Earl of Westmoreland, and was brother of Thomas Percy, Lord
Egremont, slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.
{99c} Sir Andrew Trollop, as he is called by several writers, but called
Andrew Trollop, only, by others, was a military commander of considerable
repute, and had served in France. He had originally joined the Duke of
York, but seceded with some forces to Henry VI., from the encampment of
the Yorkists, at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459. The act of attainder of
1st Edward IV., does not notice his having been engaged at the battle of
Towton, but includes in the list of Lancastrians, who had taken a part at
the battle of Wakefield, “Andrew Trollop late of Guysnes Squier,” whom we
may fairly conclude, was the same person, and who, in the interval
between the two battles, may possibly have received the honour of
knighthood.