{100a} Sir John Wenlock was originally a supporter of the Lancastrian

party, fought, and was severely wounded, at the first battle of St.

Alban’s, on the 22nd of May (called by some historical writers, the 23rd

of May), 1455. He was appointed to several offices of distinction, and

was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VI.; but afterwards, going over

to the Yorkists, he was in arms for that party at the encampment at

Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459, for which, he was attainted by the

Parliament held at Coventry, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI.

However, he lost little by that; for having accompanied Edward IV., and

distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, in 1461, he obtained the

office of Chief Butler of England, and the stewardship of the castle and

lordship of Berkhampsted, in Hertfordshire; he was created Baron Wenlock,

in the first year of Edward IV., and also made one of the Privy Council.

He afterwards again changed sides, and appeared in arms for Henry VI., at

the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471; when, in consequence

of his not having with his troops supported the Duke of Somerset, the

duke, with his axe, beat out Lord Wenlock’s brains. He seems not to have

left any issue. He had considerable possessions in the neighbourhood of

Luton, in Bedfordshire; and the Wenlock Chapel in Luton Church, which is

a very beautiful structure and well worth visiting, is said to have been

erected by him.

{100b} Sir John Dinham or Denham, was a distinguished military

commander, and a decided partisan of the Yorkists; and in the

thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., being at Calais, he proceeded suddenly,

by the direction of the Earl of Warwick, to Sandwich, and there surprised

Lord Rivers, and his son Lord Scales, of the opposite party, and took

several King’s ships lying in the harbour, and brought them to Calais.

After Edward IV. had obtained the crown, Sir John Denham was so much

esteemed by him, that in the sixth year of that King’s reign, he was

summoned to Parliament as Baron Denham; he had several grants of valuable

offices, and also of considerable possessions, then in the crown, by

reason of the death of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Devonshire, without

issue, and of the forfeiture of Thomas Courtenay, late Earl of

Devonshire. After having been made a Knight of the Garter, he died in

the seventeenth year of Henry VII. He is called “John Lord Dynham” in

_Rot. Parl._ 12 and 13 Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 16.

{100c} “Towton Village is a mile from Saxton, wher is a great Chapell

begon by Richard III. but not finishid. Syr John Multon’s lather layid

the first stone of it. In this Chappelle were buried also many of the

men slayn at Palme Sunday Feeld.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 47

[44].

{101a} Communicated by John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall.

{101b} There is a statement in Thomas Sprott’s _Fragment_, printed by

Hearne, that the battle commenced at four o’clock in the afternoon,

continued all night, and terminated on the following afternoon, which is

quoted in Turner’s _History of England_, vol. iii. p. 229; but that

statement, which seems to be only the tale of an anonymous writer, is not

entitled to any weight, when put into the scale, against the accounts

given by the old historians, respecting the commencement and termination

of the battle. Mr. Turner has even improved upon the statement, and says

that the armies fought by the light of fire and torches. Armies in those

days did not usually fight by torch or fire light. When did any old

historical writer mention such an event occurring in any of the wars of

the English, of that century? The statement seems to be completely

erroneous; and the mistake has perhaps arisen from confounding the

engagement which took place at Dintingdale, on the 28th of March (and

possibly at four o’clock in the afternoon), with the great battle on the

29th of March. It is, however, not unlikely, that each army endeavoured

to harass the other, by frequent discharges of cannon, during the night

before the battle. As some proof of the probability of such an

occurrence, we are expressly told in Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, p. 684,

that during the night before the battle of Barnet, the Lancastrians

continually discharged cannons at the camp of Edward IV., and by Leland

(see 1 Lel. _Coll._ fo. 504), that they fired guns at each other all the

night.

{103a} Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter. See Chap. IV.

{103b} Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. See Chaps. III. and IV.

{103c} Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire. See Chap. IV.

{103d} Sir John Heron of the Ford, was of an ancient and influential

Border family; and for many generations the members of the family enjoyed

considerable landed possessions in Northumberland, and often signalised

their valour in the wars of the Borders. He fought on the Lancastrian

side at the battles of Wakefield [see Chap. IV. p. 60] and Towton, and

was attainted by the act of 1st Edward IV.; but his son, Roger Heron,

obtained a reversal of the attainder by an act of Parliament of 12th and

13th Edward IV., _Rot. Parl._ 1472–3, vol. vi. fo. 47.

{103e} Stow’s _Annals_, p. 415.

{103f} This appears to be an error: John Talbot, third Earl of

Shrewsbury, was the son of John Talbot, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who

was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460 (see Chap. III.), and

grandson of John Talbot, the first Earl of Shrewsbury, renowned for his

warlike exploits in France, and slain by a cannon shot at the battle of

Castillon, near Bourdeaux, on the 7th of July, 1453. According to Ralph

Brooke, in his _Catalogue of the Nobility_, &c., p. 197, John, the third

Earl of Shrewsbury, was not slain at Towton, but died at Coventry in

1473, and was buried at Worksop. See also Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i.

p. 332, where his death in the 13th of Edward IV. is mentioned.

{103g} William Viscount Beaumont, was the son and heir of John Viscount

Beaumont, slain at the battle of Northampton on the 9th of July, 1460,

fighting on the Lancastrian side (see Chap. III.); and married—first,

Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Scrope, brother to Lord Scrope of Bolton;

and secondly, Joan, daughter of Humphrey Duke of Buckingham. William

Viscount Beaumont fought for that party at the battle of Towton, and,

according to Dugdale, was taken prisoner there. He was attainted by the

act of attainder of the first year of Edward IV. He took part with John

Earl of Oxford, for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Barnet, in 1471,

and fled into Scotland, and afterwards into France, landed with the Earl

of Oxford in Cornwall, and assisted him in holding St. Michael’s Mount

against Edward IV.; but upon its surrender, he was brought prisoner, with

the earl, to the King. Upon the accession to the throne of Henry VII.,

he was restored by an act of Parliament; and died without issue, in the

twenty-fourth year of that king’s reign.

{104a} Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, was the

brother and heir presumptive to Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland. Many

years ago, when I wrote the paper on the battle of Stoke, I, on the

authority of Hall and Holinshed, mentioned the Earl of Westmoreland, as

having been slain at Towton; Fabyan also says that the earl was slain

there. I am now satisfied, that those writers have erroneously mentioned

the death of the Earl of Westmoreland, who did not die until the second

year of Richard III.; and that, instead of him, they meant Sir John

Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, who was the second Earl of

Westmoreland’s brother and heir presumptive. See Dugdale’s _Baronage_,

vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Leland’s _Coll._ vol. ii. p. 715 [498], in

which is the following statement, ‘Syr John Nevel the Erle of

Westmerlandes brother and Andrew Trollop were killid at this tyme.’; see

also the act of attainder against the Lancastrian leaders, _Rot. Parl._

1st Edward IV. vol. v. p. 476, which does not name the Earl of

Westmoreland, but it does include, “John, late Lord Nevill”; besides

which, Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland, was summoned to the very

Parliament which passed this act of attainder; consequently, it cannot be

supposed that he had taken a part in the battle. See also the act of

reversal of the attainder, _Rot. Parl._ 12th and 13th Edward IV. vol. vi.

p. 24, of “Rauf Nevyll, first begoten son of John Nevyll Knyght, late

Lord Nevyll,” attainted by the name of “John, late Lord Nevyll,” who was

afterwards third Earl of Westmoreland.

{104b} According to Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol. ii. pp. 85 and 86,

Robert Lord Willoughby of Eresby, a valiant and celebrated commander,

distinguished in the French wars, died in the thirtieth year of Henry

VI., leaving Joan, the wife of Sir Richard Welles, his daughter and heir;

and, the issue male of the principal branch being thus extinct, Sir

Robert Willoughby, son of Thomas, a younger brother of the last Robert

Lord Willoughby, became the next heir male, and is stated to have died on

the 30th of May, in the fifth year of Edward IV. (_Quære_—Could it have

been Thomas, the younger brother, who was called Lord Willoughby, and

slain at the battle of Towton?) The death of Lord Willoughby is

mentioned in Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. p. 219; and

in note 12 at the foot, it is stated that “Richard Welles, a son of Lord

Welles, in 1455, was summoned as Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife

Joanna, heir of the great warrior, Robert Lord Willoughby.” See note

respecting Leo Lord Welles, _infra_, note 3. Dugdale, however, does not

mention Sir Richard Welles or Lord Willoughby, as having been engaged at

Towton Field.

{104c} Leo Lord Welles, of the Lancastrian party, slain at Towton Field,

and attainted by Parliament in first of Edward IV., was grandson and heir

of John Lord Welles, whose oldest son, Eudo, died in his lifetime. Leo

Lord Welles left issue (by Joan his first wife, daughter and heir of Sir

Robert Waterton), Sir Richard Welles, his next heir, who, in the fourth

year of Edward IV. (having also the title of Lord Willoughby, in right of

his wife, Joan, daughter and heir of Robert Lord Willoughby), had,

through the King’s special favour, restoration of the goods, &c., of

which his father died seized; and the next year had restitution of

various manors, lordships, property, &c., which had come to the crown by

the attainder of his lather, Leo Lord Welles. In the ninth year of

Edward IV., the said Richard Lord Welles, and his son and heir, Sir

Robert Welles, were concerned in the insurrection of the Lancastrians in

Lincolnshire, and, with Sir Thomas Dimock, were beheaded. According to

Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 12, this Richard Lord Welles, was summoned to

Parliament by the name of Richard Welles, Lord Willoughby, from the

thirty-third year of Henry VI., to the 6th of Edward IV., inclusive.

{104d} Thomas Lord Roos. See Chap. IV.

{105a} Anthony Widevile, or Wodevile, had summons to Parliament by the

title of Lord Scales, in right of his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas

Lord Scales, of Nucells, widow of Henry Bourchier, and was afterwards

Earl Rivers. He was brother of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV. He was

not slain at Towton Field, although he seems to have taken a part in the

battle. (See Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. p. 219,

note 13.) He was the son and heir of Richard Widevile, or Wodevile, Earl

Rivers, and Jaquette his wife, daughter of Peter Earl of St. Pol, and

widow of John Duke of Bedford, third son of King Henry IV.; and he was,

when Earl Rivers, beheaded at Pontefract, by order of the Council, during

the Protectorate, and, as is believed, at the instigation of Richard Duke

of Gloucester, on the 13th of June, 1483. Lord Richard Grey (son of the

Queen Dowager Elizabeth, by her first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby),

and Sir Thomas Vaughan, were executed there, at the same time. The

Wodeviles were originally of the Lancastrian party; and Sir John Grey of

Groby, the first husband of Elizabeth afterwards the Queen of Edward IV.,

lost his life fighting for that party, at the first battle of St.

Alban’s, in 1455; but after Elizabeth’s charms had made a conquest of the

heart of Edward, and he had married her, the Wodeviles became staunch

Yorkists.

{105b} Thomas Lord Grey of Rugemont, called “Thomas Grey, Knight, Lord

Rugemond Grey,” in the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., was

originally Sir Thomas Grey, Knight, grandson of Reginald Lord Grey of

Ruthin, and a younger brother of Edmund Grey, first Earl of Kent, and was

advanced to the dignity of Baron of Rugemont Grey, in the twenty-eighth

year of Henry VI.; being a zealous Lancastrian, he was, after the battle

of Towton, included in the act of attainder, and having died without

issue, his title became extinct. He is charged in the act of attainder,

with other treasonable acts committed after the battle of Towton; and

amongst others, with having on the 26th of June then last, in conjunction

with Thomas Lord Roos, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Sir John

Fortescue, Sir William Talboys, Sir Edward Mountford, Thomas Neville,

Clerk; Humphrey Neville, Esq.; and Thomas Elwick, Esq., made war against

the King at Ryton and Branspeth, in the bishoprick of Durham. _Rot.

Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (A.D. 1461), vol. v. p. 476. See Appendix No. I.

{105c} There appears to be an error in the statement of Stow, that Lord

Fitzhugh perished at the battle of Towton; because William Lord Fitzhugh,

who married Margery, daughter of William Lord Willoughby of Eresby, died

in the thirty-first year of the reign of Henry VI., and was succeeded by

his son and heir, Henry Lord Fitzhugh, who was a supporter of the

Lancastrian party during the life of Henry VI.; but after the accession

of Edward IV., was held in respect by him, and was employed by him in the

fourth year of his reign at the siege of Dunstanborough Castle, and other

matters of importance; and died in the twelfth year of that King’s reign.

He married Alice, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and

sister of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker. The act of

attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not include Lord Fitzhugh, from which

circumstance, a presumption arises, that he was not engaged in the

battle.

{105d} It does not appear from the _Baronages_, that in 1461, there was

any nobleman called Lord Molineux; nor is any such mentioned in the act

of attainder of the first year of Edward IV. It has probably been

written by mistake for Lord Molins, or Molyns, by which title Robert Lord

Hungerford had been commonly called, in consequence of his marriage with

Alianore, daughter and heir of William Lord Molyns, who was slain in

France, in the seventh year of Henry VI. Robert Lord Hungerford, called

Lord Molyns, however, was not slain at Towton Field, although he fought

there. Upon the loss of the day, he fled to York, where King Henry then

was, and proceeded with him from thence to Scotland, and was attainted in

the first year of Edward IV. He again appeared in arms, in the north of

England, for the Lancastrian party, was engaged at the battle of Hexham

in 1463, taken prisoner there, and conveyed to Newcastle, where he was

beheaded, and was buried in the north aisle of Salisbury Cathedral. By

lady Alianore, his wife, he left three sons. The eldest, Thomas, took

part with the Earl of Warwick, upon his defection from Edward IV., and,

endeavouring to effect the restoration of Henry VI., was taken and tried

for high treason, at Salisbury, in the eighth year of Edward IV., was

condemned and beheaded. But in the first year of Henry VII., his

attainder, and that of his father, were reversed in Parliament, and his

heir had restitution of his lands and honours.

{106a} Lord Henry Buckingham. (_Quære_—Meant for Lord Henry Stafford,

of Buckingham, one of the family of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham?)

Henry Stafford, who was the second son of Henry Stafford, second Duke of

Buckingham (beheaded in the first year of Richard III.), and brother of

Edward Stafford, third Duke of Buckingham, could not have been the person

meant, because he was living long after the battle of Towton, and was

created Earl of Wiltshire, in the first year of Henry VIII. (See

Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 170.) We can, however, scarcely doubt,

that one of the family was slain at that battle; and Lord Henry of

Buckingham, is also mentioned amongst the slain, in the first volume of

Fenn’s _Original Letters_, fo. 220; John Stafford and Humphrey Stafford,

apparently also of that family, are there mentioned, as having been

engaged in that battle on the part of Edward IV.

{106b} Sir John Heron of the Ford, before mentioned.

{106c} _Quære_—Is Sir Gervase Clifton mentioned in error in the list, by

Stow? A knight of that name was executed after the battle of Tewkesbury,

and another perished at the battle of Bosworth. See Chapters VII. and

VIII.

{106d} Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire. See Chap. IV.

{106e} _Rot Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 477. See Appendix

No. L

{107a} John Morton, mentioned above as the Parson of “Blokesworth”

[Bloxworth] in Dorsetshire, was afterwards Bishop of Ely, and in the

reign of Henry VII., was Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury, and

also a Cardinal. It is remarkable, that several priests and

ecclesiastics are included in the above-mentioned act of attainder; but

there does not appear to be any foundation for Lord Campbell’s assertion,

that any of them fought at the battle of Towton, nor, from the general

deportment and actions of Morton, does such a line of conduct seem

probable, with respect to him. I believe that not any ancient historian

has stated that ecclesiastics were in arms, and fought for or against the

House of Lancaster; they might, however, be very useful with their

tenants, vassals, advice, influence, and exertions. In Lord Campbell’s

_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. i. p. 418, it is, however, correctly

stated, that John Morton “had the rich living of Blokesworth” conferred

upon him in the reign of Henry VI. His attainder, and also that of Ralph

Mackerell, Clerk, were reversed in the twelfth and thirteenth year of

Edward IV.—_Rot. Parl._ vol. vi. 12 and 13 Edward IV. pp. 26 and 27.

{107b} Sir John Fortescue was a lawyer of great talents and eminence,

and was made Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, in the reign of

Henry VI. He was a judge of high integrity, and an excellent man, and,

what was rare in that age, he was a literary character; some of his works

are of merit, and have been handed down to us. At the time of the battle

of Towton, he was no longer a young man, and, however much he might have

devoted his talents and exertions to the Lancastrian party, before the

battle, it seems a great stretch of credulity to think, that the judge

was actually screwed up in armour, and “mixed in the moody fight,” and

“displayed undaunted valour at Towton,” as Lord Campbell states. The

latter appears also to labour under the same mistake, with respect to

Fortescue’s fighting propensities at Towton, as with respect to those of

John Morton, who was a priest, as already mentioned.—See Campbell’s

_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. i. p. 369.

{109} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 477–478. See

Appendix No. I.

{110} William Lord Hastings, was the son of Sir Leonard Hastings,

Knight, by Alice his wife, daughter of Lord Camois, and was a valiant and

active partisan of the House of York, distinguished himself at the battle

of Towton, and on other occasions, and was created Baron Hastings, Lord

Chamberlain of the Household, and Chamberlain of Wales, in the first year

of Edward IV., and had large possessions bestowed upon him by that king;

amongst which was a grant of the manor of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in

Leicestershire, which had lately belonged to James Earl of Wiltshire,

then attainted, (where Hastings subsequently either erected or restored

the castle there, for his own residence, pursuant to the King’s license,

of first Edward IV., to make several castles), also of the honour,

castle, and lordship of Belvior, and other possessions in Leicestershire,

and elsewhere. He adhered to Edward IV. in his adversity, when he was

compelled, by the Earl of Warwick, to fly to the Continent in 1470, and

accompanied him on his return to England. He also fought at the battle

of Barnet in 1471, where he had the command of 3000 horse, and at that of

Tewkesbury, where he was one of the principal commanders. He was

Lieutenant of Calais, and enjoyed several offices of great importance and

trust, and was greatly in the confidence of King Edward IV.; and it is

generally believed that his faithful attachment to the young princes, the

sons of that king, was the reason why Richard Duke of Gloucester,

afterwards King Richard III., caused him to be put to death. He was

beheaded on a log of wood, in the Tower of London, without any trial, on

the 13th of June, 1483, and is buried in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor,

near the grave of Edward IV. He married Catherine, daughter of Richard

Neville, Earl of Salisbury (beheaded after the battle of Wakefield, in

1460), and widow of William Lord Bonvile (put to death after the second

battle of St. Alban’s, on 17th February, 1460–1), by whom he left issue

three sons and a daughter.

{111a} Walter Blount, Lord Montjoy, who was of the family of Sir Walter

Blount, slain at the battle of Shrewsbury, died in 1474, leaving Edward

Blount, his grandson (the son of William, his son, who died in his

father’s lifetime), his next heir.

{111b} _Rot. Parl._ 38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. fo. 349. See Chap. II.

and Chap. III.

{111c} _Rot. Parl._ 39 Henry VI. (1460), vol. v. fo. 374.

{111d} Leland mentions the titles and rank conferred by Edw. IV. upon

his friends and adherents, as follows:—

Thomas Blunte made Lord Montejoy

William Hastinges made Lorde Hastinges.

“‘Edward at his coronation creatid his brother George Duke of

Clarence; and Richard the younger, Duke of Gloucester; the Lord

Montacute, the Erle of Warwike’s brother, the Erle of Northumbreland;

William Stafford Esquier, Lord Staford of Southwike; Syr [William]

Herbart, Lord Herbart; and after Erle of Pembroke; and the saide Lord

Staford Erle of Devonshire; the Lord Gray of Ruthine, Erle of Kent;

the Lord Bourchier Erle of Essex; the Lord John of Bokingham, {323}

Erle of Wyltshire; Syr Thomas Blunt Knight, the Lord Montjoye; Syr

John Haward, Lord Haward; William Hastinges, Lord Hastinges and

Greate Chambrelayn; and the Lorde Ryvers; Denham Esquyer, Lord

Deneham; and worthy as is afore shewid.’—Lel. _Collect._, vol. ii. p.

715, 716 [449].”

“It is of course admitted, that Edward at his coronation ennobled his

brothers the Duke of Clarence and Duke of Gloucester; but Leland

appears to have expressed himself either not clearly, or not with his

usual accuracy, with respect to the dates of the conferring of the

titles upon several of the other personages, before mentioned, as may

be easily ascertained by a reference to the works of Ralph Brooke, or

Dugdale; from which it plainly appears, that although Edward did not

forget eventually to reward many of his supporters and adherents with

rank and titles, yet in some instances several years elapsed, after

his coronation, before they were ennobled, or, as the case might be,

were advanced in the peerage.”

{112} “Quei che restarono vivi presero la strada del ponte di Tadcaster,

ma, non potendo arrivarvi, e credendo guadabile un picciolo rio detto

Cocke vi s’annegarono la maggior parte: affermatosi costantemente essersi

passato sopra il dosso de’ corpi morti, l’acque del detto rio, e del

fiume Vuarf in cui eglisgorga, tinte in maniera, che parvero di puro

sangue.”—_G. F. Biondi_, fo. 249.

{113} _Hist. Croyl. Continuatio_, fo. 533.

{114a} His design was to have dislodged the body of Yorkists under Lord

Fitzwalter’s command, posted at Ferrybridge, and to have prevented their

army from passing the Aire there. It is remarkable that we do not read

of any other forces having been sent to his support, from the main army

of the Lancastrians.

{114b} In a note to Rapin’s _History of England_, translated by Tindal,

it is stated, with reference to the engagement at Ferrybridge, “there was

at this time no Lord Fitzwalter, for Walter Lord Fitzwalter died in 1432,

and Sir John Ratcliffe, son of Ann, daughter of the said Lord Fitzwalter,

had not summons to Parliament till the first of Henry VII. This Sir

John, or his son, is probably the same whom Rapin, and other of our

historians, call by anticipation Lord Fitzwalter. See Dugdale’s

_Baronage_, vol. i. p. 223, and vol. ii. p. 285.” But although it may

readily be admitted, that it does not appear from our Baronages, that

there was a Lord Fitzwalter in 1461, their silence seems scarcely

sufficient to outweigh the clear and unqualified statements, of several

of our old annalists and chroniclers, that a Lord Fitzwalter held a

command of importance in the Yorkist army, and was slain in the action at

Ferrybridge. Stow not only mentions that circumstance, but also states

that Lord Fitzwalter was one of the noblemen who, on the 12th of March

(before the battle of Towton), left London with Edward, and accompanied

him on his march northward. Besides which, in Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol.

i. fo. 105 [99] (see also Camden’s _Magna Britannia_, vol. iii. p. 49),

in noticing Ferrybridge, it is stated, “wher the first Lord Fitzgualter

of the Radecliffes was killid, flying from Cok beck Felde;” and, although

the last part of the passage is not quite accurate, still the statement

is of some value; and in Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, which

are considered authentic records of the respective dates, at which they

purport to have been written, Lord Fitzwalter is mentioned, in a letter

from Clement Paston to John Paston, of the 23rd of January, 1460 (but,

according to our present mode of reckoning, 1461), as having ridden

northwards, and is said to have taken two hundred of Sir Andrew Trollop’s

men; and the existence of a Lord Fitzwalter seems still more confirmed by

another of those letters, which was written by William Paston and Thomas

Playter, to John Paston, dated the 4th of April, 1461, giving the

contents of a letter of credence from King Edward IV. to the Duchess of

York, respecting the battle of Towton, which distinctly mentions that

Lord Fitzwalter was slain, and that he had been engaged on Edward’s part.

(See Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. pp. 205, 219.) As

so many old writers have mentioned the existence of a Lord Fitzwalter at

that period, it seems improbable that all of them could have been in

error.

{115a} The Bastard of Salisbury, who also held a principal command in

the Yorkist forces, was also slain there. Some historians tell us that

the Earl of Warwick stabbed his horse on hearing of the disaster at

Ferrybridge. It is an improbable tale. We may perhaps safely admit,

that he, as a warrior, knew the value of a good horse too well to destroy

it wantonly and uselessly.

{115b} P. 125. In one of my visits to Dintingdale, I met with a

labouring man there, who informed me that he recollected the discovery,

about eighteen years before, of a pit or hole, at Dintingdale, on or

close to the turnpike road, containing human bones. As I received that

information from him in August, 1853, the discovery must have taken place

about 1835.

{116a} If, as is very probable, the high road at that time turned off

near Dintingdale towards Saxton, it is all but certain, that the Yorkists

had succeeded in getting possession of that village before Lord Clifford

could retreat thither, and they consequently could easily intercept him

at Dintingdale.

{116b} _Rot. Parl._ 38th Henry VI. vol. v. p. 347.

{116c} Stow, 409. Speed, 844.

{116d} 1 Lel. _Coll._ 502 [719].

{116e} Lel. _Coll._ 503 [721].

{116f} 1 Lel. _Coll._ 504 [722]. 1 Holinshed, 684.

{116g} 1 Holinshed 687.

{116h} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 276. See Appendix, No.

III.; and Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 82; in which he mentions cannon

balls having been dug up there.

{116i} _Rot. Parl._ 3rd Henry VII. vol. vi. p. 397. See Appendix No. V.

{117a} _Rot. Parl._ 4th Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 545; the 7th and 8th

Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 613; and the 13th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 93.

{117b} Edward IV. also used the Lion argent as one of the devices of the

House of York, in consequence of its having been borne by the Mortimers,

Earls of March, from whom he was descended; also the Dragon sejant sable,

armed or, in consequence of his descent from the De Burghs, Earls of

Ulster, whose cognizance was a Dragon; the falcon argent within a

fetter-lock closed; the White Rose; the Sun in its glory, after the

parhelion had been seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross; and

(occasionally) the White Hart attired, accolled with a coronet, and

chained or, on a mount vert, in honour of King Richard II., who used it,

and who had nominated Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, great-grandfather of

Edward IV., his successor to the crown of England. It is worthy of

remark, that besides the circumstance of Edward IV. having had the Black

Bull on his standard at the battle of Towton, his brother, Richard III.,

seems to have had, at the battle of Bosworth, on one of his standards,

the Dun Cow (perhaps in allusion to the family tradition of the Earls of

Warwick, with which family he was connected through Anne his wife, the

daughter of Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick). See Holinshed,

Hall, and Baker, who mention that Henry VII., after the battle of

Bosworth, offered at St. Paul’s three standards, described as follows:

viz., first, the figure of St. George; second, a Red Dragon, on white and

green sarcenet; third, a Dun Cow upon yellow tartan. Hutton, in his

_Bosworth Field_, p. 147, states, without giving his authority, that

Henry VII., on his arrival in London, carried in front Richard III.’s

three standards, the chief of which was St. George, and erected them in

St. Paul’s Church; and also on p. 110, that Richmond’s (afterwards Henry

VII.) standard at the battle of Bosworth, was a Red Dragon, upon green

and white silk; and we know from other sources, that the Dragon Rouge was

a favourite device of Henry VII. It seems, therefore, tolerably certain,

that of the before-mentioned three standards, the second, or Red Dragon,

was that of Henry VII., and we may reasonably conclude, that the other

two were those captured from Richard III.

{118a} Robert Lord Hungerford married, in the lifetime of his father

(Walter Lord Hungerford), Alianore, daughter and heir of William Lord

Molins, or Molyns, and was, in consequence of that marriage, occasionally

called Lord Molyns, and took part with the Lancastrians, at the battle of

Towton. Upon the loss of the day, he fled to York, where King Henry then

was, and from thence proceeded with him to Scotland. He was attainted by

the act of Parliament of 1st Edward IV. In 1463, the Lancastrians again

attempting to make head, and having got possession of several castles in

the North, he once more appeared in arms, and was the chief of those who

defended Alnwick Castle, with five hundred or six hundred Frenchmen; and

soon afterwards was engaged at the battle of Hexham, in 1463; was taken

prisoner, conveyed to Newcastle, and beheaded there, and was buried in

the north aisle of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury.

{118b} Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. p. 217.

{118c} _Ibid._ p. 217. Sir John Neville is called Lord Montague, in the

authority quoted; but it seems incorrect to have done so, at that period,

because he appears not to have been then created Marquis Montague. He

was the brother of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), was

a great supporter of Edward IV., and was created Lord Montague in the

first year of Edward IV. He was afterwards created Earl of

Northumberland in the fourth year of that King’s reign; but he resigned

that title, and was created Marquis of Montague in the tenth year of his

reign. He was slain, with his brother, on the 14th of April, 1471, at

the battle of Gladmore Heath, usually called the battle of Barnet, having

changed sides, and then fought against Edward IV.

{118d} Originally Sir John Bourchier, afterwards Lord Berners, he was

fourth son of William Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, was brother of Thomas

Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Ewe,

afterwards of Essex, and was at first of the Lancastrian party, and

fought for Henry VI. at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but

after that time, he espoused the cause of the Yorkists. He married

Margery, daughter and heir of Richard Lord Berners, and had summons to

Parliament in the thirty-third year of Henry VI., and afterwards, by the

title of Lord Berners. He died in the 14th of Edward IV. His oldest

son, Humphrey, was slain at the battle of Barnet, fighting on King

Edward’s part, in 1471.

{119} See Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 381. Carte, in his

_History of England_, vol. ii. p. 758, gives the 28th of April, 1442, as

the date of Edward’s birth.

{122a} It seems remarkable that the Yorkists were allowed to ascend the

elevated ground from Saxton, and to come in front of the Lancastrians,

without, as far as can be discovered from history, experiencing any check

or resistance from the latter; but that may, perhaps, be accounted for,

if the Lancastrians acted on the defensive upon a preconcerted plan, and

did not choose to leave what they had purposely selected as a good

position, and which certainly possessed considerable advantages.

{122b} It is, however, very probable that the action at Dintingdale was

soon over, and if so, the Lancastrians may not have had sufficient time

to have sent succours to Lord Clifford.

{122c} See also 1 Leland’s _Itinerary_, fo. 47 [45]:—

“In the Chyrch Yard were many of the Bones of men that were killid at

Palmesunday feld buried.

“They lay afore in 5 Pittes, yet appering half a mile of by North in

Saxton Feldes.”

{123a} Their numbers show it to be quite impossible, that they could

have any relation to some bones, which Leland and Stow mention, as having

been removed by Mr. Hungate, from the field of Towton. The quantity of

the latter must have been insignificant.

{123b} Lel. _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 17 [p. 16]. Stow, fo. 416.

{123c} In the engraving it is called by mistake, “at Towton,” instead of

“at Saxton.”

{125a} Drake’s _Eboracum_, p. 111.

{125b} This is evidently an error. It is remarkable that Dr. Whitaker

calls it in that place the 20th of March, but the 29th in an engraving of

the lid of the tomb, introduced almost immediately before.

{125c} Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. p.

156. Dr. Whitaker states, that in this reading he was greatly assisted

by the following copy of the inscription which he had obtained from

Hopkinson’s MSS., as it was partly read and partly guessed at, by a

transcriber, about the time of Charles I.:—

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DNS. DE DACRE ET GREYSTOCKE, HEROS, MILES

STRENUUS

QUI OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI,

VIDELICET

DOMINICA PALMARUM CUJUS ANIME P’PITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.

Dr. Whitaker also states his conviction that the word “heros” is a

mistake for “verus,” and that “strenuus,” for which there has been no

room in the line, has been another guess for the former epithet, “a true

knight,” being the genuine language of chivalry.—_Ibid._, p. 156.

{127a} Such, for example, amongst others, as the murders of the Earl of

Rutland, Edward Prince of Wales, Lord Hastings, &c. &c.

{127b} It is remarkable that three of the battles during those wars were

fought on Sundays, viz., Blore Heath, Towton, and Barnet.

{127c} See some of the instances mentioned in _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV.

(1461), vol. v. fo. 476.

{127d} Voltaire’s _Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations_, tome

xviii. p. 44.

{128a} Hall’s _Chronicles_ (edit. of 1809), fo. 256.

{128b} Shakespeare’s _Third Part of King Henry VI._ act ii. scene 5.

{131a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Tewkesbury was read

before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of

March, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the

author.

{131b} I have paid six visits to the field of battle—two in May 1854,

two in May 1856, and two in May 1856.

{131c} The authorities for the historical part of this paper are Hall,

Holinshed, Stow, Speed; Leland’s _Collectanea_, vol. ii.; Grafton, Baker,

Dugdale, Sandford, and Ralph Brooke.

{132a} The 13th of April is mentioned by some, and the 14th of April by

other writers, as the day on which Margaret landed. If, as is probable,

it occurred on the 14th of April, it was the same day as that on which

the battle of Barnet was fought.

{132b} Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was daughter of

René Duke of Anjou, and was married to Henry VI. on the 22nd of April,

1445.—See Chap. III.

{132c} Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of King Henry VI. and

Queen Margaret (usually called Margaret of Anjou). He was born in the

King’s Palace at Westminster, on the 13th of October, 1453, in the

thirty-first year of Henry VI., and was created Prince of Wales and Earl

of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty-second year of his

father’s reign. At the age of seventeen, he was affianced in France to

Anne Neville, the second daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick, called the

King-Maker. The murder of Prince Edward, immediately after the battle of

Tewkesbury, will be noticed further on in this chapter. After his death,

Anne his widow was married to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King

Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.

{132d} The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, otherwise called Knights of

Rhodes, also called Knights Hospitallers, constituted an order of

military ecclesiastics, of great renown, power, and wealth, before the

Reformation. Their prior was esteemed the first baron in the kingdom.

It may easily be imagined, that the support of the head of these powerful

religious knights, was of no small moment to Margaret. Their chief

establishment was at Clerkenwell, and it has given the name to St. John’s

Square, St. John’s Street, and to the church of St. John, Clerkenwell.

{132f} Of the magnificent priory which they possessed there, the only

remains above ground are the ancient and curious gateway, called St.

John’s Gate, and a single buttress of the old building in Jerusalem

Court, leading into St. John’s Street. This religious body ceased to

exist in England and in Ireland, in 1540; the act 32nd Henry VIII. c. 24,

having been passed, by which their order was dissolved, and their lands

and property vested in the King. Sir William Weston, Knight, was the

last prior of that body in England. They are said to have been the last

religious fraternity who surrendered their possessions to the grasp of

Henry VIII.

{132e} See Holinshed’s _Chronicles_ and Speed’s _History_. Hall,

Dugdale, and Grafton, however, state, that Queen Margaret proceeded to

the Cistercian Abbey of Beaulieu, and took sanctuary there. In Baker’s

_Chronicles_, it is stated that she first went to the Abbey of Cerne, and

then to “Bewley” [Beaulieu] in Hampshire.

{132f} The ancient crypt still exists under the church, and it is said

to be curious and interesting.

{133a} Anne Countess of Warwick arrived at Portsmouth, and went from

thence to Southampton, intending to have joined the Queen at Weymouth;

but having received intelligence of the total defeat of the Lancastrians,

the deaths of her husband the King-Making Earl of Warwick, and of his

brother the Marquis Montague, at the fatal battle of Barnet, she crossed

the water into the New Forest, and took sanctuary in the Abbey of

Beaulieu, in Hampshire.

{133b} Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the second son of Edmund

Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St.

Alban’s, in 1455, was the brother and heir of Henry Beaufort, Duke of

Somerset, beheaded after the battle of Hexham in 1463.—See Chaps. III.

and IV.

{133c} Lord John Beaufort was the third son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of

Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See

Chaps. III. and IV.

{133d} Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.—See Chap. IV.

{133e} John Lord Wenlock. He fought on the Lancastrian side, at the

first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, in which he was severely wounded;

for the Yorkists, at the battle of Towton, in 1461; and appeared again in

arms for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471.—See

Chap. VI.

{133f} Jasper Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield, was

second son of Sir Owen Tudor, and Katherine, widow of King Henry V., and

half-brother to King Henry VI. Full particulars are given of him in

Chap. V. page 69, note 2.

{134a} Called by Holinshed, by mistake, Chichester.

{134b} Holinshed calls it Thursday the 1st of May; but there is

evidently some little confusion in his dates, as to Edward’s movements.

Holinshed states that the battle of Tewkesbury was fought on Saturday the

4th of May; and if so, it is impossible that the preceding Thursday could

have been the 1st of May. He must either have meant Wednesday the 1st of

May, or Thursday the 2nd of May.

{135} Originally Sir William Beauchamp, Knight, son of Sir John

Beauchamp of Powick and Alcester. In the twenty-fifth year of Henry VI.

he was advanced to the title and dignity of Lord Beauchamp of Powick, and

constituted Justice of South Wales, and had a grant of an annuity of £60

per annum, out of the fee farm of the city of Gloucester, to him and his

heirs for ever, for the better support of that honour; and in the 28th of

Henry VI. he was made Lord Treasurer of England, but did not hold that

office full two years. He died in 1475, and left by Margaret, his wife,

the above-mentioned Sir Richard Beauchamp, his son and heir, then forty

years of age.

{136a} “In her passage towarde Tewkesbury the Lord Beaucampe toke from

her rereward, more ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to

her no smal prejudice.”—Hall’s _Chronicles_, fo. 31.

{136b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_.

{137a} The proximity of the enemy must also have rendered it very

dangerous even to have attempted to cross the river Avon, notwithstanding

it had a bridge over it.

{137b} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. iv. fo. 173 _b_. [79].

{137c} There has been for ages, a bridge over the Avon, at Tewkesbury,

over which the road towards Hereford passes, not far from the place where

it joins the Severn; but there was not one over the Severn, until

centuries after the battle of Tewkesbury. The want of a bridge over the

latter river at Tewkesbury, was long felt as a great inconvenience.

However, in 1823, an act of Parliament was passed for erecting a bridge

over it; but, after making some progress, it was found that the estimates

of the expense were erroneous, and that a large additional sum of money

would be requisite to complete the bridge, and roads leading to it; a new

act was passed, containing additional powers, under which the iron bridge

was completed, and it was accordingly opened for passengers in 1826.

{138a} Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 686.

{138b} Holinshed says that Edward “lodged that night in a field not past

three miles distant from them;” but Hall says that King Edward “was come

within a mile to Tewkesbury.” A medium distance between the three miles

and the one mile, would perhaps be correct.

{138c} Holinshed. See also the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV.

(1475), in which the battle is stated to have been fought on the 4th of

May.—_Rot. Parl._ 14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fos. 145 and 146. Hall,

however, calls it the 3rd of May.

The date of the 4th of May appeared upon the tomb of Sir John Delves, who

was slain in the battle, and his body and that of his son are said to

have been first interred at Tewkesbury, and afterwards at Wybonbury, in

Cheshire.—Pennant’s _Journey from Chester to London_, pp. 37 and 38;

Lysons’ _Mag. Brit. Cheshire_, p. 828; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii.

pp. 255, 267, 268.

{139a} Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., the

eighth and youngest son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, was

born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October,

1452. The Duchess of York, upon hearing of the deaths of her husband the

Duke of York, and of her son the Earl of Rutland, at Wakefield, in 1460,

sent her younger sons, George, afterwards Duke of Clarence, and Richard,

afterwards Duke of Gloucester, abroad to Utrecht, where they remained

under the protection of Philip Duke of Burgundy, until the accession of

Edward IV. to the throne of England, enabled them to return with safety.

Richard was created Duke of Gloucester and Lord Admiral of England, in

1461. He distinguished himself by his valour at the battles of Barnet

and Tewkesbury. He married Anne, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of

Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales. His reign

commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of

June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483; and was slain at the battle

of Bosworth on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two

months. Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign. He did not leave

any issue; Edward, his only child by Queen Anne, who was created Prince

of Wales and Earl of Chester, on the 24th of August, 1483, died before

him.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

{139b} George Duke of Clarence, the sixth son of Richard Duke of York

and Cecily his wife, married Isabel, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick

(the King-Maker), was attainted by Parliament, in 17th year of Edward

IV., and was put to death in the Tower of London, on the 18th of

February, 1477–78.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

{139c} Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, was the eldest son of Sir John

Grey, of Groby (eldest son of Edward Lord Ferrers of Groby), slain at the

first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Elizabeth Wideville, or

Wodeville, afterwards the Queen of Edward IV. He married Cecily,

daughter and heir of William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, slain at the

battle of Wakefield in 1460, and great-grand-daughter of William Lord

Bonvile, who was put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in

1460–1. He was created Lord Harrington and Bonvile, by Edward IV., in

the fifteenth year of his reign, and in the same year was also created

Marquis of Dorset. After Richard III. had obtained the crown, Dorset was

attainted of high treason; but took sanctuary, and got privately away,

and fled into Brittany, with a view to taking part with Henry Earl of

Richmond. At the instigation of his mother, the Queen Dowager, he

appeared for a time to waver, and inclined to leave the party of the Earl

of Richmond in despair of his success, and to return to England, and make

his peace with Richard III.; but eventually remained abroad, until after

the fall of Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, and the accession to the

throne of Henry VII.; who then soon sent to Paris for Dorset, who,

together with Sir John Bourchier (the brother of the Bishop of Exeter),

had been left there by Henry, in pledge for money borrowed there. He

returned to England, was restored to his honours, and made one of the

Privy Council of Henry VII. He died in the tenth year of Henry VII.,

1494, and Cecily his widow afterwards married Henry Stafford, Earl of

Wiltshire, second son of Henry, second Duke of Buckingham, who was

beheaded in the first year of Richard III.

{139d} William Lord Hastings.—See Chap. VI.

{140a} The park of Tewkesbury is mentioned by Leland: “Fordehampton, a

faire place, upon Severne, _in dextra ripa_, a mile beneth Theokesbyri,

and agayn the parke of Theokesbyri, standing _in læva ripa_.”—Lel.

_Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 94 [83].

{140b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_.

{141a} Holinshed, with reference to Gloucester’s gaining this advantage

over Somerset, uses the expression, “winning the hedge and ditch of him,

entered the close, and with great violence, put him and his people up

towards the hill, from whence they were descended.”

{141b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_.

{142a} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_. The mills are shown in the engraving

of Tewkesbury, given in Dyde’s _History of Tewkesbury_.

{142b} Sir John Delves was of the old Cheshire family of Delves of

Doddington.

{142c} Lel. _Collect_, vol. ii. fo. 506. Stow’s _Annals_, p. 424.

{142d} Lel. _Collect_, vol. ii. fo. 506.

{143a} It will be recollected that the Duke of Clarence was put to death

in 1477–78, in the Tower of London. He was interred at Tewkesbury. See

Stow’s _Annals_, p. 431; the _Catalogue of Nobility_, &c. by Ralph

Brooke, p. 52; Additions to Camden’s _Britannia_, by Gough, edition of

1789, vol. i. p. 269; Sandford, p. 413; Rapin, vol. i. (in Notis, p.

624). Those accounts appear to be corroborated by the circumstance, that

the Duke’s wife Isabel was interred in a stone arched vault, near the

high altar, in the Abbey Church there. Leland, in his _Itinerary_, vol.

vi. fo. 92 [p. 81], states that she died at the Castle of Warwick, on the

22nd of December, 1476, and was buried at Tewkesbury, of which she was

the patroness. The entrance to the vault is covered by a large blue

stone, under which is a flight of eight steps, which lead to the vault,

which was opened and examined in 1826, on the occasion of some repairs,

when the skulls and some bones of a man and a woman were discovered in

it; besides which there were also six large stones at the south end of

it, which apparently had been placed there, in order to support two

coffins abreast; which adds not a little to the supposition that he was

buried in the same tomb with the Duchess. Sandford expressly states that

the Duke was buried at Tewkesbury, near the body of his Duchess. It was

evident that the vault had been long previously entered, probably at the

time of the dissolution of abbeys, or of the parliamentarian wars, and

rifled of every thing worth taking away. The floor of the vault was

paved; and extending nearly the length and breadth of it, was the

representation of a cross, formed by the insertion of bricks, some of

which contained the arms of England, of the Clares, &c.; and others

contained representations of _fleurs-de-lis_, birds, ornamented letters,

&c. Under the belief that the mortal remains so discovered, were those

of the ill-fated Duke of Clarence, and of Isabel his wife, the skulls and

bones were collected, placed in an ancient stone coffin, and the vault

again closed up. It furnishes us with an impressive moral, and appears

like an awful and just retribution, that so soon after the Duke had

assisted in, or at least countenanced, the murder of Prince Edward, after

the battle of Tewkesbury, his own death by violence, by the tyrannical

orders of his brother, Edward IV., should have occurred, and his corpse

should have been deposited in the Abbey Church, within sight of which the

murder was committed.

{144} Fabyan says, that it was the King’s servants who committed the

murder. If, as seems improbable, he means domestic servants, it does not

make any difference in the crime, whether the noblemen present committed

the murder with their own hands, or sanctioned its commission by

domestics.

{145a} It is said that human bones were found there; but it is

unfortunate that no full and detailed account seems to have been

preserved of the examination of the grave, or what kind of human bones,

whether male or female, old or young, were discovered, for they might

have done much to throw light upon the subject. I could not obtain any

further information relative to it, from the person who showed me through

the Abbey Church. The practice of interring corpses in stone coffins

continued a considerable time after the date of the battle of Tewkesbury.

The corpse of Richard III. was interred, after the battle of Bosworth, in

1485, in a stone coffin, in the Grey Friars Church at Leicester. His

remains were, at the time of the destruction of religious houses,

disturbed, and the stone coffin was converted into a watering-trough, at

the White Horse Inn, in Gallow Tree Gate, and was so used until it was

broken to pieces.—Hutton’s _Battle of Bosworth_, pp. 142, 143. See also

Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 410, where he mentions that the

stone coffin was made a drinking-trough for horses at a common inn.

{145b} Additions to Camden’s _Britannia_, by Gough, published in 1789,

vol. i. p. 269. That account evidently refers to a prior examination to

that already noticed, as having occurred before the inscription (of which

a copy has been given) was placed there, in 1796, because Gough’s edition

of Camden’s _Mag. Brit._ was published in 1789.

At present there is not any monument to the memory of the Duke of

Clarence or his wife, nor did I hear that any was known to have ever been

there.

{146a} Hall, p. 32. Holinshed says it occurred on the 7th.

{146b} Hall and Holinshed; Lel. _Collect_, vol. ii. p. 506.

{146c} Sir Thomas Tresham is stated, in the act of attainder of 14th

Edward IV. (1475), to have been of Sywell, in the county of Northampton.

_Rot. Parl._ 14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 145. _Quære_—if he were the

same Sir Thomas Tresham, or a son of the Sir Thomas Tresham attainted in

the 1st of Edward IV. (1461), for having been engaged at the battle of

Towton against Edward, but whose attainder was reversed in the 7th and

8th Edw. IV. (1467 and 1468)?

{146d} Stowe, p. 425; Lel. _Collect._ vol. ii. p. 506. There appears to

be an error in those writers with respect to the name of the son and heir

of Sir John Delves, as they call the former James instead of John Delves.

See Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 255, 266, 269. An act of

attainder, passed in 14th of Edward IV. (1475), against the Lancastrians,

includes John Delves, describing him as late of Uttoxeter, in the county

of Stafford, Esquire. _Rot. Parl._ 14th Edward IV. vol. vi fo. 145.

Although they were of a Cheshire family, yet, as it had originally come

from Staffordshire, it is not improbable that Sir John Delves, or his son

John Delves, had possessions in both counties. Their ancestor, Sir John

Delves, obtained in 1364, a royal license to make a castellated mansion,

or castellet, at Doddington, of which there are still some remains, a

view of which is given in Omerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 269.

{146e} These streets are Church Street, High Street, and Barton Street.

Not many years ago, an old building, called the Tolsey or Town Hall

(there is now a narrow street, called, from that building, Tolzey Lane,

close to its site) and two small houses, of mean appearance, occupied a

portion of the space, in the centre of the town, but being found

inconvenient, and even dangerous, the liberality of Sir William

Codrington, then one of the representatives of the town in Parliament,

enabled the corporation to remove them, and a commodious market-house has

been erected, by subscription, on the east side of the open space, which

is now used for the purposes of a market.—Dyde’e _History of Tewkesbury_,

pp. 82 and 83.

{147a} In the parish church of Wybonbury, in Cheshire, there were, prior

to the repairs and alterations made in 1591 and 1793, some monuments of

the family of Delves, amongst which, was one to the memory of Sir John

Delves (mentioning his death on the 4th of May, 1471), and of Ellen his

wife, and of John his son and heir.—See Pennant’s _Journey from Chester

to London_, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’ _Mag. Brit. Cheshire_, 823; Ormerod’s

_Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268. Consequently it appears that

the bodies of both the father and son were first buried at Tewkesbury,

and afterwards removed and interred at Wybonbury. According to Pennant,

p. 38, the following was a copy of the inscription:—

HIC JACET JOHANNES DELVES, MILES, ET ELENA UXOR EJUS, NEC NON

JOHANNES DELVES ARMIGER FILIUS ET HERES PREDICTI JOHIS QUI

QUIDEM JOHANNES MILES OBIIT QUARTO DIE MAII ANNO DNI.

MCCCCLXXI. QUORUM ANIMABUS PROPITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.

{148a} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 93 [82].

{149a} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 95 [83].

{149b} It is here called a mile-post, because on that part of the road,

wooden mile-posts (not mile-stones) are used.

{149c} It is occasionally spelt “Home.” Some parts of the elevated

ground are now called Holme Ground, or Holme Hill. “Ther was at the

south-west ende of the Abbay a Castel caullid Holme. The tyme of the

Building of it is oncerteyne.” {149d}

“There hath beene yn tyme of mynd sum Partes of the Castel stonding

now sum ruines of the Botoms of Waulles appere. Now it is caullid

Holme Hylle. George Duke of Clarence, Brother to King Edward, had

thought to have brought Avon aboute the Towne and to have enlarged

the Town.” {149d}

{149d} Lel. _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 96 [84].

{150a} The elevated ground above mentioned, which includes the place

called “Margaret’s Camp,” seems to be the same which (although it has no

very great pretensions to be called a hill) is alluded to by Holinshed,

when he states that the Lancastrian forces were driven up towards the

hill from whence they descended.

{150b} The winding or circuitous state of the old road, seems in some

degree to corroborate the statement of Holinshed, as to the Lancastrian

camp being defended with “cumbersome lanes, deep ditches,” &c. &c.;

indeed it is remarkable, that even now, there are ditches of very awkward

size and depth, on the north and west sides of the garden at Gupshill

Farm.

{150c} It is called from that circumstance by the country people “the

Island.”

{151} It seems strange, that Mr. Dyde, in his _History of Tewkesbury_,

suggests, that Margaret’s encampment was at a place adjoining the town

and abbey, called the Vineyard. Little as we may truly think of the Duke

of Somerset’s talents as a military commander, he could scarcely have

made so ridiculous a mistake, as to have fixed upon so low and insecure a

spot, as the Vineyard, commanded by the high ground of Holme Hill, and

with the little river the Swilgate not in his front, but in his rear.

What Mr. Dyde has mistaken for intrenchments, are nothing more than some

trifling inequalities in a spot of ground close to the abbey, which in

all probability, was formerly used as a garden or vineyard, as its name

implies.

{152} There are two hamlets in the parish of Tewkesbury, viz., one

called the Mythe, and the other Southwick and the Park, situated on the

westward of the town, and on the road leading towards Cheltenham; and it

is in the latter portion of the parish that Margaret’s Camp is situated.

{153a} The ball is almost a perfect globe, except at one spot, where it

is rather defective, and may perhaps have been eaten into by rust.

{153b} Holinshed.

{153c} Hall’s _Chronicles_, fo. 31.

{154a} Holinshed.

{154b} _MS. Chronicle_ of John Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society,

p. 18.

{154c} vol. vi. fo. 92 and 93.

{154d} The fact of that part of the elevated ground where Margaret’s

Camp is situated, being even now called “Gupshill,” may also be well

worthy of notice; because it is far from improbable, that it may be only

a corruption of the other word “Gastons.”

{154e} Holinshed.

{157a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Bosworth was read by

the author in person, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical

Society of Liverpool, on the 3rd of November, 1856, and the thanks of the

meeting were voted for it to the author.

{157b} Its real name is Redmoor Plain, so called from the colour of the

soil. Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A.,

page 68.

{158a} Richard III., the youngest son of Richard Duke of York by Cecily

his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd

of October, 1452, and was created Duke of Gloucester in 1461. He married

Anne, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of

Edward Prince of Wales (son of Henry VI.). His reign commenced on the

18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on

the 7th of July, 1483, and was slain at the battle of Bosworth, on the

22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months. Queen

Anne died in the last year of his reign. He did not leave any issue:

Edward Prince of Wales, his only child by Queen Anne, having died before

him.—See Chap. VII. and Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

{158b} Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, was the son of Edmund of Hadham,

Earl of Richmond, by his wife Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Duke

of Somerset, descended from an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, and was

born at the Castle of Pembroke about 1455. His pretensions to the crown

of England, were founded upon his descent, through the Beauforts, from

John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III. (See Pedigree No. 4 in

Chap. IX.) But nothing could be more wild and contrary to the laws and

constitution of England, than such a claim; because he claimed through

his great-grandfather, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, who was the son

of John of Gaunt, by Katharine Swinford, but born before their marriage;

and, although the issue were declared legitimate for general purposes, by

a charter of 20th Richard II. (which was confirmed by an act of

Parliament—see _Rot. Parl._ 20th Richard II. vol. iii. fo. 343;

Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, pp. 313, 314; Coke’s _Inst._ vol. 4,

p. xxxvii.; Blackstone’s _Com._ by Stephens, 3rd edit. vol. ii. p. 417),

it contained an express exception as to the royal dignities; the words in

the charter, as given at length by Coke and Sandford, are, “excepta

dignitate regali;” and it is remarkable, that these words seem to have

been intentionally omitted in the printed copy of the act in _Rot. Parl._

vol. iii. fo. 243; (_Quære_—were the words cunningly obliterated from the

roll by the order of Henry VII.?); besides which, several personages,

amongst whom were the daughters of Edward IV., and after them the son and

daughter of George Duke of Clarence, were living, and in the due order of

the succession. By the battle of Bosworth, Richmond became King Henry

VII.; he was crowned on the 30th of October, 1485; and married the

Princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King Edward IV. (the marriage gave

him his best title to the throne); and he died at Richmond on the 21st of

April, 1509, in the fifty-third year of his age, having reigned

twenty-three years and about eight months.—See Pedigree No. 4, Chap. IX.

There is something remarkable with respect to the number and rank of the

personages who were candidates for the hand of the Princess

Elizabeth:—1stly, she was intended by her father, King Edward IV., to be

the bride of George Neville, Duke of Bedford, the son of John Neville,

Marquis Montague (slain at the battle of Barnet); 2ndly, she was

affianced to Charles, the Dauphin of France, son of King Louis XI.;

3rdly, she was courted by her uncle, King Richard III., who probably

intended, as has been the fashion of royalty in Portugal, to obtain the

Pope’s permission to marry a niece; 4thly, she married King Henry VII.,

and, consequently, became a Queen, on the 19th of January, 1486.

{159} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A.,

Advertisement, pp. iii. and iv.

{160a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 69; and see _ibid._, Advertisement,

pp. iv. and v., where an error is pointed out in his statement as to the

number of acres.

{160b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, pp. 69 and 70.

{160c} _Ibid._, p. 87.

{160d} _Ibid._, additional particulars, p. 241.

{160e} Some land occupied as part of Sutton Field Farm, by Mr. Cooper, a

farmer of respectability, is called Cornhill Furze, and lies on the north

side of the road leading from Shenton to Sutton Cheney.

{161a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 88.

{161b} On his way from Lichfield to Tamworth, he was joined by Sir

Thomas Bourchier and Sir Walter Hungerford, who had deserted Richard’s

party, and with some difficulty joined the Earl of Richmond.

{161c} Thomas Lord Stanley. See Chap. II.

{161d} Sir William Stanley. See Chap. II.

{161e} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Additional Particulars, pp. 195, 196.

{162a} “Margaret Beaufort, sole daughter and heiress of John Beaufort,

first Duke of Somerset, became Countess of Richmond by her marriage with

her first husband, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond; her second husband was

Sir Henry Stafford (a son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham,

slain at the battle of Northampton, and a brother of Humphrey Stafford,

Earl of Stafford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, and also a

brother of John Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire); and her third husband was

Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby. The Countess of Richmond

had only one child, viz., Henry Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry

VII., by her marriage with Edmund Earl of Richmond (see Pedigree No. 4,

chap. ix. p. 201); and she had not any children either by her second or

third husband, as if, to use the words of Sandford, in his _Genealogical

History_, p. 319, ‘she had been designed to be the mother of a king

onely.’ She lived to see her son Henry VII. and her grandson Henry VIII.

successively kings, and died in the first year of the reign of the

latter, on the 3rd July, 1509, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.”

{162b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Additional Particulars, pp. 196, 197.

Baker, in his _Chronicles_ calls the hill, Anne Beam; and, considering

the age when he wrote, the spelling is not so very much amiss. It is now

called Ambien Hill, and also Amyon Hill.

{163a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 94.

{163b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 97.

{163c} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow.

{163d} Hutton, p. 96.

{163e} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow. It must be borne

in mind, that the morass formed part of what is at present the wood, and

that a portion of the latter extends nearly to the well. Henry’s army,

in advancing, would naturally bear away a little to the left, in order to

avoid the morass.

{163f} Hutton, p. 69.

{163g} _Ibid._, pp. 87, 94.

{164} Baker, in his _Chronicles_, fo. 232, states, that Richard’s

“vanguard was led by the Duke of Norfolk, which consisted of one thousand

two hundred bowmen, flanked with two hundred cuyrassiers, under the

conduct of the Earl of Surrey; the battel King Richard led himself, which

consisted of a thousand bill-men empaled with two thousand pikes; the

rereward was led by Sir Thomas Brackenbury, consisting of two thousand

mingled, with two wings of horsemen, containing fifteen hundred, all of

them cast into square maniples, expecting the Lord Stanley’s coming with

two thousand, most of them horsemen.” Instead of Sir Thomas Brackenbury,

Baker probably meant Sir Robert Brackenbury, who lost his life in the

battle; but in either case, he appears to be in error, as to the

commander of the rear of Richard’s army, which not only other old

historians, but even Baker, on the next page, states, to have been

commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. “In this battel Henry, Earl of

Northumberland, who led King Richard’s rereward, never strook

stroke.”—Baker, fo. 233.

{165a} Philippe de Commines, 5me livre, fo. 151.

{165b} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Henry VII. (A.D. 1485) vol. vi. folios 275 and

276. See Appendix No. 3.

{165c} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, pp. 82 and 97.

{165d} John Howard was a son of Sir Robert Howard, by Margaret, daughter

of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and was a faithful supporter of

Edward IV., who created him a baron in 1461. Richard III. created him

Duke of Norfolk on the 14th of June, 1483. He had the honour of being

placed in the vanguard of Richard’s army at the battle of Bosworth.

{165e} Thomas Howard, son of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, before

mentioned, was created Earl of Surrey in the first year of Richard III.

He also had the honour of having a principal command in Richard’s

vanguard; and, according to some accounts, he was taken prisoner, but,

according to others, he escaped from the field, and afterwards, upon an

amnesty being published, he submitted to Henry. He was imprisoned for a

considerable period, but was at length reconciled to Henry VII., and was

made Lord Treasurer of England in the sixteenth year of his reign; and

was created Duke of Norfolk in 1514, the fifth year of Henry VIII.’s

reign.

{165f} Henry Percy, fourth Earl of Northumberland of that name, was the

son and heir of Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, slain at the

battle of Towton. (See Chap. VI.) At the battle of Bosworth he

commanded the rear of Richard’s army, but he is considered to have been

lukewarm and indifferent, and his forces are said not to have struck a

blow; he immediately submitted to Henry, and was taken into favour by

him, and was made one of his Privy Council, and was slain in the fourth

year of his reign at a place called Cock Edge, near Thirsk, in Yorkshire,

by the populace, in an insurrection on account of a tax imposed by

Parliament, which the King had ordered him to levy.

{166a} Francis Viscount Lovel escaped from Bosworth Field, and fought at

the battle of Stoke in 1487, and was slain there, or at least never

appeared afterwards. (See Chap. IX.)

{166b} John Lord Zouch was attainted for taking part with Richard at the

battle of Bosworth, but his attainder was reversed in 4th Henry VII.—See

_Rot. Parl._ 4th Henry VII. (A.D. 1488), vol. vi. fo. 24, and 11th Henry

VII. (A.D. 1495), vol. vi. fo. 484. He died in the fourth or fifth year

of Edward VI.

{166c} Sir Walter Devereux, in the twenty-sixth year of Henry VI.

married Anne, sole daughter and heiress of William Lord Ferrers of

Chartley, in Staffordshire, she being then aged eleven years and eight

months, had livery of her lands, and in 1st Edward IV. was advanced to

the dignity of a baron by the title of Lord Ferrers. At his death at

Bosworth Field, he left by his wife Anne a son John, who succeeded him in

his title and honours.

{166d} Probably of the family of Ratcliffes, Barons Fitzwalter. See

Chap. VI.

{166e} Sir Gervase Clifton was of an ancient family in Nottinghamshire,

of which the members still remain settled in that county. His father,

Sir Gervase Clifton, fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of

Tewkesbury, and was afterwards executed there. See Chap. VII.

{166f} Sir Robert Brackenbury was Constable of the Tower of London and

Master of the Mint. He stood high in the estimation of Richard III., who

employed him in several matters of importance.

{166g} Jasper (called of Hatfield) Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of

Bedford. See Chap. V. He, with his nephew the Earl of Richmond,

commanded the main body at the battle of Bosworth.

{166h} John De Vere, thirteenth Earl of Oxford. He was the son of John

de Vere, Earl of Oxford (beheaded in the first year of Edward IV.), and

of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Howard the younger, and was a staunch

Lancastrian, fought on the part of Henry VI. at the battle of Barnet in

1471, afterwards held St. Michael’s Mount, on the coast of Cornwall,

against Edward IV., and on its surrender was sent prisoner to the Castle

of Hammes in Picardy. He was attainted in the fourteenth year of Edward

IV. He afterwards escaped from Hammes and joined Henry Earl of Richmond,

whom he accompanied to England in 1485, and commanded the van of

Richmond’s army, consisting principally of archers, at the battle of

Bosworth. After the accession to the throne of Henry VII. he was

restored to his rank and possessions; was joint commander with Jasper

Duke of Bedford against the Earl of Lincoln at the battle of Stoke; and

also held a joint command with him of the forces sent by Henry VII. in

aid of the Emperor Maximilian against the French; and was also, in the

twelfth year of Henry VII. one of the chief commanders against Lord

Audley and the insurgents at the battle of Blackheath. In the first year

of Henry VIII. he obtained a confirmation of the office of Lord

Chamberlain. He married, first, Margaret, daughter of Richard Earl of

Salisbury; and, secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Richard Scrope, and

widow of William Viscount Beaumont, and died on the 10th of March, in the

fourth of Henry VIII., without leaving any living issue, and was

succeeded by his nephew, John de Vere.

{167a} Sir William Brandon was the son of Sir William Brandon, by

Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Wingfield, and was, with his brother

Thomas Brandon, concerned in the insurrection of the Duke of Buckingham

against Richard III. in 1483. Upon its miscarriage the brothers fled

into Brittany. After the death of Sir William at Bosworth Field, Thomas

was made one of the esquires of the body of Henry VII., and had the

honour of carrying his buckler at the battle of Stoke, and about the end

of his reign was made a Knight of the Garter. He died in the first year

of Henry VIII., and left a son, who was created Viscount Lisle in the

fifth year of Henry VIII., and afterwards raised to the dignity of Duke

of Suffolk.

{167b} Sir Gilbert Talbot was the brother of John, third Earl of

Shrewsbury, and uncle and guardian of George, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury,

then a minor, and commanded Henry’s right wing at the battle of Bosworth.

{167c} Sir John Savage, commonly called “Sir John Savage, Junior,” of

Clifton, now usually called Rock Savage, in Cheshire, was a nephew of

Thomas Lord Stanley, and had the command of Henry’s left wing at the

battle of Bosworth. He was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VII.,

and was slain at the siege of Boulogne in 1492.—Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 469

and 488; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. i. pp. 525 and 527.

{167d} He died in 1488 without issue, leaving a brother, Sir Nicholas

Byron, his heir, who was the ancestor of the late Lord Byron, the

celebrated poet.

{167e} Thomas Lord Stanley. (See Chap. II.) There is a very remarkable

peculiarity connected with Lord Stanley’s (and the same observation

applies in some degree also to Sir William Stanley’s) defection from

Richard, and with his joining the Earl of Richmond, which has never been

explained, as far as I am aware, by any author. Richard thought that he

could secure Lord Stanley in his interest, by conferring benefits upon

him, and made him Constable of England for life, with an annuity of £100

a year payable out of the revenue of the county of Lancaster, and created

him a Knight of the Garter. The reasons usually assigned by historians

for Lord Stanley’s defection are, his attachment to the memory of Edward

IV., and his being faithful to the young King Edward V.; the attempt

believed to have been made by Richard to cause him to be destroyed at the

council (when Lord Hastings was seized and beheaded) in 1483; and his

being then committed to prison for a time by Richard—all which are said

to have rankled in his mind; besides the influence which his wife

exercised over him in favour of the Earl of Richmond, Lord Stanley having

married to his second wife the Countess of Richmond, the mother of the

earl. The date of Lord Stanley’s marriage with the Countess of Richmond

does not appear to be stated in the Baronages, but it certainly occurred

at least ten years before the reign of Richard III., because the Countess

of Richmond is mentioned as being the wife of Lord Stanley in _Rot.

Parl._ 13th Edward IV. (1473) vol. vi. fo. 77. No plan for an

insurrection could be better arranged than that of the Duke of Buckingham

in the first year of Richard III. (1483), yet nothing could have worse

success. But if Lord Stanley and his brother had brought forward their

power, and had taken an active part in it, the probability is, that

Richard would at that time have been dethroned. Neither Lord Stanley nor

Sir William Stanley, however, appears to have taken the slightest step,

or to have been in any shape concerned in that insurrection; yet

precisely the same reasons which are assigned for Lord Stanley’s

defection from Richard at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, appear equally

to apply to influence him in 1483, when the Duke of Buckingham took up

arms. It is very difficult to account for Lord Stanley’s then remaining

quiescent, unless we may infer that there was a feeling of jealousy in

his mind, and that he suspected that as the Duke of Buckingham was a more

powerful nobleman than himself and was of the blood royal of England (see

Chap. III. pp. 48, 49, note 4), it was possible that he might, if

successful, claim the crown in his own right; or that Lord Stanley did

not consider that the feeling of the noblemen and gentry against Richard,

was then sufficiently ripe or decided for an insurrection; or that he was

watching events, with the purpose of adhering at last to the strongest.

{168a} When Richard made his charge it should seem that he advanced from

his right centre, because the ancient historians state that he “rode out

_of the syde_ of the range of his battaile” (Hall, fo. 34; Grafton, fo.

851); “rode out _of the side of_ the range of his battel” (Holinshed, fo.

759).

{168b} Sir William Stanley, whose services were so opportunely given,

and of such inestimable value, was requited by Henry’s putting him to

death, in 1496, on a very questionable and frivolous charge. See Chap.

II.

{169a} The historical authorities for this paper are Hall, Holinshed,

Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, Sandford, and vol. vi. _Rot.

Parl._

{169b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 75.

{169c} _Ibid._ 129.

{170} Baker, 235; Stow; Hutton, 143. Sandford’s _Genealogical History_,

p. 410. A tablet has been recently (in 1856) put up on one of the new

buildings near Bow Bridge, with an inscription treating the locality as

if it were the supposed place of the final interment of Richard III.; but

although it may perhaps be a disappointment to those who have caused the

tablet to be placed there, to learn that the correctness of their theory

is not admitted by others, still it is only proper to mention, that there

does not appear to be any authority for such a supposition: indeed, after

his remains had been pulled out of the grave and got rid of at the river,

it is not likely that anybody would know or care what became of them.

{171} William Catesby was a lawyer of eminence in the reign of Richard

III., was one of his chief counsellors, and was the Speaker of the House

of Commons in the only Parliament held in the reign of Richard III. He

was a descendant from an ancient family at Lapworth, near Birmingham. He

is usually called Sir William Catesby by historians; but is certainly

only treated as an esquire, not as a knight, in the act of attainder of

1st Henry VII. (see _Rot. Parl._ 1st Henry VII. A.D. 1485, vol. vi. fo.

275, Appendix No. 3), and in the act of the reversal of the attainder in

favour of his son and heir, George Catesby, in the 11th year of the reign

of Henry VII. (see _Rot. Parl._ 11th Henry VIII. A.D. 1495, vol. vi. fo.

490; in which the latter is called the son and heir “of William Catysby

Squier,” which seems tolerably conclusive of his not having been

knighted).

{172a} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Henry VII. (in November, 1485), vol. v. fo. 276.

See Appendix No. 3.

{172b} As if to make the injustice and mockery of such a proceeding the

more glaring, the act of Parliament states the battle to have been fought

in the first year of Henry’s reign (1485); but it might perhaps have

perplexed Henry to have asked him at what exact date the first year of

his reign commenced, and how men could commit treason against him before

the commencement of it.

{173} Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. ii. p. 356, and plate 30.

{174} Mr. Hutton’s contrast of their characters contains much

truth:—“But were I allowed to treat royalty with plainness, Richard was

an accomplished rascal, and Henry not one jot better.”—Hutton’s _Bosworth

Field_, p. 73.

{175} _Carte_, vol. ii. p. 866.

{176a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 179.

{176b} Shakespeare’s _Richard III._ act i. scene 4.

{177a} A copy of the paper, but in rather a more extended form, upon the

Field of the Battle of Stoke was presented by the author, to the Society

of Antiquaries of London, at a meeting, on the 17th of December, 1846,

and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

{177b} John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, was the eldest son of John de

la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, second daughter of Richard

Plantagenet, Duke of York, and sister of Edward IV. and of Richard

III.—See Pedigree No. 2, _infra_, in this chapter.

{177c} Margaret, the widow of Charles Duke of Burgundy, was the third

daughter of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, formerly Cecily

Neville.—See Pedigree No. 2, _infra_, in this chapter.

{178a} For the descent of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4, _infra_, in

this chapter.

{178b} It has been said, that at first Lambert was intended to have

personated Richard Duke of York, one of the young princes, the son of

King Edward IV., who had been imprisoned in the Tower, but that the

difference in their ages rendered it inexpedient.

{178c} _Rot. Parl._ 3 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 397.—See Appendix No. V.

{178d} Francis Viscount Lovel was the son of John Lord Lovel; the latter

was one of those Lancastrians who accompanied the Lords Scales and

Hungerford to London, in hopes of gaining the citizens, and were obliged

to take refuge in the Tower, in 1460; he died in the fourth year of

Edward IV., leaving by Joan his wife, sister of William Viscount

Beaumont, Francis, his son and heir. Francis Lord Lovel accompanied

Richard Duke of Gloucester, in the expedition to Scotland, in the

twenty-second year of Edward IV., and was advanced to the dignity of

Viscount Lovel. In the reign of Richard III. he was made Lord

Chamberlain, and had other important offices conferred upon him. He

fought for Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485 (see Chap. VIII.),

and, having escaped from thence, took sanctuary at St. John’s, at

Colchester. He afterwards quitted it privately, and got away to Sir

Thomas Broughton’s house in Lancashire, and lurked there for some months,

from whence he proceeded to Flanders, to Margaret Duchess of Burgundy;

and from thence went with Martin Swartz into Ireland, joined in the

insurrection of the Earl of Lincoln, and was slain at the battle of

Stoke. (See Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 560.) He married Anne, the

daughter of Henry Lord Fitzhugh, Baron of Ravenswath (by Alice his wife,

daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury), but did not leave any

issue.

{179a} _Rot. Parl._ 11th Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502.—See Appendix No.

VI.

{179b} See Collection of “Documents relating to Lambert Symnell’s

Rebellion in the second year of King Henry VII.,” selected from the

_Municipal Archives of York_, by Robert Davies, Esq., F.S.A.;

communicated to the Meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York,

in 1846; published in 1847, pp. 27, 28.

{180a} Jasper Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.

{180b} John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

{180c} Thomas Lord Stanley.—See Chaps. III. and VIII.

{180d} George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, was son of John, third

earl, and grandson of John, second Earl Shrewsbury, who was slain at the

battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.

{180e} Lel. _Coll._ vol. iv. fo. 210.—See Appendix No. IV.

{181} After the earl’s forces had crossed the Trent at Fiskerton, and

found themselves upon its right bank, Stoke Marsh, now enclosed, lay

immediately before them; and beyond it, little more than a quarter of a

mile distant, was the foot of the eminence already mentioned.

{182a} On the right, an artificial mount of small size, exists in the

contiguous field, which is traditionally considered as having been

occupied by some of the hostile forces, previous to the battle of Stoke.

The small mount is said to have been thrown up or added to, for the

purposes of a windmill, which once stood there.

{182b} For the Pedigree of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4, _infra_, in

this chapter.

{185a} 4 Lelandi _Collect_, p. 211.—See Appendix No. IV.

{185b} 4 Lel. _Col._ p. 210, 212.—See Appendix No. IV.

{186a} Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, formerly Earl of Pembroke.—See

Chap. V.

{186b} John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

{186c} George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury. He was the son of

John, third Earl, and grandson of John, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who

was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.

{186d} Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the son of Sir Henry Neville

(the son of George Lord Latimer, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick), and died in the twenty-second year

of Henry VIII.

{186e} Edward Lord Hastings, son of William Lord Hastings (put to death

by Richard Duke of Gloucester, in 1488—see Chap. VI.) by Katherine,

daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of William

Bonvile Lord Harrington, was created Earl of Huntingdon, in the

twenty-first, and died in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VIII.

{186f} Thomas Stanley, first Earl of Derby.—See Chap. II.

{186g} Sir Edward Fielding was the son and heir of Sir William Fielding,

who fell at the battle of Tewkesbury, fighting for the Lancastrian party,

and was interred there; he was the ancestor of William Fielding, created

Earl of Denbigh, in the twentieth year of James I.

{186h} See Chap. VIII.

{186i} Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 299. There was also another

person of the name of Brandon, and probably of the same family—Robert

Brandon, who appears to have distinguished himself at the battle of

Stoke, because he was knighted on the occasion.—See Leland’s

_Collectanea_, vol. iv. p. 210, Appendix No. IV.

{186j} _Rot. Parl._ 3 Henry VII. part 15, vol. vi. fo. 397. See

Appendix No. V. But see _Rot. Parl._ 11 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502.

Appendix No. VI., where the 20th of June is mentioned as the date of the

battle.

{187a} _Rot. Parl._ 3 Henry VII., vol. vi. fo. 397. See Appendix No. V.

See also Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, pp. 82, 97: An act of attainder was

passed against the adherents of Richard III., after the battle of

Bosworth, which mentions the use of guns amongst other arms, by

them.—_Rot. Parl._ 1 Henry VII., vol. vi. p. 276. See Appendix No. III.

{187b} Hall, Holinshed, Bacon, Pol. Virgil, Baker.

{187c} Lambert Simnel was made a turnspit in the King’s kitchen, and was

afterwards made a falconer; the priest, his tutor, was never again heard

of.

{188a} Lelandi _Collectanea_, p. 214. See Appendix No. IV. and No. VII.

{188b} Hall’s _Chronicles_, and Bacon, mention a rumour of his being

drowned in swimming the Trent; but the latter adds, “But another report

leaves him not there, but that he lived long after, in a cave or vault;”

and in the 2nd volume, p. 321, Banks’s _Dormant and Extinct Baronage_, is

a copy of a letter, dated 1737, from William Cooper, Esq., clerk of the

Parliament, detailing some interesting particulars of the discovery, in

1708, of a human skeleton, in a vault at Minster Lovel, in Oxfordshire,

which formerly belonged to Lord Lovel, supposed by many, to be the

remains of that unfortunate nobleman. See Appendix No. VII.

{188c} Buck’s _Life of Richard III._

{188d} Hall, Holinshed, Dugdale.—See Chap. VIII.

{188e} Hall, Dugdale’s _Baronage_.

{189} Lel. _Col._ vol. iv. p. 213. See Appendix No. IV.

{190} I have paid four visits to the field of the battle of Stoke, viz.,

in June, 1823; June, 1824; August, 1825; and September, 1827.

{191a} A passage, calculated to mislead, exists in a work, called _The

Beauties of England and Wales_. It contains an assertion, unsupported by

any proof, “that the battle must have been fought in the plain, between

Stoke and Thorpe, rather than Stoke and Elston.” The clear and

unqualified statements of the old chroniclers and annalists, that it was

fought at Stoke, the evidence of the relics dug up, and the tradition of

the neighbourhood, make it however quite certain that it could not have

been fought in the place suggested in that work.

{191b} _Rot. Parl._ 17 Edward IV. and 1 Richard III.

{191c} Ralph Brooke, Sandford, Dugdale, Baker.

{192a} Dugdale, Speed.

{192b} Buck.

{192c} Of coarse, I pay no attention to Henry’s proclamation, published

in Drake’s _Eboracum_, p. 122, which is so incorrect, as to assert, that

the Earl of Lincoln, the Earl of Surrey, and Lord Lovel, were slain

there.

{192d} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Henry VII., vol. vi. See Appendix No. III.

{192e} See 4 Lel. _Coll._ p. 210. He also attended Henry VII. in his

first progress into Yorkshire. See 4 Lel. _Coll._ p. 186.

{193a} Sir John Neville (commonly called John Lord Neville), was the

brother and heir presumptive of Ralph Neville, second Earl of

Westmoreland.—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Lel.

_Coll._ vol. ii. p. 715 [498]; act of attainder, 1 Edward IV. (1461),

_Rot. Parl._ vol. v. p. 476; act of reversal of the attainder, 12th and

13th Edward IV., _Rot. Parl._ vol. vi. p. 24. A remarkable error exists

in Hall’s, Holinshed’s, and Fabyan’s _Chronicles_, in which it is stated,

that the Earl of Westmoreland perished at the battle of Towton; but, in

fact, the first Earl of Westmoreland of that family, died in 4th Henry

VI., and the second Earl of Westmoreland, in 2nd Richard III.—Dugdale’s

_Baronage_, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300. Sir John Neville, commonly called

John Lord Neville, married Anne, the widow of his nephew, John Neville

(the son and heir apparent of Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland), who

died before his father.—See Chap. VI.

{193b} It is stated by Dugdale, in vol. i. p. 248, that John Tibtoft,

Earl of Worcester, married her niece, Cecily, daughter of Richard

Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of Henry de Beauchamp, Duke of

Warwick, and was executed on Tower Hill, in 1470; but that is scarcely

reconcileable with what Dugdale afterwards states of his marriage in vol.

ii. p. 41.

{194a} He is called William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, in the _Catalogue

of Nobility_, by Ralph Brooke, p. 205; and William Lord Harrington, by

Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol. iii. p. 236; and William Lord Bonvile,

in the same work, vol. i. pp. 581 and 585. He was the son of William

Bonvile, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heiress of William Lord

Harrington, and the grandson of William Lord Bonvile, who was put to

death by Queen Margaret and the Lancastrian leaders, after the second

battle of St. Alban’s, in 1461.—See Chaps. IV. and VI.

{194b} _Catalogue of Nobility_, _&c._, by Ralph Brooke, p. 174; and

Dugdale’s _Bar._ vol. i. p. 304. A descrepancy is, however, apparent in

Dugdale’s work, as he, in another place, erroneously states, that the

Earl of Oxford married Katherine Neville—vol. i. p. 198.

{195a} Horatio Walpole, Earl of Orford, in his work, called _Historic

Doubts_, has attempted to disprove the charge against Richard III. of the

murder of his nephews, the two princes, in the Tower of London. The work

is curious and interesting; but that author seems to have failed in

removing from Richard, the stigma of this shocking crime. “Si l’on a

fait de lui, des jugemens téméraires, c’est lui, qui en est coupable. Il

est certain qu’il enferma ses neveux dans la Tour; ils ne pararent plus,

c’est à lui d’en répondre;” {195b} and perhaps few persons can read the

remarks on the _Historic Doubts_, published by the Rev. Dr. Milles, and

the Rev. Robert Masters, in the 1st and 2nd vols. _Archæologia_, pp. 361

and 198, without perceiving, that what the author of the _Historic

Doubts_ relies on as proofs of Richard III.’s innocence, are very ably

rebutted by those writers; and that what he terms the coronation roll of

King Richard III., in which are items for robes, &c. for King Edward V.

(from which he would infer, that the latter monarch was alive, and even

present at the coronation of the former), is only a wardrobe account of

Piers Curteys, the king’s wardrober, kept from the time of the death of

Edward IV., of which the deliveries for the expected coronation, of

course, form a considerable part; but that the robes, &c., alluded to

were prepared for the use of Edward V., at his own intended coronation,

and not at that of his uncle, who took effectual measures, that,

notwithstanding Piers Curteys’s arrangements, they should never be used

for the purpose which he contemplated. That idea receives a strong

confirmation from Sir Thomas More, who, in his _History of the Life and

Reign of Edward V._, mentions the preparations for his coronation.

{195b} _Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations_, Œuvres de

Voltaire, tome 18me, p. 48.

{196a} Hall, Bacon, Baker; _Catalogue of Nobility_, _&c._ by Ralph

Brooke; Dugdale’a _Bar._, Sir T. More, Hutton, Pol. Virgil, Sandford,

Banks, Walpole; Acts of Attainder, _Rot. Parl._ 17 Edward IV., 1 Richard

III., 1 Henry VII., and 3 Henry VII.—See Pedigrees, Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

{196b} She outlived her husband, Richard Duke of York, thirty-five

years, died at the Castle of Berkhampsted, on the 31st of May, 1495,

_an._ 10th of Henry VII., and was interred by the body of her husband, at

Fotheringay.—Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 369.

{197} Precis du Siècle de Louis XV., Œurres de Voltaire, tome 22, pp.

210 and 223.

{204} It will perhaps occur to the reader, from what has been already

mentioned, that the words “Near this spot,” would be more appropriate and

correct, than “On this spot.”

{205} Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick.—See Chap. II. p. 24, note 2.

{206a} George Duke of Clarence.—See Chap. VII.

{206b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 684.

{206c} Lel. _Coll._ vol. fo. 504; Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 684; MS.

Chronicle by Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society, p. 16. Holinshed,

however, states, that Edward would not allow his guns to be fired during

the night, in order that the enemy might not be aware of the exact

position of the Yorkists.

{207a} See note 2, p. 206.

{207b} Richard Duke of Gloucester.—See Chaps. VII. and VIII.

{207c} William Lord Hastings.—See Chap. VI.

{207d} John Neville, Marquis Montague.—See Chap. II. p. 27, note 4; and

Chap. VI. p. 118, note 2.

{207e} John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

{207f} Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter.—See Chap. IV. p. 54, note 2.

{207g} Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.—See Chap. VII.

{207h} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 684. In Mr. Hutton’s

interesting work upon the _Battle of Bosworth_, Introduction, p. xxx., he

gives a different account, and states that Warwick’s left extended

towards the east, and far outflanked Edward’s right.

{208} Edward’s device of the Sun in Splendour, was adopted from the

parhelion seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.—See Chap. V. pp. 72,

73.

{209a} Humphrey Bourchier, third son of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex,

married Joan, daughter of Richard Stanhope, and niece and co-heir of

Ralph Lord Cromwell, of Tatshall, had summons to Parliament, in 1, 2, 6,

and 9th of Edward IV., by the title of Lord Cromwell, was slain at the

battle of Barnet, left no issue, and was interred in Westminster

Abbey.—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. fo. 133.

{209b} William Fienes, Lord Saye, succeeded his father, James Fienes

Lord Saye, who was put to death by Jack Cade and his mob, in Cheapside,

in London, in 1451. His son, William Lord Saye, upon the arrival in

England of the Earls of March and Warwick, in 1460, joined them, and

marched with them against King Henry VI., to Northampton. In 1463, he

attended King Edward, with his army, to the North, for the recovery of

the castles in Northumberland, then held by the Lancastrians, and in the

same year, was made Vice-Admiral under the Earl of Warwick, then High

Admiral. He accompanied Edward the Fourth, in 1470, when he was driven

out of the kingdom by the Earl of Warwick, and afterwards landed with

Edward at Ravenspur, and fought for him, and was slain at the battle of

Barnet.

{209c} John Bourchier, Lord Berners, was the fourth son of William

Bourchier, Earl of Ewe (see Chap. VI. p. 118, note 3). John Lord

Berners’ eldest son, Sir Humphrey Bourchier, slain in his father’s

lifetime, fighting on Edward’s part, at the battle of Barnet, was

interred in Westminster Abbey, and left by Elizabeth, his wife, daughter

and heir of Sir Frederick Tilney, and widow of Sir Thomas Howard, John

Bourchier, Lord Berners, his son and heir, and another son, Sir Thomas

Bourchier, who joined Henry Earl of Richmond, upon his march towards

Bosworth Field, and took part with him in that battle.—Dugdale’s

_Baronage_, vol. ii. fo. 132.

{209d} There were slain on Edward’s part, at the battle of Barnet,

according to Holinshed—Lord Cromwell, Lord Saye, Lord Montjoye’s son and

heir, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of Lord Berners; according to

Speed, Lord Cromwell, Lord Bourchier, Lord Barnes [_Quære_—Berners], son

and heir to the Lord Saye, and Sir John Lisle; according to Stow,

Humphrey Bourchier Lord Cromwell, Henry Bourchier, son of Lord Berners,

and Sir John Lisle; according to Hall, and to Grafton, Sir Humphrey

Bourchier, son of Lord Berners, but no other person of any note;

according to a letter from Sir John Paston to his mother, published in

Fenn’s _Collections of Original Letters_, vol. ii. p. 65, Lord Cromwell,

Lord Saye, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier; and, according to Warkworth’s

_Chronicle_, Lord Cromwell son and heir to the Earl of Essex, Lord

Barnes’ [_Quære_ Berners’] son and heir, Lord Saye, and others.

{210a} Shakespeare’s _Henry VI._ part iii. act iii. scene 3. It is

remarkable, that in the same tragedy, in act ii. scene 3, Shakespeare

conveys the same sentiment, but in different words, “Thou setter-up and

plucker-down of Kings.”

{210b} Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 684; Lel. _Col._ vol. i. p. 504. _MS.

Chronicle_, by Warkworth, p. 16.

{210c} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Introduction xxxv.

{210d} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Introduction xxxiv.

{210e} According to Lysons, antiquaries have differed in their opinions,

nevertheless, concerning the exact spot where the battle was fought: some

supposing that it was fought near the obelisk; others, on Monkey Mead

Plain, more to the north, within Enfield Chase. Lysons’ _Environs of

London_, vol. iv. p. 2.

{211} A respectable person, who had formerly long resided close to it,

mentioned to me the circumstance, of its having been removed, as above

stated, and also that he had known it during fifty-six years. He also

stated, in reply to my inquiries, that he did not know of his own

knowledge, that any relics of the battle had been discovered; but that he

had heard of such discoveries formerly.

In strict order of dates, the account of the Field of the Battle of

Barnet, ought to have preceded that of the Field of the Battle of

Tewkesbury; but that could not be done without inconvenience, because the

manuscript of the other parts of the work had been written, and the

arrangements had been made for printing them, before the author had

visited the place where the battle of Barnet was fought, or had written

an account of it.

{213} The paper upon the General Use of Firearms by the English, in the

fifteenth century, was read before a meeting of the Society of

Antiquaries of London, on the 1st of February, 1855, and the thanks of

the meeting were voted for it to the author.

{215a} Vol. i. p. 150.

{215b} Statute of 4th and 6th Philip and Mary, c. ii. s. 17.

{215c} See Hallam’s _State of Europe during the Middle Ages_, vol. i.

pp. 361 and 363. See also _Archæologia_, vol. xxxii. p. 379. In

Hallam’s talented work on the _State of Europe during the Middle Ages_,

vol. i. pp. 361 and 363, and in the notes to them, are some valuable

observations on the early introduction of gunpowder. He appears to

consider it of eastern invention, and ascribes to the Moors, with every

appearance of probability, the introduction of it into Europe, and

mentions some very early instances of the use of cannons in the

fourteenth century. He even refers to a writer who seems to mention the

use of gunpowder in engines of war, in 1249.

An interesting proof of the use of cannon and other engines by the French

during the siege of a fortress in the fourteenth century, is given in the

_Rotuli Parliamentorum_ of the 1st Richard II. (1377). A parliamentary

proceeding, in the nature of an impeachment, was instituted against

William de Weston, an English commander, who had been intrusted by King

Edward III. (“jadys Roy d’Engl.’ aiel ñre Sr le Roy q’ore est”) with the

custody of the castle of Outhrewyk, and who was charged with having

improperly surrendered it to the enemy; “en temps de mesme nr̃e Sr̃ le

Roy q’ore est, verray heir au dit aiel.” In the answer of William de

Weston, which is given at length, it is stated, that he had not

sufficient forces to defend the castle; and also that the enemy, in

besieging it, had “IX grosses canons, un grant engyn, et un trebuchet,” *

* * “Et deins brief temps apres, ils comenceront a traire & getter de

lour canons & engyns & ensi continneront de jonr en autre lour assalt” *

* * “les murs en plusours lieux feurent enfebles par lour mervaillouses

ordinances” * * * “Item mesme celui nuyt les enemys firont attrere toutes

lours ordinances des engins, trebuchett, et canons.” {216b}

There is not any evidence of the period when the invention of gunpowder

took place; but the general opinion of antiquaries appears to be, that it

was a discovery of very remote antiquity; that its use may be dated back

centuries before its first application to the purposes of war; and that

for a very long period of time after its invention, it was merely used

(more particularly in Asia) for recreative fireworks, and brilliant

spectacles. Whilst on the subject of fireworks, it may be advisable to

mention here, that they were in common use in Europe in the fifteenth

century. Fireworks are mentioned by Philip de Commines, {216c} as having

been thrown for amusement into the air, and afterwards running flaming on

the ground, at Estampes, after the battle of Montl’hery, in 1465. We

also learn from the same authority, an instance in 1494, of fireworks

having been exhibited at Venice, from the steeples of the city, and

pieces of artillery having been discharged. {216d}

{216a} The defective construction of guns during very many years after

the battle of Crescy, and the want of skill in the art of gunnery, as

well as the silence of the English and French historians, seem almost

conclusive against the use of them at that battle, although the contrary

has been asserted.

There is an interesting and valuable paper, which was written by the Rev.

Joseph Hunter, F.S.A., and published in the _Archæologia_, vol. xxxii. p.

379, which contains many proofs of the use of gunpowder and cannons in

the time of Edward III.; but, although it must be admitted that the

evidence which he adduces is quite sufficient to show that they were then

in use for the purpose of besieging towns and fortresses, he does not

bring forward any proofs, or even any strong reason, for our supposing

that they were ever used in the open field, during the reign of Edward

III.

{216b} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Richard II., 1377, vol. iii. p. 10. It also

furnishes another proof, in addition to others, of the French employing

Genoese cross-bowmen in their wars; as 700 of them are there mentioned,

as employed by the French at the siege.

{216c} Philip de Commines, book 1, ch. v. pp. 13 and 14.

{216d} _Ibid._ book 7, ch. xv. p. 215.

{217a} Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 168, and vol. ii. p.

291.

{217b} It is by no means improbable, that the “bastons à feu,” the

nature of which, is not clear, adverted to by Monstrelet, as with the

convoy brought up by the English, in besieging Orleans in 1428, were some

kind of portable firearms. He several times uses that expression,

particularly in describing the wars of the Burgundians and French. It

ought, however, to be mentioned here, that with reference to the attack

by the Burgundians upon Paris, in 1460, he uses the expression, “canons

serpentines, et autres bastons de pouldre et a feu, avec trait de bastons

inuasibles a main.” During the early part and middle of the fifteenth

century, if gun-carriages were occasionally used, they certainly were not

always adopted; and when cannons had to be transported from place to

place, they were frequently conveyed in carts or waggons; and we learn

from the ancient historical writers, that at that period, for want of

carts and waggons, the besiegers were occasionally obliged, on raising a

siege, to abandon their cannons.

{218a} Philip de Commines, in book 5, c. iii. p. 118, in enumerating the

strength of the Swiss army, and the other confederates, against Charles

Duke of Burgundy, in 1476, before Morat, says, that they had “dix mille

coulevrines,” by which, as has been correctly observed by Mr. Grose, it

is impossible that he could have meant 10,000 of such unwieldly engines

as cannons; he evidently meant hand-guns or firearms, sufficiently light

to be portable. It is also certain that firearms (haquebuts or

harquebusses), so small as to be used on horseback (the origin of the

modern carbine and pistol), were used on the Continent, in the year 1495;

because on the retreat of the French after the battle of Fernova, in

Italy, fought in that year, the rear of their army was defended by 300

Germans, many of whom had “coulevrines,” and others on horseback were

armed with “haquebutes.”—Philip de Commines, book 8, c. 7, p. 235.

{219a} The bombard appears, however, occasionally to have been used to

denote any kind of cannon.

{219b} Rymer’s _Fædera_, vol. viii. fo. 159.

{219c} _Ibid._ fo. 158.

{220} Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 399, note _u_.

{224} See pages 218 and 221, as to the occasional use of the word

“engines” to denote other descriptions of instruments used in war by the

English, as well as firearms.

{227} See pages 218 and 221, as to the occasional use of the word

engine, to denote other instruments used in war by the English besides

firearms.

{228} Sir John Fastolf, was of Caistor Castle, near Yarmouth, in

Norfolk, of an old and respectable family, and a reliant soldier, who

distinguished himself in the wars in France, in the reign of Henry VI.,

and especially on the 12th of February, 1429, when having the command of

a body of men, convoying provisions and supplies for the English, who

were engaged in the siege of Orleans, he was attacked on his march

thither, near Rovray St. Denis, by a much superior body of French and

Scotch: but he obtained the victory, and succeeded in delivering the

convoy in safety to the besiegers. He died on the 6th of November, 1459,

aged about 80 years. There are some interesting particulars respecting

him given in Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. pp. 52, 54,

72, 104, 120, 125, 150, 155, 164, 166, 170, 182, 240; and vol. ii. p. 48.

Notwithstanding there is a degree of similarity in the names, Sir John

Fastolf, who lived in the time of Henry VI., must not, however, be

confounded with the fictitious character so admirably drawn by

Shakespeare, the Sir John Falstaff, represented by him as living in the

time of Henry IV., and dying in the reign of Henry V. As far as I can

discover, there is not any old historian who mentions such a person as

the imaginary Sir John Falstaff, or any person of a name similar to the

latter, living at that period, whose habits and associates resemble those

of the amusing character described by Shakespeare: a character which

seems to have been only the offspring of our immortal Bard’s playful

imagination.

{234} See _supra_ in this chapter, p. 228.

{238} See also Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. ii. p. 291, where the

passage is referred to.

{240} It appears from the above, that the wages of a Doctor of Laws

(John Coke) were then two shillings, and of a public Notary one shilling

per day.

{241} In the _Harleian Manuscripts_ there are several documents of the

reign of Edward V. and Richard III. in which guns, serpentines,

artillery, gunpowder, &c., are mentioned.

{242} See pages 223 and 224.

{245a} The paper upon the family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, was read by

the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of

Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 18th of October, 1848, and the thanks of

the meeting were voted for it to him.

{245b} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302; Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._,

_Cheshire_ (note _f_), p. 356.

{245c} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 482; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_,

vol. iii. p. 302.

{245d} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 482, referring to _Heraldic

Collections_, by W. Smith, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant in the Heralds’

College, p. 78; and in a note in third vol. of Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, p.

302, he mentions the same fact respecting that embassy.

{246a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302 (note), in which he

mentions the above arms to have been allowed them in 1663–64, and states

that a pedigree of the family is given in _Harl. MSS._ 2040, 267.

{246b} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 356.

It may be well to mention here, with reference to the family of Wyche, or

De la Wyche, that Richard Wyche, of Davenham, had a son, Richard. The

latter was a merchant in London, married the daughter of Sir Richard

Saltingstall, Knt., the Lord Major, and died in 1621, leaving twelve sons

and six daughters, of whom the Right Hon. Sir Peter Wyche, Knt., was the

sixth son. Sir Peter was gentleman of the privy chamber to Charles I.,

for twelve years ambassador at Constantinople, and afterwards comptroller

of the household, and a privy councillor. He died in 1643, leaving two

sons and a daughter, of whom the elder son, Sir Peter Wyche, was envoy to

the court of Muscovy, in 1669. The younger, Sir Cyrill Wyche, Knt.

(named after his godfather, the Patriarch of Constantinople), established

the Norfolk branch of the family, sat for many years in Parliament, was

secretary to the lieutenancy in Ireland, and one of the lords justices

there. The second Sir Peter Wyche had four sons, of whom John was envoy

extraordinary at Hamburgh; Barnard, from whom a branch of the family in

Leicestershire descended, and Peter and George, died unmarried. Sir

Cyrill Wyche, the son of John, was appointed by Queen Anne to be resident

at Hamburgh, when only nineteen years of age; and in the reign of George

I., he was minister and envoy extraordinary to the circle of Lower

Saxony, also envoy extraordinary to the court of Russia; and was created

a Baronet whilst at the Hans Towns, December 20th, 1729, but dying

without surviving male issue, in 1756, the baronetcy became

extinct.—Burke’s _Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England_, title

“_Wyche_.”

{246c} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 356.

{246d} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302.

{246e} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Chesh._, p. 356 (n. _f_).

{247} In consequence of his death, on the 15th of June, 1852, after this

paper was written, the farm now belongs to the author.

{250a} In this closet is a curious substitute for what was unknown when

the hall was built—a water-closet. A narrow flue descended into the

garden from the closet, and was so built as to appear on the outside as

part of the stack or range of chimney-flues; the stone side-supporters of

its seat remain; and the soil and every thing offensive used to fall from

it through the flue to the ground on the outside, at a hole below in the

stone-work, which still remains, and which was purposely left open at the

bottom of the chimney-stack, from whence it could be removed when found

necessary. I have seen similar (which are, I believe, not uncommon), at

Carlisle Castle, adjoining the apartment said to have been the place of

confinement of Mary Queen of Scots, at the ancient tower, forming part of

Brimstage Old Hall, in Cheshire; at Ludlow Castle, Goodrich Castle, Stoke

Saye Castle, and several other old castles in England.

{250b} Such as Chorley Hall, Little Moreton Hall, and Moat Hall, and the

site of Alderley Hall; the latter was burned down in 1779, and all

vestiges of the walls of the mansion are gone.

{253a} The paper upon the old church of Wilmslow was read by the author

in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and

Cheshire, on the 3rd of May, 1849, and the thanks of the meeting were

voted for it to him.

{255a} At present they are not all perfect.

{255b} The piscine is very rarely found on the north side of any church

or chapel.

{256} As the ancient family of Handford, of Handford, in the adjoining

pariah of Cheadle, bore the etoile or star in their arms, it might be

inferred that the ornament had been introduced from that circumstance, if

the stars had been painted on shields (like armorial bearings); but that

is not the case; as they are painted on circular ornaments.

{257a} Now nearly hidden from view by a quantity of ivy, which has

carelessly been suffered to grow over it.

{257b} I seldom see such an example of bad taste, without thinking of a

passage, written in some work of imagination (it may be one of

Goldsmith’s, for ought I know), which I read when a boy, mentioning an

inscription by churchwardens, to the following effect, “Repaired and

beautified by Samuel Smear and Daniel Daub, churchwardens.”

{258} Why should we not here notice the grave of a brave man, a native

of Styal, in the parish of Wilmslow, who did honour to Cheshire and to

his regiment? In the churchyard, near the south side of the chancel is a

raised tomb, to the memory of Captain John Worrell, son of Henry and Mary

Worrell, of Styal. The following is a copy of the principal part of it:—

“who departed this life, September 28th, 1760, aged 77. He served 50

years in his Majestie’s regiment of Carbineers, and carried and

brought off, with honour, the standard, at the memorable battle of

Malplaquet. His gallant behaviour as a soldier, and his private

virtue as a member of society, gained him the esteem of every brave

and honest man.”

{259a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311.

{259b} “Henry Trafford, D.D., built the chancel, 1522; made the tomb

north of the communion rails. He was a younger brother of the Traffords,

of Trafford.”—_Parl. Reg._; see Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311

(note _p_). Is it possible that we are intended, by the above passage,

to understand that he made the tomb on the north side of the communion

rails, in anticipation of his own death?

{261} A portion of a large pillar at the head of the tomb, appears to

have been cut away, as if to admit of part of it being placed there.

{262a} Lysons’ _Cheshire_, p. 451.

{262b} By his death, since this paper was read, the advowson now belongs

to his son, Sir Humphrey De Trafford, Bart.

{263a} He died in 1856, having, not long before his death, sold the

estate.

{263b} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311 (note).

{264a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311.

{264b} See Chapter II. p. 26.

{264c} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311.

{264d} Although Ormerod (in vol. i. xxxii. note _y_, and vol. iii. p.

311,) mentions the date on the tomb as 1460, I found it impossible to

ascertain whether that had ever been the case, because the two last

letters of that part of the brass which contained the date, are missing.

The date of the battle is given in 5 _Rot. Parl._ 38th Henry VI. p. 348

(a very high authority), as Sunday next after the Feast of St. Matthew

the Apostle, in the 38th year of Henry VI., which was in 1459. In

Holinshed’s _Chronicles_ it is stated to have been fought on the day of

St. Tecla, 23rd September, 1459; and in Hall’s and in Grafton’s

_Chronicles_, St. Tecla’s day is also mentioned to have been the day of

the battle; and in Baker’s _Chronicles_ and Stow’s _Annals_, though the

month and day are not named, 1459 is given as the year in which it was

fought; Carte, the historian, also gives the date as Sunday, the 23rd

September, 1459.

{265a} Ormerod states (vol. iii. p. 311, note _y_), that the inscription

possesses considerable interest, as being the memorial of the first

Cheshire male ancestor of the Booths, and of the heiress of Dunham Massey

and the Bollin; and that it is the only inscription now remaining in the

county, relating to any of the warriors who fell at Blore Heath.

{265b} A rubbing from the brass of Sir Robert Booth’s monument, which I

exhibited to the meeting, was kindly lent to me for the purpose, by the

rector, the Rev. William Brownlow, to whom I am much obliged, for several

valuable suggestions and information relative to the church; amongst

which I may mention, that it appears, from the churchwardens’ accounts,

that, during the civil war, the pipes of the organ of the church were

broken up by the Parliamentarian troops, to make bullets.

{266} Poem of the _Borough_, p. 21.

{267a} The paper upon Handford Hall and Cheadle Church, was read by the

author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire

and Cheshire, on the 3rd of January, 1850; and the thanks of the meeting

were voted for it to him.

{268a} _Cheetham Papers_, vol. i. p. 122.

{268b} _Ibid._, p. 161.

{268c} He afterwards spells it “Handford”: vol. i. p. 189.

{268d} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 555; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_,

vol. iii. pp. 326, 327.

{269a} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 55.

{269b} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 73. It is enclosed by a screen of

carved oak, round the upper part of which is inscribed, “Pray, good

people, for the prosperous estate of Sir Randulph Brereton of this work

edificatour wyth his wyfe Dame Helenor,” &c.

{269c} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 73.

{270a} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. pp. 74, 75, 76.

{271a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 326, 327; and Burke’s

_Extinct and Dormant Batonetage_. But in Lyons’ _Cheshire_, p. 555, the

dates are given as, creation 1626, extinction 1678.

{271b} Extracted from the one in Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 327.

{271c} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 65.

{272a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 327.

{272b} Since writing the above, I have again (on the 28th January, 1850)

visited the old hall at Handford, and examined the escutcheon there,

under circumstances more favourable for examination; and I ascertained

that it contains on the dexter side, 1st and 4th the arms, as above

described, of Brereton proper; 2nd and 3rd, a cheveron between three

crescents; and on the sinister side the wife’s arms, as above described.

{273a} Edmondson’s _Heraldry_, vol. ii., where the crescent is (as to

some, at least, of the Cheshire Breretons) stated to be “charged with a

mullet, or.” Edmondson also states that the muzzle of the crest (Bear’s

head and neck) is “studded or.” Ormerod also mentions an additional

crest of this branch of the family, “a Griphon with wings elevated gules,

standing on a chapeau gules, turned up or;” but if so, it is not

introduced at the old hall.

{273b} The ancient family of Praers was of Barthomley, and also of

Baddiley, in Cheshire, now extinct. John Honford, of Honford, married

Margery, daughter of William Praers, of Baddiley, Sheriff of Cheshire in

23rd Edward III.—Ormerod, vol. iii. pp. 162, 327.

{273c} On again inspecting it (on 28th January, 1850), I ascertained

that the crest is charged, on the neck, with a cross crosslet, seemingly

(for it is not distinct) within an annulet or a crescent.

{274} In consequence of his death, on the 15th of June, 1852, after this

paper was written, the estate now belongs to the author.

{275} Prior to the erection of the bridge, there however was, and had

been, as far back as could be recollected, a plank, with a handrail, over

the stream, by which foot-passengers could cross.

{279a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 322. He afterwards, in a note

(_ibid._ p. 328), gives the following, as a description (from the

original grant) of the crest:—“Crest, on a wreath, an eagle’s head couped

or, holding in its beak an eagle’s leg and claws, unguled gules.”

{279b} It is fair to conclude, from the occurrence of those initials and

of the rebus, that the date of the erection of the chapel may have been

coeval with the building of Handford Hall, in 1562.

{281a} Small round-headed arches, very similar to those on the staircase

of Handford Hall, are to be seen, carved on the pulpit of Wilmslow

Church, and on the back of the ancient pew (which has the date 1557) in

the Booth or Earl of Stamford’s Chapel, in the chancel; but the arches

are of course not cut through the wood, in either instance, in Wilmslow

Church, as they are on the staircase of Handford Hall.

{283a} The letter upon the office of Keeper of the Menagerie in the

Tower of London, in the reign of Edward IV., was read before a meeting of

the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 29th of November, 1849, and

the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

{283b} Richard Duke of Gloucester became King Richard III. on the 18th

of June, 1483.—See Chaps. VII. and VIII.

{287a} The paper upon the probable period of the extinction of Wolves in

England, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the

Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool on the 15th of December,

1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

{287b} Pennant’s _British Zoology_, vol. i. p. 65, and the authorities

there cited.

{287c} Goldsmith’s _Natural History_, vol. iii. p. 180; Coke’s

_Institutes_, vol. iv. p. 316; Pennant’s _British Zoology_, vol. i. p.

48. By our cruel forest laws after the Conquest, the penalty for killing

a stag or boar, was the loss of eyes.—Hallam’s _View of the State of

Europe during the Middle Ages_, vol. ii. 8th edition, 8vo, p. 94.

Charles I. turned out wild boars in the New Forest, Hampshire, but they

were all destroyed in the civil wars.—Pennant’s _British Zoology_, vol.

i. p. 48. An attempt was made in the last century, to reintroduce wild

swine into England, for some were turned loose by General Howe, in his

forests in Hampshire; but the attempt was a failure, for the country

people destroyed them.—Bingley’s _British Quadrupeds_, p. 449.

{288a} Pennant’s _British Quadrupeds_, vol. i. p. 86. Holinshed, in his

_Chronicles_, written in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, states that the

beaver was to be met with in Scotland, at the time when he wrote. “There

are likewise martins, bevers, foxes, and wezels.”—See his _Description of

Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 11.

{288b} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. vii. pp. 16 [28], and 63 [81].

{288c} It is said to have been killed by Sir Ewen Cameron.—See Pennant’s

_British Zoology_, vol. i. p. 63, and the authorities there cited;

Pennant’s _History of Quadrupeds_, vol. i. p. 231.

{288d} Pennant’s _British Zoology_, vol. i. p. 64; Pennant’s _History of

Quadrupeds_, vol. i. p. 231, citing Smith’s _History of Cork_, vol. ii.

p. 226. But in _Notes and Queries_, published in 1856, 2nd series, No.

14, p. 282, and No. 32, p. 120, correspondents state, that wolves were

not extinct in the mountains of Wicklow, until many years after 1710.

{289} Camden’s _Magna Britannia_, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 16.

{290a} Camden’s _Magna Britannia_, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 445,

under the title “Strathnavern.”

{290b} _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 464.

{290c} Camden’s _Magna Britannia_, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 16.

{291a} Hume’s _History of England_, vol. i., quarto edition, p. 136.

{291b} Brougham’s _Lives of Men of Letters and Science of the Time of

George III._, p. 216.

{292a} Dr. Whitaker’s _History of Whalley_, 3rd edition, p. 200 (note),

referring to Burton’s _Monast. Ebor._ under _Fors Abbey_; Dr. Whitaker’s

_History of Richmondshire_, vol. i. p. 409. It is remarkable that so

laborious and talented an antiquary as Dr. Whitaker, states that the

above was the last positive evidence which he had met with of the

existence of wolves in England. He also disputes the vulgar opinion of

their extirpation by Edgar.

{292b} Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 504.

{292c} _Ibid._, p. 701.

{293} _Fædera_ (modern edition), tome i. pt. ii. p. 591; _ibid._ folio

edition of 1705, tome ii. p. 168.

{294a} Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 466.

{294b} Camden’s _Mag. Britannia_, Gough’s edition, vol. ii. p. 302;

Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, title Derbyshire, pp. clxix and 280, quoting

Dodsworth’s _Collections from Exchequer Records_.

{294c} Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 549.

{294d} _Ibid._ p. 466.

{295a} Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 467.

{295b} Baker’s _Chronicles_, fo. 218. We cannot reasonably doubt that

the wild boar, being a favourite beast of chase, and not being so

destructive an animal as the wolf, would remain in this country a

considerable time after the wolf was destroyed.

{297} Coke’s _Institutes of the Laws of England_, vol. iv. pp. 315, 316.

{298} Camden states that when he wrote wolves did not appear in England

(_Mag. Britannia_, Gough’s edit. vol. iii. p. 16); but, as there were

then abundance of them in Scotland, it was clear that they could not be

prevented from roaming from thence into England, and breeding there.

{315a} Of Speke Hall, according to Banks, vol. ii. p. 395.

{315b} He was of Cornwall, according to Carte, vol. ii. p. 829.

{321} The errata has been applied in this transcription.—DP.

{323} John Stafford, a younger son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of

Buckingham, was created Earl of Wiltshire in the ninth year, and died in

the thirteenth year, of Edward IV.