Visits to Fields of Battle_ in England_ of the Fifteenth Century Richard Brooke 1743 downloads.pdf

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

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

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

Author: Richard Brooke

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

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58147

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

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

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

VISITS
TO
FIELDS OF BATTLE,
IN

ENGLAND,
OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY;

TO WHICH ARE ADDED,
SOME MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS AND PAPERS UPON
ARCHÆOLOGICAL SUBJECTS.
BY
RICHARD BROOKE, ESQ., F.S.A.

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

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

PREFACE.

In the course of the fifteenth century, England experienced, in a lamentable
degree, the sad effects of internal discord, and the miseries caused by the
conflicts of adverse factions.
It is scarcely possible, for historians to point out, in the annals of any
country in Europe, in the feudal ages, deeds of violence and bloodshed, of a
more appalling nature, than those which the chroniclers have recorded, as
having occurred in England, during the period which intervened between
the years 1400 and 1500—a period memorable for the sanguinary wars of
York and Lancaster. During the continuance of those disastrous conflicts,
thousands of brave men perished in arms, the axe of the executioner was
seldom idle, great numbers of the nobility and gentry lost their lives in the
field or upon the scaffold, property was usurped in consequence of
wholesale confiscations, numberless innocent lives were sacrificed, and
many happy homes were outraged.
This misery was the result of contests for a crown, which perhaps neither of
the claimants merited, nor does it appear, that it was of great importance to
the nation, which of the rival competitors wore it.
Of those destructive wars, the battle of Shrewsbury in the reign of Henry
IV., in 1403, may be considered in some degree as the first; because it was
the earliest attempt by an appeal to arms, to remove from the throne a
monarch of the House of Lancaster; [v] and the last was the battle of Stoke,
fought in 1487, in the reign of Henry VII.; that of Bosworth, in which, by
the death of Richard III., the Plantagenet dynasty terminated, being often
erroneously called the last; but, although the latter certainly placed the
House of Tudor upon the throne, the crown was secured to it by the battle of
Stoke, when the partisans of the House of York, under John de la Pole, Earl

of Lincoln, made their final but unsuccessful appeal to arms, in hopes of
regaining the ascendency, which that party had formerly enjoyed.
These sanguinary conflicts are usually called the Wars of the Roses, from
the circumstance, that the supporters of the House of York assumed the
badge or device of the White Rose, and those of Lancaster the Red Rose.
It has been remarked with great truth, by Sir John Fenn, the antiquary, [vi1] in
adverting to that disastrous period, “That our own kingdom has fewer
authentic records of the transactions, during the reigns of Henry VI.,
Edward IV., and Richard III., than of any other later period of our history, is
a truth known to and lamented by every man of historical knowledge.”
He ascribes the deficiency of information, amongst other causes, to the
invention of printing; which at first sight appears to be a paradox, because
such an invention seems to be calculated to favour universal knowledge:
—“At the beginning of the art of printing, those who practised it, were
solicitous to perpetuate things already committed to writing, relative to past
times, and past occurrences, not regarding recent transactions as of equal
consequence. This art likewise probably prevented the writers of
manuscripts from multiplying their copies; they foreseeing that the new
invention would in time, supply a sufficient number, at a much less price,
by which means, the value of their manual labour would be greatly
diminished.” [vi2]
Notwithstanding, however, the scanty nature of the historical accounts
handed down to us, some information of value has reached us; and the
fields of battle, and the positions of the hostile armies, may in several
instances, be clearly identified, after a perusal of the statements of the old
chroniclers, and a comparison of their descriptions with the present aspect
of the localities where the battles were fought.
Having felt a considerable degree of interest in the occurrences of those
stirring and extraordinary times, I have repeatedly visited the scenes of
action; and, by carefully comparing the statements of the old writers, the
actual appearance of the fields, and the traditions of the neighbourhood, I
have obtained strong confirmation, in several instances, of the accuracy of
the accounts which have been handed down to us; and have derived great

pleasure from visiting and exploring the various localities, and obtaining
information from persons in the vicinity.
The results of my visits were committed to writing, in a series of papers, [vii]
of which copies, or the principal parts, will be found in the following
pages. Some historical matters will also be introduced, in such instances as
tend to elucidate any important event, which immediately preceded or had a
direct relation to any of the battles.
It is much to be regretted, that in the majority of historical works,
describing the events of this country in the fifteenth century, whenever the
exploits of any noblemen or warriors, or the talents or skill of any men of
eminence, are mentioned, the authors, from some cause or other, very rarely
give any information of much value relative to the individuals whose
actions they are describing; but as few readers can reflect upon the
surprising events of that period without feeling a considerable degree of
interest in the warlike and distinguished personages, who were the principal
actors in those stirring and eventful times, there will be found in the notes to
this work, some explanatory and biographical particulars [viii] of the princes,
nobles, and eminent persons, whose actions and conduct are noticed in it.
In the following publication will also be found some other papers and tracts,
principally of an archæological nature, written at various times, as the
subjects came under my notice; and as they may possibly interest, in some
degree, the class of readers who take pleasure in pursuits of that description,
I have been induced to add them to the present collection.
In committing this work to the press, it will be a source of gratification to
the Author, if his humble exertions shall be, in some degree, instrumental in
elucidating any events hitherto imperfectly known, in solving any
difficulties which may have suggested themselves, or in confirming the
statements of the old historical writers of this country.
RICHARD BROOKE.
12th March, 1857.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Chap. I. The Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury 1
II. ,, ,, ,, Blore Heath 21
III. ,, ,, ,, Northampton 39
IV. ,, ,, ,, Wakefield 53
V. ,, ,, ,, Mortimer’s Cross 67
VI. ,, ,, ,, Towton 81
VII. ,, ,, ,, Tewkesbury 131
VIII. ,, ,, ,, Bosworth 157
IX. ,, ,, ,, Stoke 177
,, ,, ,, Evesham 203
,, ,, ,, Barnet 205
X. The General Use of Firearms by the English, in the 213
Fifteenth Century
XI. The ancient Family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, of 245
Cheshire
XII. Wilmslow Church, in Cheshire 253
XIII. Handford Hall and Cheadle Church, in Cheshire 267
XIV. Part 1. The Office of Keeper of the Royal Menagerie in 283
the reign of Edward IV.

Part 2. The probable period of the Extinction of Wolves in 287
England
Appendix Extract from the Act of Attainder of 1st Edward IV., 301
No. I. passed in 1461
II. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 14th Edward IV., 308
passed in 1475
III. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 1st Henry VII., passed 309
in 1485
IV. Proclamation for enforcing Order and Discipline, and 310
Extract from a Journal of the March and Proceedings of
Henry VII., previously to the Battle of Stoke
V. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 3rd Henry VII., 315
passed in 1487
VI. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 11th Henry VII., 317
passed against Lord Lovel in 1495
VII. Letter from William Cooper, Esq., Clerk of the Parliament 318
of 9th August, 1737
ILLUSTRATIONS.

CHAPTER I.

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

“After him came spurring hard
A gentleman almost forspent with speed,
That stopp’d by me to breathe his bloodied horse:
He ask’d the way to Chester; and of him
I did demand, what news from Shrewsbury.
He told me, that rebellion had ill luck,
And that you Harry Percy’s spur was cold.”
Shakespeare’s Henry IV. part ii. act 1, scene 1.

Twice in the year 1851, and once in each of the five succeeding years, [1b] I
visited the field of the celebrated Battle of Shrewsbury, and also the church
erected there by King Henry the Fourth. It is called Battlefield Church, and
owes its erection to Henry’s gratitude for, and desire to commemorate, the
victory which he obtained in 1403, over the insurgent forces commanded by
Henry Percy, usually called Hotspur, the son of Henry Percy, the first Earl
of Northumberland [1c] of that surname, and by the earl’s brother, Thomas
Percy, Earl of Worcester. [2a]
The field of battle has also occasionally been called the Battle of Berwick
Field, of Bull Field, and of Hussee Field: the two former appellations being
taken from the names of neighbouring places, at or near which, Percy’s
army is said to have been, prior to the battle; and the latter from an ancient
family owning the lands where the battle took place, [2b] and it is now called
Battlefield.

It lies about three miles and a quarter, in a north-westwardly direction, from
Shrewsbury, contiguous to the turnpike road, of which one fork or
continuation leads in one direction by Prees and Whitchurch, towards
Cheshire, and another towards Hodnet, and Market Drayton. From that
road there is also another road which turns off to the eastward, towards
Staffordshire. Those circumstances may be material, with reference to
endeavouring to ascertain the line of march of the insurgent forces when
they advanced towards Shrewsbury.
In 1403, a confederacy was entered into between the Earl of
Northumberland, the Earl of Worcester, Henry Percy (called Hotspur),
Owen Glendowr, and others, for an insurrection [3a] against Henry IV. In
order to prevent its being interfered with by incursions from the Scotch, and
probably also in order to have a valiant and useful confederate, Archibald
Earl Douglas, who had been taken prisoner at the battle of Hallidown Hill
in 1402, was liberated by Percy on condition of his engaging to join in the
enterprise, and was allowed to go home, from whence he returned with a
select party of his own men. The Earl of Northumberland was unwell, and
remained at Berwick; but his son Henry Percy commenced his march
towards Cheshire, where he expected to be reinforced by the gentlemen of
that county, who had always been attached to the memory of Richard II.,
and he was not disappointed in that respect. Percy, with Earl Douglas and a
great army, departed out of the northern parts, leaving his (Percy’s) father
sick, and came to Stafford, where his uncle the Earl of Worcester and he
met, [3b] and increased their forces by all the means they could devise; from
thence they proceeded towards Wales, expecting there additional aid and
reinforcements. [3b]
Not any of the old annalists or chroniclers give us information as to the
exact line of march, which Percy and his forces pursued from the north into
Shropshire. From the circumstance of the confederates being stated to have
issued a proclamation, in which they asserted that Richard II. was alive at
Chester, [4a] and invited his partisans to meet in arms in that city; [4a] and from
the reinforcements which the confederates obtained from Cheshire, it might
perhaps be inferred that they entered Staffordshire from Cheshire, by the
Whitchurch and Prees road; but on the other hand, if Percy marched, as we
are told he did, with his army to Stafford, and was there joined by the Earl
of Worcester [4b] and his forces, it is tolerably clear that the insurgent army

must have entered Shropshire on its eastward side, in marching towards
Shrewsbury; and it has been suggested, with much appearance of
probability, that they entered the county through Newport, by High Ercall
and Haghmond Hill. [4c] In either case, it is certain that they advanced to
Shrewsbury, and arrived there some time on the 19th of July, but too late to
get possession of the town; and in marching from the north (as the river
encompasses the town nearly on three sides), it is tolerably certain, that they
advanced in order to attack it at the north or Castle Gate. Henry IV. had
assembled an army against the Welsh, and was with it at Burton-upon-
Trent, when he heard of the confederates’ hostile movements; and by the
Earl of Dunbar’s advice, immediately marched towards Shrewsbury. He
was at Burton-upon-Trent on the 16th of July, [4d] and on the 17th at
Lichfield, [4e] from whence he would probably take the Watling Street Road,
and after arriving at Shrewsbury, he would naturally enter it over the Abbey
Bridge. [4f] He succeeded in getting possession of the town a few hours
before Percy’s arrival, who is said to have reached the Castle Foregate on
the evening of July 19th. This judicious course was of the utmost
importance to the success of Henry’s cause, as by it he secured the passage
of the Severn, and prevented Owen Glendowr, who had advanced with his
forces to Oswestry, from crossing the river and effecting a junction with
Percy. Henry had scarcely entered Shrewsbury, when he was apprized by
his scouts that the confederate forces, with banners displayed, were
advancing towards him, and were so courageous and bold, that their light
cavalry had begun to skirmish with his troops; upon which he marched out,
and encamped without the east gate of the town, [5a] and offered battle to his
enemies. [5b]
Percy, who had prepared to have assaulted the town, being baffled in his
design by the King’s movements, and probably reluctant that the
engagement should take place in the absence of the Welsh forces, and whilst
his enemies had superior numbers, retired from before Shrewsbury as soon
as he saw the royal standard flying there. [5c] As Henry had much to hazard
and nothing to gain by delay, it was clearly his interest to fight; yet, being
aware of the risk and chances of a battle, he appears to have been desirous
to avoid it, by negotiations for peace. The Abbot of Shrewsbury went more
than once to the insurgents, in the hope of effecting a pacific
accommodation between the hostile parties. The habits and usages of that

age justified the mediation of a dignitary of the Romish Church of so
elevated a degree as the Abbot of Shrewsbury; besides which, he had the
King’s sanction for interfering as a mediator. But in a few years hence, it
will scarcely be credited, although it is now a notorious fact, that three
elderly persons from England, unauthorised by the British Government, and
belonging to a respectable body of men, of which the members are not
usually wanting in shrewdness and intelligence, were actually so absurd as
to go out to St. Petersburg, in the depth of winter (and let it not be forgotten,
that it was a Russian winter into the bargain), in January 1854, to try to talk
over the Emperor Nicholas, and to coax him from going to war with the
Turks and their allies. It is pretty certain, that posterity will either not credit
the fact of so ridiculous an attempt having been made, by those three
persons, or will believe, that whether they were deficient in common sense
or not, at least they must have possessed a considerable degree of self-
estimation or presumption.
The negotiations and pacific exertions of the Abbot of Shrewsbury,
however, not terminating in a satisfactory result, both parties prepared for a
mortal conflict. Some small reinforcements of Welsh forces, but probably
not in considerable numbers, contrived to effect a junction with the
confederates; and although now, when we are all happily united as one
nation, it may seem unnatural and strange to us, the presence of Scotchmen
and Welshmen fighting on Percy’s side would in that age necessarily kindle
amongst the forces of Henry, feelings of national antipathy, in addition to
other feelings of hostility towards the opposite army.
It is not an easy matter to understand, why it happened, that the hostile
armies came in collision, at such a spot as Battlefield. The field did not
offer any natural advantage of position of moment, to Percy’s army; whilst,
if he had retired a few miles further on the same line of road, he would have
come to some much stronger positions. But, as Battlefield is on the road,
through Hodnet and Market Drayton, towards the North, it seems most
probable, that, when he was disappointed in his attempt upon Shrewsbury,
he at first prepared to retreat back to Northumberland, but found that after
getting so near to Henry, it was no longer practicable to effect a retreat with
safety in the face of a superior force. It was too late, and no other course
remained for him, but to turn at bay and fight.

The battle was accordingly fought on the eve or vigil of St. Mary Magdalen,
Saturday, the 21st of July, 1403; [7] and the place where it was fought has
ever since been called Battlefield.
The two armies seem not to have been quite equal in numbers. In
consequence of Glendowr’s forces not joining Percy, the army of Henry is
said to have been more numerous than that of his enemies.
The battle commenced with a fierce discharge of arrows on each side. Both
armies behaved with great valour; and Percy, Douglas, and others, in the
heat of the battle, hoping to effect the destruction of the King, valiantly
forced their way into the centre of his forces, but were baffled in their
attempt by the King’s having withdrawn from his original position. At one
period, Henry’s van was broken, his standard overthrown; his son Henry
Prince of Wales was wounded in the face by an arrow, but continued
fighting; Sir Walter Blount and three other persons, armed in all respects
like the King, were slain; and the fortune of the day appeared to incline
against the King. Percy, who had charged furiously into the centre of
Henry’s ranks, seemed in a fair way of gaining the victory. Henry, however,
who displayed the utmost valour, and is said to have slain some of his
enemies with his own hand, and had been unhorsed at one period of the
battle, brought up his reserve at an important moment, which appears to
have turned the scale; and Percy was killed, according to one account, by a
spear, and according to another, by an arrow which pierced his brain. His
death seems to have had a material effect in deciding the victory in Henry’s
favour; the insurgent forces, disheartened by that fatal event, gave way, and
fled in great disorder. [8a] The battle lasted three hours. On Henry’s side,
besides 3000 wounded, Edmund Earl of Stafford, [8b] who commanded the
van, and the following knights, Sir Hugh Shirley, Sir John Clifton, Sir John
Cockaine, Sir Nicholas Gausel, Sir Walter Blount, Sir John Calverley, Sir
John Massey of Pudington, Sir Hugh Mortimer, and Sir Robert Gausel, all
of whom had received the honour of knighthood that morning, and about
1600 men, are said to have fallen in the field of battle. On Percy’s side, the
loss of those slain in fight or in pursuit is estimated at 5000; and amongst
the slain were 200 knights and gentlemen of Cheshire, who had joined
Percy. As for the Scotch, few or none escaped alive. Sir Richard Venables
(Baron of Kinderton), and Sir Richard Vernon (Baron of Shipbrook), both
of Cheshire, and the Earl of Worcester, were taken prisoners, and beheaded

two days afterwards (on Monday) at the High Cross at Shrewsbury; and the
head of Worcester was set up over London Bridge. Henry appears to have
discouraged a very vindictive or eager pursuit after the fugitives; and of
those who escaped, many got back to Northumberland, and shut themselves
up in castles there: not liking to trust the King’s good faith. [8c] Earl Douglas
was taken, but was sometime afterwards liberated.
In a close or meadow on the right or north side of the present lane, leading
towards the church from the turnpike road, there is the appearance of a
slight bank and trench running parallel with that lane, which possibly may
have been part of an intrenchment made in front of Percy’s line. The close
on the south side of the lane is called the King’s Croft, and it is traditionally
said that a portion of Henry’s army was posted there; the probability is, that
its name at that period, and before the present fences and enclosures were
made, had a much wider application, and that King’s Croft extended on
both sides of the present lane.
In gratitude for, and in commemoration of, this victory, Henry the Fourth
erected on the spot, Battlefield Church; and from the circumstance of the
battle having been fought on St. Mary Magdalen’s eve, he, in compliance
with the prevalent opinions of the age, and probably also from his
considering himself in some degree indebted to her for the victory, caused
the church to be dedicated to St. Mary Magdalen. The church is of the
Gothic style, part Decorated, and part Perpendicular. It is not of a large
size, [9] but is handsome; and the edifice, with its battlemented tower, forms
an interesting object on the westward side of the turnpike road, from which
it is distant two or three fields’ breadth. We cannot doubt that there must
have been some strong motive, for selecting for its erection the spot where
the church stands, for it is at an inconvenient distance from the highway, in
a peculiar and, at that time, a lonely place, where there was not even a
village near it, or a carriage road running immediately past it. May we not
conclude, that the motive was, either that it was the spot where the brunt of
the battle took place; where the King escaped some imminent danger; or
where Percy was slain?
The country, though not quite flat, has merely a gentle ascent from
Shrewsbury to Battlefield, and also to the northward of the church, and
along the turnpike road. Here, in a line almost east and west, Percy’s army

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

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

The church is a handsome ecclesiastical edifice. The nave or body is now
roofless and dilapidated; and, from its moss-grown and impaired
appearance, must have been a ruin for a long period. It is said that the nave
of the church suffered during the rule of the Parliament or of Cromwell. Its
exterior walls, the mullions, and most of the tracery work (which is
undoubtedly handsome) of its windows, are, however, still existing. The
nave is entered by a door in the original pointed arched doorway, on the
north side; and its floor has long been used as a graveyard, or place of
interment. [12]
A corresponding doorway is on its south side, the door of which is now
seldom used, except on the occasion of funerals. There are on each side of
the nave, three large handsome windows; and there has been a fourth
window, now built up on each side of the nave, between the doorway and
the tower; and, although seemingly made at the same period, some of them
are of the Decorated and some of the Perpendicular style; and the two
windows which immediately adjoin the chancel on the north and south
sides, differ in some respects from the others, as some of the windows have
the dripstones terminating at the bottom with plain returns, whilst others
have them terminating in representations of human heads. There are some
indications of a porch having been at the south door. Several grotesque
corbel-heads are carved in stone in the chancel, in the places from which
the arches of the roof have originally sprung; and the remains of some
strange figures or monsters appear carved on the outsides, at the places on
the wall, where the spouts of the roof seem to have formerly protruded,
similar to those called gurgoyles, which may be seen on many other ancient
churches.
The exterior of the church between the windows is supported by handsome
stone buttresses, and from the indisputable marks of the ancient roof, which
are visible on the east side of the tower, where the roof has joined up to it,
and from there not being any traces of columns supporting any interior
arches, it seems clear that it has never had any clerestory.
Exterior buttresses are built at the corners of the tower, and a square
projection on its south-east corner admits of a staircase. The tower is said
to have been erected in 1504; and its walls, and most of its pinnacles, are
still perfect. It had originally eight pinnacles, but one on the east side fell

down about 1851. [13a] The tower can be ascended by a spiral staircase [13b] to
the top; but its roof is in a decayed condition, its floors are quite gone; and
on the basement floor are placed various mutilated stone fragments,
apparently of mullions, transoms, finials, and other parts of stonework,
which have fallen or have been deposited there, besides part of the ancient
font. It still has, however, a bell, which is yet used. Each side of the tower
is surmounted by an embattled parapet of equal intervals, with plain
cappings, and which, though not possessing the lightness of one with
pierced battlements, is nevertheless handsome. The tower at the highest
part, and just below the battlements, has a handsome carved Gothic border,
enriched (as far as my eyesight enabled me to form a judgment) with
diamond-shaped ornaments and quatrefoils. On the west it has two
windows; and over the highest, in the middle of the border, is a small
escutcheon bearing an animal, seemingly a lion rampant passant, probably
intended for the arms of the Hussee family, and which also appears in a
corresponding place on the south side, and there are also some indications
of it on the north side. On the east, in the centre of the border, is a small
escutcheon, containing some appearances of an inscription.
In order to preserve the tower from falling, of which it exhibited symptoms,
iron bars, with nuts and screws, have been fixed across it, so as to hold its
walls together; two of the nuts are on its east side, as shown in the
engraving. [14a]
The tower has one window on the east, one on the north, and one on the
south side; and it has had a door with a pointed arch on the west, which is
now built up. The second floor is singularly furnished with a fireplace,
having a chimney formed within the thickness of the wall, and opening
outside of the western window of the bell-chamber.
The chancel is used for divine service on the Lord’s day. It is separated
from the ruinous nave by a comparatively modern wall. In a vault on the
north side of the chancel, is the place of interment of the family of Andrew
William Corbet, Esq., of Pimley and Sundorne. A handsome monument to
the memory of John Corbet, Esq., is erected in the chancel on its north side,
behind which is the arch of a doorway visible from the exterior, now built
up, but which has evidently been formerly an entrance into the chancel. A
railed enclosure adjoining it, shown in the engraving, [14a] contains the

entrance to the vault of the Corbets. On its south side, not far from the altar,
are three sedilia, with plain Gothic arches; and the one furthest from the
altar is in a great degree filled with a much mutilated and whitewashed
oaken image of the Virgin Mary [14b] with a figure in her lap, representing the
dead Christ, which seems as if it had been brought there from some other
part of the church. Mutilated as the figure of the Virgin now is, there still
remains an expression of sorrow in the face.
A large plain piscina is in the wall between the sedilia and the altar, but
partly concealed by the wooden back of a seat.
The east or altar window is handsome, and of the Perpendicular Gothic
style, and is of five lights below, with a transom; and the handsome tracery
of the upper part, will be best understood by a reference to the engraving,
which gives a correct view of the east end, and part of the north side of the
church. The window has some stained glass, much injured and dilapidated,
which contains, amongst other designs, two crowned heads, a male and a
female, seemingly of considerable antiquity, but well executed by the artist;
and close to them, a human head in a dish, near to which the point of the
blade of a scimitar appears, and which are said, and as I believe with truth,
to represent the head of John the Baptist brought to Herod and Herodias.
Some imperfect escutcheons of arms, with various quarterings, are also
there. The stained glass also contains representations of the patera, cup, and
wafer; and underneath is a faint representation of the crucifixion; and in
another place in the window, a hammer and a nail are exhibited, apparently
in allusion to the crucifixion. Underneath is part of a mutilated inscription
in old English characters, commencing with the words, “Orate pro
animabus Rogeri.” It also contains a monogram, which seems to be a
combination of the letters in the name “Maria.”
In the stonework on the outside, immediately before the east or altar
window, is a niche surmounted by a Gothic canopy, in which still stands,
although a good deal impaired by time or violence, the statue of Henry IV.,
about half the size of life, in armour, with the remains of a crown on his
head, and a dagger hanging on his right side; his right hand once sustained a
sword, but it is now gone.

There are two windows on each side of the chancel, of which the mullions
and general appearance bear a resemblance, though not quite the same, to
those of the nave, and might be thought to be of a more modern date, if the
whole of the fabric and the appearance of the stonework did not strongly
convey the impression of all having been erected at the same date; in fact
the style and appearance of the church, are just what might be expected in
one erected early in the fifteenth century.
In the chancel is a handsome large modern stone font, with ornaments in the
Gothic style, which supplies the place of the ancient one, of which some
stonework lying within the tower, formed part. There is a small cemetery
still in use for interments on the south side of the church.
On each side of the exterior of the chancel, and nearest the east end, are
dripstones, as if intended for the arch of a window, carried up nearly but not
quite to a point, and with the stones ready jointed, as if for the purpose of
breaking out an additional window on each side of the chancel, without
disturbing the walls; but I think it is quite evident, from the appearance of
the stonework, and from the dripstones for the contemplated windows or
arches not having been carried up to meet at the top, that no window ever
existed in either of those places; and that the intention of so singular a
preparation by the architect, may have been, to add at some future time,
side chapels, such as are often seen in ancient churches, and are known to
have been added subsequently to the erection of the churches.
The ceiling of the chancel is modern, and is plastered and whitewashed, and
supported by modern incongruous-looking pillars.
The church is approached by a narrow carriage way, which leads from the
westward side of the turnpike road; but it stops at a gate opening into a
field, in which the church stands, and a short path leads to it from the gate.
There is one remarkable singularity connected with the church, which is,
that there is every appearance of the church, and the college after
mentioned, having stood in a square space enclosed by a moat. A moat
regularly formed, and as straight as a canal, exists at a short distance from
the east end of the church, except at one small spot near the centre, which
appears to have been filled up, in order to admit of the path to the church;
and it turns with an abrupt angle at each end, and extends a considerable

distance on the north and south sides of the church. I was unable, however,
to trace its existence on the west side, or to discover whether it had ever
completely encompassed the church.
Besides the erection of the church, there was erected there by Henry IV., or
by Roger Ive, clerk, by virtue of a charter or license from Henry, a small
college, consisting of a principal or master, and five secular chaplains,
together with a hospital for several poor persons, of which Henry IV. was a
benefactor. [17a]
The charter or license was of the eleventh year of the reign of Henry IV.,
and the first principal or master was the said Roger Ive. [17a]
A copy of an impression of the seal of the college, is given in Dukes’
Antiquities of Shropshire, [17b] which exhibits on it, not as might be expected,
the effigy of St. Mary Magdalen, but that of the Virgin Mary crowned,
bearing the infant Jesus on her right arm, and a palm branch in her left
hand.
At the time of the dissolution, the yearly revenues amounted to £54. 1s.
10d. net. Not a vestige now remains of the college.
There are several shallow holes or pits in the meadow on the south side of
the church, which have been dug into, in hopes of discovering something of
interest; but nothing remarkable was discovered. It has been conjectured
that they are the sites of small fishponds, which may have existed before the
college was destroyed; but they appeared to me more like the excavations,
where the foundations or cellars of the old college buildings may have
been. Besides the indications of a moat, which present themselves to the
eye, the charter or license of Henry, given at length by Dugdale, strongly
corroborates the opinion before expressed, with respect to the moat. That
document, as set out by Dugdale, grants to Roger Ive, of Seaton, rector of
the chapel of St. John Baptist, at Adbrighton Hussee, in the county of Salop,
a piece of ground, with all the edifices and erections on it, within the
lordship of Adbrighton Hussee, near Shrewsbury, situate in the field called
Battlefield, in which a battle had been lately fought between the King and
Henry Percy deceased and other rebels; and by the grace of God, the King
had obtained victory and triumph, which piece of ground is enclosed with a
ditch, and contains in length and breadth two acres of land, together with

two inlets and outlets, one extending along the lands of Richard Hussee
twenty feet, and the other containing in breadth fifteen feet. [18a] The piece of
land appears to have been before conveyed by feoffment to the said Roger
Ive, by virtue of the royal license, by Richard Hussee, [18b] who seems from
that circumstance to have held the same from the King. The charter or
license of 11th of Henry IV., states the land to have been granted to Roger
Ive, for the purpose of a chapel being built on it, in honour of St. Mary
Magdalen, [19a] in order that prayers might be said for evermore, for the souls
of the King, &c. &c., and for the souls of those who were slain in the battle,
and were buried there. [19b]
Battlefield is a distinct parish, and was, prior to its becoming so, in Henry
IV.’s reign, attached to the then existing rectory of St. John the Baptist at
Adbright Hussee. [19c] St. Alkmond’s and St. Mary’s parishes, of Shrewsbury,
adjoin it. The living is a perpetual curacy, of which the Rev. J. O. Hopkins
was the late incumbent; and it is in the patronage of Andrew William
Corbet, Esq., of Sundorne Castle, Shropshire.
The present dilapidated state of the nave of Battlefield Church is generally
ascribed to the Puritans of the time of the Commonwealth; and a note in the
church register, above one hundred years ago (1749), states, that it was then
in its present ruinous condition. [19c] The conduct of those who committed
the injury in this instance, brings to recollection the passage from the Holy
Scriptures:—“But now they break down the carved work thereof, at once,
with axes and hammers. They have cast fire into thy sanctuary; they have
defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name to the ground.” [19d]
On viewing this ancient church, I could not, either as a Christian or as an
antiquary, see this handsome edifice, which had been erected by a King of
England, in commemoration of an important historical event, and dedicated
to the worship of the Most High, so injured by violence or neglect, without
experiencing feelings of regret. Still its walls and remains, in their present
state, are truthful records of the past, and furnish an authentic and valuable
example of church architecture, of the time of Henry IV. The mere
preservation of them from further injury, by time or negligence, would be
laudable; but if the tasteless and ignorant scheme, which has been
suggested, of renovating the church, should ever unfortunately be carried
into effect, great mischief will be done; the original will be falsified; in its

renovated state it will be a mere imitation; and it will no longer be an
interesting and authentic example of the architectural science of the period
to which it belonged.

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

“There Dutton Dutton kills, a Done doth kill a Done,
A Booth a Booth, and Leigh by Leigh is overthrown,
A Venables against a Venables doth stand,
A Troutbeck fighteth with a Troutbeck hand to hand,
There Molineux doth make a Molineux to die,
And Egerton the strength of Egerton doth try.
O! Cheshire wer’t thou mad, of thine own native gore
So much until this day thou never shed’st before!
Above two thousand men upon the earth were thrown,
Of which the greatest part were naturally thine own.
The stout Lord Audley slain, with many a captain there,
To Salisbury it sorts the Palm away to bear.”
Michael Drayton’s Polyolbion, Song 22nd.

England exhibited, during a great part of the fifteenth century, the mournful
spectacle of a country harassed by rival parties, and exposed to all the
horrors of civil war. Hostile competitors contended for a prize of no
common value; for the crown and dominions of England were to be the
reward of the conqueror.
King Henry VI. was descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the
fourth son of King Edward III., and the persons supporting the claim of the
House of Lancaster to the throne, were from that circumstance called

Lancastrians. [22a] On the other hand, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York,
with the assistance of some of his powerful relations and connections, was
cautiously but vigilantly taking measures calculated to secure his accession
to the crown, although at first he did not openly bring forward his
pretensions to it. They were founded upon the fact of the Duke of York’s
being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward
III.; [22b] and the adherents and supporters of the Duke of York, and of his
sons after his death, received the appellation of Yorkists.
The adverse parties encountered each other at St. Alban’s on the 22nd [23a] of
May, 1455, where a battle was fought, and the Duke of York obtained the
victory. A hollow and ineffectual truce, and an outward reconciliation,
ensued, only to be broken in rather more than four years afterwards, when
the hostile parties once more took up arms, and at Blore Heath, on the
borders of Staffordshire, again met in mortal conflict.
Blore Heath, celebrated for the battle fought in 1459, is in the parish of
Drayton in Hales, or Market Drayton, on the high road leading from the
small market town of Drayton, towards Newcastle. It is in Staffordshire,
two miles and a half distant from Drayton, and about two miles from the
division of the counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire. It is eight miles
and a half distant from Eccleshall, and is, as Stow in his Annals correctly
states, near Mucklestone, being only one mile and a half from the latter
place.
The town of Drayton is in Shropshire; but the parish of Market Drayton, or
Drayton in Hales, comprises parts both of Shropshire and Staffordshire, and
includes Blore Heath, which, though formerly a heath, is now completely
enclosed and cultivated.
In the autumn of 1459, Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury [24a] marched from
Middleham Castle, in Yorkshire, with a considerable army, in support of the
cause of the Duke of York, and entered Staffordshire with the ultimate
intention of effecting a junction at Ludlow, with Richard Neville Earl of
Warwick, called the King Maker, [24b] and also with the Duke of York, who
had collected an army in Herefordshire, and in the marches of Wales. The
Earl of Salisbury, and his son the Earl of Warwick, were noblemen of very
great power and possessions, and were then the principal leaders of the

Duke of York’s party, and abettors of the scheme of deposing King Henry
VI., and placing the Duke of York upon the throne of England.
At that time King Henry VI. was at Coleshill, in Warwickshire, and Queen
Margaret [25a] and Edward the young Prince of Wales [25b] were at Eccleshall,
in Staffordshire; and by her orders, or by those of her council, James
Touchet Lord Audley, [25c] with a superior force, raised principally in
Cheshire and Shropshire, amounting, as we are told, to as many as 10,000
men, took up a position on the road to Drayton, in order to intercept the earl
in his march. [25d] The earl’s army was inferior in number to that of his
antagonist, which was strongly posted, as will be more fully explained
afterwards, with a small stream in its front.
This stream had rather steep banks, which rendered it very hazardous for
the earl and his army to cross it, and attack the Lancastrians, with a fair
prospect of success. In consequence of those difficulties, the earl resorted
to a military stratagem, with the most fortunate result.
Early on the morning of Sunday, the 23rd of September, 1459 (St. Tecla’s
day), he caused his archers to shoot flights of arrows against the
Lancastrians. He then feigned a retreat with his army, which induced Lord
Audley, in his eagerness to pursue them, to pass over the stream with a
considerable portion of his forces, and whilst they were on the ascent of the
ground on the other side of the stream, and were disordered with effecting
the passage, and before he could get the remainder of his forces over it, or
put that portion which had crossed into order, they were so vigorously
attacked by the Yorkists, that the Lancastrians were completely defeated,
and Lord Audley, with 2400 of his forces, perished on the field.
There were slain in the battle, besides Lord Audley, Hugh Venables of
Kinderton, Thomas Dutton of Dutton, Richard Molyneux [26a] of Sefton,
William Troutbeck, [26b] John Legh of Booths, John Done of Wickington, and
John Egerton of Egerton, Knights; Richard Done of Croton, and John
Dutton [called Duttes by Stow], Esquires; and many other persons. [27a] The
battle was most disastrous to the Cheshire men, the greatest loss having
fallen upon persons of that county, who had received the young Prince’s
badge of the silver swan, which had been distributed by Queen Margaret
amongst the principal partisans of the Lancastrian party. [27a] John Lord

Dudley was wounded, [27b] and he, and several knights and gentlemen of the
Lancastrian party, were taken prisoners. [27c]
Sir John Neville [27d] and Sir Thomas Neville, [27d] sons of the Earl of
Salisbury, were wounded in the battle, and were, with Sir Thomas
Harrington, travelling to the north, when they were taken by some of the
Lancastrians, and sent prisoners to Chester; but in consequence of a
message from the Welsh marchmen, there being good reason to anticipate
that the prisoners would be rescued by force, they were speedily set at
liberty. [27e]
A Parliament, principally consisting of adherents and supporters of the
Lancastrian faction, was held at Coventry, in the 38th year of Henry VI.
(1459), and passed an act of attainder against the Duke of York, the Earl of
March, the Earl of Rutland, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Warwick, Lord
Clinton, Sir John Wenlock, [28a] William Stanley [28b] (brother of Thomas Lord
Stanley), and other leaders of the Yorkists, [29] for various alleged offences;
and the following is an extract from so much of it as relates to the battle of
Blore Heath:—

“litle before the Erle of Salesburies departyng from the Castell of
Middelham in youre counte of York hiderward, ye of youre knyghtly
corage, withoute delaye toke the Felde, with such of youre Lordes as
then was nygh aboute you, and in Pryncely manere with grete celerite,
spedde the journay, toward the parties that the seid Erle of Salesbury
drue and entended to come to, which caused hym to dyverte from his
first enterprise and purpose, and to take another wey to assemble with
the seid Duc of York, and Erle of Warrewyk, that their commyng
togider myght make a myghtyer felde. In which progresse the seid
Erle of Salesbury, and Thomas Nevill, John Nevill, Knyhtes, sonnes to
the seid Erle of Salisbury; Thomas Harryngton, Knyght; John Conyers,
Knyght; Thomas Parre, Knyght; William Stanley, Squier, sonne to
Thomas late Lord Stanley; and Thomas Meryng, late of Tong in the
shire of York, Squier, accompanyed with grete multitude of people, to
the nombre of VM. persones and moo, arraied in manere of werre, with
their Standardes displaied, entendying to destroye youre moost Roiall
persone, the Sonday next after the Fest of Seint Mathewe th’ apostle,
the XXXVIIIth yere of youre moost gracious reigne, at Blore, in youre

shire of Stafford, in the feldes of the same Toune, called Bloreheth,
falsely and traiterously rered werre ayenst you, and than and there in
accomplishment of their fals and traiterous purpose, slough James
Lord Audeley, and many other Knyghtes, and Squiers, and other youre
Liege people, and more despite didde, many of their throtes cutte,
which were sent thider by your commaundement, to resiste the fals and
traiterous purpose of the Erle of Salesbury, and also toke John Lord
Dudley, and other dyvers, Knyghtes, and Squiers, prisoners, send
thider also by youre commaundement.” [30a]

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

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

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

spede of the said Erle, rejoysing him gretely of the same, trustyng to
God that he shuld be with the same Erle in other place, to stond hym in
as good stede, as he shuld have doon yef he had been with theym
there; which letter the seid Erle sent to Sir Thomas Haryngton, and he
shewed hit openly, seying; Sirres, be mery, for yet we have moo
frendis.
“Also where as a squier of the seid Erles, on the Monday next after the
said distresse, told to a Knyght of youres, which was taken prisoner by
the felysship of the seid Erle at Bloreheth, that a man of the Lord
Stanley’s, had been with the seid Erle at Drayton, in the mornyng of
the same day, and brought hym word fro the seid Lord Stanley, that
your Highnes had sent for hym, and that he wold ride to you with his
felysship. And yef eny man wold resiste or lette the seid Erle to come
to your high presence, for his excuse, accordyng to th’ entent of the
said Erle; that than the said Lord Stanley and his felysship, shuld lyve
and dye with the said Erle, ayenst his resistours.
“Also where the said noble Prynce, in fullfillyng of your high
commaundement, sent as well for your people and his Tenauntez in
Werall Hundred, as in Maxfeld Hundred in Cheshire; the said people
and Tenauntez, were lette by the seid Lord Stanley, so that they myght
not come to youre Highnes, nor to ye presence of the said noble
Prynce.
“Also where a servaunt and oon of the Cokys of the said Lorde
Stanleys was hurte atte Bloreheth beyng with William Stanley in the
felysship of the said Erle of Salesbury, and left behynde at Drayton;
declared openly to dyvers gentilmen of the felysshep of th’ erlez of
Shrewysbury that he was sent to the said Erle of Salesbury, in the
name of the said Lord Stanley, with moo of his felysship.
“Also where certayne persones, beyng of the lyvere and clothyng of
the said Lord Stanley, were take at the Forest of Morff, in
Shropscshire; the day afore theire deth confessed, that they were
commanded in the name and behalve of the seid Lord Stanley, to
attend and awayte upon the seid William Stanley to assist the seid Erle,
in such matier, as he intended to execute.

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

[“Responsio.”
I have in several successive years [34b] paid visits to the field of battle. At the
distance of two miles and a half on the road from Drayton, and soon after
entering Staffordshire, the stream before mentioned, which is scarcely large
enough to be considered a river, crosses the road; and more than once when
I have visited it, it contained so little water, that I could easily have skipped
over it. It is called Hemp Mill Brook, and is a tributary of the river Tern; its
banks are rather steep, and it flows through a narrow valley, over which the
road is now carried by a modern bridge. At present, from the raising and
improving of the road, and probably from its having been in some degree
turned, the descent on either side to the bridge is not great; but at the period
when the battle was fought, the position of the Lancastrians must have been
strong, in consequence of the height of the banks of Hemp Mill Brook, the
depression of the valley, and the abrupt ascent from the stream on the
Drayton side, where the Lancastrians were posted; and there is no reason to
suppose that at that period there was a bridge over the stream. The place is
evidently much changed, yet even now sufficient remains to show that they
were strongly posted.
The exact spot where the battle was fought is easily identified. After the
traveller has crossed the modern bridge and ascended the rising ground at
Blore Heath, by the road leading from Drayton towards Newcastle, he will
observe, at a couple of fields’ breadth beyond the stream, and on the right
side of the road, a field called the Cross Field, which at present is entered
by the third gate on the right from the bridge. This field extends from the
road in a curved form backwards, and slopes down the declivity, until it
reaches the stream at another point at a little distance from the bridge.
The battle of Blore Heath was fought on the spot where the Cross Field and
the other fields near it on each side of the road now are; but, as the name
implies, it should seem that the field of battle was open and unenclosed, in

1459. Near the middle of the Cross Field, Lord Audley is said to have been
slain. A square pedestal, seemingly of great age, with a rude stone cross
standing upon it, now much battered and injured, has been erected to mark
the spot where he fell. On the pedestal is the following inscription, which is
a good deal worn by time:—

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

Plot, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, [35] published in 1686, mentions,
amongst the antiquities of that county, “The stone set up upon Blore Heath,
in memory of the fall of James Lord Audley, slain just in that place;” which
is an additional proof of an ancient monument having been there, during a
long period of time.
Opposite the gate of the Cross Field, and at the distance of a field’s breadth,
on the other side of the road, is a farmhouse and farm called Audley Cross
Farm, of which that field forms a part. The farm belongs to Sir John N. L.
Chetwode, Bart., and is occupied by Mr. William Hughes, a respectable and
intelligent farmer, with whom I have had several conversations, during the
visits which I made to the field of battle, as I was in hopes of hearing from
him of some relics having been dug up; but he had not held the farm many
years, and was not aware of any discoveries of that nature having been
recently made. He, however, informed me, that some relics of the battle
had formerly been discovered. On the 16th of May, 1856, I saw in the
possession of Mr. George Goodall, a respectable farmer residing in that

neighbourhood, a sword in tolerable preservation, which is said to have
been found on the field of battle. [36]
Near the back of the farmhouse, in a little enclosure, is a small raised mount
of earth, of a long square shape, on which a thorn-tree of rather large size is
growing, which is said to have been raised in memory of some person of
distinction who was slain there. If that be so, the probability is, that he was
one of the Yorkists, because it is a little in the rear of the spot where their
right wing must have been.
It is impossible for any one, to read the accounts of the old chroniclers and
annalists, and to inspect the field of battle, without being struck with the
remarkable resemblance, between the spot, and the descriptions of it,
meagre as they may be, which they have left us. The stream crossing the
high road, by which the Earl of Salisbury would naturally advance from
Cheshire and Staffordshire, on his march towards Ludlow, the strong
position of the Lancastrians, the name of Blore Heath (still preserved ages
after the place had ceased to be a heath), and its contiguity to Mucklestone,
as well as to Drayton, all which circumstances are mentioned by the ancient
historians, combine, independently of tradition, to place the locality beyond
dispute. [37]

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

“The King from out the town who drew his foot and horse,
As willing to give full field-room to his force,
Doth pass the river Nen, near where it down doth run,
From his first fountain’s head, is near to Harsington,
Advised of a place, by nature strongly wrought,
Doth there encamp his power: the Earl of March, who sought
To prove by dint of sword, who should obtain the day,
From Towcester trained on his powers in good array.
The vaward Warwick led (whom no attempt could fear);
The middle March himself, and Falconbridge the rear.
Now July enter’d was, and e’er the restless sun
Three hours’ ascent had got, the dreadful fight begun.”
Michael Drayton’s Polyolbion, Song 22nd.

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, [39b] having landed, in the summer of
1460, from Calais, at Sandwich, with the Earls of March [39c] and Salisbury,
[39d]
and having been met by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury,
[40a]
and other persons of distinction, supporters of the party of the Duke of
York, proceeded towards London. In passing through Kent they were
joined by Cobham [40b] and many other personages of influence; and on the
2nd of July, 1460, they entered London, with a great accession to their
forces, where they were cheerfully received by the Mayor and citizens, and
of which they took quiet possession, except the Tower, into which Lord

Scales [40c] and other Lancastrian leaders had retired, and which the Yorkists
immediately besieged. Without waiting for its surrender, the Earls of March
and Warwick, with the Lords Falconberg [41a] and Clinton, [41b] Viscount
Bourchier [41c] (Earl of Ewe), the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of
Exeter, [41d] and other bishops and noblemen, left London with an army, a
great portion of which came out of Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Sussex,
amounting altogether, as some writers state, to 25,000 men, and proceeded
towards Henry VI., [42a] leaving the Earl of Salisbury, Cobham, and Sir John
Wenlock, in London, to take care of the city, keep the citizens firm in their
fidelity, and push the siege of the Tower. [42b]
Henry VI. was at Coventry when the confederate earls were in Kent. On
receiving intelligence of what was taking place in London, he—or, perhaps,
it would be more correct to say, Queen Margaret, [42c] in his name, obtained
money by compositions for knighthood, and loans from the prelates and
convents, and from such of the nobility as were attached to the Lancastrian
party, and raised a large army to provide for his defence, and proceeded
with the Duke of Somerset, [43a] who had recently arrived from Guisnes, the
Duke of Buckingham, [43b] and other noblemen and knights, to Northampton,
where the King took up his abode at the Friary. [43c]
The confederate earls, at the head of the Yorkist army, proceeded northward
to meet Henry, and took up a position between Towcester and Northampton.
[43d]

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

Lancastrians seem to have lost sight of the peril and chance of destruction,
in case of defeat, from having the river in their own rear; an error which
caused most lamentable consequences to them after the battle.
The Bishop of Salisbury, with the assent of the other bishops and of the
noblemen who were on the side of the Yorkists, was sent to the King with
pacific overtures, but without any satisfactory result; for, although
somewhat inferior in numbers, the Lancastrians seem to have been over
confident in their forces, and in the strength of their position. In the night
the Yorkists removed their camp towards Northampton, and both parties
prepared for battle.
On the 9th [44b] of July, 1460, the Earls of Warwick and March, accompanied
by Viscount Bourchier, Lord Falconberg, and others, advanced with their
forces, and the battle commenced about seven o’clock in the morning.
According to one account, their van was led by the Earl of Warwick, and
after him followed the Earl of March, with the banner of his father; others
state that the Earl of March commanded the van, the Earl of Warwick the
middle, and Lord Falconberg the rear body. During the battle, Edmund
Lord Grey, of Ruthen, [45a] who was in the Lancastrian army, betrayed his
trust, and, having a command in a part of the King’s camp, where, in
consequence of a deep trench, and of a rampart, fortified with piles and
sharp stakes, with which the camp was encompassed, so that the Yorkists
could not enter without great danger, he and his men assisted the Yorkists to
get within the intrenchments, and greatly conduced to the defeat of the
Lancastrians. [45b]
Another circumstance occurred which was a great disadvantage to the
Lancastrians: there was a considerable fall of rain on that day, and the
cannons, with which the camp of the King was in some degree at least,
defended, were prevented by the wet, from being of the service that they
otherwise might have been. [45c]
The battle however lasted some time, with obstinacy and fierceness, the
victory being uncertain until nine o’clock, when the King’s army was
completely defeated. Many of his forces were slain in the battle and in their
flight towards the town, and great numbers were drowned in the river Nen;
[46a]
for, as before observed, it was in their rear, and consequently between

them and Northampton, and it proved a most serious disadvantage to the
fugitives, when flying towards the town; so that the Lancastrians felt, to
their grievous loss, the impolicy of taking up a position with the river in
their rear. The King was left to his fate by the vanquished, and was
speedily captured by the victors. [46b]
Amongst other persons of distinction on the Lancastrian side, slain in the
battle, were the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Shrewsbury, [46c] his
brother Sir Christopher Talbot, Viscount Beaumont, [46d] Lord Egremont, [46e]
and Sir William Lucy, who hastened to take a part in the fight, and
immediately on joining in it, received his death wound, by a blow on the
head, with an axe. A considerable slaughter amongst persons of distinction,
is said to have been caused by the Yorkist leaders directing their men to
spare the common soldiers, but to despatch the noblemen, knights, and
gentlemen. Many of the Lancastrians, however, were taken prisoners, in
consequence of their having alighted from their horses, to fight on foot; a
mode of fighting very likely to be adopted, when it is borne in mind that
they were to fight behind intrenchments.
The Duke of Somerset and others narrowly escaped, and fled with Queen
Margaret, and Edward Prince of Wales, [47a] into the bishopric of Durham.
The confederate earls having obtained the victory, waited upon the King
with all outward show of respect; but immediately conveyed him to
London, and lodged him in the bishop’s palace.
The body of the Duke of Buckingham was interred in the church of the
Grey Friars [47b] at Northampton; that of the Earl of Shrewsbury was
conveyed to Worksop, [48a] and there buried; those of some of the leaders
were interred in the Hospital of St. John, in Bridge Street, in Northampton;
[48b]
and others in the Abbey Delapré, adjacent to the field of battle; [48c] but the
exact spot where the cemetery of the abbey was situated is not now known.
The Duke of Buckingham was of royal lineage, [48d] being the son and heir of
Edmund Stafford, fifth Earl of Stafford, by Anne Plantagenet, daughter of
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, youngest son of King Edward
III. A strange and mournful fatality attended the principal members of the
great and powerful family of the Duke of Buckingham, during five
generations. The father, son, grandson, great-grandson, and great-great-

grandson, all died violent deaths. Edmund Stafford, fifth Earl of Stafford,
was slain fighting on the part of Henry IV., at the battle of Shrewsbury, in
1403; his son, Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, was slain at
the battle of Northampton, fighting for the Lancastrian party, in 1460; his
son, Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s,
also fighting for that party, in 1455; his son, Henry Stafford, second Duke
of Buckingham, was beheaded in the first year of Richard III., in 1483; [49]
and his son, Edward Stafford, the third and last Duke of Buckingham of that
family, was beheaded in the thirteenth year of Henry VIII., in 1521.
I carefully searched for, but could not discover, any remains of
intrenchments, and, although I made inquiries, I was unable to learn that
any traces of them could be recollected by persons on the spot; but there is
sufficiently clear information, given by the old historical writers, to enable a
person fond of such investigations, to identify the place where the battle
took place; and their accounts show that it was fought close to
Northampton, [50a] in the meadows on the southward side of the town, [50a] and
of the river Nen or Nene, and adjoining Delapré Abbey, [50a] in the parish of
Hardingstone, and near Queen Eleanor’s Cross. [50a] The field of battle is
now occupied by beautiful plantations, pleasure-grounds, and a portion of
the park of Edward Bouverie, Esq., [50b] formerly part of the meadows before
mentioned; and the railway from Northampton to Peterborough, passes over
one side of them.
The mansion of Delapré Abbey stands upon the site of the old abbey of that
name, and some portions of the walls, and two or three small arches or
doorways, of the old abbey, are yet to be seen, in the interior of the present
mansion.
As the meadows are skirted by the river Nen, which flows on the south side
of Northampton, and separates the town from them, it follows, that when
the Lancastrians marched out of the town, and took up a position in the
meadows, and had the town and river close to them in their rear, they faced
to the southward.
As the Yorkists marched from London, and proceeded to a place between
Towcester and Northampton, it appears pretty certain that they advanced by
Blisworth, and by the present turnpike road, and passed close to the

beautiful and interesting monument of antiquity, Queen Eleanor’s Cross,
which stands not much more than a mile from Northampton. The land is
rather elevated in the vicinity of the cross, and slopes down to the mansion
of Delapré Abbey, and to the park and pleasure-grounds belonging to it; and
the Yorkists would naturally face to the northward, when attacking the
Lancastrians. I was unable to learn, upon inquiry, that any relics of the
battle had been dug up upon the field; and, as it is now part of the park and
pleasure-grounds, the probability of the discovery of them by any
excavations, ploughing, or digging, is consequently much diminished.
The victory was productive of most important advantages to the Yorkists.
The Lancastrians were dismayed by the loss of the battle, the captivity of
King Henry, and the deaths of so many of their leaders; and the defenders of
the Tower of London, straitened by the want of provisions, surrendered
immediately. The Duke of York, [51] who was in Ireland when the battle was
fought, hearing of its successful result, returned to London; and although he
did not succeed in getting himself recognised as King of England, he was
declared by Parliament to be Henry’s successor; besides which, without
waiting for Henry’s death, he was at once intrusted with the power, though
not the title, of King; for he was appointed Protector and Regent of the
whole realm.

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

Duke of York.—“But stay; What news? Why com’st thou in such
post?”
Messenger.—“The Queen, with all the northern Earls and Lords,
Intend here to besiege you in your castle:
She is hard by with twenty thousand men;
And therefore fortify your hold, my Lord.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act 1, scene 2.
(Sandal Castle, near Wakefield.)

Richard Duke of York, [53b] desirous to disperse a considerable body of
troops, which Queen Margaret [53c] was assembling in the North, marched
from London on the 2nd of December, 1460, with a small army, and
proceeded into Yorkshire, whilst his eldest son, Edward Earl of March,
afterwards King Edward IV., went into Herefordshire, and to the borders of
Wales, to levy a large body of forces, in order to assist his father, [53d] and
intended to follow him with an army, to his castle of Sandal, near
Wakefield.
On Christmas Eve, the Duke of York took up his position, at Sandal; and his
friends, retainers, and tenants, speedily began to assemble around him.
Margaret marched with diligence from York, [54a] with the Duke of Exeter, [54b]
the Duke of Somerset, [54c] the Earl of Devonshire, [55] the Earl of Wiltshire, [56a]
Lord Clifford, [56b] Lord Roos, [56c] the Earl of Northumberland, [57] and many of

the knights and gentry of the northern parts, at the head of about 18,000
men, and advanced before Sandal, with the object of attacking him before
his forces were fully mustered. It is certain that the Duke of York’s army
was much inferior in numbers, and some accounts state, that he was only at
the head of 5000 men. It is said that he was advised by his officers, in a
council of war, not to risk an engagement, until his son Edward could arrive
with the Welsh march-men. Several reasons have been conjectured, why
the Duke of York came to the fatal conclusion, to hazard the chances of a
battle; but it is very probable, that the true reason may be found, in the
impossibility of provisioning a considerable body of troops, in the depth of
winter, at Sandal, when no previous preparation had been made for them; or
that he was ignorant of the great disproportion in numbers, between the two
armies. Some of the historical accounts state, that he imagined that the
main body of the Lancastrians who presented themselves and offered battle
under the command of the Duke of Somerset, constituted all the army with
which he had to fight, and that he was not aware of the fact, that there were
other bodies of troops on each of its flanks, but at some distance, and
concealed from his observation, one commanded by the Earl of Wiltshire,
and the other by Lord Clifford. It is not, however, very easy to understand,
how it could be possible, with the advantage of overlooking the flat country
occupied by the Lancastrians, that two considerable bodies of them could
be so placed, as to be near enough to assist the main body, without being
observed by him.
Sandal Castle stood upon an eminence upon which the Yorkists were
posted, which extends a considerable distance, and gradually slopes down
towards the meadows on the northward, and towards Wakefield on the
north-westward side.
Having determined on a battle, the duke and his forces, on the 31st [58a] of
December, 1460, descended the eminence and furiously attacked the
Lancastrians. The battle was fought at the place then called Wakefield
Green, [58b] and the result was such as might have been foreseen. His array
nearly surrounded and overwhelmed by numbers, was completely defeated.
The Duke of York, and about 2800 of his forces, were slain, amongst whom
were William Bonvile, commonly called Lord Harrington; [58c] Sir David
Hall, Sir Hugh Hastings, Sir John Mortimer, Sir Hugh Mortimer; Sir

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

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

The victory was closely followed by an act of shocking wickedness and
barbarity. Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of Rutland, a son of the Duke of York,
a boy only twelve years old, was captured when flying with his tutor from
the field of battle, and was put to death near Wakefield Bridge, by Lord
Clifford: a murder which obtained for him during the very short remainder
of his life, the epithet of “the Butcher.”
An extract from the act of attainder, which was passed after the accession of
Edward IV. to the throne, against the Lancastrians, is interesting, as giving a
list of such of them as took a part at the battle of Wakefield.

“For asmoch also as Henry Duc of Somerset, purposying, ymaginyng
and compassying of extreme and insaciate malice and violence to
destroy the right noble and famous Prynce of wurthy memorie Richard
late Duc of York, Fader to oure Liege and Soverayne Lord Kyng
Edward the fourth, and in his lyf verrey Kyng in right of the Reame of
Englond, singuler Protectour Lover and Defensour of the good
governaunce, pollicie, commyn wele, peas and tranquillite thereof; and
also Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry late Erle of
Northumberlond, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Nevill, [59b] John
Welpdale late of Lychefeld Clerk, Philip Lowes late of Thouresby in
the counte of Lincoln Clerk, Bawdewyn Fufforth Knyght, Alexander
Hody Knyght, Nicholas Latymer Knyght, James Loterell Knyght,
Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Fyndern Knyght, Henry Lewes

Knyght, John Heron [60a] of the Forde Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght,
Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, William
Grymmesby late of London late Squier, Thomas Tunstall late of
Thurland in the shire of Lancastr’ Squier, Symond Hammes Knyght,
Thomas Dalton late of Lilbourne in the counte of Northumberlond
Gentilman, James Dalton late of the same Gentilman, George Dalton
late of the same Gentilman, John Clapam late of Skipton in Craven in
Yorkshire Yoman, Andrew Trollop [60b] late of Guysnes Squier, Antony
Notehill Knyght, John Botiller late of Howke in the counte of Dorset
Squier, Gawen Lampleugh late of Warkeworth in the shire of
Northumberlond Gentilman, Edmund Fyesh late of York Taylleour,
Thomas Frysell late of the same Smyth, John Smothyng late of the
same Yoman, John Caterall late of Brayton in the counte of York
Gentilman, Thomas Barton late of Helmesley in the counte of York
Gentilman, William Fyppes late of Southduffeld in the counte of York
Yoman, Henry Clyff the elder late of Lokyngton in the countee of York
Yoman, Robert Tomlynson late of Helagh in the counte of York
Yoman, and Thomas Barton late of York Mason; at Wakefield in the
shire of York on Tywesday the xxx day of Decembr’ last past, with
grete despite and cruell violence, horrible and unmanly tyrannye
murdered the seid right noble Prynce Duc of York.” [60c]

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

Earl of Rutland was captured in his flight, his capture took place at some
spot other than Wakefield Bridge, and that he was brought a prisoner to
Lord Clifford, who murdered him on or near the bridge.
On the 31st of July, 1852, [61b] I first visited the field of battle, the castle, and
also the village and church of Sandal. The church has not any old
monuments to boast of; and I could not discover that any monument
whatever, which had any relation to persons slain at the battle, had ever
existed there. The Rev. Thomas Westmorland, recently the vicar of Sandal,
now of Leominster, has, however, very kindly sent me a copy of an
inscription in old characters apparently of about that age; but I am far from
saying, that it had any reference, to any individual named Percy, connected
with that battle, viz.:—“Orate pro bono statu Joselynni Pyrcy Armigery.” I
am also indebted to him, and to William Shaw, Esq., of Porto Bello House,
for some valuable information upon some other points. Looking from
Sandal Castle Hill, a flat plain appears, of considerable extent, cultivated as
meadow fields, extending from the castle to the river Calder. Those
meadows are at present called “the Pugnays.” They are designated “the
Pukenills,” on the Manor Court Rolls, which are still in existence, and of a
date prior to the fourteenth century. Adjoining the tract of meadow-land,
and in the extreme north-westward, bounded by the river Calder, is “Porto
Bello,” a mansion erected by Samuel Holdsworth, Esq., and now occupied
by William Shaw, Esq. The battle was fought upon that spot, upon part of
the meadow-land before mentioned, and upon the tract of ground formerly
part of Wakefield Green, extending from thence across the turnpike road in
a north-eastwardly direction. The green must have been at that time a large
open tract of ground, but it has long been enclosed, and its position appears
to have been on the southward side of, and about half a mile from the
bridge; [62] its site is crossed by the modern turnpike road, from Wakefield to
Barnsley, and part of it has acquired the name of Fall Ings, according to
tradition, from the great numbers who fell there, in the battle.
There are now no remains of Wakefield Green: all of it has been enclosed,
and several portions of it are built upon; and it is worthy of notice, that on
one side of the spot, where the green is said to have been, the ground
descends from Sandal to the present turnpike road, and to a tract of level
ground close to Porto Bello House; and that, at a little distance further on
the turnpike road leading towards Wakefield, there is a slight elevation in

the road, and in the contiguous fields. After carefully viewing the ground, I
came to the conclusion that this little elevation, which faces the high ground
at Sandal, must be considered to have been the position of the Lancastrians;
and also that the battle was fought upon the level ground between it and
Sandal, extending on the one side towards Porto Bello House, and on the
other to the Fall Ings, and towards the Pontefract road. In digging the
foundations of Porto Bello House, and in forming the sunk fence there,
human bones, broken swords, spurs, and other relics, were discovered,
which were considered fully confirmatory of that locality having been the
scene of the conflict. On the northern part of Fall Ings, near the side where
the highway to Pontefract runs, fragments of armour, and other indications,
apparently of the battle, are said to have been discovered some time ago, in
making an excavation there. It was also the spot, and on the side of Sandal,
where the battle would naturally take place, after the advance of the
Lancastrians from York to Wakefield; and it tallies with the accounts
handed down to us, that the battle was fought between Wakefield and
Sandal, and upon Wakefield Green.
There has not been discovered, within the memory of man, any large trench
or pit near Sandal Church, where it might reasonably be supposed that some
of the slain would be interred, such as has been discovered at Battlefield
Church, in consequence of the battle of Shrewsbury, and at Saxton Church,
in consequence of the battle of Towton. [63]
Sandal Castle has not been an extensive one; and, except that its position
was on an eminence, it was devoid of the natural advantages which many
castles possess, such as being built on the margin of rivers, or the edges of
steep precipices. All that now exists of it, consists of rather large mounds,
on which the outworks and walls have stood; two shattered and not large
fragments of the latter remain, but so imperfect, that it is not possible to
ascertain of what part of the castle they originally formed a portion. The
moat is tolerably perfect; indeed in one place, it contained water when I
visited it, although the season was hot and dry. There is also a very large
and high mount, in a considerable degree artificial, on which the keep has
stood, almost encompassed by an inner moat, which is of considerable
depth.

In the additions to Camden’s Britannia, it is stated, with reference to the
death of the Duke of York, that the spot where he fell was enclosed with a
triangular wall, including about a rood or ten feet, now converted into a
garden, the owners being obliged to keep it hedged in; that a large stone
cross raised on it, was demolished in the civil war; that here was found a
large gold ring, supposed to have belonged to the duke, and given to Mr.
Thoresby; on the sale of whose museum, Mr. Bartlet, who remembered the
finding of it, bought it for two guineas; that within is engraved, “Pour bon
amour,” and on the broad outside are “three saints.” [64a]
On the right side of the old road leading from Wakefield to Barnsley, which
passes the castle, and is called Sandal Castle Lane, [64b] is a small field or
close, of rather a triangular form, which is said to be the spot where the
Duke of York fell. [64c] It will scarcely admit of any doubt, that this is the
identical place which is mentioned in the addition to Camden’s Britannia,
although there is not a vestige of the cross now left. As the place is rather
nearer to the castle than to the field of battle, it is not unreasonable to infer
that the Duke of York may have been mortally wounded, and have been
removed to a little distance in the rear (the spot in question would be in the
rear of the Yorkists’ army), or he may have endeavoured to escape, on
finding that the day was against him, and may have been slain there in his
flight. The strong probability is, that it is the place where he fell. The small
field or close may easily be distinguished: it lies about a mile from
Wakefield Bridge; and at a very trifling distance beyond the toll-bar, a little
well will be remarked, in the hedge, on the right side of the old road to
Barnsley; and about midway between the toll-bar and the well, the small
field or close presents itself to view. It is remarkable for having two very
old willows growing in the hedge adjoining the road; and more of them
were not very long ago growing there. A small compartment of the field
was, within the recollection of the recent vicar of Sandal, fenced off from
the remainder of it, and planted with red and white roses, which must
naturally be supposed to have been done to commemorate the battle, or the
death of the Duke of York. [65a]

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

Edward.—“Dazzle mine eyes, or do I see three suns?”
**********
**********
“’Tis wondrous strange, the like yet never heard of.
I think it cites us, brother, to the field,
That we, the sons of brave Plantagenet,
Each one already blazing by our meeds,
Should notwithstanding join our lights together,
And overshine the earth, as this the world.
Whate’er it bodes, henceforward will I bear
Upon my target, three fair shining suns.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act 2, scene 1.
(Near Mortimer’s Cross.)

The victory gained by the Lancastrians, at the battle of Wakefield, seemed
at the first view, to decide the fate of the adverse party. Richard Duke of
York, the claimant to the throne, and the leader of the Yorkists, was slain;
Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was wounded, taken prisoner, and
afterwards beheaded at Pontefract; and the army of which they were
commanders, was completely destroyed. A most formidable enemy,
however, soon presented himself to notice. Edward Earl of March, [67b] the
eldest son of the Duke of York, was considered by great numbers of

persons, as the rightful heir to the throne of England; he was descended
from the Mortimers, Earls of March, and had claims to the crown, from his
descent through his mother’s side, from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son
of Edward III., through Philippa (the only daughter and heiress of the Duke
of Clarence), who married Roger Mortimer, third Earl of March and Lord of
Wigmore; besides which, he was also descended from Edward III. in
another manner, because his great-grandfather, Edmund of Langley, was the
fifth son of Edward III. He was a young man whose personal appearance
and manners were very prepossessing; he gained the hearts of men in a
warlike age, by his courage and excellence in martial exercises; and his
noble and powerful alliances, combined with his lineal descent from the
great families of Plantagenet and Mortimer, had a potent influence in his
favour, with vast numbers of all ranks; besides which, he was young,
talented, and daring, and was well qualified under those circumstances to
fight his way to a throne.
At the time when his father perished at Wakefield, Edward was occupied,
by the direction of the former, in raising forces in the marches and the
borders of Wales: a district where he had immense patrimonial possessions,
and where the circumstance of his being of the lineage of the Mortimers,
gave him great sway and influence. He was at Gloucester when he received
the account of his father’s death. After having raised a large army, which
some writers have stated to have amounted to as many as 23,000 men, he
prepared to march against Queen Margaret, and avenge the death of his
father.
Edward had, according to the accounts given by several of the old
historians, proceeded as far as Shrewsbury, when he received tidings, that
James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire, [69a] and Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, [69b]
half brother to King Henry the Sixth, had assembled a large army of Welsh
and Irish, in order to attack him; and Edward, in consequence of that
intelligence, [72a] was induced to return promptly in order to encounter them.
The two hostile armies met and fought, on Candlemas Day, the 2nd of
February, 1461, [72b] in the parish of Kingsland, in Herefordshire, between
Leominster and Wigmore, not far from East Hereford, and very near
Mortimer’s Cross; [72c] from which place the battle acquired its name.

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

“Three glorious suns, each one a perfect sun;
Not separated by the racking clouds,
But sever’d in a pale clear shining sky.
See, see! they join, embrace, and seem to kiss,
As if they vow’d some league inviolable:
Now are they but one lamp, one light, one sun.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI., part iii. act 2, scene 1.
(Near Mortimer’s Cross.)

Edward had the sagacity to affect to believe, or really did believe, that this
natural phenomenon [73a] was an omen of his success. He afterwards, in
commemoration of it, assumed the sun in its splendour, as his device or
badge. [73b]
Edward with his forces courageously attacked [73c] the forces of the Earls of
Pembroke and Wiltshire, and after a severe battle, completely defeated
them; and about 3800 of the Lancastrians were slain. The Earls of
Pembroke and of Wiltshire escaped by flight; Sir Owen Tudor, [73d] father of
the Earl of Pembroke, and second husband of Queen Katherine, the widow
of Henry V., and the mother of Henry VI., was taken prisoner, beheaded at
Hereford, and was buried in a chapel of the Grey Friars Church; [73e] and Sir
John Scudamore and his two sons, David Lloyd, Morgan ap Reuther,
Thomas Griffith, John Throckmorton, Thomas Fitzhenry, and other
gentlemen of consideration, were also taken and beheaded there: a fearful
retaliation for the murder of the young Earl of Rutland, and the execution in
cold blood, by the Lancastrians, of some of the prisoners, who had been
taken at the battle of Wakefield. [74a]

The victorious Edward then proceeded with his army to join the King-
making Earl of Warwick, who had recently been defeated by the
Lancastrians at the second battle of St. Alban’s. They effected a junction at
Chipping Norton, near Cotswold, and, with their united armies, marched
towards London, where Edward was proclaimed King by his partisans
shortly after his arrival.
The field of the battle of Mortimer’s Cross is in the parish of Kingsland,
five mile north-west by west from Leominster, close to the fifth milestone
of the turnpike road, leading from Leominster to Wigmore and Knighton, at
the place where a byroad joins the turnpike road, and where a stone pedestal
or monument, which will be more particularly mentioned afterwards, stands
at the point of junction of those two roads, which was erected to
commemorate the battle. [74b] Mortimer’s Cross is nearly a mile and a quarter
further on the turnpike road, leading towards Wigmore.
It may perhaps be taken for granted, that the old historical accounts are
correct in stating, that previous to the battle, Edward had marched as far as
Shrewsbury, had returned to meet the Earls of Pembroke and Wiltshire, and
that the two earls had raised a large portion of their forces in Wales; and if
so, it is tolerably certain that the Lancastrians advanced from Wales into
Herefordshire, towards the Earl of March’s possessions [75a] at Wigmore and
on the borders of Wales; consequently the vicinity of Mortimer’s Cross was
a very natural spot for the hostile armies to meet. There is a gentle ascent in
the road from Mortimer’s Cross to the field of battle, and to the spot where
the pedestal stands, consequently the Yorkists had a slight advantage of
ground; and they were drawn up facing the westward, whilst the
Lancastrian army faced the eastward.
Mortimer’s Cross is not a village, but merely consists of a respectable but
small country inn, called the Mortimer’s Cross Inn, and one or two other
houses, at a junction of four roads; where in former times a cross is said to
have been erected by one of the Mortimers; but it has long been removed,
and I could not learn, upon inquiry, that it had been there within the
memory of man.
Relics of the conflict have been occasionally dug up in the fields in front (to
the westward) of the pedestal, and of the point of junction of the two roads.

When I first visited the field of battle, on the 16th of May, 1854, I met with
a husbandman at work there, who had lived near it many years, and who
informed me, that some years ago, in ploughing in the next fields
immediately to the right and left of the turnpike road, after leaving the
pedestal and the place of junction of the two roads, he had not unfrequently
discovered remains of bridle-bits, stirrups, fragments of iron, and, amongst
others, long pieces of iron, which, from their shape and size, he concluded
had been sword-blades, besides other indications of the battle.
Within the recollection of the Rev. R. D. Evans, rector of Kingsland, some
arms, swords, and spear-heads, were found on the field of battle, and were
presented to the Museum at Hereford. [76a] He also showed me, when I
visited the field of battle in 1856, a large buckle, perfectly plain,
conjectured to have formed part of the trappings of a horse; a small buckle,
rather ornamented, probably intended for a sword-belt, both of iron or steel;
and a small silver coin, seemingly a groat, all found upon the field of battle
in 1854. [76b] I have also been informed by him, that there was within his
recollection, in a close near the field of battle, a mound said to have been a
place of burial of those slain in the battle, but that it is now quite ploughed
down, and no vestige of it remains. Although the field of battle is now
entirely enclosed, there were old persons living, when I visited it in 1855
and 1856, who recollected large parts of it, when the thorn fences of its
enclosures were small, and not much grown, from having been recently
planted, and even when a portion of the land near the pedestal was open and
unenclosed.
The ruins of Wigmore Castle are little more than four miles further than the
field of battle, on the road from Leominster, from which it is about nine
miles and a half distant; and when I was on three occasions in the
neighbourhood, I did not hesitate to prolong my excursion, and visit the
remains of a castle which in days of yore was of importance, and a principal
residence of the Mortimers and of Richard Duke of York. Leland does not
give any information of moment respecting the castle, but merely states
concisely, “Wigmore Castle a XX myles from Shreusbiri, standing on a
Brooket sumtime almost dry.” [77]
The ruins are upon a considerable eminence, and are sadly shattered, both
by time and wilful spoliation, though they still are interesting, and of

commanding appearance.
So much of the castle has been destroyed, that it is not possible to determine
with accuracy its original plan and arrangements. Some of the outside
walls, an arch, and other small parts of the principal gateway, and some
considerable portions of the keep, still remain, much of which are covered
with ivy; the moat is also tolerably perfect in most places; and the ruins of
the keep stand within the castle upon a naturally high elevation, which has
been considerably raised by artificial means. The keep has formerly been
further strengthened by an interior moat, which separated it from the rest of
the castle.
Most of the walls have been built of a slaty kind of stone, which has a
tendency to splinter and crumble from the effects of the weather and frost,
so that the remains do not appear likely to have a very long continuance. In
approaching the entrance, there are some appearances visible, of a rampart
and ditch, extending to the right, and also for a little distance to the left, of
the gateway; there are not, however, any signs of masonry upon the
rampart; but, if it formerly formed part of the outworks or outward defences
of the castle, it probably has been fortified with palisades or stakes.
The church and little village of Wigmore are close to the castle. The church
is a plain stone Gothic edifice, of great antiquity. It contains sedilia, and
also a piscina, both of remarkable construction: the former being literally
stone seats separated by stone partitions perfectly plain, without any
canopies or arches; and the latter being placed on the acute angle of some
masonry near them. The roof of the church is of a very unusual description,
as it is of massive oak timber, waggon-shaped, and apparently of great age;
and a large part of the outside wall of the north side of the nave is built with
the stones set in the herringbone fashion, which is now very rarely to be met
with, and is usually considered a proof of its remote antiquity.
A chapel, now demolished, originally stood on another part of the north side
of the church, as is proved by the piscina still remaining on the outside of it;
and the arch through which the entrance was obtained into it from the
church, being still apparent in the north wall.
Considering the great utility of the castle, as a bridle to incursions from the
borders of Wales, formerly a hostile country, its importance to the lords of

the Welsh marches, and its having been a residence of the powerful
Mortimers, who had more than once caused kings to feel uneasy on their
thrones, I was a little surprised not to find it of more extensive size; nor did
I consider its position to have been naturally as strong, as might have been
expected, for such a fortress.
Here the traveller finds himself in a district upon the borders of Wales,
which in a remote age, and when the principality was considered as a
hostile country, was a part of the Welsh marches, and the personages in
command there, were designated Lords Marchers. [78a] They were so called,
from the word marche, or limit. They had Courts of Marche, in which they
tried causes of different kinds, and especially offences against the public
peace, which went by the name of Marche Treason. [78b] The Mortimers
often held that important office upon the borders of Wales.
There were in Wales, and the borders of England, adjoining the principality,
141 manors, of large extent, possessed by the Lords Marchers, who enjoyed
almost regal rights upon their lands, and administered justice within their
several districts, without the intervention of the King’s judges. [79a] The
excessive authority and local jurisdictions of the Lords Marchers, in this
debatable land, were abolished by an act of Parliament, in the time of Henry
VIII. [79b]
The drive from Leominster to Wigmore is interesting and pleasant. The
view from Wigmore Castle is extensive and beautiful; an amphitheatre of
mountains forms a background, between which and the castle, is a very
extensive plain, over which, in days of yore, the powerful Mortimers could
survey, from the towers and battlements, their vast possessions, and, as
mighty feudal lords, they also could despotically command the property,
services, and even the lives of nearly all who resided within the district.
The pedestal or monument before noticed, erected near the fifth milestone
of the turnpike road, to commemorate the battle of Mortimer’s Cross,
contains the following inscription:—

THIS PEDESTAL IS ERECTED TO PERPETUATE THE MEMORY
OF AN OBSTINATE BLOODY AND DECISIVE BATTLE, FOUGHT NEAR
THIS SPOT, IN THE CIVIL WARS BETWEEN THE AMBITIOUS HOUSES
[80a]
OF YORK AND LANCASTER, ON THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 1460

BETWEEN THE FORCES OF EDWARD MORTIMER EARL OF
MARCH (AFTERWARDS EDWARD THE FOURTH) ON THE SIDE OF
YORK, AND THOSE OF HENRY THE SIXTH ON THE SIDE OF
LANCASTER.

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

ERECTED BY SUBSCRIPTION
IN THE YEAR 1799.

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

Edward.—“Now breathe we, Lords; good fortune bids us pause,
And smooth the frowns of war with peaceful looks.
Some troops pursue the bloody-minded Queen;
That led calm Henry, though he were a King,
As doth a sail, fill’d with a fretting gust,
Command an argosy to stem the waves.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part 3, act ii. scene 6.
(A Field of Battle, between Towton and Saxton.)

The most sanguinary and important battle that ever took place in the civil
wars of England, was that of Towton, in Yorkshire; and from the interest
which it has excited, and the historical events which have resulted from it, I
have been induced to pay several visits to that memorable field of battle. [81b]
Queen Margaret [82a] and the Lancastrians, exulting in the victory obtained at
Wakefield, were encouraged by it to proceed towards London, in hopes of
being admitted into the city; but on their arrival at St. Alban’s, they
encountered the Earl of Warwick [82b] and an army of Yorkists; and for the
second time, within less than six years, a battle was fought there. [82c] It
terminated in the defeat of the Yorkists, and was of great importance to the
Lancastrians, because they regained the advantage of the use of the name of
King Henry VI. [82d] in their proceedings, as the battle delivered him out of
the custody of the Yorkists. Margaret’s victory was, however, disgraced by

an act of great barbarity: she, or some of the Lancastrian leaders with her
sanction, put to death in cold blood, after the battle, Lord Bonvile, [83a] and
Sir Thomas Kiriel [83b] of Kent, to whose custody King Henry had been
confided before the battle, and notwithstanding they had remained with him
on his express assurance of their safety.
Margaret, however, was very far from deriving the advantages which she
had hoped for, from the victory. The citizens of London were, for the most
part, favourable to the House of York; besides which, they were alarmed at
the outrages, rapine, and violence, perpetrated by Margaret’s lawless forces,
on their march towards London, and, consequently, its gates were shut
against her. Margaret found that she could not obtain admission into the
city, and received intelligence that the Earl of Warwick had effected a
junction with Edward Earl of March, [83c] at Chipping Norton, near Cotswold,
and that they were marching with all the forces that they could collect, upon
London; she, therefore, found it expedient to retire with her army, and to
proceed to the north of England, in order to raise more forces; and then she
hoped to have in the field an army sufficiently strong to crush her
antagonists effectually.
Edward entered London triumphant after his victory at Mortimer’s Cross;
and having the support of Thomas Bourchier, [83d] Archbishop of Canterbury;
George Neville, [83e] Bishop of Exeter, and Lord Chancellor; and other
bishops; the Duke of Norfolk; [84a] the Earl of Warwick; Lord Falconberg; [84b]
and other noblemen and knights of the Yorkist party, who were then in
London; was declared King by acclamation, by a large body of troops and
of spectators, in the fields near Clerkenwell, on the 2nd of March, 1461. [84c]
On the 3rd he was petitioned by the noblemen and leaders of that party, to
assume the kingly office, and rode on the 4th to St. Paul’s, and there made
his offering, and then proceeded with a pompous procession to Westminster
Hall, and took his seat upon the throne, with the sceptre in his hand, and
was recognised as King, somewhat in the form of a coronation. From
thence he went with a similar procession to Westminster Abbey, under a
canopy, and, having made another offering there, he received the homage of
the noblemen there present, and was afterwards, in the usual form,
proclaimed King of England, in Westminster, by the title of Edward IV., and
the next day was proclaimed in the same manner, in the city of London.
The 4th of March was the day on which Henry VI. was subsequently

declared by Parliament to have been deposed, and the reign of Edward IV.
to have commenced. [85a] Edward’s great object now was to seek and
encounter the Lancastrian army; he had nothing to gain by delay, but
everything to hope from a victory, which he knew would remove the
advantage which Henry VI. had, from his being in possession of the crown,
and having been for so many years recognised by the nation as King of
England. On the 7th of March the Earl of Warwick, and a large portion of
the army of the Yorkists, quitted London, and commenced their march
towards the North. On the 12th, Edward and the remainder of the army also
left London, and proceeded with little rest, until they reached Pontefract.
The Lancastrian army had assembled at York, and on the approach of the
Yorkists, quitted the city, and marched through Tadcaster to Towton, and
there prepared for the approach of their enemies; whilst King Henry VI.,
Queen Margaret, and Edward [85b] the young Prince of Wales, remained at
York, awaiting the result of the impending battle, which was to decide
whether Henry was to continue to be the sovereign of England, or to
become a poor exile and a homeless fugitive.
It was with feelings of the most intense hatred, that the forces of the two
parties approached each other; the deaths of not a few of the members of
their respective families, and of many friends in battle, and of others on the
scaffold, the forfeitures and confiscations by the act of attainder of the
Parliament held at Coventry, and the bitterness of party strife, gave to the
conflict a degree of inveteracy and fury, perhaps never equalled in any civil
dissensions in England; and it cannot excite wonder, that in the dreadful
battle which ensued, no quarter was given or expected.
The first hostile meeting of any of the forces, was unfavourable to the cause
of Edward. He had sent troops commanded by Lord Fitzwalter, [86a] to secure
the passage over the river Aire, at Ferrybridge; but in the course of the night
of the 27th of March, or very early in the morning of the 28th, a body of
light cavalry, under the command of Lord Clifford, [86b] was detached by the
Lancastrians, and attacked and defeated the Yorkists stationed there, slew
their leader, and won that position; but in consequence of Edward’s forces
having crossed the Aire at Castleford, three miles higher up the river, the
Lancastrian troops were soon obliged to retreat from Ferrybridge, and, in
endeavouring to rejoin the main body at Towton, were intercepted at a place

called Dintingdale, [86c] near Scarthingwell, and near Saxton, were
completely defeated, and their leader, Lord Clifford, was slain.
The main bodies of the two armies were now close to each other: that of the
Yorkists being posted at Saxton, and that of the Lancastrians at Towton; and
during the night of the 28th, each party prepared for the terrible combat of
the morrow. On Palm Sunday, the 29th of March, 1461, at nine in the
morning, the battle commenced; and it is to be regretted, that the old
historians have handed down to us, very little information of value,
respecting that most extraordinary and sanguinary conflict; but some of the
few particulars which they have left, will be noticed afterwards. The battle
is said to have raged with great obstinacy and valour on both sides, during
about ten hours, and terminated in a complete victory on the side of the
Yorkists, and the rout and dispersion of the Lancastrian army.
The place where it was fought, is found without difficulty; indeed the old
chroniclers and annalists mention the locality with sufficient precision. We
know from those sources (independently of tradition), that it took place near
Towton, partly in the township of Towton, and partly in that of Saxton, [87a]
and between Towton and Saxton and as the distances between the villages
of those names, is only one mile and a half, it defines the exact locality very
clearly.
The battle has been called by various names, such as the battle of “Towton,”
of “Saxton,” “Palm Sunday Field,” and “Sherburn,” and in the act of
attainder of the first of Edward IV. it is called “Saxtonfeld and Tawtonfeeld,
in the shire of York.” [87b]
This celebrated and decisive battle established for a considerable time,
Edward IV. upon the throne of England. [87c]
The place where it was fought, lies between the villages of Saxton and
Towton, and very near to, but a little to the southward of, the latter village.
In order that the locality may be correctly understood, it is necessary to
mention, that the district in which the battle was fought consists of an
extensive range of high land, the approach to which, on the south side, is by
a gentle ascent, which commences about a quarter of a mile on the north
side of the village of Saxton, and extends as a small elevated plain (except
in one spot, where there is a depression or valley, which will be afterwards

described), past the village of Towton, by the modern turnpike road, until
within about a mile from Tadcaster, where the road descends rather rapidly
into a flat tract of meadow ground, extending to Tadcaster. On the
eastward, the high ground slopes gently down towards the present great
north road, leading from Ferrybridge to Tadcaster; and the slope of the land
continues inclining to the eastward, in the direction of North Milford and of
Church Fenton; and the south-eastward extremity extends towards
Scarthingwell. On the west side, the high ground terminates very abruptly
in steep eminences, some parts of which may, from their steepness and
abruptness, without much impropriety, be called cliffs, which overlook a
narrow belt of beautiful meadow ground, in which the river Cock, there
called Cock-Beck, flows. It runs towards the north; and after passing the
spot which will be afterwards more particularly noticed, where the ancient
road to Tadcaster formerly was, it makes a turn towards the eastward, and at
the foot of the descent before mentioned, the modern turnpike road (the
present great north road) crosses it; and it flows from thence across some
meadows for about a quarter of a mile, still to the eastward, and there runs
into the river Wharfe. The ancient road, upon which men yet living have
driven to and from Tadcaster, which is now little more than an occupation
road, turns off abruptly, at the north end of, and close to, Towton village,
and descends the eminence [88a] in a westwardly direction, to a continuation
of the belt of meadow ground before mentioned, where it arrives at the river
Cock. This descent by the ancient road is so steep, that it is a matter of
surprise, how the heavy coaches formerly in use, and waggons, could safely
pass up and down it, yet it was even in modern times part of the great north
road. After descending the eminence, the ancient road formerly crossed the
river Cock by a stone bridge, now destroyed; [88b] and after passing over a
part of the beautiful meadow ground before noticed, it ascended the rising
ground on the opposite side of the meadow, and so proceeded on towards
Tadcaster.
At present, the river Cock is crossed in the meadow by a narrow wooden
bridge, merely used for foot passengers and horses, the supporting piers of
which are of stone, and they probably were built or rebuilt from the
materials of the older bridge; in fact, I saw several worked and broken
stones lying near it, strengthening the supposition of their having formed
part of an old bridge. It may be correct here to mention that there is an old

stone bridge at the village of Stutton, still existing, also over the Cock,
much nearer to Tadcaster, from which a road joins the old road before
mentioned to Tadcaster, and that human bones, probably of some of the
fugitives, have been dug up on the line of the country where the modern
turnpike road runs between Towton village and the bridge at Stutton. [89]
The village of Towton is small, and not well built; the houses are principally
of stone, or with rough-cast fronts; it has not any church; and Towton Hall,
where John Kendall, Esq., resides, is close to the village on the south-
westward side of it. The village lies about two miles and a half to the
southward of Tadcaster; and the turnpike road from Ferrybridge towards
Tadcaster, passes through Sherburn and past Barkston and Scarthingwell
Park, and proceeds directly to it (Towton and Sherburn being nearly north
and south of each other); and the turnpike road passes through the village of
Towton, at which it meets the public road which will be afterwards noticed,
from the village of Saxton.
There is also a road leading from Saxton village to Scarthingwell which
joins the turnpike road from Ferrybridge, at Dintingdale, at the distance of
about half a mile from Saxton village; and on the eastward side of the
Ferrybridge road, there is a stone quarry called Dintingdale Quarry, close to
the place where the other road joins it.
Near this spot at Dintingdale, the engagement took place, in which the
savage Lancastrian leader, Lord Clifford, fell, [90a] on the 28th of March, the
day before the battle of Towton; [90b] his crimes merited a worse fate. His
death is introduced by Shakespeare in the Third Part of King Henry VI.

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

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

The elevated land begins to rise about a quarter of a mile on the north side
of Saxton village, from which a public road proceeds from thence in a
northwardly direction, and continues to rise until within little more than half
a mile to the southward of the village of Towton, where there is a
considerable depression or descent in the road, and in the ground on each
side of it. At this place, and on the left or westward of the road, the
depression in the ground deepens through a large meadow, where it forms a
valley, which contracts, and extends through an opening in the eminence or
cliff before mentioned, to the belt of meadow land extending to the river
Cock. On the right or eastward side of the public road, the depression
which is called Towton Dale, extends some little distance into the adjoining
fields, and then becomes a mere undulation in the fields; and the ground is
nearly level from thence towards the eastward. This place is easily known
—not merely by the large meadow and valley, but by a stone quarry called
Towton Dale Quarry, worked close to, and on the westward or left side of,
the road, and which is passed on leaving the depression, and ascending
towards Towton village. [91]
Those marks will enable the visitor to find the scene of action, without
difficulty. The battle of Towton was fought on the spot now occupied by
the large meadow and valley before mentioned (on the west side of the
road), the depression called Towton Dale, the fields extending a
considerable distance to the eastward of the road, and the ground in the
neighbourhood of the stone quarry.
The large meadow is remarkable for producing rich rank grass, and also for
three or four extensive irregularly shaped patches of very small wild dwarf
rose-bushes, which I was told, were both red and white; it forms the west

end of Towton Dale. The meadow is not unfrequently called the Bloody
Meadow, and was, according to tradition, a scene of great slaughter, and it
is said that considerable numbers of the dead were buried there. The
distance across the fields, from the public road at that spot to the turnpike
road leading from Ferrybridge, is about a mile, and the whole tract of
ground between them is enclosed and cultivated.
The Lancastrians had their army drawn up, a little to the southward of the
village of Towton, which was rather more than a quarter of a mile in their
rear, and they occupied the highest ground there. The position was a good
one. Their right wing extended towards the eminence or cliff before
mentioned, and they had the meadow and valley in front of it. Their centre
had the depression called Towton Dale, or at least part of it, in front, and
their left wing extended a considerable distance to the eastward, [92a] towards
the place where the turnpike road from Ferrybridge now is. Before the land
was drained, which lies below and on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge
road, between Dintingdale and Towton, some boggy and marshy land
formerly existed beyond the position of their left wing, which perhaps
might be a protection against its being outflanked. [92b] Their left wing had
no particular advantage over their adversaries, except from the ground
being a trifle, and not much, higher than that occupied by the right of the
latter. The Lancastrian position extended along the highest part of the
ground, in a direction almost due east and west.
The Yorkists naturally drew up their army opposite the other, and on the
south side of the meadow and depression before mentioned, and with their
centre and right wing extending across the ground, now enclosed fields, to
the eastward, and towards the present turnpike road from Ferrybridge.
I made inquiries from persons residing near the scene of action, but could
not learn that there were any traces of intrenchments visible: although they
might have been expected to have been found at the spot where the
Lancastrians were posted.
Instances have occurred, though not very numerous of late, of the discovery
of parts of human skeletons, and fragments of armour, weapons, piles of
arrows, bridle-bits, spurs, &c. &c., on the field of battle.

The remains of armour, weapons, and other relics, turned up on the field of
this great engagement, have been comparatively, rather small, which has
been very fairly accounted for by Dr. Whitaker, [93] from the circumstance,
that the weather was cold, and the victory complete, so that the spoil of the
field, and the interment of the dead, proceeded at leisure; he, however,
mentions one relic, which escaped the vigilance of plunder, viz., a gold ring,
weighing about one ounce, which was found on the field about thirty years
before (his work was published in 1816); it had no stone, but a lion passant
was cut upon the gold, with this inscription in the old black-letter character
—“Now ys thus.” The crest is that of the Percies; and Dr. Whitaker
considers, that it was a ring actually worn by the Earl of Northumberland;
and that the motto seems to allude to the times; as if it were expressed,
“This age is fierce as a lion.”
Drake, in his Eboracum, says, that about a year or two before he wrote (his
work was published in 1736), he and two other gentlemen had the curiosity
to go and see a fresh grave opened, in those fields, where, amongst vast
quantities of bones, they found some arrow piles, pieces of broken swords,
and five very fresh groat pieces of Henry IV., V., and VI.’s coin. These
were laid near together, close to a thighbone, which made them conjecture,
that there had not been time to strip the dead, before they were tossed into
the pit.
It is to be regretted, that he has not informed us, in what particular spot,
those relics were dug up; but as he, in the preceding sentence, had
mentioned the intended chapel, and the piece of ground called “Chapel
Garth,” it is only reasonable to conclude, that he alluded to the latter.
In the month of August 1774, a man was living at Saxton who, with many
others, had been concerned in opening some graves of the warriors, slain at
the battle of Towton, to satisfy the curiosity of some gentlemen. On a strict
examination of the bones, then found, it appeared, that the least decayed,
were the internodia digitorum, of the bones of the thumbs and fingers. [94a]
Dr. Whitaker informs us, that he was possessed of a silver ring, gilt, with
two hands conjoined engraved upon it, which was found upon the field of
battle. [94b]

A dagger or short sword, discovered there, is now in the possession of the
Rev. William Jepson Newman, of Badsworth, Yorkshire; it is 2 feet 4½
inches long, including the portion which was formerly inserted in the
handle; very narrow, being at the broadest part hardly more than half an
inch in breadth, but thick in proportion, and angular. It has been somewhat
shortened at the point, which is at present round; and it was picked up by
the father of a man who now resides in the neighbouring township of
Lotherton. [94c]
A spear-head, or pike-head, was six or seven years ago amongst some old
iron in a blacksmith’s shop, near the field of battle, which had been found
on the field; it was purchased and taken away by a gentleman. [94c]
There is another curious relic of the battle, which has been preserved. A
battle-axe, of which the blade is of a small size; and the handle is perfect, of
black oak, roughly made, and 2½ inches in the gripe. The blade and handle
of the axe, are together, about 18 inches long. Its history is curious. It was
found very many years ago, in the bed of the river Cock. It was purchased
by Colonel Grant, R.A., at Saxton, from the wife of a miller there; and she
informed him, that it had been preserved for a long period of time in the
family of her husband. She had been in the habit of using it for the purpose
of breaking sugar: an extraordinary change in the use of a weapon, which,
as we cannot doubt, had been wielded at the battle of Towton, by a
Lancastrian warrior, and been lost in the river Cock, in his flight from
Towton Field. It remained a considerable time in the possession of Colonel
Grant, and was presented by him, to the Duke of Northumberland, for his
museum at Alnwick Castle, where it still is. [95a]
A spur, which I have seen, of brass gilt, found on the field of battle, is
preserved in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of London; it is a
rowel spur; the rowel is scarcely larger than that of a modern spur, in which
respect it differs from the very large rowels, of that period, which have
occasionally been discovered. The spur is remarkably perfect, and is
slightly ornamented with a kind of scroll pattern. Upon the shanks is
engraved, in Old English characters, the following inscription—“en loial
amour, tout mon coer;” the style and engraving of which, indicate its being
of about the period of the battle. [95b]

I also learnt, on my visit to Towton Field in 1854, that on the recent
occasion of making excavations for the York and North Midland Railway,
close to Towton, some human bones were discovered; the spot was near the
old road before described, and in the line of the retreat of the Lancastrians,
from the field of battle, towards Tadcaster.
It is said that human bones, which must be presumed to have been those of
some of the fugitive Lancastrians, have been found in the line of country,
leading from Towton village towards the village of Stutton, at which a part
of the fugitive Lancastrians probably crossed the river Cock, in their flight
towards Tadcaster.
Persons residing near the field of battle, readily point out the place, where
Lord Dacre [96] is said to have been slain, and which I have several times
made a point of visiting, in the course of my rambles there; it is in a field
called Nor Acres (or North Acre), which seems to have been originally
much larger, and to have been subdivided. It belongs to Lord Hawke, and
lies a couple of fields’ breadth to the eastward of the public road, and
opposite the large meadow before noticed, and extends a considerable
distance to the eastward. Dr. Whitaker states, that when Glover made his
visitation in 1583, he heard the tradition, that Lord Dacre was shot at
Towton Field, by a boy “out of a burtree,” and that “the place where he was
slayne is called the North Acres, whereupon they have this rhyme:—

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

It is remarkable that the farmer who occupies the field, and others whom I
conversed with, repeated the tradition, and told me that Lord Dacre was
slain by an arrow shot by a boy from an auberry-tree, evidently meaning the
same shrub as that called burtree by Dr. Whitaker, who states that he did not
know what the burtree was. I was quite satisfied that the word auberry, was
a provincial name for the elder-tree, and requested a person near the spot, to
point out such a tree to me, and, as I anticipated, I was shown the elder-tree.
Following the depression or valley before mentioned, to the eastward, and
at the corner of the second field from the public road, there was, until
within about the last twelve or thirteen years, a square space, enclosed with

an embankment, containing about half an acre; it was not usually ploughed,
but in grass; and was said to have been a place of interment of many of the
corpses after the battle; it lay on the corner of the Nor Acres (or North Acre)
Field, at the southward; but the embankment is now thrown down, and the
land has been ploughed. According to tradition, the greatest slaughter took
place at or near the Nor Acres Field.
Great numbers of the slain were interred in Saxton Churchyard, in a large
trench or pit on the north side of the church. Their bones were exposed to
view, lying about four feet below the surface, in making a vault not many
years ago, and again, subsequently, in making another, in 1848, as will be
noticed in another place; we may conclude that they were the bones of
Yorkists of some consideration, from the circumstance of the survivors
taking the trouble of interring the remains in consecrated ground, at some
little distance from the field of the battle. The persons whose bones were so
exposed, must have been either young, or in the prime of life, because the
skulls were remarkable for the soundness and excellence of the teeth.
Amongst other fields on the spot where the battle was fought, there is one
of considerable extent, lying on the eastward side, to which, or near to
which, the Lancastrian left wing extended, which fronts the west side of the
turnpike road from Ferrybridge; any person desirous of walking over the
field of battle from the Ferrybridge road, will do well to cross it from this
part, and enter the large field which is nearly opposite a white farmhouse,
standing on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road. On one occasion,
whilst I was in it, I met with a farmer there, who informed me that some
few relics of the battle had been discovered, but very rarely near the place.
I have also obtained considerable information from several other persons
residing near the field of battle. [98a]
Dr. Whitaker states [98b] that “the field of battle is scarcely more than a mile
long, and with little level ground in front of both armies, declines in the rear
of both. Hence it appears, that as the line could scarcely exceed 3000 men,
the files must have been very deep, and that the rear must have been
perpetually advancing as the front lines fell.” But that theory of Dr.
Whitaker appears to proceed upon the assumption that each of the armies
would be drawn up in only one body. At that period, the men-at-arms, or
heavy cavalry, went to battle in complete armour; each man carried a lance,

sword, dagger, and occasionally a mace, or battle-axe; his horse also was, to
a certain extent, in armour. A considerable part of the infantry of an English
army, consisted of archers, armed with long bows, and arrows; and another
large part consisted of men armed with bills, pikes, pole-axes, glaives, and
morris-pikes. Such of the forces as were of the latter description, would
probably be drawn up in deep files, the better to resist charges of horse, but
the archers and cavalry, in order to be useful, would require more space, and
would be drawn up with more extended fronts. [99a]
It is, however, certain that each army was drawn up in more than one body;
the rearmost body being in the nature of a corps de reserve; and in that case,
of course, the army would present a much more contracted front. We may
fairly conclude, that the Lancastrians must have been drawn up in at least
two bodies or lines, with the foot in rather deep files, and that their left wing
extended to, or very near to, the place where the present turnpike road from
Ferrybridge runs. The old historians inform us, that the Earl of
Northumberland [99b] and Sir Andrew Trollop [99c] commanded the van of the
Lancastrians, which implies that there must have been a rear body, or force
commanded by other leaders. The van of the Yorkists was commanded by
Lord Falconberg, and the rearward by Sir John Wenlock [100a] and Sir John
Dinham or Denham; [100b] and it is certain, that such enterprising and
courageous personages as Edward IV. and the Earl of Warwick, would take
a prominent part in the battle, and would not willingly remain in the rear;
accordingly they are said to have commanded the main body.
Near the village of Towton, and on its south-west side, King Richard III.
commenced building a chapel, in memory of the slain who had fallen in the
battle, but it never was finished; [100c] and the place where it was commenced
is now called the “Chapel Garth,” or “Chapel Hill.” It is situated close to,
and extends in the rear or westward of, Towton Hall, which stands on part
of the site of it; and a considerable mass of human bones was found, about
sixty years ago, in enlarging the cellars at Towton Hall. [101a] Behind the
garden, and on the west side, are some inequalities in the ground, seemingly
denoting the site of a small building; and in digging there, tiles and worked
stones have been discovered: strongly conveying the impression, that the
walls and foundations of the chapel had been placed there. In some
alterations which were formerly made, in an old chimney in Towton Hall,
there was found some stone-work, broken, and evidently brought from

elsewhere (and used with other building materials), which had apparently
formed part of the mullions or tracery of a window, of an ecclesiastical
edifice, [101a] which may reasonably be supposed to have been the chapel
alluded to.
It is worthy of notice, that the spot was within the line occupied by the
Lancastrians, but probably, many of the slain on both sides were interred
there.
It cannot admit of a doubt, that the meadow and valley before mentioned,
and many parts of the meadows lying between the foot of the declivities
from the north side of the village of Towton, and the banks of the river
Cock, must contain the remains of great numbers of the dead; but in most
parts of the field where the battle actually raged, the soil is not in general,
deep, and therefore, some parts of it would not easily admit of the interment
of the dead in large pits.
We learn from the old historical accounts, that the Lancastrians mustered
for this dreadful conflict about 60,000 men, and the Yorkists about 48,660.
The battle is stated to have commenced at nine in the morning, in the midst
of a storm of snow and sleet, and to have lasted until seven in the evening.
[101b]
It was a battle of extermination: the dreadful order not to give any
quarter, nor to take any prisoners, having been issued before its
commencement by Edward IV., and responded to by a similar order, on the
part of the Lancastrians.
When the Lancastrians began to give way, they at first retired in the
direction of Tadcaster, in some order, and made several stands to keep their
pursuers at bay; but they could not long continue retreating without
disorder; and in attempting to cross the river Cock in haste, a dreadful scene
of destruction took place there, and such numbers of them were drowned, or
otherwise lost their lives in the bed of the stream, as to fill it, so that the
survivors passed it on the dead bodies of the sufferers.
The number of the slain is given by the chroniclers, as 36,776, but which
probably includes not only all who fell on both sides in the battle, but all
who were slain in the pursuit, or were drowned in the river Cock, and also
all who fell in the engagements at Ferrybridge and Dintingdale on the
previous day.

The principal leaders of the two parties, at the battle of Towton, were, on
the Yorkists’ side, the new King, Edward IV.; the Duke of Norfolk (who
was intended to have been the principal commander at the battle, but was
prevented by illness from taking an active part in it; his forces, however,
were there, and fought for Edward); the Earl of Warwick; his uncle, Lord
Falconberg; Sir John Wenlock; Sir John Denham; and a number of the
nobles and gentry of the midland and southern districts of England: on the
Lancastrian side, the Earl of Northumberland; the Duke of Exeter; [103a] the
Duke of Somerset; [103b] the Earl of Devonshire; [103c] Lord Dacre; Sir Andrew
Trollop; and Sir John Heron. [103d] The partisans on the Lancastrian side,
comprised most of the noblemen and gentry of the northern, and part of the
western, districts of England.
According to Stow, [103e] the following persons were slain there:—Henry
Percy, Earl of Northumberland; the Earl of Shrewsbury; [103f] John Lord
Clifford; Lord Beaumont; [103g] John Lord Neville; [104a] Lord Willoughby; [104b]
Lord Welles; [104c] Lord Roos; [104d] Lord Scales; [105a] Lord Grey; [105b] Lord Dacre;
Lord Fitzhugh; [105c] Lord Molineux; [105d] Lord Henry Buckingham; [106a] of
knights, two natural sons of Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter; Sir Richard
Percy; Sir John Heron; [106b] Sir Gervase Clifton; [106c] Sir Edmund Hammes;
Sir Thomas Crackenthorpe; Sir John Crackenthorpe; Sir William Harill; Sir
John Ormond; Sir Andrew Trollop; Sir Roger Mollyn; Sir Ralph Pigot; Sir
Henry Narbohew; Sir David Trollop; Sir John Burton, Captain of York; and
other knights and esquires. Thomas Earl of Devonshire, [106d] was taken
prisoner, and beheaded by order of Edward, at York.
The act of attainder, [106e] passed against the Lancastrians soon after the
accession to the throne, of Edward IV., professes to give a list of such of
them, as had taken an active part for the House of Lancaster, at or
immediately before or after the battle of Towton. The following is an
extract from it:—

“And where also Henry Duc of Excestr’, Henry Duc of Somerset,
Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry late Erle of
Northumberlond, William Vicecount Beaumont, Thomas Lord Roos,
John late Lord Clyfford, Leo late Lord Welles, John late Lord Nevill,
Thomas Gray Knyght Lord Rugemond Gray, Randolf late Lord Dacre,
Humphrey Dacre Knyght, John Morton [107a] late Person of Blokesworth,

in the shire of Dorset Clerk; Rauff Makerell, late Person of Ryseby, in
the shire of Suff’ Clerk; Thomas Mannyng late of New Wyndesore in
Berkshire Clerk, John Whelpdale late of Lychefeld in the Counte of
Stafford Clerk, John Nayler late of London Squier, John Preston late of
Wakefeld in the shire of York Preest, Philip Wentworth Knyght, John
Fortescu [107b] Knyght, William Tailboys Knyght, Edmund Mountford
Knyght, Thomas Tresham Knyght, William Vaux Knyght, Edmund
Hampden Knyght, Thomas Fyndern Knyght, John Courteney Knyght,
Henry Lewes Knyght, Nicholas Latymer Knyght, Waltier Nuthill, late
of Ryston in Holdernes, in the shire of York, Squier, John Heron of the
Forde Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght,
Robert Whityngham Knyght, John Ormond otherwise called John
Botillier Knyght, William Mille Knyght, Symonde Hammes Knyght,
William Holand Knyght, called the Bastard of Excestr’, William Josep’
late of London Squier, Everard Dykby late of Stokedry in the shire of
Ruthlond Squier, John Myrfyn late of Suthwerk in the shire of Suit’
Squier, Thomas Philip late of Dertyngton in Devonshire Squier,
Thomas Brampton late of Guysnes Squier, Giles Seyntlowe late of
London Squier, Thomas Claymond, the seid Thomas Tunstall Squier,
Thomas Crawford late of Caleys Squier, John Aldeley late of Guysnes
Squyer, John Lenche of Wyche in the shire of Worcestre Squier,
Thomas Ormond, otherwise called Thomas Botillier Knyght, Robert
Bellyngeham late of Burnalshede in the shire of Westmerlond Squier,
Thomas Everyngham late of Newhall in the shire of Leycestr’ Knyght,
John Penycok late of Waybrigge in the Counte of Surr’ Squier, William
Grymmesby late of Grymmesby in the shire of Lincoln Squier, Henry
Roos late of Rokyngham in the shire of Northampton Knyght, Thomas
Danyell late of Rysyng in the shire of Norff’ Squier, John Doubiggyng
late of the same Gentilman, Richard Kirkeby late of Kirkeby Ireleth in
the shire of Lancastr Gentilman, William Ackeworth late of Luton in
the shire of Bed’ Squier, William Weynsford late of London Squier,
Richard Stucley late of Lambehith in the Counte of Surr’ Squier,
Thomas Stanley late of Carlile Gentilman, Thomas Litley late of
London Grocer, John Maydenwell late of Kirton in Lyndesey in the
Counte of Lincoln Gentilman, Edward Ellesmere late of London
Squier, John Dauson late of Westmynster in the shire of Midd’ Yoman,
Henry Spencer late of the same Yoman, John Smothyng late of York

Yoman, John Beaumont late of Goodby in the shire of Leyc’
Gentilman, Henry Beaumont late of the same Gentilman, Roger
Wharton otherwise called Roger of the Halle late of Burgh in the shire
of Westmerlond Grome, John Joskyn late of Branghing in the shire of
Hertf’ Squier, Richard Litestr’ the yonger late of Wakefield Yoman,
Thomas Carr late of Westmynster Yoman, Robert Bollyng late of
Bollyng in the shire of York Gentilman, Robert Hatecale late of
Barleburgh in the same shire Yoman, Richard Everyngham late of
Pontfreyt in the same shire Squier, Richard Fulnaby of Fulnaby in the
shire of Lincoln Gentilman, Laurence Hille late of Moch Wycombe in
the Counte of Buk’ Yoman, Rauff Chernok late of Thorley in the
Counte of Lancastr’ Gentilman, Richard Gaitford of Estretford in Cley
in the shire of Notyngh’ Gentilman, John Chapman late of Wymbourne
Mynster in Dorset shire Yoman, and Richard Cokerell late of York
Marchaunt; on Sonday called comynly Palme Sonday the XXIX day of
Marche the first yere of his reigne, in a feld betwene the Townes of
Shirbourne in Elmett, and Tadcastr’, in the seid shire of York, called
Saxtonfeld and Tawtonfeeld, in the shire of York, accompanyed with
the Frenshmen and Scotts the Kynge’s Ennemyes, falsely and
traiterously ayenst their feith and Liegeaunce, there rered werre ayenst
the same Kyng Edward, their rightwise, true, and naturall Liege Lord,
purposying there and then to have distroyed hym, and deposed hym of
his Roiall Estate, Coroune, and Dignite; and then and there to that
entent, falsely and traiterously moved bataille ayenst his seid astate,
shedyng therin the blode of a grete nombre of his subgetts: In the
which bataille it pleased Almyghty God to yeve unto hym, of the
mysterie of his myght and grace, the victorie of his ennemyes and
rebelles, and to subdue and avoyde th’ effect of their fals and traiterous
purpose.” [109]

Besides the persons above mentioned, the act of attainder includes several
other noblemen and personages, who are charged with various offences,
although not with taking a part at the battle of Towton.
Edward, besides punishing his antagonists, did not forget, after his
accession to the throne, and in some instances very early afterwards, to
reward with titles, or with substantial possessions, his adherents, who had
fought for his cause at Towton, or had otherwise befriended him. He

created his brother George, Duke of Clarence; his younger brother Richard,
Duke of Gloucester; Sir John Neville, brother to the Earl of Warwick, Lord
Montague and afterwards Marquis Montague; Henry Viscount Bourchier,
brother to Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl of Essex;
William Neville Lord Falconberg, Earl of Kent; Sir William Hastings, Lord
Hastings; [110] Sir John Wenlock, Lord Wenlock; Sir John Denham or
Dinham, Lord Dinham; and others. Sir Walter Blount was rewarded with
grants of several important and valuable offices, and in the fifth year of
Edward IV. he was created Baron Montjoy. [111a] John Lord Clinton,
originally a Lancastrian, forsook the party of Henry VI. for that of the Duke
of York, about 1459, and was in arms with the Yorkists at their encampment
at Ludford near Ludlow, [111b] for which he was attainted, and his lands
declared confiscated, by the Parliament of Coventry, held on the 20th of
November, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., 1459; [111b] but all the acts
and proceedings of that Parliament, however, were declared void, by act of
Parliament of 39th of Henry VI., [111c] and on the accession of Edward, his
estates and honours were restored. [111d]
There are several interesting particulars to be observed, on an inspection of
the field of battle and its vicinity, and a visit to the river Cock, which tend
very much to corroborate the old historical accounts. We learn, that at first
the Lancastrians retired from the field in some order, but soon became
disordered, and retreated in great confusion. It is easy to believe, that with
the ground then unenclosed, or only partially enclosed, near Towton, they
would at first retire in tolerable order, until they had passed the village; but
when they turned off to the left, or westward, immediately upon leaving the
village, and descended towards the river Cock, by the ancient and steep
road, as they seem to have done, great confusion would most probably
ensue in the retreat of an undisciplined army. Their right wing, in retiring,
would naturally fall back by the ground where Towton Hall now stands, or a
little to the westward of it; but immediately after passing the village, it is
almost certain that they would find their centre and right wing meeting
nearly at one point, and all pressing forward to descend towards the river
Cock. The steep descent from the village by the old road, must have been
very perilous, under such circumstances; their cavalry, many of the horses
doubtless wounded and ungovernable, and their infantry, all attempting to
descend by a steep road, hotly pursued by enemies, who gave no quarter,

would probably soon become a disorderly mass of fugitives, and when they
attempted to cross the Cock, nearly all order would be lost, and a scene of
confusion and carnage would naturally result. The strong probability is,
that there was not then any bridge over the Cock; but if there were one, we
must conclude that it was of small size, and that it could not have been wide
enough to allow so numerous a crowd to pass; and if there were not one,
and all of them were obliged to attempt to ford the stream, the danger would
of course be increased. The river Cock is narrower than the general width
of our inland canal navigations, and when I visited it in the summers of
several years, I could have waded across it, without having the water much
above my knees; but I can easily suppose that at the close of winter, and
when fed with melted snow, it would be difficult, if not dangerous, to ford
it.
There is a passage in Biondi’s work, upon the wars of the Houses of York
and Lancaster, written in old Italian, which tends to confirm the idea that
there was not, at the period of the battle, any bridge there, but that the river
was usually forded; the passage, however, is not conclusive, because,
whether there was a bridge or not, a vast number of the fugitives would
naturally attempt to ford the little river. [112]

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

I have several times descended to and visited the river Cock, in two places
—one after passing through the large meadow and valley before mentioned,
and the other after descending from the village of Towton, by the old road
already described; and whilst I drank of its pure and cool waters, at each
place, I could not avoid reflecting upon the lamentable fact, that after the
battle, this interesting stream flowed stained with human gore; and that both
the Cock, and the large river the Wharfe, into which it flows, were
discoloured with it, so as to appear like rivers of blood. Doubtless very
much of that shocking discoloration was produced both by the wounded, in

their endeavours to cross the Cock, and by the men slain in its bed or on its
banks, in their flight; besides which, a portion of the field of battle near the
public road dips towards the westward, and the melted snow mixed with
blood would naturally drain through the large meadow and valley before
mentioned, towards the Cock; and we learn from history, that the blood of
the slain lay caked with the snow, which at that time covered the face of the
ground, and afterwards dissolving with it, ran down in a most horrible
manner the furrows and ditches of the fields, for two or three miles together.
[113]

However well selected the position of the Lancastrians was for fighting a
battle, it was a most dangerous one for defeated forces to retreat from,
because the contiguity of the river Wharfe, which was only from two to
three miles distant on the eastward and north-eastward, prevented their
escape from the field in that direction, and the eminence or cliff prevented it
on the westward; whilst towards the northward the declivities and river
Cock in their rear, were almost certain to cause, to an undisciplined army,
the disorganization and loss of life which ensued.
There is a point of some historical moment connected with the action at
Dintingdale which is worth notice. Edward IV. was at Pontefract on the
27th of March, and prepared to pass the Aire at Ferrybridge, or both at that
place and at Castleford. Lord Clifford, with a body of light cavalry under
his command, [114a] left the main army of Lancastrians, either on the night of
the 27th, or sufficiently early on the morning of the 28th, to surprise and
defeat the body of Yorkists posted under the command of Lord Fitzwalter
[114b]
at Ferrybridge, at daybreak; and Lord Fitzwalter, unaware of the
approach of the enemy, hearing a disturbance and uproar, went from his bed
armed only with a poleaxe, and lost his life [115a] in the conflict. The Yorkists
then passed the Aire at Castleford (only three miles distant) in great force,
in hopes of cutting off the troops under Lord Clifford, who then retreated
from Ferrybridge; and the Yorkists either intercepted or overtook him, slew
him, and defeated and destroyed nearly all his forces, at Dintingdale. As
Dintingdale is only one mile and a half from Towton, and little more than
half a mile from Saxton, the Yorkists would never have hazarded an action
with so large a body of cavalry as we must suppose that Lord Clifford had
with him, in a place so close to the main army of the Lancastrians, unless
the Yorkists were in great force there, or were within reach of certain

support from their advancing main army. From those circumstances, and
from the fact of the distance from Castleford to Saxton being but short, it
appears very probable that by the middle or early in the afternoon of the
28th, the Yorkists had advanced to the village of Saxton, and perhaps to
Dintingdale, and occupied the neighbourhood of those places in
considerable force.
Dr. Whitaker states [115b] that Lord Clifford, according to the tradition of the
family, was tumbled into a pit, with a promiscuous heap of dead bodies.
From the appearance of the road and the neighbouring country, it seems
almost certain that, in 1461, the great north road from Ferrybridge to
Tadcaster, turned off from the present Ferrybridge road, [116a] and passed
through the village of Saxton, and then proceeded by the public road before
mentioned through Towton; and if so, when the Yorkists advanced towards
Towton, they would find the Lancastrian army lying like a lion in their path.
It is well known, that cannons and other firearms were used in the wars of
York and Lancaster; and there is not any reason to doubt that they were
used at the battle of Towton; yet it is remarkable that the fact is not noticed
by any ancient writer. Guns of some kind or other, appear to have been
used in the following instances in the field (exclusive of sieges) during
those wars: viz., in 1455, at the first battle of St. Alban’s; [116b] in 1459, at the
encampment of the Yorkists at Ludford in Herefordshire; [116b] in 1460, at the
battle of Northampton; [116c] in 1469, at the battle near Hornfield,
Lincolnshire, often called the Battle of Lose Coat Field; [116d] in 1471, on the
landing of Edward IV. at Ravenspur; [116e] in 1471, at the battle of Barnet; [116f]
again in 1471, at the battle of Tewkesbury; [116g] in 1485, at the battle of
Bosworth; [116h] and in 1487, at the battle of Stoke. [116i] It can scarcely excite
surprise, at the chroniclers and annalists not having mentioned cannons, as
having been used at the battle of Towton, when it is borne in mind, that they
do not make the slightest mention of cavalry having been employed there;
although it is certain, that in both armies there must have been large bodies
of cavalry engaged at that battle.
The honour of bearing Edward IV.’s standard, of the Black Bull, at the
battle of Towton, devolved upon Ralph Vestynden, afterwards one of the
yeomen of the chamber, who had for his services, at the battle, an annuity of

£10, granted to him “yerely unto the tyme he be rewarded by us of an
office.” [117a] Besides having been borne upon Edward’s standard at that
battle, “the Bull sable, corned and hoofed, or,” was also used on other
occasions by Edward IV., and others of the House of York, in consequence
of its having been a cognizance or device of the Clares (Earls of
Gloucester), from whom the House of York was descended. [117b]
Henry VI., Queen Margaret, and Edward Prince of Wales, were at York
during the battle of Towton; and on hearing of its disastrous result, they fled
northward with the Duke of Exeter, the Duke of Somerset, Lord Roos, and
Lord Hungerford, [118a] and at first repaired to Berwick, and from thence to
Scotland, where Henry purchased the protection and assistance of the King
of Scotland, by the surrender of Berwick. Edward IV. was received on the
day after the battle into York, with processions and great solemnity, the
mayor and commonalty having sued for grace, and having obtained it from
the King, through the mediation [118b] of Lord Montague [118c] and Lord
Berners. [118d]
King Edward, on hearing of the flight of Henry VI., and the other
personages, northward, immediately despatched a body of light cavalry, in
pursuit of them, but too late to overtake them.
Edward remained at York sufficiently long to celebrate the festival of Easter
there, and then went to Durham, and, after taking measures for the
pacification of the northern parts, proceeded to London.
The decisive victory gained by Edward at Towton, confirmed his previous
assumption of the royal title; he became to all intents the King of England;
he was crowned at Westminster, on the 29th of June; and his right to the
throne was solemnly recognized by the Parliament, which was held in the
month of November following. He was evidently a man of extraordinary
talents, enterprise, and courage; he had already fought and been the
conqueror in three important battles; and, notwithstanding the serious and
numerous obstacles which he had to overcome, he succeeded in obtaining
the sovereignty of England before he was twenty years old: his birth having
taken place at Rouen, in Normandy, on the 29th of April, 1441. [119]
There are some passages in the accounts of the battle, given by historians,
which seem to be exaggerated, or, at least, must be received with some

degree of allowance. We know from the old historical writers, that the
battle commenced in a fall of snow or sleet, which was driven by the wind
into the faces of the Lancastrians. We are told that Lord Falconberg caused
some arrows to be discharged during the snow, at the Lancastrians, and
ordered the archers to fall back three strides (what difference could three
paces make?) and that the Lancastrians, feeling the shot, but in consequence
of the snow, not well knowing the distance between them and the Yorkists,
supposed that they were within the range of archery, and discharged their
arrows, until their quivers were exhausted, or nearly so, and that the
Yorkists then not only shot their own arrows against the opposite forces, but
also picked up and discharged part of the Lancastrians’ arrows against them,
and planted others in the ground, which sorely galled the legs of the
Lancastrians, when they advanced to close quarters. It is easy to believe,
that some amongst the undisciplined Lancastrian archers, would begin to
shoot too soon, just as young troops will even now occasionally fire too
soon; but when we reflect that there were several men amongst the leaders
on both sides, who had served in France, and had had much experience in
war, it is difficult to suppose that such a circumstance had any material
influence in the result of the battle, or that they would allow their men to
exhaust their quivers, by shooting in such a useless manner; besides which,
if the Lancastrian archers were prevented by the snow from judging
accurately of the distance, the same cause must, to a great extent, have
operated against the archers of the Yorkists. And with respect to exhausting
the quivers, we cannot suppose that the Lancastrian leaders, after
deliberately preparing for the approach of the Yorkists, would be so remiss,
as not to have a plentiful supply of arrows in the rear for the use of the
troops. It is barely possible that some instances may have occurred of
arrows being stuck into the ground, but it is not credible that it was done on
any considerable scale. The Yorkists would have something else to do on
such a dreadful morning, than to occupy themselves with sticking arrows in
any considerable numbers in the ground. Besides which, if such a measure
were adopted with any good effect, at the battle of Towton, it is clear that it
would be equally useful at other battles fought in the middle ages; yet, as
far as I can recollect, we are not informed by any historian, of such a
measure being adopted, on any other occasion, either in the wars of York
and Lancaster, or in any battle in which the English were engaged. The real
disadvantage, and that was a serious one, under which the Lancastrians

laboured, was, that the wind, with the snow or sleet driven in their faces,
would not only baffle their aim, but would cause a deflection in the flight of
their arrows; besides which, even when they came to close quarters, it was a
great disadvantage to have the snow and sleet driving against them. There
was, however, a good reason for soon coming to hand blows, which would
equally operate on both armies: the wet from the snow, would affect their
bow strings, and render the bows of both parties comparatively inefficient.
We are also told, that the Yorkists pursued the Lancastrians during all the
night, which succeeded the battle. It seems to be impossible that that can be
literally true. After two rather severe engagements, and a hasty march,
which, for a considerable space, was through cross roads, on the 28th of
March, and after so long and dreadful a conflict on the 29th, without food
during the day, except that they might possibly have broken their fast very
early in the morning, fighting in severe weather, exposed to cold and wet,
and with bad roads, the Yorkists must, from sheer exhaustion, and want of
bodily strength, have been scarcely able to pursue the fugitives after the day
had closed in, about which time the victors would arrive at Tadcaster, glad
to find food, shelter, and rest there, for the night. We hear no more of the
fugitives, as an army, after the 29th; and it is more than probable, that by
the morning of the 30th, they had availed themselves of the hours of
darkness to disperse, or to move northwards in detached parties merely; and
they had one advantage over the victors: the fugitives could throw away a
portion of their arms, offensive and defensive, to facilitate their flight.

There is one point in the plans of the Lancastrians connected with this battle,
for which it is very difficult to account. Why, with superior forces, did they
act on the defensive? It is very easy to understand, that the Lancastrians
retired from before London, and proceeded northward, after the junction of
the forces of Edward with those of the Earl of Warwick, in consequence of
the then superiority of the Yorkists; but, if as we are told, the Lancastrians
shortly afterwards mustered for the battle of Towton about 60,000 men, and
the Yorkists only about 48,660 men, we should naturally have expected that
the Lancastrians would have been the assailants. It seems contrary to good
policy, in military affairs, to wait with a superior force to be attacked. Such
a general as Cromwell, Marlborough, or Wellington, if commanding a force
tolerably equal, would not have waited for the attack of an enemy. With the
exception, however, of the bold, and at first the successful, exploit by Lord
Clifford, at Ferrybridge, the Lancastrians were not the assailing, but the
defensive parties. [122a] They did not even, as far as we are informed, attempt
either to support Lord Clifford at Ferrybridge, or to succour him at
Dintingdale, where he was slain, and his forces defeated. [122b] Yet that place
was only about a mile and a half from Towton; and the shouts of the
combatants would be within hearing of the main body of the Lancastrian
army. The victors may possibly have exaggerated the number of the
Lancastrians, in order to enhance the merit of the victory. If some such
reason cannot be given, it seems only left to ascribe their remaining on the
defensive, either to ignorance of the numbers of their enemies, or to want of
judgment on the part of the Lancastrian commanders.
Saxton is a parish containing the townships of Towton and Saxton-cum-
Scarthingwell; the living is a perpetual curacy; and Saxton Church is
dedicated to “All Saints.”
A great number of the slain were interred, as has been before mentioned, in a
large trench or pit, on the north side of, and close to, the church. In June,
1848, a short time prior to my first visit to Towton, their bones were exposed
to view, when making a vault for the interment of a son of John Kendall,
Esq., of Towton Hall. [122c] The trench runs from east to west. Besides which,
only a few years before that discovery, another vault was made, nearer to the
east than that of Mr. Kendall, and also on the north side of the church, and
the workmen found a similar deposit of bones, about four feet below the
surface; so that there can be no doubt that the bones of hundreds of men

were buried in a continuous trench extending along that part of the
churchyard. [123a] It has been already mentioned, that the teeth in the skulls
found there were sound and entire, showing that they had belonged to
persons who had died either young or in the prime of life.
The tomb of Lord Dacre, called by Leland and Stow , “a meane tombe” [123b]
(meaning not a contemptible, or shabby tomb, for it certainly has been a
handsome one, but one of medium size), also lies on the north side of the
church, and very near the place where the slain were buried. It is about two
feet high, with the inscription a good deal worn, so that I was not able to
read many words. It stands with its sides nearly corresponding with the four
points of the compass; it has armorial bearings on each of its sides; and,
besides various other quarterings, which are much defaced by age and
weather, I observed the quarters—1st and 4th, Chequy, or and gules, for
Vaux of Gillesland; 2nd and 3rd, Gules, three escallops argent, for Dacre,
which, though not very plain, are nevertheless still visible; and I consider the
engravings of the tomb in Dr. Whitaker’s work, very like the original. [123c]
The tomb is of dark stone or marble, and the slab or lid is very heavy, but
broken in two pieces, at about two-thirds its length; and it seems likely to
sustain further injury from boys playing and climbing upon it. It is much to
be regretted, that some endeavour is not made by some person of taste, to
preserve it by putting iron rails round it.
Some of the leaders (naturally supposed to be Yorkists) were interred in the
church; and within the recollection of Mr. Kendall, some slabs, with
inscriptions in the Old English letters, were in existence there, which were
said to have covered their remains. The church is evidently very ancient,
principally of the Gothic style of architecture; but it has been in part rebuilt
and altered, without much regard to its style, so as to detract very much from
its appearance. Formerly there was some coloured glass in a window of the
church, which is said to have contained the arms of the Dacre family; but, in
consequence of the window requiring repairs, the coloured glass was
removed about thirty years ago, and was taken to the mansion of the late
Thomas Walker, Esq., of Killingbeck, near Leeds, where it perhaps may yet
be.
It has an ancient plain Norman arch, at the doorway in the south porch; an
antique font, large enough to immerse a child; and a piscina in the Hungate

Chapel, which is on the south side; and one or two very narrow lancet-
shaped windows on the north side of the chancel, are still remaining.
The tower of Saxton Church appears to have been rebuilt after the
Reformation, and, as is said, between two hundred and fifty and three
hundred years ago. Several representations of crosses have been cut upon
slabs or stones which are built into the tower, and which have evidently been
carved in memory of some of the slain, who were buried there; most
probably, some Yorkist knights or leaders. Several of the crosses have been
transposed and altered, when the tower was rebuilt; and parts of the shafts
and pedestals of two or three of those crosses are still visible, and are now
placed in different layers of the stone, or in the reverse way to the heads of
the crosses, and are imperfect, parts of them having disappeared, and
probably they have been cut and been removed. On the south side of the
tower there is one of these crosses perfect, or nearly so, and also part of
another; on the west side there is one perfect cross; and on the north side,
including an imperfect part of one on the adjoining buttress of the tower,
there are five imperfect parts of crosses cut upon the stones; there probably
are others which have since been built inwards into the wall, and are,
consequently, not visible. They have been four or five feet long, and the two
which are nearly perfect, owe their preservation apparently to their having
been cut on stones of unusual size, and to their not extending, like some
others, upon more stones than one. The heads of those two crosses are
handsome, and a good deal ornamented. There is a sufficient resemblance
amongst the crosses, to show that they were probably all coeval in point of
date; but they are certainly not, as Dr. Whitaker supposed, all alike.
Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, is said not to have
been buried there, but at the chapel of Lead, which is about half a mile from
Saxton, and in the parish of Ryther; but there is not any monument to his
memory.
At the period when Drake wrote (in 1736), Lord Dacre’s tomb was much
defaced, and the inscription was imperfect; he has, however, given it, as
follows:—

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DS. DE DAKEE ET —— MILES
ET OCCISUS ERAT IN BELLO PRINCIPE HENRICO VI° ANNO DOM.

MCCCCLXI. XXIX DIE MARTII VIDELICET DOMINICA DIE PAL-
[125a]
MARUM. CUJUS ANIME PROPITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.

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

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DOMINUS DE DACRE ET GREYSTOCKE VERUS MILES QUI
OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI. VICESIMO
[125b]

DIE MENSIS MARCII VID’LT., DOMINICA PALMARUM CUJUS ANIME PROPICIETUR
[125c]
DEUS. AMEN.

Whichever is the correct version, they, however, both coincide in the main
particulars, of its being Lord Dacre’s tomb; that he was a supporter of King
Henry VI., and was slain in battle, on Palm Sunday, 1461. From the mention
of King Henry VI., it may be surmised that the tomb was not erected until
after the death of Edward IV.
Drake mentions, that many years ago, this tomb was violently wrenched
open (for it had been strongly cramped together with iron), in order to inter
beneath it a Mr. Gascoyne, when the remains of Dacre’s body were found, in
a standing posture; and that a fragment of the slab, and a material part of the
inscription, were then broken off.
He does not inform us who or what Mr. Gascoyne was, when alive; but
whoever he was, whether of a high or low sphere in life, whether he was a
gentleman, or some rag-merchant, it evinced bad taste on the part of his
relations or representatives, to commit such an act; and perhaps some
culpable remissness on the part of the then incumbent of the church, to
permit it. Of Lord Dacre’s general character we know little; but from that
circumstance, we are at least justified in believing, that, unlike two great
leaders of the opposite parties, he was neither perjured like Clarence, nor a
murderer like Clifford; that is certainly only negative praise; but we do know
that he was at least a nobleman of high rank, consistent in his principles, and
one who died a warrior’s death, on the field of battle: circumstances which
ought to have preserved his remains from profanation, and ought to have
caused us to be spared the disgust and indignation, which we naturally

entertain, at the bad taste and bad feeling evinced, in the violation of a
soldier’s grave.
In the dreadful wars of York and Lancaster, it is said that more than 100,000
Englishmen lost their lives; but that is merely the number believed to have
been slain in battle; and, however repulsive it may be to our feelings, it must
be admitted that it cannot include the numbers who must have perished
during that disastrous period, in unimportant skirmishes, in marauding
parties, in private warfare, by assassination, by the axe or by the halter, in
pursuance of or under the colour of judicial sentences, or by open and
undisguised murder. [127a] Besides this horrible sacrifice of human life, during
this distracted period, it is shocking to think what sufferings unprotected and
helpless persons must have been exposed to, from the lawless partisans of
the rival parties, when they passed through or were located near any district,
which they chose to consider as favouring their antagonists. Pillage, cruelty,
violence to women, incendiarism, and contempt of the laws and of religion,
[127b]
were the natural attendants upon a civil war, [127c] carried on with feelings
of bitter hatred by each party; and it is certain that the examples of cruelty
and wickedness which were openly set by the nobles and leaders of both
factions, would readily be copied by their followers. Voltaire thus expresses
himself, in reference to the wars of York and Lancaster: “Quand les premiers
d’une nation ont de telles mœurs, quelles doivent être celles du peuple?” [127d]
One of our ancient historical writers correctly states, that “this conflict was
in maner unnaturall, for in it the sonne fought against the father, the brother
against the brother, the nephew against the uncle, and the tenant against his
lord.” [128a]
The following is an extract from a very interesting scene, from the pen of
Shakespeare, relative to the battle of Towton; and, although the tragedy in
which it is introduced is not well adapted to the stage, it will well repay the
student for the time bestowed, in reading the whole of it:—

The Third Part of King Henry VI.
Scene—A Field of Battle between Towton and Saxton. [128b]
(Enter a Son that has killed his Father, bringing in the body.)

Son.—“Ill blows the wind, that profits nobody.
This man, whom hand to hand I slew in fight,
May be possessed with some store of crowns;
And I, that haply take them from him now,
May yet, ere night, yield both my life and them
To some man else, as this dead man doth me.
Who’s this?—O Heav’n! it is my father’s face,
Whom in this conflict I unawares have killed.
O heavy times, begetting such events!”
(Enter a Father that has killed his Son, bringing in the body.)
Father.—“Thou that so stoutly hast resisted me,
Give me thy gold, if thou hast any gold;
For I have bought it with an hundred blows.—
But let me see: is this our foeman’s face?
Ah, no, no, no, it is mine only son!
Ah, boy, if any life be left in thee,
Throw up thine eye; see, see, what showers arise,
Blown by the windy tempest of my heart,
Upon thy wounds, that kill mine eye and heart!
O pity, Heav’n, this miserable age!
What stratagems, how fell, how butcherly,
Erroneous, mutinous, and unnatural,
This deadly quarrel daily doth beget!”
King Henry.—“Sad-hearted men, much overgone with care,
Here sits a King more woful than you are.”

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

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

“Then came wandering by
A shadow like an angel, with bright hair
Dabbled in blood; and he shriek’d out aloud,
‘Clarence is come; false fleeting perjured Clarence,
That stabb’d me in the field by Tewkesbury.’”
Shakespeare’s King Richard III. act i. scene 4.

Of the numerous battles which have been fought in England in the middle
ages, few have been more decisive, or have excited more interest, than that
of Tewkesbury. [131b] In order that the positions of the hostile armies, and the
reason why the battle happened to be fought close to the town of
Tewkesbury, may be correctly understood, it is necessary, in giving a
description of the field of battle, to notice concisely, some of the events
which immediately preceded it. [131c]
On the 18th or 14th of April, 1471, [132a] Margaret, [132b] the Queen of Henry VI.,
and their son, Edward Prince of Wales, [132c] accompanied by John
Longstrother, Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, [132d] and several
persons of consideration, arrived from France, and landed at the port of
Weymouth, in Dorsetshire, with a small body of French and other troops;
and she proceeded from thence to the Abbey of Cerne, [132e] not far from that
port. The Countess of Warwick had accompanied her from France, but in a
different ship, which outsailed that of the Queen. [133a]

Margaret was at first almost broken-hearted and overwhelmed, by the dismal
tidings of the loss of the battle of Barnet, the defeat and destruction of her
friends, and the captivity of her husband; but in consequence of being
encouraged by Edmund Duke of Somerset; [133b] Lord John Beaufort; [133c]
Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire; [133d] Lord Wenlock, [133e] and other
persons of rank, and gentlemen, who promised her their support, she
determined once more to try the chances of a battle.
The noblemen and gentlemen of her party, immediately adopted measures
for mustering their retainers and followers, and with that view repaired to
Exeter, sent for Sir John Arundel, and Sir Hugh Courtenay, and raised forces
in Somersetshire, Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, and afterwards in Cornwall and
Devonshire; and proceeded from Exeter by Taunton, Glastonbury, and Wells,
to Bath, and from thence to Bristol: their forces being continually increased
on their march. Their intention was to have marched through
Gloucestershire into Wales, where Jasper Earl of Pembroke, [133f] a powerful
and staunch Lancastrian, was in arms, and raising forces for that party; and
they also expected to receive assistance from their partisans in Cheshire and
Lancashire.
Edward, in the mean time, after receiving intelligence of the landing of
Queen Margaret, being uncertain towards what quarter the Lancastrians
would bend their course, departed on the 19th of April, with some of his
forces, furnished with artillery and other things requisite, from London for
Windsor, where he remained a short time, for the double purpose of
celebrating the feast of St. George, and of awaiting the arrival of other
troops, whom he had appointed to assemble there. He commenced his
march from Windsor, against the enemy, on the morrow after St. George’s
day, the 24th of April. He reached Abingdon on Saturday the 27th, remained
there all Sunday, and on Monday the 29th, proceeded to Cirencester, [134a]
where he received information, that on the next day (Tuesday), his enemies
intended to be at Bath, and that on the Wednesday they would come forward,
and give him battle; and Edward, desirous to see his men in order of battle,
led them out of the town, and encamped in the field three miles from it.
On the next day, Edward, still seeking to encounter his enemies, marched to
Malmesbury, when he learned that they had turned aside and gone to
Bristol. On Thursday [134b] Edward arrived at Sodbury, and shortly before the
arrival of the main body of his army there, a skirmish took place; a few of

his men, riding into the town to secure quarters and accommodations,
encountered and were attacked by some of the enemy, who had been sent
forward from the Lancastrian army, and five or six of the Yorkists were
made prisoners. Edward having some reason to think that the Lancastrians
were near at hand, sent out scouts to endeavour to obtain intelligence of their
movements; but not hearing any certain tidings of them, he lodged his
vanguard in a valley, beyond the hill, towards the town of Sodbury, and lay
himself with the residue of his forces at Sodbury Hill. About three o’clock
after midnight, he received information, that the Lancastrians had taken their
way by Berkeley towards Gloucester; and he in consequence, after taking the
advice of his council, sent with all speed to Sir Richard Beauchamp, the son
of William Lord Beauchamp of Powick, [135] to whom he had committed the
government of the city and castle of Gloucester, with orders not to admit
Margaret’s forces into them, but to defend them to the utmost.
At Bristol the Lancastrians received assistance, both in men, victuals,
money, and artillery, and on Thursday proceeded to Berkeley, and marched
from thence towards Gloucester, travelling all night, and arrived before
Gloucester at ten o’clock on Friday, and hoped to be admitted into that city,
and to pass the Severn there, in order to effect a junction with the Earl of
Pembroke.
But as King Edward IV. had previously sent orders to the Governor of
Gloucester, to refuse admittance to Margaret and her adherents, and had
promised that, if the city were assailed, he would advance immediately to its
relief, his orders were obeyed, and Margaret was unable to obtain
admittance. To the circumstance of her being baffled in the design of
passing the Severn at Gloucester, may be ascribed, the utter ruin, which so
soon after befell her and her army; in fact the issue of the campaign might
very probably have been completely different, if she had succeeded in
getting possession of Gloucester, and of securing a safe passage for her
forces over the Severn, and, consequently, of effecting a junction with the
troops raised by the Earl of Pembroke.
She proceeded from Gloucester towards Tewkesbury, having then no
alternative, with reference to her design of passing the river, but to march to
the latter town; and on the way thither, some of her artillery were captured
from her rearguard. [136a] She arrived at Tewkesbury on Friday the 3rd of May,
about four in the afternoon, having travelled on that day and the preceding

night, thirty-six long miles, through bad roads, between woods, and without
proper refreshment, so that both men and horses were greatly fatigued. It
became absolutely necessary, to give some rest to her exhausted troops, most
part of which consisted of infantry; and it was determined by the leaders of
her forces, to await at Tewkesbury the coming up of Edward’s army, and to
take the chances of a battle.
The Lancastrians, as we learn from one of our old historians, encamped “in a
close even hard at the Townes end having the Towne and Abbeie at their
backes, and directlie before them, and upon each side of them they were
defended with cumbersome lanes, deepe ditches, and manie hedges, beside
hils and dales, so as the place seemed as noisome as might be to approach
unto.” [136b] Whether the position was or was not as strong and difficult to be
assailed, as is here represented, it is at all events certain, that the
Lancastrians fortified it, at least to some extent, and prepared to act on the
defensive; with the hope of holding out against Edward, until the arrival of
the Earl of Pembroke, who was supposed to be rapidly approaching. There
can scarcely be a reasonable doubt, that during the evening and night
previous to the battle, the Lancastrians exerted themselves assiduously to
intrench and fortify their position. It is worthy of notice, that we do not hear
of any attempt by the Lancastrians, to pass the Severn at Tewkesbury; and as
they prepared to act on the defensive, and not to be the attacking party at the
approaching battle, it may at first sight perhaps appear remarkable, that they
do not seem to have endeavoured to have had the river Severn interposed
between themselves and their enemies, especially as it flows close to
Tewkesbury. But the reason for their not attempting it, may easily be found,
in the exhausted state of their troops, and the near approach of Edward’s
army, which rendered it a very dangerous attempt to cross the river with the
enemy so close upon them. [137a] Besides which, there was not a bridge over
the Severn at Tewkesbury, before the present iron bridge was completed in
1826, at the place where there was an old ferry called the Upper Lode; and
Leland expressly states, that even as late as when he wrote (in the reign of
Henry VIII.), there was not any bridge there:—“There is noe Bridge on
Severne beneath Gloucester—neither is there any bridge on Severne above
Gloucester, till the Townlett of Upton a 11 or 12 miles from Gloucester.” [137b]
If Margaret and her army had attempted to cross the Severn at Tewkesbury,
in hopes of joining the Earl of Pembroke, the want of a bridge would

naturally have compelled them, to have crossed it by fords and ferries, as
they best could: a perilous attempt, and one which would almost certainly
have exposed the rear of the army to destruction. That would of course be
an additional and powerful reason, for their being compelled to take the
chances of a battle. [137c]
King Edward, having received tidings that the Queen’s forces were
proceeding towards Tewkesbury, commenced his march from Sodbury, with
his army in good order of battle in three bodies, very early in the morning of
Friday, the 3rd of May, and passed over Cotswold. The day was very hot,
and the King marched with his forces more than thirty miles; during which,
they could neither find food for man or horse, and his troops were much
distressed for want of water, having met with only one small brook, which
soon became so disturbed and foul, by so large a number of men, carriages,
and horses passing through it, as to be unfit for use. During a considerable
part of that day, the King’s army and that of his enemies were within five or
six miles of each other: his in a plain country, and theirs amongst woods. He
had constantly useful scouts, to inform him of the movements of his
enemies. At length he came with his army to Cheltenham, “unto a village
called Chiltenham,” [138a] where he had certain intelligence, that the Queen’s
forces were already come to Tewkesbury, and were encamped, and intended
to remain and give him battle there.
Edward did not remain long at Cheltenham; but after his troops, which
consisted of 3000 infantry and a large body of cavalry, had had some
refreshment, they marched forward towards Tewkesbury, and passed the
night of the 3rd of May encamped in the field, near [138b] the Lancastrian
position.
On the next morning, Saturday the 4th of May, [138c] Edward advanced to
attack his enemies in three bodies: his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester
[139a]
commanded the van; Edward in person, with his brother the Duke of
Clarence, [139b] commanded the centre; and the rear was commanded by the
Marquis of Dorset [139c] and Lord Hastings. [139d]
Edward, prior to the commencement of the battle, had observed that there
was a park [140a] and much wood growing in it, on the right hand of his
enemies’ camp; and in order to guard against an ambuscade from that
quarter, he ordered two hundred spearmen to proceed to it, about a quarter of

a mile from the field; and if there were no ambuscade, then to act and assist
the army, in such a manner, as circumstances might seem to render
advisable.
The Lancastrian army was arranged also in three bodies, behind the natural
defences of the position, and such intrenchments, as had been assiduously
formed in so short a time; the Duke of Somerset and his brother Lord John
Beaufort commanded the first line; Prince Edward, Lord Wenlock, and the
Prior of St. John, commanded the second; and the Earl of Devonshire the
third.
We learn from one of the old historians, that the Queen’s position was, “right
hard to be assailed, by reason of the deep ditches, hedges, trees, bushes, and
cumbersome lanes wherewith the same was fenced both a front and on the
sides.” [140b]
Some openings were left by the Lancastrians in their intrenchments, in order
to enable them, if it should be considered expedient, to sally forth upon the
Yorkists: a circumstance which seems not to have been known at first to the
leaders of the latter.
Before the battle commenced, the Queen and Prince Edward rode about the
field, encouraging the men, and promising them rewards and booty, if they
acquitted themselves well.
Both of the armies used cannons. The King’s army was well furnished with
great artillery, which was well placed to annoy his enemies, and the Duke of
Gloucester galled them severely with discharges of arrows; and the
Lancastrians repaid them in the same manner with shot of artillery, and
arrows, although they had not as many guns as the King had.
The Duke of Gloucester with his forces made a fierce attack upon the
Lancastrians, but was unable to force their lines; in fact it was scarcely
practicable for them to come to hand blows with their enemies, from the
peculiarities and difficult nature of their position; and after a short time he
purposely retired from before their intrenchments with his men, and with an
appearance of being repulsed, in order to tempt the Duke of Somerset from
his stronghold. Somerset rashly quitted the intrenchments through the
openings already mentioned, and with his men pursued the Duke of
Gloucester into the open field, when the latter suddenly ordered his forces to

halt, and recover their ranks, and face their enemies, which was accordingly
done; and the Duke of Gloucester with the Yorkists immediately attacked the
troops of the Duke of Somerset, repulsed them, put them to flight, and
pursued them towards their camp.
The two hundred spearmen were of great use on this occasion, as they
advanced to the assistance of Gloucester, and suddenly charged Somerset
and his Lancastrian troops in their flank, when they had already enough to
do, from being engaged with the others; and, dismayed at this new charge
upon them, they gave way, and attempted to regain their camp, and were
pursued by the King and Gloucester with the Yorkist forces. [141a]
Some of the fugitives “fled into the parke, other into the meadow there at
hand, some into the lanes, and some hid them in ditches, each one making
what shift he could, by the which he hoped best to escape; but manie
neverthelesse were beaten downe, slaine, and taken prisoners.” [141b]
Lord Wenlock not having advanced to the support of the first line, but
remaining stationary, contrary to the expectations of Somerset, the latter, in a
rage, rode up to him, reviled him, and beat his brains out with his axe.
Gloucester and his troops, pursuing those that fled with Somerset, forced
their way into the intrenchments, and were supported by the King, who
conducted himself very valiantly; the Lancastrians soon gave way, the
second and third lines making little resistance; the rout became general, and
was attended with great slaughter; and upon the camp being forced, almost
all such of the defenders as stood their ground were killed.
The Lancastrians fled towards the town, and were hotly pursued by the
victors, the King and others joining in the pursuit, and many of the fugitives
were slain, and “at a mill in a meadow fast by the town, a great sort were
drowned. Manie ran towards the towne, some to the church, and diverse to
the abbeie, and other to other places, where they thought best to save
themselves.” [142a]
In this decisive battle, and in the pursuit, about 3000 Lancastrians were slain,
with the following leaders:—The Earl of Devonshire, Lord John Beaufort,
Lord Wenlock, Sir Edmund Hamden, Sir William Wittingham, Sir William
Vaux, Sir Nicholas Hartry, Sir John Delves, [142b] Sir William Fielding, Sir
John Lewkener, Sir William Lermouth, Sir John Urnan, Sir Thomas

Seymour, Sir William Rouse, and Sir Thomas Fitzhenry. [142c] The Duke of
Somerset, the Prior of St. John, and other individuals of distinction, escaped
from the field, and sought refuge in the neighbouring Abbey Church. They
were pursued thither by King Edward, who attempted to enter the church
with his sword drawn, but was stopped at the porch by a priest, with the
Host, [142d] who prohibited his defiling the sacred edifice with blood.
Prince Edward was taken prisoner by Sir Richard Crofts, and in consequence
of a proclamation, made by the King’s orders, that whosoever should
produce the Prince, should receive an annuity of one hundred pounds, and
that the Prince’s life should be spared if he were brought forward unhurt, he
was conducted by Sir Richard Crofts into the King’s presence. Here an act
of wickedness and cruelty took place, similar to and equally detestable, with
that which was perpetrated by Lord Clifford, a leader of the other party,
against the young Earl of Rutland, after the battle of Wakefield. The King
having asked, in a haughty manner, how Prince Edward had dared to invade
his dominions, and being irritated by an imprudent and hasty reply from the
youthful captive, struck him on the face with his gauntlet. This seems to
have been considered a sufficient encouragement to others, to proceed to a
deed of savage violence against the unhappy Prince, and the Marquis of
Dorset, Lord Hastings, the Dukes of Clarence [143a] and Gloucester, and some
others, dragged the Prince away, and murdered him with their daggers. [144]
His corpse was buried in a common grave, in the Abbey Church, with some
of the soldiers who had been slain in the battle. The King pardoned a
number of the fugitives, who had taken refuge in the Abbey Church,
although it did not possess any privilege to protect rebels; and he might have
taken them out of it without breach of any liberty of that church; and he
allowed the bodies of the noblemen and others slain in the battle, to be
buried in the church, or wherever their friends or servants pleased; nor was
there any quartering or setting up in public places, of the heads, or quarters,
either of those who had been slain, or of those who had been executed: a
disgusting exhibition, which had too often been witnessed during the wars of
the Roses.
Near the centre of the choir, under the tower, is a brass plate, let into a stone
slab in the floor, with the following inscription, commemorating the murder
of the young Prince:—

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

The inscription was written by the late Rev. Robert Knight, vicar of
Tewkesbury, and was placed there in 1796, in accordance with a tradition
that the body of the Prince had been interred there. It was ascertained, by an
examination some years ago, that the slab upon which the brass plate is
affixed, was over a stone coffin. The latter was examined, but it did not
exhibit any appearances to denote its having been the place of the deposit of
the young Prince’s remains. [145a]
In the addition to Camden’s Britannia, by Gough, it is stated, that there was
a monument in the chancel of the church, to the memory of George Duke of
Clarence and Isabel his wife; and that near the entrance of the choir, under a
large grey marble flag, stripped of its brasses, Prince Edward was interred
after his murder. “This deed is supposed to have been done in a house since
rebuilt, now Mr. Webb’s, an ironmonger, on the north side of the High Street,
near the Tolsey. His bones and coffin were discovered by the breaking of the
stone.” [145b]
Two days after the battle, Edward caused Somerset and other fugitives to be
taken from the sanctuary of the Abbey Church. They were brought before
the Duke of Gloucester, who officiated as high constable, and the Duke of
Norfolk the marshal, by whom they were condemned to death; and
accordingly, on Monday, the 6th of May, [146a] the Duke of Somerset, John
Longstrother the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem, Sir Humphrey Audley, Sir
Gervase Clifton, [146b] Sir William Grimsby, Sir William Cary, Sir Henry Rose,
Sir Thomas Tresham, [146c] Sir William Newborough, Knights; Henry
Tresham, Walter Courtenay, John Flory, Lewis Miles, Robert Jackson, James
Gower, John Delves, [146d] son and heir to Sir John Delves, [146d] and other

gentlemen of rank, were executed in the market-place of Tewkesbury, a
small triangular space, where the three principal streets meet. [146e] The
corpses of the Duke of Somerset, Lord John Beaufort, and the Earl of
Devonshire, were interred in the Abbey Church.
On the same day on which those executions took place, Margaret was
discovered in a poor religious house, and was conveyed, by Edward’s orders,
to London, and confined in the Tower, until she was ransomed, for 50,000
crowns, by her father, René Duke of Anjou and Lorraine, who also used the
empty and unsubstantial titles of King of Jerusalem, Naples, and Sicily.
The following are the names of the persons of distinction who, according to
Leland, lost their lives, on the part of the Lancastrians, at or immediately
after, the battle of Tewkesbury:—
Prince Edward, buried in the Monastery of Tewkesbury.
Edmund Duke of Somerset, taken, beheaded, and buried there.
Lord John Somerset, brother of the Duke Edmund, buried there.
Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, buried there.
Lord Wenlock, whose body was removed to be buried elsewhere.
Humphrey Handeley, beheaded with Thomas Courtenay, and buried
together.
Sir Edmund Havarde.
Sir William Wichingham.
John Delves the elder, slain in the field, and
John Delves his son, beheaded there, buried together, afterwards
removed elsewhere. [147a]
Sir John Lukenor, slain in the field, and buried near the Delves.
Sir William Vaux, slain in the field, and buried there.
Sir Gervase Clifton, taken, beheaded, and buried there.

Sir William Car, and Sir Henry Ros, taken, and beheaded, buried in the
Cemetery of Tewkesbury.
Sir Thomas Tresham, taken, beheaded, and buried there.
Sir William Lirmouthe, Sir John Urman, Sir Thomas Semar [Quære—
Seymour?], Sir William Rowys, slain in the field, and buried in the
cemetery there.
Sir William Newborrow, taken and beheaded, and buried there.
Henry Wateley, Esquire, slain and buried there.
Henry Barrow, Esquire, slain and buried there.
— Fielding, Esquire, slain and buried there.
John Gower, sword-bearer of Prince Edward.
John Flore, standard-bearer of the Duke of Somerset, Henry Tresham,
Walter Courtenay, and Robert Acton, taken and beheaded.
The Prior of St. John’s, taken and beheaded; whose body was removed
to his own friends at London.
Hugh Courtenay, taken, and afterwards beheaded. [148a]
Life spared by King Edward, to each of the under-mentioned personages:—
Queen Margaret.
Anne, wife of the slain Prince Edward.
Foster, Chief Justice of England.
Doctor Mackerell, John Throgmorton, Baynton, and Wroughton. [148a]
Tewkesbury is a small town, situated ten miles from Gloucester, and eight
from Cheltenham, close to the confluence of the Severn and one of the
Avons. “It standeth in lævâ ripâ Avonæ, a good flite shot above the
confluence of Avon and Severne.”

“Ther is a greate bridge of stone at the northe ende of the towne, and
ther a little above the bridge, Avon brekith into 2 armes. Yet the bridge
is so large that both cum under it. The right arme cummith into Severne
withyn a flite shot of the bridge, and at the point of this arme is the
towne key for shippes callid Pickardes.”
“The other arme commith downe by the side of the towne, and the
Abbay, leving it on the este, and so passing harde ther by Holme
Castelle goith into Severne.” [149a]

The field of the battle of Tewkesbury is close to the first mile-post [149b] on the
turnpike road, leading from Tewkesbury, through Tredington to Cheltenham
and Gloucester. For the information of persons desirous of visiting it, it may
be well to observe, that on the westward side of the town of Tewkesbury,
there is a range of elevated ground, called the Holme Ground, or Holme Hill,
where a castle once stood, [149c] the rise of which commences very near the
town, upon part of which, contiguous to the turnpike road, the union
workhouse stands, and close behind the latter there is a field called the
Gastons; and immediately beyond the union workhouse, are two fields
which were purchased in 1855, for the purpose of, and are now laid out as, a
cemetery for Tewkesbury, and are called in the title-deeds, part of “the
Gastons,” a name which I shall afterwards have again to refer to. This high
ground extends on the side of the turnpike road, as far as the first mile-post;
just opposite to which, and on the eastward side of the road, is a field which
has immemorially been called “Margaret’s Camp,” and which is situated
upon a part of the elevated ground which is called Gupshill.
The battle appears to have been fought at that place, and in the adjacent
fields to the southward, and also in those a little to the eastward of it, [150a] and
on the spot where Gupshill Farm houses and gardens now stand.
The high road from Cheltenham did not formerly pass as close to Margaret’s
Camp as at present. Within the memory of persons now living, it turned out
of the present turnpike road from Cheltenham, in the descent of the hill, two
or three fields’ breadth before arriving at the first mile-post from
Tewkesbury, and wound with a considerable curve round the westward side
of Gupshill Farm houses and buildings, at which place, part of the old road
still remains, and joins the turnpike road at a spot sixty or eighty yards
nearer Tewkesbury than the first mile-post. [150b]

In the field called “Margaret’s Camp,” are some slight inequalities in the
ground; but they are not sufficiently decided to enable any person to state
that they are the remains of intrenchments; and in the centre of the field there
is a small circular enclosure, which measures as nearly as I could judge, by
stepping over it, about twenty-eight or twenty-nine yards across. It is
surrounded by a small and shallow ditch, [150c] which was dry when I visited it;
and is without any hedge or bank; it has, however, a number of large elm-
trees growing round its inner edge. It is too insignificant to have formed part
of the military intrenchments; but it may possibly have been a place of
interment of some of the slain; or, as seems probable, it may have been
formed in comparatively modern times, by some owner of the land, to
commemorate the spot where the Lancastrian army was posted.
It may readily be admitted, that the Lancastrians might have formed their
encampment, in some place possessing greater natural strength, on the north
instead of the south side of the town; but in that case, they must most
unwisely have abandoned to their enemies, the advantages of the possession
of the town, and the command of the river, and would have enabled them to
intercept the reinforcements which were expected.
It seems impossible to find any place near the town, where an army
intending to await and give battle to the Yorkists, when they advanced by the
road from Cheltenham, could have been so advantageously posted, as at the
spot before mentioned. Although perhaps not naturally very strong, the
position was, of course, strengthened by artificial defences, which we may
conclude, were then adopted, as has frequently occurred on similar
occasions, as for example by baggage waggons, fallen trees, and
intrenchments; and it had the additional defences of hedges, ditches,
brushwood, &c. It was approached on three sides by ascents, which, though
not steep, were at least disadvantageous to the assailants; and it was situated
at the end of the tract of elevated ground before noticed. [151] The field before
mentioned belongs to Mr. Haywood, and is tenanted by Mr. John Phillips;
and I was informed by elderly people, when I visited it, that human bones
had formerly been discovered in the immediate neighbourhood of it; but I
was not able to learn that any other indicia of the battle had been found
there. It is not possible for any intelligent person to mistake the spot, if he is
desirous to find it, when he has walked a mile from Tewkesbury on the

turnpike road. The place is called “Gupshill,” and is in the parish of
Tewkesbury. [152]
The old annalists and chronicles have left us much in the dark, as to the
exact place near the camp of the Lancastrians, where Edward’s forces passed
the night prior to the battle; but on the morning of the battle, and
immediately before it commenced, his army, according both to tradition and
probability, took up a position upon some elevated ground, adjoining the
turnpike road, and to the southward of, and scarcely half a mile from, the
Lancastrian army. From that position, a small tract of ground (now inclosed
fields) slopes downwards so as to form a depression between it and the spot
occupied by the Lancastrians. This tract of ground was formerly called the
Red Piece; and is intersected by the turnpike road, leading towards
Cheltenham and Gloucester, and at present forms two fields, one of which,
on the right side of the road, is called the Near Red Close, and the other, on
the left side of the road, is called the Further Red Close, belonging to Mr.
Naish, of Bristol, of which the tenant is Mr. William Brown, a farmer and
cattle-dealer. The portion of it on the left side of the road extends to the field
called Margaret’s Camp; and it was on the southward side of the latter, that
Edward’s forces appear to have made their attack.
A meadow rather in the rear of the Lancastrian position, but lying on the
westward side of the turnpike road, half a mile from Tewkesbury, and within
a few hundred yards of the Tewkesbury union workhouse, is called the
Bloody Meadow; it belongs to Miss Shapland, and is tenanted by Mr.
William Trotman, innkeeper and farmer; and an idea is generally entertained,
that it derived its name from the slaughter of many of the fugitives, who fled
from the battle towards the meadow, probably in hopes of getting over the
Severn, as there is a ford and ferry called Lower Lode, near it. On the 27th
of May, 1856, when I last visited the field of battle, a husbandman who was
at work in the garden of Gupshill Farm, informed me, that when he was
working a few years ago in a field near Lower Lode Ferry, in the immediate
neighbourhood of the Bloody Meadow, he found a quantity of horses bones,
and a considerable number of horseshoes in the ground there. Mr. William
Trotman informed me, that fourteen or fifteen years ago, he found in the
Bloody Meadow a long piece of iron, which from its appearance, he believed
had been part of a sword-blade. He also showed me a cannon ball of small

size, weighing one pound six ounces, which had been dug up in the same
meadow. [153a]
Besides the importance which we may fairly attach to tradition, and to the
name “Margaret’s Camp,” it is very remarkable how many strong proofs are
afforded, by the works of the ancient annalists and chroniclers, that the
before-mentioned spot, contiguous to the high road from Tewkesbury to
Cheltenham and Gloucester, was the place where the battle was fought.
We know from one of the old writers, [153b] that Edward advanced by the road
from Cheltenham towards Tewkesbury. The spot above mentioned, is on
that road, on a slight eminence, which was the best position near
Tewkesbury, that could have been selected by an army, with a view to giving
battle to Edward’s forces, on their advance from Cheltenham.
We are also told by one of our old chroniclers, with reference to the position
selected by Somerset, that he “so fyxed in a fayre parke adioning to the
towne he pytched hys felde;” [153c] and we learn from another of them, that the
position occupied by the Lancastrians, was, “even hard at the Town’s end.”
[153b]
The field called Margaret’s Camp, may be very correctly said to be
“adjoining to the towne,” for it is only one mile from it by the turnpike road,
and is in fact “at the Town’s end,” because it is little more than half a mile in
a direct line from the outskirts of the town.
We also find from the same authority, that “the Lancastrians had the town
and abbey at their backs.” [154a] This also tallies precisely with the position
already described, as being occupied by them, as the abbey is visible from it;
and the town and abbey must of necessity, be in their rear [“at their backs”],
when they faced an enemy advancing towards Tewkesbury from
Cheltenham.
The field is stated in Warkworth’s Chronicle to be “not ferre from the ryver
of Severne.” [154b] That account is also very important, for the place is not
more than about half a mile from the river Severn.
Leland, in his Itinerary, [154c] in adverting to the battle, uses the following
remarkable expression:—“Edwardus Princeps Henric VI filius venit cum
exercitu ad Theokesbury, & intravit campum nomine Gastum,” &c., and
again, “Nomina occisorum in bello Gastiensis prope Theokesbury,” &c. I
have already mentioned that upon part of the elevated ground before noticed,

and at the back of the union workhouse, near Tewkesbury, and very near the
spot called Margaret’s Camp, there is a place called “the Gastons”; and after
allowing for the difference in spelling at the time when Leland wrote, it can
scarcely admit of a doubt, that the latter was the place which he meant,
when, in adverting to the battle, he used the expression—“campum nomine
Gastum,” and “in bello Gastiensis prope Theokesbury.” [154d]
We are also informed by one of the old historians, that many of the
Lancastrians were drowned at “a mill in the meadow fast by the town.” [154e]
This must certainly have been the Abbey Water-mills, which (although at
present, in a great degree, rebuilt and altered) still stand in the meadow close
to the town, in the rear of the Lancastrians, and in a place where it is almost
certain that some of the fugitives from the battle, trying to escape towards
the Avon and the Severn, would pass.
It is also a well-authenticated historical fact, which has not been disputed by
any author, that the Duke of Somerset, John Longstrother the Lord Prior of
St. John’s, Sir Thomas Tresham, Sir Gervase Clifton, and other knights and
esquires, when the battle was lost, fled to the Abbey of Tewkesbury, and
other places in the town. The distance was, as already mentioned, only
about half a mile from the rear of the Lancastrian position to the Abbey
Church and town; and if Margaret’s forces had not awaited the approach of,
and given battle to, the Yorkists on the southward side of Tewkesbury, or, in
other words, on the side of the town which the Yorkists must naturally
approach on the road from Cheltenham, and with the abbey and the town in
the rear of the Lancastrians, it would have been utterly impossible for the
fugitives to have fled either to the abbey or town.

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

King Richard.—
“Caparison my horse:
Call up Lord Stanley, bid him bring his power:
I will lead forth my soldiers to the plain,
And thus my battle shall be ordered.
My foreward shall be drawn out all in length,
Consisting equally of horse and foot;
Our archers shall be placed in the midst:
John Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Earl of Surrey,
Shall have the leading of this foot and horse.
They thus directed, we will follow
In the main battle; whose puissance on either side
Shall be well winged with our chiefest horse.”
Shakespeare’s Richard III. act scene 3.
(Bosworth Field.)

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

Henry Earl of Richmond, [158b] upon the throne of England, by the title of
Henry VII.
The description of the field and of the battle, given by that painstaking
antiquary W. Hutton, F.S.A., is so full, that I am unable to add much to the
stock of information on those subjects, which is contained in his interesting
work, to which, however, several references will be found in the following
pages.
He has expressed some surprise, at the changes which had taken place
between his visit in 1788, and that in 1807. He says:—“I paid a visit in July
1807, to Bosworth Field; but found so great an alteration, since I saw it in
1788, that I was totally lost. The manor had been enclosed; the fences were
grown up; and my prospect impeded. King Richard’s Well, which figures in
our histories, was nearly obliterated; the swamp where he fell, become firm
land; and the rivulet proceeding from it, lost in an under-drain.” [159]
If so great a change had occurred prior to July 1807, it may well be
imagined, that a still greater change had occurred when I visited it in 1856.
On that occasion, I had the benefit of the local information and knowledge
possessed by Mr. John Rubley, an extensive farmer, and a very well
informed person, residing at Dadlington Fields, near there, who was kind
enough to accompany me, and explain the various positions and points of the
field of battle, without which, I should have found it impossible to have
understood them, even with the aid of a copy of the plan of the field, from
Mr. Hutton’s work, which I carried with me.
Amongst other changes which have occurred there, and which have altered
its appearance, may be mentioned, the cutting of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch
Canal, which extends through part of it.
Mr. Hutton states, that the south end of the field, by which Henry advanced,
is three miles from Bosworth; and was, when he wrote, a wood of many
acres. [160a] He adds, “About thirty yards above the wood is a spring, called at
this day King Richard’s Well. A small discharge of water flows from the
well, directly down the hill, through the wood, into the rivulet; but, having
no channel cut for its passage, it penetrates through the soil, and forms that
morass which Henry is said to have left on his right. Amyon Hill is nearly in
the centre of the field, and is by much the highest ground; the summit is two

or three hundred yards beyond the well. The hill has a steep descent on
every side, but is steepest towards the north, or the Bosworth side, and
terminates with a rill, a bog, and a flat, called Amyon Lays. The field
extends a mile farther towards Bosworth, but that part was not the scene of
action.” [160b]
He also informs us, that after Richard had made an oration, or address to his
forces, his army marched in battalia, to Amyon Hill, where they arrived
before Henry. [160c]
The wood called Amyon (or Ambien) Wood, still remains, and is, of course,
much grown and changed, since Mr. Hutton’s time. A portion of the ground
upon which it stands, seems to have been the scene of at least a part of the
engagement. [160d] I walked with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, through a
portion of it, and found that part rather wet and spongy; but there was not
then any appearance of what could with propriety be called a morass, either
in the wood, or below the well, or at the foot of the hill.
Mr. Hutton, in his account of the position of Richard’s army, immediately
before the battle commenced, and of the place to which he considers
Richard’s right wing extended, states that “The King’s right extended to the
declivity of the hill, on the Bosworth side, called Cornhill Furze, [160e] or
Amyon Lays, and his left towards King Richard’s well.” [161a] But it would
perhaps be more correct and clear, to state, that the King’s right wing
extended along the summit of Amyon Hill, towards the declivity, which
slopes down in the direction of Market Bosworth, and of the road leading
from Shenton to Sutton Cheney; that his centre occupied the ground where
Amyon Hill Farm, tenanted by Mr. Bradfield, now is; and that his left wing
probably extended a little beyond King Richard’s Well, which seems to have
been in the front of a portion of his left wing. Consequently, Richard’s army
must have faced to the south-westward, with Market Bosworth and Sutton
Cheney, at a little distance, in its rear; and that of Henry, must have faced to
the north-eastward. The precise position of the armies must, however, be
admitted to be in some measure conjectural.
The marches of the hostile armies before the battle, may be concisely
described thus:—Richmond set sail from Harfleur, on Sunday the 31st of
July, 1485; landed at Milford Haven on the 6th of August; marched through
Wales, by Dell, Haverfordwest, Cardigan, New Town, and Welsh Pool, to

Shrewsbury, and then through Newport and Stafford, to Lichfield, where he
encamped for a day or two, and arrived at Tamworth on the evening of the
18th. [161b] On the 19th, he went to Atherstone, where Lord Stanley [161c] and Sir
William Stanley [161d] had an interview with him, and concerted the measures
for their future operations. During all his march, he had constant additions
to his forces, for others came in and joined him. On the 20th he encamped at
Atherstone; and on the 21st, both armies were in sight of each other for the
whole day; [161e] Henry having encamped at Whitemoors, close to the place
where the battle of Bosworth was fought on the next day.
It is impossible to suppose that Henry could have acted with such folly, as to
sail from France, with a very small body of men, described by Commines as
a very sorry and unsoldierlike set, from gaols, hospitals, &c., and land in
Wales, and from thence march into the heart of England, where any serious
disaster must have caused the utter ruin of himself and his adherents, unless
he had been well assured beforehand, of the co-operation of Lord Stanley,
who was the third husband of his mother. [162a] Such a course of proceeding,
by Henry, without being previously certain of Lord Stanley’s deserting
Richard at a convenient opportunity, would have been an act of madness.
Everything had, no doubt, been arranged between them before Henry
embarked in France.
The fatal error which Richard committed, was previously to the battle, in
intrusting the levying of forces to Lord Stanley, when he could not
confidently trust him: Richard imagined that, by retaining in his custody
George Lord Strange, the son of Lord Stanley, by way of hostage, he had
sufficient security for his fidelity; but the result showed how frail and
deceptive such a security really was.
Richard, on the 16th of August, led his army from Nottingham to Leicester,
which town he entered with great pomp. On the 17th, he marched from it,
expecting to meet his rival at Hinckley. That night he passed at Emsthorpe,
where his officers slept in the church. On the 18th, he removed to Stapleton,
where he pitched his camp on the ground called Bradshaws, and remained
until Sunday, the 21st, when both armies came in sight of each other. In the
evening, Richard removed with his forces to Amyon Hill. [162b] On the 22nd,
the battle took place.

Mr. Hutton states, that “the King continued in battalia near the top of the
hill, unwilling to lose his advantageous ground; while Henry unfurled his
banners, sounded the march of death, and advanced from the meadows
below;” [163a] also, that Richmond “slowly marched up the ascent, where the
wood now stands; the morass formed by King Richard’s Well, being on his
right, and the sun, not on his back, or his right hand, but between both: the
King’s troops looking on with their bows bent.” [163b] That account respecting
the position of the sun when the battle commenced, differs in a slight degree
from the accounts of the old historians, who state, that when Henry left the
marsh on his right, he had the sun at his back, and that it was in the face of
his enemies. [163c]
Those accounts seem to be all that we have to guide us, as to the precise
position of Richard’s army, when the battle commenced; for the old
historians have not devoted their attention to describing it.
The position upon the hill, was certainly, as Mr. Hutton correctly states, an
excellent one, and Henry must have begun the attack at some disadvantage,
for the hill was against him. [163d]
The old historical writers state, that when Henry marched from his camp to
the attack, he left the morass on his right; [163e] which is important, and tends
to confirm the explanation before attempted, respecting the position of
Richard’s army. Mr. Hutton mentions, that Henry advanced from the south
end of the field, [163f] and that Richard’s forces were posted in battalia upon
Amyon Hill. [163g] If so, it seems tolerably clear, that Henry’s army faced (as
has been already mentioned) to the north-eastward, and that of Richard to
the south-westward; and it appears naturally to follow, that Richard had the
town of Market Bosworth, or the village of Sutton Cheney, or both of them
in his rear, or rather in the rear of his left wing.
It is remarkable, that in Mr. Hutton’s plan of the field of battle, at page 1,
Henry’s army is drawn, as facing towards the south-eastward; and Richard’s
army is delineated facing towards the north-westward, with Market
Bosworth at a distance, in advance of his right, and with Sutton Cheney
rather to the rear of his right, and with his left extended towards the well; but
with Lord Stanley’s forces interposed between it and the King’s army; yet in
the other plan, delineated by Mr. Pridden, and introduced by J. Nichols,
F.S.A., into the work; at page 244, Henry’s army is depicted facing to the

north-eastward; and the army of Richard is delineated as facing to the south-
westward (which seems to be probable), and with Sutton Cheney to the rear
of his left, and with King Richard’s Well between the two armies, and rather
before Richard’s right centre.
With respect, to the tradition, that Richard quenched his thirst at the well
during the battle, I have merely to remark, that it was an improbable
circumstance to have occurred in such a place.
In the army of King Richard, the Duke of Norfolk and his son the Earl of
Surrey had the honour of leading the van, consisting principally of archers;
the main body (or main battle, as it was at that time called) was led by the
King in person; and the rear was commanded by the Earl of
Northumberland. [164]
The van of the Earl of Richmond’s army, consisting also principally of
archers, was commanded by the Earl of Oxford, the main body by the Earl of
Richmond and his uncle Jasper Earl of Pembroke, the right wing by Sir
Gilbert Talbot, and the left by Sir John Savage.
Cannons and other descriptions of firearms, were in common use by the
English in war at that period, and we cannot dispute the fact of their having
been used at the battle of Bosworth, because we know, from the accounts
handed down to us by Philippe de Commines, the historian, that the King of
France, besides advancing money, furnished the Earl of Richmond with
some pieces of artillery for his expedition against Richard, “une bonne
somme d’argent, et quelques pieces d’artillerie, et ainsi fut conduict, avec le
navire de Normandie, pour descendre en Galles, dont il estoit;” [165a] besides
which, guns are mentioned in the act of attainder of 1st Henry VII. [165b]
passed against the adherents of Richard who took part in the battle; and
cannon balls of a small size have been dug up upon Bosworth Field. [165c]
The principal commanders on the part of Richard were, the Duke of Norfolk
[165d]
(slain in the battle), his son the Earl of Surrey, [165e] the Earl of
Northumberland, [165f] Francis Viscount Lovel, [166a] John Lord Zouch, [166b]
Walter Lord Ferrers of Chartley, [166c] Sir Richard Ratcliffe, [166d] Sir Gervase
Clifton, [166e] and Sir Robert Brackenbury. [166f] All the four last-mentioned
commanders were slain in the battle.

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

Catesby.—“Rescue my Lord of Norfolk! Rescue! Rescue!
The king enacts more wonders than a man,
Daring an opposite to every danger;
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death.
Rescue, fair Lord, or else the day is lost!”
Shakespeare’s Richard III., act v., scene 4.
(Bosworth Field.)

It was at a critical moment that Sir William Stanley declared for Henry,
because, if he had deferred his aid a very short time longer, he might have
deferred it for ever; for fortune seemed at that moment to be propitious to
Richard’s enterprise and invincible courage; and Henry was in the utmost
danger, and it was probable that he must either have perished or fled.
The consequence of Sir William Stanley’s opportune and most valuable
assistance was, that Richard and most of the noblemen, knights, and soldiers,
who accompanied him in the charge, were surrounded by superior numbers
and slain, and Henry obtained the victory. [169a]

It is not known with any degree of certainty what the respective numbers
were in the hostile armies, but it is supposed upon reasonable grounds, that
Richard brought into the field about 12,000 men, that Henry brought 7000,
Lord Stanley 5000, and Sir William Stanley 3000; [169b] consequently,
Richard’s forces were considerably more numerous than his enemy’s at the
commencement of the battle; but were considerably outnumbered by those
on the side of Henry, after Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley had joined
him. Authors differ very much respecting the number of the slain; some
state it to have been very considerable. Mr. Hutton, on the contrary, inclines
to think that it was only about 900 on both sides, [169c] of which by far the
greatest carnage was in the pursuit. Probably his estimate is too low; but, as
the battle did not last very long, and as the principal part of Richard’s forces
were indifferent or reluctant to fight in his cause, it may perhaps be
reasonably inferred that the slain did not very greatly exceed that number.
Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton, concur in stating, that the number of the slain
was not much more than 1000, which may probably be correct.
Henry, with great pomp, proceeded the same evening to Leicester. Richard’s
corpse was found amongst the slain, covered with wounds, dirt, and blood,
and was hung perfectly naked across a horse, the feet dangling on one side
and the hands on the other, behind Blanc Sanglier, pursuivant at arms, so
called from the Boar Argent, the cognizance of Richard, and was carried in
triumph to Leicester that afternoon. This disgusting spectacle was meant as
a disgrace to Richard, but it was really a disgrace to Henry. Insults offered
by the victor to the corpse of a soldier slain in battle, be he whom he may,
evince a great degree of meanness or cowardice on the part of the former.
The body was exposed to public view during two days in the Town Hall, and
was then interred in the Grey Friars Church. At the destruction of religious
houses, his remains were turned out of it by the town’s people, and there is
reason to believe that they were got rid of, by being thrown into the river at
the end of Bow Bridge, at Leicester; “borne out of the city, and
contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge, which giveth
passage over a branch of Stoure, upon the west side of the towne.”—See
Speed’s Annals, fo. 936; see also Thorsby’s Views in Leicestershire, p. 338.
A stone coffin in which they had been deposited, was converted into a
watering-trough at the White Horse Inn in Gallow Tree Gate, and was early
in the last century broken to pieces. [170]

Happening to be in Leicester on the 5th of June, 1856, I did not omit to
inquire for the Grey Friars Church; but although I discovered the street
where it had stood, I found that every vestige of the church had disappeared.
There is a very absurd, but very common mistake, arising from the ignorance
of authors, in stating that Richard wore his royal crown upon his helmet
during the battle. Nothing can be more erroneous than such a statement.
Richard was too old and experienced a soldier to put such a head-gear upon
his helmet; nor could a real crown screwed to, or fastened upon a helmet, be
worn for any rational purpose, during a battle. He, however, wore, as a
distinguishing mark, and as an emblem of command, a comparatively small
ornament, resembling a crown, upon his helmet, which was not at all strange
or unprecedented; on the contrary, it was formerly a common practice. King
Henry V. wore a similar ornament upon his helmet at the battle of Agincourt,
in 1415, which was of some use, in sustaining the stroke of a battle-axe from
the Duke of Alençon, which cleft it; and Thomas Duke of Clarence, second
son of Henry IV., wore a coronet or circlet upon his helmet, when he was
fighting valiantly, and slain at the battle of Baugé in France, in 1421; besides
which, there are many monuments which I have seen in English cathedrals
and churches, where the figures of warriors and men of rank are represented
with ornaments resembling small crowns or coronets upon their helmets.
The account of the battle, and the description of the field, having been so
fully given in the interesting work already mentioned, it would be
superfluous for me to attempt to go into further particulars; I may, however,
add, that the battle terminated in the defeat and death of Richard, rather in
consequence of the defection of Lord Stanley and of his brother Sir William
Stanley, and the indifference or disaffection of others, whom Richard relied
upon, than of any valour or skill in Henry or his army.
Henry was immediately saluted as King of England by his forces; and,
without waiting for the ratification of his claim by Parliament, or any other
recognised authority, assumed the title of Henry VII.; and, scorning to be
less tyrannical or less wicked than his predecessor, commenced his reign by
putting to death, without any trial, and in cold blood, two days after the
battle, William Catesby, [171] and two gentlemen from the North, of the name
of Brecher, who had been taken prisoners; and sentencing to imprisonment
for life, in the Tower, an innocent and defenceless boy, Edward Plantagenet,
Earl of Warwick, whose only crime was his being the son of George Duke of

Clarence, and the only surviving male of the royal house of Plantagenet, and
whom Henry very wickedly at last put to death, in 1499. Henry also caused
an act of attainder [172a] to be passed by Parliament, shortly after the battle, in
which he had a great number of persons, who had been the subjects and
adherents of Richard III., attainted, and declared guilty of high treason, and
all their lands and possessions confiscated, on the alleged ground of their
support of Richard against Henry, although Henry had never, previously to
the battle of Bosworth, been recognised as King, nor had he even assumed
the royal title or functions. It was, therefore, not only an iniquitous
proceeding, but was an insult to the understandings of men, to treat any acts
done by any persons in the service of the then reigning King, at the battle of
Bosworth, as treasonable actions, committed against Henry. Those
attainders and confiscations, affecting as they did the lives and property of
many persons, whom Henry wished to destroy or crush, were acts of gross
despotism and tyranny. [172b]
Many years ago, I saw, in the collection of Colonel Stretton, of Lenton
Priory, in Nottinghamshire, some spurs and bridle-bits, said to be relics of
Bosworth Field; and Grose, in his Military Antiquities, gives an engraving of
a helmet found there. [173]
Many relics of the battle are described in Mr. Hutton’s work, which had been
discovered there; besides which, human bones were found, about four years
ago, in cutting a drain in a field, in front of the farm-house standing upon the
slope of the hill, and called Amyon Hill Farm, mentioned before, belonging
to Mr. Stuart, and occupied by Mr. Bradfield. The field where they were
discovered, adjoins that in which King Richard’s Well is.
Mr. John Rubley informed me, that, not many years ago, he found a sword-
hilt, upon the field of battle, which was afterwards given to Mr. Stuart.
There are also a few relics of the battle preserved in the Public Museum at
Leicester.
Persons desirous of visiting the field of battle, will find it expedient to go
from Atherstone to Shenton, and soon after passing that village, instead of
pursuing the road to Market Bosworth, to turn off to the right, by the road
which leads from Shenton to Sutton Cheney, until they arrive at a large farm
on the left, called Sutton Field Farm, occupied by Mr. Cooper, a
considerable farmer. They should then turn off to the right, into a field road

(which is passable in a carriage, but is not a good one for that purpose, and
therefore walking is preferable), which ascends the northward side of
Amyon Hill, frequently mentioned before, and cross its summit; and on the
slope of the hill, on its southward side, is Amyon Hill Farm (which is upon
the field of battle), and close to it, in an adjoining field, is King Richard’s
Well. It is covered in with a small pyramid, built of rough stones, but is
open on its south front; and on the inner wall, opposite to the open part, is
the following inscription, cut in small Roman characters, from the pen of the
reverend and learned Dr. Parr:—

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

The battle of Bosworth is often called the last of the wars of York and
Lancaster. That is an error. The last battle in those wars was the battle of
Stoke, fought in 1487.
It is a lamentable fact, that deeds of violence and bloodshed, on a large scale,
did not cease in England with the death of the last Plantagenet King; for
during the reign of the two first Tudor Kings, the crimes and offences
disclosed by history, are so shocking, as to make us amazed at the
wickedness and cruelty of man.
Although the habits and characters of Richard III. and of Henry VII. were
widely different, each was sufficiently iniquitous in its way; [174] and it would
be a task of great difficulty for any well-read historian, to decide which of
those two men was the most wicked. Both of them were usurpers, and
neither of them had any legal right to the throne; and if they had lived nearer
these times, and in humble life, it is not improbable that the intrepid
disposition and invincible courage of Richard might have made him a daring
robber or highwayman; and the mean and avaricious propensities of Henry,
might have caused him to become an adroit pickpocket or sordid miser.

It was very much the fashion for historical writers, who lived in the times of
the Tudor sovereigns, in order to court popularity with them, to calumniate
Richard, blacken his memory, and in their accounts of him, to represent him
as a kind of monster, deformed in person, and malignant in mind, with not a
few other strange assertions, which subsequent generations have been
induced to consider either as absurdities or exaggerations.
Upon a cool and dispassionate comparison, however, of the characters of
Richard III. and Henry VII., both of them wicked and unscrupulous men, the
contrast is not favourable to Henry.
Richard committed sanguinary crimes, in order to obtain the crown; but even
his enemies do not accuse him of any tyrannical or unjust actions, as a King:
Henry had not the opportunity of perpetrating such offences before he
obtained the crown; but history is replete with instances of his tyranny and
injustice during the whole of his life, after he became a King. Richard
possessed great talents, and natural capacity; but his reign was so short, that
he had not many opportunities of evincing his abilities for exercising the
royal functions; yet he passed some excellent laws for the benefit of his
subjects: Henry was sagacious and clever in many respects, and during his
rather long reign, he also passed some very good laws; but, as has been
correctly observed, his laws were ever calculated with a view to his own
profit; [175] he encouraged commerce, as it improved his customs, and brought
money in to his subjects, which he could squeeze out at pleasure. [175] Richard
was munificent and liberal: Henry was mean and avaricious. Richard was
bold, enterprising, and courageous: Henry was timorous, selfish, and
cautious. Richard and Henry, however, closely resembled each other in one
respect: each of them was unscrupulous, and did not hesitate without
remorse to put to death a fellow-creature who had incurred his displeasure,
or was an obstacle to the success of his measures.
Richard is believed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V. and the young
Duke of York; and Henry is known to have inhumanly and very wickedly put
to death Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick—an action which has been
properly designated “as vile a murder as that of Edward V.; nay, were it
possible to speak in palliation of this worst of crimes, Richard was the least
culpable, for he had one temptation which Henry had not—Edward V. had
an absolute right to the crown, but Warwick only a shadow.” [176a] The crime

of illegally depriving a human being of life is very solemnly reprobated by
Shakespeare, in his usual beautiful and powerful language:—

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

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

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

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

Margaret furnished the Earl of Lincoln with 2000 Germans, veteran troops,
commanded by Martin Swartz, an officer of talents and experience. With
these forces, and with Lambert accompanying him, the earl landed in
Ireland, and Lambert was soon afterwards crowned as King, in the Cathedral
at Dublin.
They remained some short time in Ireland, where the earl raised a body of
Irish forces, and provided transports; and having at length sailed from
Dublin, the Earl landed with his army, on the 4th of June, [178c] near Pile of
Foudrey, at Furness, in Lancashire, where Sir Thomas Broughton, who had
become a party to the conspiracy, had considerable possessions; and the spot
near the village of Broughton, where, according to tradition, they encamped
after landing, is even now called Swart Moor, after the commander of the
German troops. The insurgents were there joined by Sir Thomas Broughton,
and others, with additional forces.
Lord Lovel [178d] was also a principal mover of the insurrection; and we are
informed by Dugdale, that he accompanied the Earl of Lincoln from
Flanders to Ireland, and afterwards came over with him and the rest of the
insurgents into England. Whether that was the case, or whether Lord Lovel
joined the earl at the same time that Sir Thomas Broughton did, or
afterwards, during the march of the insurgents, does not seem quite certain.
Writers have differed upon that point; and the act of attainder [179a] against
Lord Lovel, does not throw any light upon it. It is, however, certain, that he
joined the insurgents before the battle of Stoke.
The Earl of Lincoln marched with his forces from Furness into Yorkshire;
and on arriving at Masham, he sent to the mayor of York, and requested to be
admitted into the city, in order to victual the army. [179b] This having been
refused, it made a great and serious change, in the earl’s plans and prospects;
and it is not improbable, that it determined him at all hazards, promptly to
seek and fight the King. He then marched from Yorkshire into
Nottinghamshire; but the exact line of march is not known; it may, however,
be fairly concluded, that he took the route by Mansfield. He proceeded to
Southwell, and continued his march in the direction of the Trent; and he
appears to have crossed that river at Fiskerton, which in the summer time is
shallow, and easily fordable by men and horses. As Newark was
preoccupied by the King’s army, Fiskerton was the only safe place near
Southwell, where the earl’s forces could pass the Trent. After crossing the

river, they took up a position on the elevated ground to the southward of, and
overlooking, the little village of East Stoke, in Nottinghamshire.
In the mean time, the King, apprised of the landing of the insurgents in
Lancashire, assembled a considerable army under the command of his uncle,
Jasper Duke of Bedford (formerly Earl of Pembroke [180a]) and John Earl of
Oxford; [180b] and with these he marched from Kenilworth, through Coventry,
Leicester, Loughborough, and Nottingham. The valuable services rendered
to Henry by Thomas, first Earl of Derby (when Lord Stanley [180c]), at the
battle of Bosworth, were too important, and too recent, to be forgotten; and
the King was, of course, happy to call for, and avail himself of, his influence
on this occasion. On Corpus Christi Day, the King was joined at
Nottingham by Lord Strange, son of the Earl of Derby, with a great body of
troops, principally consisting of the followers and tenants of the earl. He
was also joined there by the Earl of Shrewsbury, [180d] and by several knights
and gentlemen, with additional forces.
The King marched to the village of Ratcliffe, where he passed the night.
From Ratcliffe, he proceeded to Newark, which he succeeded in occupying
before the Earl of Lincoln’s forces could arrive there. [180e] From Newark, the
King advanced with his army, and took up his position on the road leading to
East Stoke, and about three miles on the southward side of Newark.
These introductory observations may possibly cause the positions, which
will now be described, of the hostile armies, to be the more readily
understood.
In approaching the village of East Stoke, by the foss-way leading from the
southward towards Newark, the road gradually ascends, until the traveller
attains an eminence or hill, distant little more than half a mile from the
village, commanding an extensive view of Newark and the neighbouring
country. Upon its highest elevation, to the left or west of the foss-road, is a
windmill, in Stoke Fields; and to the right or south-east, is another mill, in
Elston Fields; but both are in the parish of Stoke: this eminence decreases in
height towards the latter mill, but extends past the former, towards the north-
west, and it ends in a steep cliff, the foot of which is separated from the river
Trent and Fiskerton Ferry, by Stoke Marsh. The marsh is of narrow width,
and the distance is not much more than a quarter of a mile from the ferry to
the foot of the hill.

That part of the hill upon which the mill in Stoke Fields is erected, was, at
the time when I visited the field of battle, and probably still is, called the
Rampire, a name sufficiently significant, and the inhabitants of its vicinity
are in the habit of pointing it out, as the place where the Earl of Lincoln’s
forces were encamped. It is by far the strongest military position within
some miles of the village, and tallies exactly with the accounts in the old
historical works. This being premised, the earl’s centre would naturally be at
the place where the mill is now erected; his right wing would extend a little
way across the foss-road, in the direction of the other mill standing in Elston
Fields; and his left wing would occupy the strong position on the summit of
the eminence. [181] The hill rapidly decreases in height, and slopes down
towards Stoke village and the vicarage-house, which stands in Elston Fields,
although in Stoke parish, close to the village, and about fifty or sixty yards to
the right or east of the foss-road. It was down this slope that the earl’s troops
descended to attack the forces of Henry VII., at the battle of Stoke.
In proceeding to describe the situation of Henry’s camp, and to compare the
two positions with the accounts given by the old historians, it is proper to
mention, that after passing the village of Stoke, and at less than half a mile
on the foss-road, towards Newark, and between three and four miles from
the latter town, the road gradually rises until the traveller arrives at the toll-
bar, which is on slightly elevated ground. [182a]
From the accounts given by the old historical writers of the movements of
Henry VII., [182b] there is great reason to suppose, that at that place, or very
near to it, his forces were encamped previously to the battle of Stoke; and as
the country, between Newark and Stoke, is nearly level, with the exception
of the elevated ground just before mentioned, it was the only place, three
miles from Newark, where eligible rising ground could be found, to encamp
upon, between that town and Stoke village; and it tallies in its distance from
Newark, and its contiguity to the village of Stoke, with the accounts given
by the old historians.
The two positions above described, correspond in a remarkable manner, with
the accounts of the old annalists and chroniclers. Polydore Virgil, after
describing the Earl of Lincoln’s putting to sea with his forces from Dublin to
England, says, that “haud procul Lancastrio in terram descendunt, freti
opibus Thomæ Brogtoni, qui princeps erat conjurationis socius.” He then
mentions the course pursued by Henry, and states, that “Comes Lincolniesis

interea Eboracensem agrum ingressus cùm sociis, lento incedebat gradu, ac
sine ullo maleficio incolarum, quippe qui sperabat aliquem populi
concursum ad se fieri,” and, after mentioning the earl’s reasons for venturing
upon a battle, he proceeds as follows: “ex agro Eboracensi Neuuarcum
versus iter facere cœpit, ut ibi auctis copiis, in regem, quem venire obviam,
& vix bidui abesse intellexerat, recta via contenderet. Cæterū priusquam ille
eò perveniret, Henricus cui nulla hora operis comitis erat ignota, sub vesperū
illius diei, qui ante prælii diem illuxit, celerius opinione eorum, obviam
venientibus factus, Neuuarcum accessit, parumque illic moratus, tria millia
passuum progressus est, ibique positis castris pernoctavit. Comes verò
cognito regis adventu nihil territus incœptum iter continuat, eodemque die
pervenit ad viculum proximum adversariorum castris, quem vocāt Stochum,
eôqûe loci castra facit. Postero die rex ex omnibus copiis triplici instructa
acie, Stochum proficiscitur, ac prope castra comitis consistit, atque facit
æquo in loco pugnandi potestatem. Potestate facta, comes copias educit,
signoque suis dato, in certamen descēdit.”
As Polydore Virgil wrote in the reign of King Henry VIII., numbers of
persons present at the battle, must have been living, from whom he probably
obtained information.
Hall also wrote in the reign of King Henry VIII., and died soon after the
accession of King Edward VI. In his Chronicles, the mentions, that the Earl
of Lincoln and his troops landed “at the Pyle of Fowdrey, within lytle of
Lancastre;” that he marched into Yorkshire, and afterwards “directed his
waye from Yorke to Newarke-upo’-Trent, to thentent that there he (as he
trusted) augme’tyng hys co’paigny might set upon the Kyng, who’ he knew
to be but II daies jorney from him. Albeit, before he came there, Kyng
Henry was in his bosome, and knewe every houre what the erle did, came
the night before that he fought, to Newarke, and there approched nere hys
enemyes soner then they loked for him, and there tariyng a lytle, went III
myles further and pitched his feelde, and lodged there that night. The Erle of
Lyncolne certefyed of his commyng was nothynge afearde, but kepte styll on
hys jorney, and, at a lytle village called Stoke, nygh to the Kyng and hys
army, planted hys campe. The next daye followynge the Kynge devyded hys
whole nombre into three battailes, and after in good arraye approched nigh
to the toune of Stoke, where was an equall and playne place for bothe parties
to arreigne the battaile. When the place was apoynted and ordeined to trye

the bittermost by stroke of battaile, the erle set furth his army, and, gevyng a
token to his compaignye, set upon his adversaries with a manly courage,
desirynge his souldyours that daye to remembre his honoure and their awne
lyves.”
Holinshed’s account, in his Chronicles, written in the reign of Elizabeth, is
nearly in the same words.
Lord Chancellor Bacon (Viscount St. Alban’s), in his Life of King Henry
VII., as given in Kennet’s Lives, says, that the Earl of Lincoln “march’d
towards Newark, thinking to have surprised the town. But the King was
somewhat before this time come to Nottingham,” and, a battle being
resolved upon in his council, “march’d speedily, so as he put himself
between the enemies’ camp and Newark, being loth their army should get
the commodity of that town. The earl, nothing dismay’d, came forwards that
day unto a little village call’d Stoke, and there encamp’d that night upon the
brow or hanging of a hill. The King, the next day, presented him battel upon
the plain, the fields being open and champion. The earl courageously came
down, and joyned battel with him.”
In Stow’s Annals, it is stated, that “the Earl of Lincolne, being entered into
Yorkeshire, directed his way to Newark-upon-Trent, and, at a little village
called Stoke, three or four miles from Newarke, nigh to the King and his
army, planted his campe. The next day following, the King divided his
number into three battells, and after approched nigh the towne of Stoke,
where both the armies joined and fought egerly.”
Speed says, that “the King dislodgeth with his army, and passeth thorow
Newarke, leaving it behind him about three miles.” Also, “the next day, both
the armies are brought forth to fight neere to a little village called Stoke.”
He also adverts to the earl’s having marshalled his men “upon the brow or
hanging of an hill,” before the battle.
Sir Richard Baker, in his Chronicles, mentions the earl’s “taking his way
from York to Newark-upon-Trent. King Henry, understanding which way he
took, came the night before the battel to Newark, and, going three miles
further, near to a village called Stoke, there waited the approach of the Earl
of Lincoln.”

Upon inquiry, I learnt, that human bones, coins, and other relics indicative of
a battle, have been frequently dug up in the fields, on the south side of the
village, which are exactly where, from the above accounts, it is to be
presumed, the earl’s centre was engaged, after descending from his strong
post, and which lie at the foot of the eminence, above described; and also on
the south side of and within the garden of Sir Robert Bromley, Bart., which
would be the position of the earl’s left wing when fighting. They have also
been found in digging the foundations of some walls near the vicarage, in
Elston Fields, where the King’s left wing would be engaged.
In August 1825, Sir Robert Bromley kindly accompanied me over part of the
field of battle, and pointed out a place in his garden, where the remains of
many of the slain were found. They were interred in long trenches; but very
few indications of armour or weapons were discovered; however, the
labourers found two spurs: one of which they purloined, the other Sir Robert
Bromley obtained. He kindly allowed me to inspect it. It is of silver on the
outside, and of steel within, and is of considerable beauty and elegance of
workmanship. It is of very small size, and remarkable for the appropriate
nature of its ornaments—roses boldly embossed on its surface. It bears a
strong resemblance to the one dug up on Bosworth Field, of which an
engraving is given in Hutton’s Bosworth Field.
Those who wish for an account of the march and movements of Henry
previously to the battle, will find it in the journal said to have been kept by
the herald, [185a] who accompanied his army. Henry’s proclamation, [185b] for
enforcing discipline and order on the march, is curious, and gives us some
idea of the insubordination of an English army, at that period.
The principal commanders in Henry’s army, were, Jasper Duke of Bedford,
[186a]
John Earl of Oxford, [186b] George Earl of Shrewsbury; [186c] Richard Neville,
Lord Latimer, [186d] Edward Lord Hastings; [186e] George Lord Strange, son of
Thomas Earl of Derby; [186f] Sir John Cheney, and Sir Edward Fielding. [186g]
Thomas Brandon, brother of Sir William Brandon [186h] (who was the standard-
bearer of Henry, and was slain at the battle of Bosworth), had the honour of
bearing Henry’s shield at the battle of Stoke. [186i]
The Earl of Lincoln and his forces being posted upon the hill, Henry, on the
16th of June, 1487, [186j] drew up his army in three lines, in the open space to

the southward or south-east of Stoke, and offered the earl battle, which the
latter, notwithstanding the disparity of their forces, courageously accepted.

The act of attainder [187a] passed against the earl and his adherents, furnishes
some evidence of guns having been used by the earl’s forces; as the act states
them to have been armed with “swerdys, speris, marespikes, bowes, gonnes,
harneys, brigandines, hawberkes, and many other weapyns and harneys.” If,
as that act seems to state, the earl had artillery with his army, which were
used at the battle, they would naturally be placed, on the slope of the hill
before described, and would be fired from thence upon the royal army drawn
up on the lower ground.
The earl descended the hill, with his troops in good order, and attacked the
royalists with great intrepidity, in hopes, that, by breaking their first line, the
fugitives from it, would fall back upon those in the rear, and throw them into
confusion; but, after bravely fighting for three hours, during which, the half-
naked Irish, undisciplined, and only armed with darts and skins, obstinately

maintained their ground, although Henry’s archers kept constantly thinning
their ranks, and the English and Germans fought with the utmost valour, they
were totally routed, with great slaughter. The Earl of Lincoln, Lord Kildare
(or, as several authors call him, Lord Thomas Gerardine or Fitzgerald), Sir
Thomas Broughton; Martin Swartz, the commander of the foreign
auxiliaries; and most of the other leaders of the earl’s party, died sword in
hand. [187b] The impostor, Lambert Simnel, and the priest his tutor, were taken
prisoners, [187c] and Lord Lovel was never afterwards heard of; it has been
said, that in endeavouring to escape by crossing the Trent, he was drowned
in the river. Some writers state, that he was slain in the battle; but in the
account given in the before-mentioned journal, he is said to have been “put
to flight” [escaped]. [188a] Whether he perished in crossing the Trent, fell in the
battle, or fled, and contrived to secrete himself, so as to elude discovery, will
probably never be satisfactorily ascertained. [188b] He had been a steadfast
supporter of King Richard III., at whose coronation, he had the honour of
carrying one of the pointed swords on the King’s left hand; [188c] and was made
Lord Chamberlain, and he had also fought for him at Bosworth Field. [188d]
His enmity to Henry VII. induced him to join the insurrection of Sir
Humphrey Stafford, and his brother, Thomas Stafford, in 1486, and take up
arms in Yorkshire, whilst they prepared to attack Worcester; but, his troops
dispersing, he was obliged to fly to Furness, in Lancashire, where Sir
Thomas Broughton received and afforded him an asylum, and from thence
he proceeded into Flanders, to Margaret Duchess of Burgundy. [188e]
Many of the Earl of Lincoln’s forces were destroyed in their flight from the
field, and in attempting to escape over the Trent, by Fiskerton Ferry. A
ravine or gully, which descends from the high ground on the south-west side
of the cliff, is now pointed out, as being the place through which the
fugitives endeavoured to pass, in order to get to the ferry, and which,
tradition says, ran with blood, and where a great slaughter was inflicted upon
them. It is from that circumstance, called Red Gutter; and human bones, and
other indicia of slaughter, have been dug up in it. It is rather difficult of
access at present, from being covered with a plantation of trees; but there is
still a path through it, and it opens upon Stoke Marsh, about thirty or forty
yards to the southward of the modern road leading over the marsh, to the
ferry; towards which the fugitives would naturally endeavour to pass through
this ravine, as the steepness of the cliff would render it difficult, in most
places, to descend in any other direction; and the contiguity of the right wing

of the royal army would prevent a retreat over the flat ground by the high
road past the church to the ferry. The Trent, in the summer time, and the
battle was fought in the month of June, is fordable for horses and men, and,
as far as I could judge by the eye, it is thereabouts one hundred and sixty or
one hundred and eighty yards wide; and if the wreck of the defeated army
could have gained the opposite bank, it would have furnished some chance
of escape, in comparative safety.
That the hill in Stoke Fields above described, is that on which the Earl of
Lincoln was encamped, seems to be satisfactorily proved, independently of
tradition, from the circumstance, that when he entered Nottinghamshire from
Yorkshire, and marched towards Newark-on-Trent, as stated in Leland’s
Collectanea, [189] “Enemyes and rebelles drew towards Newarke warde,
passing by Southwelle and the Furside of Trente,” he found the castle and
town of Newark preoccupied by his enemy, in which Hall, Holinshed,
Polydore Virgil, Bacon, Speed, and Baker, all agree, and he could not well
get to Stoke, without passing through, or close to, Southwell, and then
crossing the Trent: and the ford and ferry nearest to Southwell, and to those
parts of the country through which he is said to have marched, is Fiskerton;
which is close under the hill. Besides which, the hill is by far the strongest
military position in that part of the country: in fact, the cliff occupied, as
before observed, by his left wing, was almost inassailable; and the parts of
the hill where his centre and right were posted, must have been exceedingly
difficult of approach by hostile forces, because they would labour under the
disadvantage of having to ascend an eminence, probably strengthened by
artificial defences and by the natural obstacles of brushwood and other
inconveniences incident to uncultivated ground. It is the only elevated
ground near Stoke, of sufficient elevation to warrant the word “descends,”
used by Polydore Virgil, “Comes copias educit, signoque suis dato in
certamen descendit;” and, after a very careful survey of the country for miles
round Stoke, no other eminence presents itself worthy of Bacon’s
appellation, “the brow or hanging of a hill,” or to which his words “came
down” can apply, “the earl courageously came down and joyned battel with
him.”
The bones, coins, and other relics, which have been dug up, show that the
conflict took place at the spot before mentioned, near the village, and close

to, and in the garden of Sir Robert Bromley, Bart., in Stoke Fields, and also
upon a small portion of Elston Fields. [190]
A great part of the church has evidently been rebuilt, and, except a Gothic
arch communicating from the tower to the body of the church, it has not
many claims to antiquity. A few brick and slated cottages have of late years
been built amongst the others, in the village; but its appearance conveys to
the spectator, the idea of its having undergone little change for centuries
past.
The places where the human bones, &c. &c. have been dug up, show that the
village of Stoke, previous to the battle, was occupied by part of Henry’s
forces, because, as it was the Earl of Lincoln who commenced the attack, it
is obvious, that, if the village had been occupied by his troops, the battle
would have been fought on the north or the north-east side, and not to the
southward of the village; besides which, that idea receives corroboration
from the expression of Polydore Virgil, in reference to Henry’s movements:
—“Stochum proficiscitur, ac prope castra comitis consistit.” [191a] Henry could
not have drawn his forces out of the village, and approached the camp of the
earl, if the former had not preoccupied the village.
This memorable battle was the last that was fought between the adherents to
the rival Houses of York and Lancaster (that in 1485, called Bosworth Field,
being often erroneously so considered), in which one of the House of York
attempted, by arms, to obtain the crown; and it firmly secured the House of
Tudor upon the throne of England. The victory was, however, purchased by
a lamentable destruction of human life: about 4000 of the insurgents, and
half of the van of the royal forces, are said to have perished there; probably a
total loss of from 5000 to 6000 lives.
What consequences would have ensued to England, if the earl had been
victorious, though it may be amusing to speculate upon them, it is, of course,
impossible to form a reasonable conjecture. He had claims to the crown,
according to the laws and constitution, in due course, after the daughters of
King Edward the Fourth (supposing the attainders [191b] of George Duke of
Clarence, and Sir Thomas Saint Ledger, to be valid, and to exclude their
issue), from his being the eldest son of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, and
of Elizabeth, [191c] second sister of King Edward IV. and Richard III., and
daughter of Richard Duke of York. He is described as one who possessed

talents and courage; and he was encouraged by the known intentions of his
uncle, King Richard III., who had declared him successor to the crown, [192a] in
case that monarch should die without issue; and at his coronation the earl
had the honour of carrying the ball and cross, whilst the sceptre was
confided to his father, the Duke of Suffolk. [192b]
It is very clear, that the earl was not at the battle of Bosworth, fighting on the
side of his uncle, not only from the total silence of historians, [192c] but from
the fact, that his name does not appear in the list of noblemen, knights, and
gentlemen, who were attainted, [192d] when Henry VII. called a Parliament, for
taking a part in that battle; and also from the fact of his being one of the
nobles allowed to attend a council of Henry VII. [192e] He appears not to have
acted with sincerity, when he could so far demean himself, as to bring the
impostor, Lambert Simnel, forward as a stalking-horse; and, in the words of
Bacon, “neither did the earl refrain the business, for that he knew the
pretended Plantagenet to be but an idol. But contrariwise, he was more glad
it should be the false Plantagenet than the true; because, the false being sure
to fall away of himself, and the true to be made sure of by the King, it might
open and pave a fair and prepared way to his own title.” He must have been
aware of the imposture, and appears to have been actively concerned in the
insurrection, with the intention of benefiting himself, and the hope of
successfully advancing his own claims to the crown.
It is a remarkable circumstance, that, at the time of the Earl of Lincoln’s
death, his grandmother, Cecily Duchess of York, was still living; a woman
who was doomed to witness, in her own family, more appalling and
extraordinary calamities and vicissitudes, than are to be found in the history
of any individual allied to any of the other royal families of Europe; I might,
perhaps, even be allowed to go further, and to state, in the known history of
any other human being.
Her nephew, Humphrey Earl of Stafford, was slain at the first battle of St.
Alban’s, in 1455; his father, Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who
married her sister, Anne Neville, perished at the battle of Northampton in
1460; her husband, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, when the crown of
England was almost within his grasp, and her nephew, Sir Thomas Neville,
son of her brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and her husband’s
nephew, Sir Edward Bourchier, son of Henry Earl of Ewe, afterwards Earl of
Essex, by Isabel his wife, were slain in 1460, at the battle of Wakefield; her

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

Exeter, and attainted for treason, in joining the unsuccessful rebellion of
Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; and the latter, who was her great-
nephew, being the grandson of her sister, Anne Neville, being deserted by his
forces, and betrayed, was, about the same time, taken prisoner and beheaded;
her grandson, Edward Prince of Wales, son of King Richard III. and of her
great niece, Queen Anne, through whom she naturally expected the honour
of being the ancestress of a line of English Monarchs, died in 1484; and the
childless Queen, his mother, a few months afterwards, followed him to the
tomb; her youngest son, King Richard III., was slain at the battle of
Bosworth, in 1485; and her grandson, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln,
perished in 1487, at the battle of Stoke. [196a]
She died in 1495; [196b] after three princes descended from her, had succeeded
to the crown of England, without taking into the account her grand-daughter,
Elizabeth, Queen of Henry VII., and more than one had been murdered; and,
by her death, was saved the additional affliction of the loss of her grandson,
Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, the last male of the House of
Plantagenet, who was tyrannically and wickedly put to death, in 1499, by
Henry VII.
On a reference to the following Pedigrees, although they only give some
portions of the descents and alliances of the illustrious Houses of
Plantagenet and Neville, the reader will observe the degree of consanguinity
or connection in which each of the before-mentioned distinguished but
unfortunate personages stood, with reference to Cecily Duchess of York. It
would be foreign to the object of this work, and would be an undertaking of
great labour and difficulty, to give on a more extensive scale, the pedigrees
of either of those Houses.
After perusing such a list of frightful calamities, occurring in the lifetime of
a single individual, to the members of her own family, the reader may rejoice
in living in a civilized age, under the mild and gentle sway of a Sovereign of
the House of Brunswick, and may well exclaim of the Duchess of York, in
the language of Voltaire, whilst narrating the misfortunes of the Royal House
of Stuart:—“Il n’y a pas d’exemple sur la terre d’une suite de calamités,
aussi singulières et aussi horribles, que celles qui avaient affligé toute sa
maison.”

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

THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
EVESHAM.

As the battle of Evesham was not fought in the fifteenth century and had no
relation to the wars of York and Lancaster, it would not have been noticed
here, if it had not been for the circumstance of my having visited the field of
battle a few months before this work was sent to the press. Very little
information, however, respecting that sanguinary conflict, can be obtained
by inquiry upon the spot.
On the 28th and 29th of May, 1856, I visited the field of battle, which was
fought on the 4th of August, 1265, between the forces of King Henry III.,
under the command of his eldest son Prince Edward, and those of Simon de
Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the rebellious barons, and terminated in the
defeat of the latter with great slaughter.
The battle was fought in the spot now enclosed fields, upon the elevated tract
of ground, adjoining the turnpike road from Evesham in Worcestershire, to
Alcester and Warwick, very near a house called Battle-well House (which
stands on the left side of the road in going from Evesham), and also near the
tollbar, called Battle-well Gate, and almost a mile and a quarter from
Evesham.
A lane turns off from the turnpike road near the tollbar, towards the river
Avon, by which the defeated forces are said to have fled, and to have
attempted to descend to the meadows, in order to cross the Avon, at a place
now called Offenham Ferry. The lane was, until about 1741, the great high
road from Worcester towards London. An old man, named Thomas Price,
who lives at the lodge of the mansion belonging to Mrs. Blainey, which is

situated on the side of the turnpike road, opposite to Battle-well House, and,
consequently, upon the spot where the conflict took place, and who has
resided there most of his life, informed me, that many years ago, he
recollected seeing a battle-axe, which, with some human bones, had been
ploughed up in a field, close to Battle-well House. A bridge is said to have
formerly stood at Offenham Ferry, and some appearances of masonry,
seemingly of the pier of the bridge, may still be discovered at the ferry.
Close to it the ground is a little raised, and that spot is called “Dead Man’s
Height,” or “Dead Man’s Bank,” where human remains and fragments of
weapons, are said to have been formerly discovered, as well as in an orchard
very near there, called “Twyners.” About two miles on the opposite side of
the ferry, is a stone quarry upon a hill, at South Littleton, which was also in
the line of retreat, and human bones, and parts of weapons, are said to have
been found there, about thirty years ago.
In the beautiful grounds of E. T. Rudge, Esq., of Abbey Manor, near the field
of battle, a small pillar has been erected with the following inscription:—
[204]
ON THIS SPOT
IN THE REIGN OF HENRY III
THE BATTLE OF EVESHAM
WAS FOUGHT AUGUST IV 1265
BETWEEN THE KING’S FORCES COMMANDED BY HIS ELDEST SON
PRINCE EDWARD
AND
THE BARONS UNDER
SIMON DE MONTFORT EARL OF LEICESTER;
IN WHICH
THE PRINCE BY HIS SKILL AND VALOUR
OBTAINED A COMPLETE VICTORY,
AND
THE EARL WITH HIS ELDEST SON HENRY DE MONTFORT,
EIGHTEEN BARONS, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY KNIGHTS,
AND
FOUR THOUSAND SOLDIERS,
WERE SLAIN IN THE BATTLE.

THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
BARNET.

Warwick (wounded).—“Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend, or foe,
And tell me, who is victor, York or Warwick?
Why ask I that? My mangled body shows,
My blood, my want of strength, my sick heart shows,
That I must yield my body to the earth,
And by my fall, the conquest to my foe.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part 3, act v. scene 2.
(A Field of Battle, near Barnet.)

The Battle of Barnet was fought on the 14th of April, 1471, at a place
formerly called Gladmore Heath, but which is now completely enclosed,
about a mile north-west from Barnet, in the county of Middlesex, between
the Yorkists, under King Edward IV., and the Lancastrians, commanded by
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, [205] the King-Maker, in which the latter
was slain, and the Yorkists were completely victorious.
I visited the field of battle on the 9th of July, 1856. The accounts of the
battle given by the old historical writers are so imperfect, that they do not
throw any light upon the precise positions which the hostile armies
respectively occupied; and I could not, when upon the spot, obtain much
new information of moment, relative to the battle.
After Edward IV. had returned from the Continent, and had landed at
Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, he proceeded to York, and from thence towards
London; and the Earl of Warwick, who was posted with his forces at
Coventry, marched from it in pursuit of him:—

Warwick.—“I will away towards Barnet presently,
And bid thee battle, Edward, if thou dars’t.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act v. scene 5.

The Earl of Warwick expected that the city of London would hold out
against Edward, until he could arrive to its relief. On his march, he received
the disastrous tidings, that Edward had been joyfully received into London;
that Henry VI. was a prisoner; and that Warwick’s son-in-law, George Duke
of Clarence, [206a] had renounced his engagements, and had gone over, near the
town of Warwick, with all his forces, to Edward.
The Earl of Warwick was now in a situation of great peril, and, under other
circumstances, would probably have attempted a retreat, but he was in the
face of a superior army, and was some days’ march from any place of safety;
he was too far advanced to retreat; and, although Clarence offered his
mediation between Edward and Warwick, the latter proudly rejected it, and
resolutely prepared for battle.
Edward had the superiority of numbers, as his army had become greatly
increased, since Clarence had deserted the Earl of Warwick, and had joined
the Yorkists.
During the night preceding the battle, the Earl of Warwick and the
Lancastrians were encamped on Gladmore Heath, on the north-westward
side of Barnet, and they had posted a small advanced guard in that town.
Edward, having advanced from London to Barnet, dislodged the few
Lancastrian forces posted in it, and drove them towards the main body; he,
however, did not suffer his men to remain in the town, but encamped in the
open field, nearer his enemies than they were aware; and one old writer
states, that he caused his people to keep as silent as possible, in order to
prevent the Lancastrians from knowing the exact position of his army. [206b]
Both parties used artillery; [206c] and some historians state, [206c] that they fired at
each other, in the course of the night. We are also told, that the guns of the
Earl of Warwick, were constantly fired at Edward’s forces during the night,
but with little effect, in consequence of overshooting them, from their lying
nearer than was supposed. [207a]

On Easter Sunday, the 14th of April, 1471, the day commenced with a thick
fog, and both armies were placed in order of battle. On Edward’s part, the
van was commanded by Richard Duke of Gloucester; [207b] the middle, by
Edward in person, assisted by the Duke of Clarence (having with them King
Henry as a prisoner); and the rear was under the command of Lord Hastings;
[207c]
besides which, Edward had a considerable body of men in reserve.
The Earl of Warwick gave the command of the Lancastrian right wing,
which consisted of horse, to his brother, the Marquis Montague, [207d] and the
Earl of Oxford; [207e] the left wing, also consisting in a great measure of horse,
was under the command of the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Exeter; [207f]
and the middle, which consisted principally of archers and bill-men, was
commanded by the Duke of Somerset. [207g]
The battle commenced very early in the morning, Edward having between
four and five o’clock, advanced his banners, and caused his trumpets to
sound for battle; and as soon as the opposite forces got sight of each other,
the conflict commenced with archery, and they shortly afterwards,
encountered each other with hand blows. In consequence of the fog, the
armies were inadvertently not drawn up exactly opposite each other; the Earl
of Warwick’s right wing, under the command of the Earl of Oxford,
extending a little beyond Edward’s left, which stood to the westward; and in
consequence of it, that part of his army was rather overmatched; [207h] and we
may readily believe, that from the same cause, Edward’s right wing
outflanked Warwick’s left. By reason of that circumstance, and the
fierceness and intrepidity, with which the Earl of Oxford attacked his
enemies, he had at first a considerable degree of success; he broke a part of
the ranks of the Yorkists, and several of the fugitives fled to London, and
gave out that the Lancastrians were victorious. This, however, proved to be
of no eventual advantage, and gave no encouragement to the other forces of
Warwick, because the fog prevented their being fully aware of it; beside
which, some of Oxford’s men commenced pillaging, instead of following up
their first success. An unfortunate mistake also occurred in consequence of
the fog: the device of the Earl of Oxford, a star with rays, being mistaken for
that of Edward, the sun in splendour; [208] and the Lancastrian archers shot at
Oxford’s troops, which caused Oxford and many of his men to suppose it to
be the effect of treachery, and to quit the field.

The Duke of Gloucester gave proofs of the undaunted courage and daring
spirit, for which he was always conspicuous, and which his enemies have
never ventured to deny; he fought valiantly against the Lancastrians; and his
two esquires, John Milwater and Thomas Parr, were slain at his feet.
Warwick, at the head of his troops, attacked the part of the Yorkist army, in
which Edward was; and the battle was for a long time, obstinate and bloody.
Edward, however, brought up his reserve at an opportune moment, and at
length, the Earl of Warwick was slain, and a complete victory was obtained
by Edward, over the Lancastrians. John Neville, Marquis Montague, and
several knights, of whom Sir William Tyrrel was one, also perished. The
Duke of Exeter was wounded, and left for dead upon the field, from seven in
the morning, until four in the afternoon, when he was brought to the house of
one of his servants named Ruthland, where he was attended by a surgeon; he
was conveyed to sanctuary at Westminster, and afterwards went abroad. The
Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Oxford fled, in the company of some
northern men, towards Scotland; but changing their plans, Somerset made
for Wales, in order to join Jasper Earl of Pembroke; and Oxford escaped to
France, from whence, he not long afterwards returned, with some men, and
seized the fortress of St. Michael’s Mount, on the coast of Cornwall, which
he held for several months, against King Edward’s forces.
On King Edward’s side, there were slain, Lord Cromwell; [209a] Lord Saye; [209b]
Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of John Lord Berners; [209c] Sir John Lisle; [209d]
and about 1500 men; but the loss on the Lancastrian side is said to have
amounted to about double that number, Edward having given orders not to
give any quarter. Most of the slain were buried on the plain where they had
fallen, and where, according to Stow, a chapel was afterwards built, in
memory of them, of which there are now no remains; but he states, that
when he wrote, it was a dwelling-house, and the upper portions remained.
Some of the bodies of the persons who had been of a higher rank, are said to
have been removed, and interred in the church in Austin Friars, London.
The bodies of the Earl of Warwick, and the Marquis Montague, were
conveyed in a cart to London, and for three days lay in Saint Paul’s
Cathedral Church, with their faces exposed to view, so that no person could
doubt their deaths; and they were then buried with their ancestors, in Bisham
Abbey, in Berkshire, where they remained until the dissolution of

monasteries, when the abbey was destroyed, and all knowledge of the exact
spots where they were interred, is now forgotten.
Such was the end of the career of the great, valiant, and powerful Earl of
Warwick, who has been not incorrectly described as the “proud setter-up and
puller-down of Kings,” [210a] and who had been mainly instrumental in
dethroning Henry VI. and making Edward IV. a King; and again, in
dethroning Edward, and restoring Henry.

Warwick (wounded).—“For who liv’d King, but I could dig his grave?
And who durst smile, when Warwick bent his brow?
Lo, now my glory smear’d in dust and blood!
My parks, my walks, my manors that I had,
Even now forsake me; and of all my lands,
Is nothing left me, but my body’s length!”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part iii. act v. scene 2.
(A Field of Battle near Barnet.)

From the accounts given by the old historians, [210b] it is clear that cannons or
some other description of firearms were used at the battle of Barnet. Besides
which, W. Hutton, F.S.A., states that the keeper of the Red Cow Tavern, near
the obelisk after mentioned, preserved a ball of a pound and a half weight,
which he dug out of the ground. [210c]
An obelisk of stone, apparently about eighteen or twenty feet high,
commemorative of the battle, [210d] and of the place [210e] where it was fought,
was erected by Sir Jeremy Sambroke, Bart., in 1740.
It stands about a mile beyond Barnet, and just beyond the small village of
Hadley, and is in the county of Middlesex, but near the borders of
Hertfordshire, and on the right side of the high road, close to the point where
the roads diverge in one direction to South Mims and St. Alban’s, and in the
other to Hatfield.
It stood originally close to the tavern called the Two Brewers, to which it is
still very near; but about fourteen or fifteen years ago, it was removed thirty-
two yards more towards the South Mims side, where it now stands. [211]

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

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

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

(Enter, on the walls, the Master Gunner and his Son.)
Master Gunner.—“Sirrah, thou know’st how Orleans is besieg’d,
And how the English have the suburbe won.”
Son.—“Father, I know; and oft have shot at them,
Howe’er, unfortunate, I miss’d my aim.”
Master Gunner.—“But now thou shalt not. Be thou rul’d by me:
Chief Master Gunner am I of this town;
Something I must do to procure me grace.
The Prince’s espials have informed me,
How the English, in the suburbs close intrench’d,
Wont, through a secret grate of iron bars
In yonder tower, to overpeer the city;
And thence discover how, with most advantage,
They may vex us, with shot, or with assault.
To intercept this inconvenience,
A piece of ordnance ’gainst it I have plac’d;
And fully even these three days have I watch’d
If I could see them.”
Shakespeare’s Henry VI. part 1, act i. scene 4.
(Before Orleans.)

It is a fact admitted by historians, that in the reign of King Edward III., the
English, not unfrequently, made use of cannons in sieges, during their wars
with the French; but whether they ever used them in the open field, in the
fourteenth century, as has been asserted, is a point which may well be
doubted.
History is replete with instances of the extreme caution and reluctance, with
which the English adopt innovations upon ancient customs, even when
recommended by the probability of improvement. Their implicit belief in
the excellence of the long bow, and the proud recollection of the splendid
victories which they had obtained by means of it, would, for a considerable
period of time, render it a useless task, to attempt to convince them, of the
superiority of the newly discovered military engines. Until their efficacy
had been often proved, their shape and workmanship had attained some
degree of perfection, and the artificers employed in their production, had
become sufficiently skilful, to make different kinds and sizes, one
description of which was portable, and was eventually called Hand Cannon,
Hand Gun, or Hand Culverin, and, subsequently, Harquebuss, Arquebuse,
Haquebut, Hackbut and Hagbut, the origin of the modern Musket, the
advantages of the recently discovered engines of war, would be very slow in
disclosing themselves; and would by no means be sufficiently obvious, to
induce a warlike nation, precipitately to admit them into general use.
The change in the art of war, by the application of gunpowder to military
purposes, was extremely slow and gradual.
If any person, ignorant of, or not reflecting upon, that circumstance, should
ask, at what period the ancient weapons were laid aside, and firearms
introduced in their stead; the answer is readily and correctly given. There
never was such a period. More than two centuries elapsed, after the
common application of gunpowder to warlike purposes in Europe, before the
English and the other European nations, entirely relinquished the use of
bows and arrows, and in lieu of them, but by slow degrees adopted the use of
firearms.
Archery for the purposes of war, had not been altogether abandoned in this
country, even at the breaking out of the civil war, in the reign of Charles I.

It has been correctly remarked by Mr. Grose, in his Military Antiquities, [215a]
that there is amongst old soldiers, a great dislike to innovations, because, by
adopting new weapons, and, consequently, a new exercise, the old and
expert soldiers find themselves in a worse state than new recruits, as they
have not only a new exercise to learn, but also the old one to forget.
Indeed, as late as the year 1557, so evenly did the public opinion run,
between the comparative efficacy of the ancient and new systems, that in
that year, by an act of Parliament (of the 4th and 5th of Philip and Mary), [215b]
respecting the providing of armour and weapons, various persons, in Wales,
Lancashire, and Cheshire, were required to provide and keep a haquebut; or,
in lieu of one, the alternative was given to each of them, to keep a long bow
and sheaf of arrows, in such instances, where he was required by that act, to
provide himself with the former.
Some interesting and curious examples may be found of the use of cannons
of various kinds, by the English, in their wars with the French, in the
fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III.; [215c] but although it is
indisputable that they were then made use of in sieges, and in the defence of
fortified places, there does not appear to be any evidence, that they were
made use of in that century, in the field, by the English; [216a] and the defective
construction of the cannons of the time of Edward III., and the silence of the
English and French historians, raise very strong doubts, whether they ever
were so used at that period.
It is, however, the use of them in the fifteenth century, to which our attention
is at present to be devoted. Although writers admit the occasional use of
cannons and other firearms by the English, in that century, it has been
commonly imagined, that they were not generally used by them until the
following one. I, therefore, shall endeavour to show, that that idea is not
correct, and that in the fifteenth century, firearms of various descriptions and
sizes, were in general use by them, as principal and important military
weapons; that they appear seldom to have undertaken any warlike expedition
of magnitude without them; that they constantly attacked and defended
towns and fortresses with them; that they used them in the open field; and
also, that there is some evidence of guns being in use even on shipboard.
The English, as early as in the middle of that century, were also sometimes
armed with portable guns, or small arms, then called Hand Coulevrines, or
hand guns; and they are expressly mentioned by Monstrelet by the name of

“Coulevrines à main,” and he states, that they were reserved to the English,
at Caen, in 1450, when they capitulated under the Duke of Somerset. This
was considerably earlier than the period, when Mr. Grose, in his work on
Military Antiquities, [217a] supposes that they were first used in England; as he
mentions the year 1471, on the occasion of the landing of Edward IV. at
Ravenspur, as the period of their introduction into this country.
Monstrelet, as will be afterwards noticed, mentions “Petis Canons” as having
been carried in eight little boats across the Seine, by the English, in attacking
Pont de l’Arche, in 1418, which, and also the “Artillerie menue,”
occasionally mentioned by him, probably apply to guns of a size small
enough to be portable. [217b]
We cannot well entertain doubts of the fact of the English having made use
of portable firearms in the fifteenth century, when we reflect that there is
undisputed historical evidence of the use of them, at that period, by
continental nations, who reckoned them by thousands in their armies; and
that before the close of that century, they appear to have been even used on
the Continent by cavalry as well as by infantry. [218a]
Very early in the fifteenth century, firearms varied very much in size,
appearance, and denomination; and even as early as in the year 1406, the
Duke of Burgundy and the King of France, in preparing for the siege of
Calais, had, according to Monstrelet, “bombardes, canons, artilleries,” &c.
&c. We also learn from the same authority, that in 1430, in raising the siege
of Compeine, which was defended by the English, the Duke of Burgundy
was obliged to abandon his ordnance, consisting of “bombardes, canons,
veuglaires, serpentines, coulevrines, et autre artilleries.”
The word Artillery, and also the word Engine, did not, however, apply in the
fifteenth century exclusively to cannons; for both words were frequently
used to designate all projectile weapons, such as balistæ, long-bows, cross-
bows, guns of various descriptions, bombards (somewhat resembling the
modern mortars), and also portable firearms.
Some descriptions of cannons, as, for example, those called bombards, [219a]
which are considered to have been the first in use, threw large stones or
balls, by a parabolic curve, against places besieged, whilst others were

afterwards introduced, of a different description, which sent balls direct, or
point blank.
In 1414, one Nicholas Merbury was Master of the Ordnance to Henry V.,
“Magistro Operationum Ingeniorum & Gunnarum.” [219b] There was also a
Master of the Ordnance in 1481, in the reign of Edward IV.; and a warrant
was then issued for the payment of £100 to the Master of the Ordnance, for
the purchase of draught horses. [219c]
I apprehend that it will not be denied, that it affords very strong evidence of
this destructive instrument of war, being brought to considerable perfection,
and into general use, when the genus had thus become subdivided into
species, and when a public officer existed, whose province it was to
superintend that particular department of military affairs.
Later on, in the same century, it became still more subdivided, and appears
to have consisted of many varieties; for we read of bombards, cannons,
mortiers, veuglaires, guns, serpentines, ordnance, fowlers, coulevrines, hand-
coulevrines, hand-guns, haquebuts, &c. &c.; from which it may be
presumed, that gunnery had then become a science, and occupied a great
portion of the attention of the military.
The bombard is supposed to have derived its name from the sound
proceeding from its explosion; the mortier or mortar, from its death-dealing
or destructive nature; the serpentine basilisk and coulevrine, from some
fancied resemblance in their appearance or effects to a serpent; the fowler, to
the rapid and birdlike flight of its ball; and some of the large bombards were
jocularly called “bourgeoise,” from their constant residence in one place,
their weight rendering them inconvenient to move. [220]
Under whatever name or form, however, this destructive engine appeared, its
general effects were, to a certain extent, similar; and I venture to think, that
the authorities, which will now be referred to in chronological order, furnish
strong proofs of its having become, not in occasional, but in general use for
warlike purposes by the English, in the fifteenth century.

CHRONOLOGICAL REFERENCES.
1400 TO 1500.

1403, 8th September.—Warrant of the 4th Henry IV. relative to the safe
custody of the castle of Laghadyn, in Wales, “Utpote, in personis
Defensalibus, victualibus, armaturis, artillariis, et omnibus aliis rebus, pro
hujusmodi munitione garnisturâ et custodiâ ejusdem Castri, necessariis et
opportunis.”—8 Rymer’s Fædera, fo. 328; folio edition.
1404, 29th August.—Warrant of the 5th Henry IV. respecting the giving up
of the castle or fortalice of Fascastle, in Scotland, to the Warden of the East
Marches, “unâ cum artillaria, et aliis Rebus nostris, quibuscumque, in eodem
Castro sive Fortalitio, existentibus.”—Same, fo. 370.
The word “artillery,” as has been already stated, was formerly often used to
denote cannons and other weapons, the operation and efficacy of which
entirely depended upon gunpowder, and also projectile weapons of various
descriptions, such as long-bows, cross-bows of different kinds and sizes,
balistæ catapultæ, &c. &c., which were used in war quite independently of
gunpowder. The same observation also applies to the word “engine.” The
English very frequently not only used engines which depended upon
gunpowder for their operation, but others which were independent of it, in
order to cast stones, &c., in sieges, in the fifteenth century. It is impossible,
in every instance which will be noticed in the following pages, to determine
clearly in which of those senses the word “artillery” or “engine” is used; and
it must be left to the judgment of the reader to decide the meaning from the
context.
1405.—Henry IV., at the siege of Berwick Castle, “caused a peece of
Artillerie to be planted against one of the Towers, and at the first shot
overthrowing part thereof, they within were put in such feare that they
simplie yeelded themselves.”—Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 530.
1405, 4th March.—In the 6th Henry IV., in a warrant enumerating the stores
and articles in the castle of “Hadlegh” [Quære Harlech, in Merionethshire],
“De stuffura pro Castro de Hadlegh,” there is mentioned amongst a variety
of armour, weapons, and other articles, “Unum longum ferrum pro Gunnis
opturandis.”—8 Rymer’s Fædera, fo. 384.
Same year.—In the attack by Count St. Pol upon the castle of Mark, near
Calais, and the relief by the English forces, “Et avecques eux menerent dix

ou douze chars chargez de vivres et artilleries.”—Chroniques de Monstrelet,
edition of 1572, vol. i. fo. 20.
The English also took away “tous les biens, chars, et artilleries, qu’avoient là
menez leurs adversaries.”
And on the attempt upon the town of Andres the “Anglois de Calais issirent
de leur ville, à tout foison de canons et autres instrumens de guerre, qu’ils
avoient gaignez sur les Français, devant Merc.”—Same, vol. i. fo. 21.
Same year.—At the unsuccessful attack by the English upon the Castle de
l’Escluse, the garrison “tant que par le trait, Canons et autre deffence
rebouterent leurs adversaires,” &c.—Same, fo. 21.
1406.—Preparations by the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France for
the siege of Calais, “Et y avoit aussi tres grand quantité de Charois menans
bombardes, Canons, artilleries, vivres, et autres besonges necessaires à
guerre.”—1 Monstrelet, fo. 27.
Although the cannons in the two last instances were not used by, but were
intended to be used against, the English, yet it has been considered advisable
to notice them, in order to show that they were then commonly used in the
wars in which the English were engaged, and were intended in each instance
to be used against a town defended by the latter; and also to prove that at that
period there were firearms of various denominations.
Same year, 7th Henry IV.—Account of the military stores stated by Henry
Somer to have been delivered to William Loveney, Treasurer to the King’s
sister, Philippa, Queen of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, &c., “2 Gunnes, 40
Libras pulveris pro Gunnes, 40 Petras pro Gunnes, 40 Tampons, 4 Touches,
1 Mallet, 2 Fire pannes, 40 Pavys, 24 Arcus, et 40 Garbas Sagittarum, pro
Stuffura cujusdam navis, ordinata pro aula ejusdem Reginæ versus Dauciam,
per Indenturam,” &c.; also “prædictis 2 canoins 40 l. pulveris,” &c.—8
Fædera, fo. 447.
The above document furnishes evidence of the use of stone balls for cannons
in 1406; and, although the language is not at all conclusive, it may be worthy
of consideration whether it does not also afford some slight evidence of guns
being in use on shipboard at that early date.

1407, 12th September.—Indenture of 8th Henry IV. between the King and
Rees ap Griffith and others, containing the terms of the surrender by them of
the castle of Aberystwith, in Wales, “facient seu faciet liberationem plenam
Canonum seu instrumentorum Anglicè Gunnes vocatorum, arcuum,
sagittarum, Balistarum, et aliorum Instrumentorum, infra dictum Castrum,”
&c.—8 Fædera, fo. 498.
1413, 1st September.—Warrant of the 1st Henry V. to John Sprong and John
Louth, empowering them to take and provide “ad tot Equos, Boves, Plaustra,
et Carectas, quot pro cariagio certorum gunnorum nostrorum, ac aliarum
Rerum pro eisdem Gunnis necessarium, à villa Bristolliæ usque Civitatem
nostram Londoniæ indiguerint,” &c.—9 Fædera, fo. 49.
1414, 22nd September.—Warrant of the 2nd Henry V. to Nicholas Merbury,
“Magistro Operationum, Ingeniorum, et Gunnarum nostrorum, ac aliarum
Ordinationum nostrarum, pro guerrâ,” and to John Louth, “Clerico earundem
Operationum,” to take and provide “ad tot Lathomos, Carpentarios,
Serratores, Fabros, et Laboratores, quot pro operationibus Ingeniorum,
Gunnarum, et Ordinationum prædictorum, necessarii fuerint, cum sufficienti
maeremio Ferro,” &c.—Same, fo. 159.
In that warrant Nicholas Merbury is distinctly mentioned as the Master of
the Ordnance; yet, notwithstanding the existence of that document, and of
another which will be afterwards referred to, of 22nd Edward IV., Mr. Grose,
in his Military Antiquities, vol. i. page 198, states that the first Master of the
Ordnance that he could find on record was only in the first year of the reign
of Richard III.; and it is strange that, in a note in vol. i. page 401, he
afterwards mentions Nicholas Merbury as having been Master of the
Ordnance in the 2nd year of Henry V., but he does not allude to the existence
of any such officer in the reign of Edward IV.
1414, 26th September.—Warrant of the 2nd Henry V. to the Collectors of the
customs and subsidies, and keepers of the passages of the port of London,
&c., prohibiting the exportation of gunpowder without a special permission,
“aliquod Gunpoudre versus partes exteras, in portu prædicto, absque speciali
mandato nostro, transmitti permittatis.”—9 Fædera, fo. 160.
1415.—The army of Henry V., on landing in France, is stated to have been
composed of “environ six mille bacinets et 24 mille archiers sans les

Canoniers et autres usans de flondelles et engins, [224] dōt ils avoiēt grād
abondance.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. fo. 218.
It appears very difficult to ascertain the kind of instrument meant by
“flondelles.” It seems far-fetched to consider it as a corruption of the words
“frondes” (slings), besides which, there is not, as far as I am aware, any
authority for supposing that the English used slings in battle. A word nearly
similar (“fondeffles”) also occurs in 1 Monstrelet, p. 27, and is used in
conjunction with “eschelles,” which is evidently scaling ladders, which
raises the presumption that it was some engine used in sieges.
Same year.—At the siege of Harfleur the English “asseirent leurs gros engins
[224]
les lieux plus convenables entour la dicte ville, et prestement icelle moult
travaillerent par grosses pierres et dammageans les murs,” &c. &c. * * * “le
Traict et pouldre de canons envoyez a iceux [the Besieged] par le Roy de
France furent rencontrez et prins des dits assiegeans.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. p.
218.
1418, 10th February.—Warrant in 5th Henry V. to John Louthe:—“Clerico
operationum Ordinationis nostræ;” and to John Benett, of Maidstone, mason,
to press workmen to make “septem milium Lapidum pro Gunnes de diversis
sortibus.”—9 Fædera, fo. 542.
John Louthe, clerk of the Ordnance, and this warrant, in which he is named,
are noticed by Grose, vol. i. p. 198.
Same year.—Warrant to the same John Louthe, to procure workmen and
materials:—“Quot pro factura trescentorum Pavys Grossorum pro Gunnis,
Quaterviginti Blokk, et septem milium Tampons pro eisdem, Quinquaginta
jugorum de Ligno pro Bobus infra trahendis, Centum Cathenarum pro
eisdem, Duodecim Carectarum Grossarum pro Gunnis Grossis
supracariandis, viginti piparum de Pulvere de Carbonibus silicis, necessaria
fuerint.”—Fædera, fo. 543.
The use of the words “Pavys grossorum pro Gunnis,” goes a long way to
prove that gunners, like archers, were covered or protected in action, at that
period, by the shield-like instruments called the Pavaise, Pavys, or Pavache.
Same year.—In the passage of the Seine, in his advance upon Pont de
l’Arche, the English commander:—“vint pour passer Seine à tout huict petit

naviaux; dedans lesquels il se meit en l’eaue accompaignè de son fils aáge
de quinze ans, de soixante combattans et un seul cheval, avec petis canons,
et autres habillemens de guerre: si feit nager en une petite isle qui estoit au
meillieu de l’eaue, de laquelle ils pouvoient plainement traire sur les
Francois dessusdits, qui gardoient le rivage.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. fo. 262.
1418.—Henry V.:—“avec toute sa puissance et gens de guerre et grande
multitude d’engins et artilleries, assiegea la tres puissante et noble ville de
Rouen, au mois de Juing,” &c. &c.; and directed against the gates and walls
“plusieurs grosses bombardes et d’autres engins,” &c.; and the besieged used
“bombardes, canons, engins vollans, arbalestres, et autres instrumens de
guerre,” &c. &c.—Monstrelet, vol. i. fos. 264, 265.
The artillery, cannon, and powder, on the surrender of the under-mentioned
cities, towns, or castles, are stipulated in the Treaties of Surrender, to be
given up to the English, or to remain for their use:—

1417. Touque.—“Vitaillez et Artillarie,” &c.—9 Rymer’s Fædera, fo.
480
Villiers.—“Vitaille et Artillerie,” &c. 487
Caen.—“Arbalastres, Treit, et autres Articlarie,” &c. 490
Falaize.—“Artilleries, Trait, Pouldre, Canons,” &c. 533
1418. Cambray.—“Pouldres, Canons,” &c. 552
Hambye.—“Tous leurs Artilleries,” &c. 553
St. Lo.—“Poudres, Canons, et autres abillemens de guerre,” &c. 554
Hommet.—“Toutes leurs Artilleries,” &c. 555
Constance.—“Touz vivres et Artilleries,” &c. 556
Charenton.—“Canons, Pouldres, et tout autre manere de Trait,” 557
&c.
St. Sauveur Le Visconte.—“Leur Artillerie, et les autres 566
armures,” &c.
Juiry.—“Poudres, Canons,” &c. 585

1419. Rouen.—“Artillariæ, Pulveres, et alia quæcumque habilimenta 665
guerrarum,” &c.
Monstreville.—“Canons, Poudres, et toutz aultres bastons et 674
abillemens pour la guerre et defens,” &c.
Eu, Monceaux, St. Marien, le Gaillera, et Guilleimcourt. 696
—“Artillerie et abillemens de guerre,” &c. &c.
Grand Goulet et Petit Goulet.—“Vivres et Artillerie,” &c. 699

1420.—The English, at the siege of the Town and Castle of Monstreau:
—“combattans icelle de gros engins pour desrompre les portes et murailles;”
also, “feirent de tous costez approcher de la forteresse plusieurs gros engins
[227]
pour icelle confondre et abattre.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. pp. 291, 292.
Same year.—At the siege of Melun, by the English:—“feirent en plusieurs
lieux asseoir leurs engins volans, bombardes, canons et autres instrumens et
habillemens de guerre pour desrompre confondre et abbatre les murs de la
ville,” &c.—Same, fo. 293.
Same year.—In the Treaty between Henry V. and the Duke of Bourbon, as
given at length in Goodwin’s Life of Henry V., a stipulation was introduced
for the restoration of “ammunition and artillery.”—Goodwin’s Life of Henry
V., book vii. p. 295.
1421.—At the siege of Meaulx, by Henry V.:—“feit dresser plusieurs engins
contre les portes et murailles de la ville pour l’abattre et demolir,” &c.
“Et brief ensuivant gaigna une petite isle assez pres du Marché en laquelle il
feit asseoir plusieurs grosses bōbardes, qui moult terriblement greverēt les
maisons du dit Marché et aussi les murailles d’icelle,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol.
i. fos. 310, 312.
1422.—At the siege of St. Valery, by the English, under the Earl of Warwick,
they “commencerent à abattre la dicte ville de leurs pierres et engins sans
cesser, jettans contre les murs d’icelle en les derompant en plusieurs
lieux.”—Same, fo. 317.
Same year.—At the siege of Meulan, by the Duke of Bedford, he “là feit
dresser contres les portes et murailles grans engins pour icelle confondre et

abattre;” and in the Articles of Capitulation, it is provided that the fortress
shall be given up, “fortiffiée et garnie de canons pouldres et arbalestres,” &c.
—Same, vol. ii. fo. 2.
1427.—The French and Bretons, on raising the siege of St. James de Beuron,
defended by the English:—“delaissant audit siege grand foison de
bombardes vivres et autres artilleries.”—Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 35.
1428, March.—Indenture, in 6th Henry VI., containing the terms on which
Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, engaged to serve in France, with an
army, by which it was stipulated that he was to be paid 1000 marks:—“pour
convertir et employer en cannons, pierres, charretes, pincees de feer,
chasbles, et autres choses necessaires, pour iceulx canons,” &c.; and which
also stipulates for the earl’s including in the number of men-at-arms, “quatre
Maistres Cannoniers;” each of whom was to be considered as equal to a
man-at-arms at 20 deniers Easterlings per day, and that the earl should have,
at the King’s expense, “Escipeson pour les canons, pierres, et aultres choses,
touchans et regardans le fait de l’artillerie.”—10 Fædera, fo. 392.
Same year, 25th March.—Warrant in 6th Henry VI., for payment, amongst
other matters, to John Parker, of Cheshunt, of 1000 marks:—“Pour converter
et employer en canons, pierres, en charretes, chariottz, pinces de feer,
chasbles, et autres choses necessaires pour icelz canons,” &c.—Same, fo.
395.
Same year, 28th April.—Warrant in 6th Henry VI., to John Parker, to seize
and provide carriages for the conveyance of “canones, petras,” &c. &c.—
Same, fo. 397.
Same year.—At the siege of Orleans, Thomas de Montacute, Earl of
Salisbury, was mortally wounded by the splinters of a stone, shot from a
cannon (“veuglaire”), whilst reconnoitering there. The besieged defended
themselves “en faisans plusieurs saillies en tirant de canons coulevrines et
autres artilleries.”
The Duke of Bedford, Regent of France, is mentioned as sending, under the
charge of Sir John Fastolf [228] (of Norfolk), to the English, at this siege, “de
quatre à cinq cēs que chars que charrettes,” loaded with “vivres, artilleries, et
autres marchandizes;” and after an engagement with the French (called by
them the “Battle of the Herrings”), the English proceeded in good order, “à

tout leur charroy, et leur artillerie, comme brigandines, heaulmes,
arbalestres, bastons à feu, et plusieurs autres armeures qu’il fault a gens de
guerre par aucuns pou de jours devant la dictè ville,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol.
ii. fos. 38, 40, 41.
1430.—At the siege of Compeigne by the English (under the Earl of
Huntingdon) and the Burgundians, the unsuccessful result of an attack by the
French upon part of the works of the besiegers, is ascribed to “la grande
déffence de ceux de dedans qui estoient en une grosse compaignie de
combattans et bien pourveuz d’artillerie.” In raising the siege, there were
left behind of the Burgundian ordnance, “tres grand nombre de grosses
bombardes, canons, veuglaires, serpētines, coulevrines, et autres artilleries
avec plusieurs engins,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 64.
1431.—The French, after a temporary success against the castle of Rouen,
were compelled to give it up again to the English, on account of the want of
provisions, and being “combattus de plusieurs gros engins que les dits
Anglois feirent asseoir contre la grosse tour.”—Same, fo. 78.
1432.—The English under the Earl of Arundel, advancing from Paris
towards Ligny-sur-Marne, had “foison de chars et charrettes, canons,
artilleries, et autres instrumens de guerre,” &c.; and at Ligny, “Si feit Le
Compte d’Arondel asseoir une grosse bombarde contre l’arche du pont levis
de la ville, lequelle du premier coup qu’elle jecta rompit la dicte arche,” &c.
&c.; also, “y assis grosses bombardes, dont ils avoient fait battre et travailler
la muraille d’icelle.”—2 Monstrelet, fo. 81.
1435.—The Earl of Arundel, in advancing to attack the castle of Gerberoy,
took with him “Vivres et viandes artilleries et autres plusieurs instrumens de
guerre a tout lesquels il se meit a chemin,” but was attacked and discomfited
by the garrison, which “feiret apporter une coulevrine qu’ils avoiēt en leur
fort, laquelle au secōd coup qu’ils la feirent jetter, ferit le dit Compte parmy
la jambe vers la cheville du pied;” of which wound he soon afterwards died
at Beauvais.—Same, vol. ii. fos. 101, 102.
1435.—At the siege of St. Denys, by Lord Talbot: “Toutesfois les
dessusdictes portes et murailles furent fort empirées en plusieurs lieux par
les engins d’icieux assiegeans.”—Same, fo. 116.

1436.—At the siege of Calais, by Philip Duke of Burgundy, his forces had a
great number of “ribauldequins, portans canons, coulevrines, arbalestres, et
plusieurs autres gros engins,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 129.
Whilst he was riding to reconnoitre the town, which was defended by the
English, “vint une grosse pierre de canon au plus pres de luy laquelle occist
une trompette et trois chevaux, dont celuiy du Seigneur de Saveuses estoient
l’un.”—Same, fo. 130.
In the above quotation, the word “engine” seems to apply to such
instruments of war as cannons, culverins, cross-bows, &c., and it tends to
confirm what has been stated before, that the word was used both in
describing those projectile weapons which were used with gunpowder, and
also those which were used without it.
In raising the siege, the Burgundians left behind them, “plusieurs gros
engine et autres habillemens de guerre qui estoient au dit Duc de
Bourgongne; pource qu’on ne pouvoit trouver de chars ne de chevaux pour
les emmenener;” and, upon the Duke of Burgundy’s ordering Jean de Croy
to withdraw from the siege of Guisnes, he accordingly dislodged, “mais
aucunes gros engins demourerent là, par ce qu’on ne les pouvoit chargèr sur
les chars,” &c.—Same, fo. 133.
1439.—The Earl of Somerset, at the siege of the castle of Folleville, “Si feit
prestement apprester une petite bombarde qu’il avoit amenée avecques luy,
laquelle estoit excellentement bonne et roide, avec autres engins: lesquel
engins bombardes et canons a l’une des fois occirent le Capitaine de Leans
quand elles furent jectées.”—Monstrelet, fo. 166.
1440.—At the siege of Harfleur, the English, under Somerset, “assevient
contre la porte et muraille d’icelle ville plusieurs bombardes et autres
habillemens de guerre,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 169.
1441.—The English, under the Duke of York, Governor of France and
Normandy, attempting to relieve Ponthoise, “avoient avecques eux tres
grand nombre de chars, charettes, et chevaux chargez de vivres et
artilleries,” &c.—Same, fo. 184.
The use of “petits canons et coulevrines,” by the French, at this siege, is also
mentioned.—Same, fo. 186.

1449.—At the siege, by Count St. Pol, of the castle of Nogent, defended by
the English, the French vanguard entered the basse court, and gained the
barrier, “mais pource qu’ils doubtoient fort les canons ils se retrahirent pour
attendre leurs compaignons.”—Same, vol. iii. fo. 10.
1449.—Assault of Ponteau de Mer, defended by the English, when the
French, under Dunois, “entrerent tous dedans icelle ville autant d’une costé
que d’autre: moyēnant aussi et par le feu de fusées qui y furent jettées par
dedans les fossez ou ils estoient en l’eaue jusques au col,” &c.—Monstrelet,
vol. iii. fo. 11.
Same year.—The French, under Dunois, having come against Harcourt,
defended by the English, the former, in making their approaches, “esquelles
fut tué d’un canon un moult vaillant homme d’armés de la garnison de
Louviers, et un Anglois fut pareillement tué d’une coulevrine,” &c.—Same,
fo. 15.
Same year.—At the capitulation of the palace and castle of Rouen, by the
Duke of Somerset, he stipulated for the departure in safety of himself and the
English forces, with their goods, “reservé prisonniers et grosses artilleries,”
&c.—3 Monstrelet, fo. 21.
1449.—At the siege of Honfleur, defended by the English, under Curson,
who “faisoient grand devoir d’eux deffendre et de tirer canons et autres
traicts sur les Francois,” &c.—Same, fo. 26.
1450.—At the siege of Bayeux, by the French, defended by the English,
“desquelles deux parties en y eut plusieurs de morts de traict et de
coulevrines,” &c.—Same, fo. 28.
Same year.—At the siege of St. Sauveur Le Vicomte, defended by the
English, “fut tué d’un canon, un vaillant escuyer du pays de Berry, noīné
Jean de Blanchefort.”—Same, fo. 28.
Same year.—On the surrender of Caen, by the Duke of Somerset, to the
French, he stipulated for the departure of the English, with their effects, but
with a proviso as to delivering up the prisoners, acquitting the burgesses, and
others in the town, of all demands, and not taking away any thing of theirs.
“Et avec ce qu’ils lasseroient toute artillerie grosse et menue, reservé arcs,
arbalestes et coulevrines à main.”—Same, fo. 30.

We have therefore here the hand-coulevrine (hand-culverin or hand-gun)
distinctly mentioned as in use amongst the English. It was in all probability
an iron cylinder or barrel, of clumsy and unwieldy form, let into a wooden
stock, and fired from a rest or crutch, by means of a match. Mr. Grose seems
not to have been aware of the above, and, in his Military Antiquities, vol. i.
page 153, and vol. ii. page 29, he mentions the year 1471, upon the landing
of Edward IV. at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, as the period of the first
introduction of hand-guns into this country.
1450.—Amongst the charges against William Duke of Suffolk, was, that
having the custody of the castle of Wallingford, “he hath fortified it, and
repaired it, and also stuffed it with gunnes, gunepowder, and other
habilimentez of werre,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 28 Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 177.
Same year.—In the 28th Henry VI., Conay ap Rice was called “yoman
gonner of oure citee and castell of Westchestre,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 28 Henry
VI. vol. v. fo. 198.
Same year.—A representation appears on the Parliamentary Rolls, of the
insufficient state of defence of the Isle of Wight, and that the castle was not
then provided “with gonnes, gonnepowder, crosse-bowes, quarelles, longe-
bowes, arowes, longe-speres, axes, and gleyves,” &c.—Same, fo. 204.
Same year.—And also that Harry Bruyn, Esquire, who had been appointed
lieutenant of the Isle of Wight, had bestowed a “gret good of his own, bothe
in gonnys and in arcerie,” &c., in that island.—Same, fo. 205.
Same year.—Upon the insurrection of Jack Cade, when he and his followers
came to London, the mayor applied to Lord Scales, who commanded in the
Tower of London, for assistance against the rebels, and he promised “his
ayde with shoting of ordinaunce,” &c.—Hall, fo. 150.
The Lord Scales promised “his aid with shooting off the artillerie in the
Tower,” &c.—1 Holinshed, fo. 634.
1451.—At the siege of Bayonne, the English made a sortie, and were
attacked by Bernard de Biarn and his forces, when he was wounded by the
shot from a culverin, which pierced through his shield, and injured his leg.
“Et ainsi que le dit messire Bernard s’en retournoit de la dicte escarmouche

il fut frappé d’une coulevrine, qui perca son pavois et entra la plommée
dedās sa jambe,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. iii. fo. 38.
1452.—The Duke of York, at Brent Heath, near Dartford, “encamped his
army very strongly bothe with trenches and artillery.”—Hall’s Chronicles,
fo. 163.
1454.—In the thirty-second year of Henry VI. the castle of Calais, and the
castles and fortresses in the marches of it, were directed to be provided with
“vitaile ordonnance habiliments of werre and artillerie.”—5 Rot. Parl. fo.
255.
1455.—At the first battle of St. Albans, the Yorkists are mentioned, in the
Rolls of Parliament, as being assembled, “with grete multitude of people
harneised, and other abillementis of werre, as gonnes and other, and come to
the toune of Seint Albones,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 38 Henry VI. vol. fo. 347.
1457–8.—A letter has been published from John Bokking, to Sir John
Fastolf, of Norfolk, [234] from which the following is an extract:—“And my
lord of Caunt’bury tolde me yat ye Frenche men have ben before yow, and yt
ye shotte many gonnes, and so he tolde all ye lords, I have desirid hym to
move ye counsell for refreshing of ye toun of Yermowth wt stuff of ordnance
and gonnes and gonne powdre, and he said he wolde.”—Fenn’s Collection of
Original Letters (occasionally called the Paston Letters), vol. i. p. 156.
1459.—The act of attainder of the 38th year of the reign of Henry VI.,
mentions the encampment of the Yorkists at Ludford, near Ludlow, and
states that they “traiterously raunged in bataill, fortefied their chosen ground,
their cartes with gonnes sette before their batailles;” * * * “and than and
there shotte their seid gonnes, and shotte as wele at youre most roiall
persone, as at youre lordes and people with you than and there beying.”—
Rot. Parl. 38th Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 348.
1459.—At the Duke of Somerset’s repulse from Calais, “the artillarie shot so
fierseley both out of the toune and Risebancke,” &c.—Hall, fo. 175.
Same year.—Attack by Sir John Denham upon Sandwich, where he “tooke
the principall shippes of the Kynge’s navie then liying at the port, well
furnished with ordinaunce and artillarie,” &c.—Same, fo. 175.

From the above passage it seems not unreasonable to infer that cannons
were at that date used on shipboard by the English.
Same year.—Osbert Mountforth was sent towards Guisnes, to assist the
Duke of Somerset, and was attacked and captured whilst lying in Sandwich,
by John Denham and John Wenlock, and the former was badly wounded in
the thigh, by a bombard, “in crure cum bombardo.”—Annales W. Wyrcestrii.
1460.—At the siege of the Tower of London, which was defended by the
Lancastrians under Lord Scales, who “dayly shote their ordenaunce out, and
had likewise great ordinaunce shott at them.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 176.
Same year.—“And they that were within the Tower cast wild fire into the
city, and shot many small gunnes, whereby they brent and slew men,
women, and children, in the streetes; also they of the city layd great guns on
the further side of the Thames against the Tower, and brake the walls in
divers places.”—Stow’s Annals, pp. 408, 409.
Same year.—At the battle of Northampton, “the King’s ordinance of guns
might not be shot, there was so great raine that day.”—Stow’s Annals, fo.
409; see also Speed’s History, fo. 844.
The exact date uncertain, but in the reign of Henry VI.—An account is
given in Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, of a sea-fight, which took
place in the reign of Henry VI., between some English ships and some ships
of Holland, Zealand, Flanders, &c., in which Robert Wenyngton appears to
have commanded the English vessels; and he states that the enemy’s ships
“schotte atte us a 1000 gonnys and quarrell owte of nu’ber, and have slayn
meny of my felyschyp and meymyd all soo.”—The meaning seems to be,
that there were 1000 discharges from the enemy’s guns. The engagement is
noticed here, although the guns were used on board the enemy’s vessels,
because there can scarcely be a doubt, that if they were used on board those
vessels, at that period, they must also have been in use on board English
vessels.—Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 210.
1463.—At the siege of the castle of Bamborough, after the battle of
Hexham, when defended by Sir Ralph Grey, the Earl of Warwick, “cum
maximis bumbardis, obsedit idem castrum. Et ibi in casu quoque cujusdem

parietis castri, excussione bumbardi, cecidit dictus R. Gray quem credebant
mortuum.” Annales W. Wyrcestrii.
Same year.—At the sieges of the castles of Alnwick, Dunstanborough, and
Bamborough, ordnance was sent from Newcastle, sufficient both for the
sieges and for the field, in case any action in the field should be fought.
Ordnance was, at the same period, conducted from Newcastle to Warkworth
Castle, to the Earl of Warwick.—Fenn’s Collection of Original Letters, vol.
i. p. 274.
1464.—In the fourth year of Edward IV., Henry Cressewell held the office
of “kepyng of the artillery within oure castell of Pountfret, in oure shire of
York.”—5 Rot. Parl. 4 Edw. IV. fo. 532.
Same year.—John Newburgh held the office “of keping of the artellerye
within oure castell of Carnarvan, and gunner of alle oure townes and
castells within Northewales.” &c.—Same, 4 Edward IV. fo. 543.
1464.—Roger Kelsall held “the office of the artyllary withynne our castell
of Chestre.”—Rot. Parl. 4 Edward IV. fo. 546.
1467–8.—Henry Cresswell continued to hold the office of keeping the
artillery of the castle of Pontefract.—Same, 7 and 8 Edw. IV. fo. 585.
1469.—A letter of permission of this year, from the Duke of Norfolk, has
been published, authorizing John Paston and the persons who had held the
manor of Caistor, in Norfolk, against the duke (Caistor Castle had been
besieged by him), to depart, with goods, horses, and harness, “except
gonnes, crosse-bows, and quarrels, and alle other hostlements [warlike
implements], to the said maneur annexed and belonginge.”—Fenn’s
Collection of Original Letters, vol. ii. p. 27.
Same year.—At the battle fought near Hornfield, Lincolnshire, often called
Lose Coat Field, the forces of Edward IV. “set on the Lincolnshir men, and
sparkelid [scattered] them with his ordinaunce,” &c.—2 Lel. Coll. fo. 502,
p. 719.
“And losyde his gonnys of his ordynaunce uppone them and faught with
them, and anone the comons fledde away.”—MS. Chronicle, by J.
Warkworth, p. 8, printed for the Camden Society.

1470.—Vaucler and his forces, on the Earl of Warwick’s attempting to enter
Calais, “luy tirerent de grans coups de canon.”—Philippe de Commines, c.
iv. fo. 65.
Same year.—On the Earl of Warwick preparing to return to England, the
Duke of Burgundy equipped a fleet of vessels of war, “tous fort avaitaillez
et garniz d’artillerie et gens de guerre, d’Anglois, Bourgonguons, Picards, et
autres.”—Autres nouvelles Chroniques added to Monstrelet, fo. 164.
Same year.—The Earl of Warwick, on his arrival in England, went to
Bristol, “et illec avoit laissé son artillerie, et de ses bagues, quand il s’en
alla en Normandie.”—Same, fo. 165.
1471, 5th March.—Warrant after the restoration of Henry VI. to Thomas
Mainwaring, Thomas Corwen, Thomas Aghton, &c., to provide for
conveying a cannon from Bristol to Hornby Castle, and to deliver it to Sir
Thomas Stanley of Stanley, for the purposes of the siege of that castle,
“cum nos appunctuaverimus quendam canonem nostrum vocatum Mile
End, una cum toto apparatu, et aliis necessariis eidem pertinentibus,” &c.
&c.—11 Fædera, 699.
1471.—Edward IV. landed at Ravenspur, with Lord Hastings, Lord Say,
“and IXC Englisch men and IIIC Fleminges, with hange gunnes.”—2 Lel.
Coll. fo. 503, p. 721.
It can scarcely admit of any doubt that hand-guns must have been the
weapons there meant, and that they were so called from being sufficiently
light to be portable by the hand. The word “hange” seems to be merely a
corruption of the word “hand,” [238] which is confirmed by the following
authority:—
“And had with him IXC of Englismenne and three hundred of Flemmynges
with hande-gonnes.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 18, printed for the
Camden Society.
1471.—On the occasion of Edward IV.th’s public entry into London, before
the battle of Barnet, “the eleventh of Aprill, King Edward quietlie made his
entrie into the citie with his power, having five hundred smokie gunners
marching foremost, being strangers, of such as he had brought over with
him.”—1 Holinshed, fo. 683.

It seems tolerably clear that the 500 men there described as smoke gunners,
were armed with portable firearms, and probably carried lighted matches;
and, although the numbers do not tally, we cannot well doubt that they were
the same men already mentioned as armed with “hange-guns,” or “hande-
gonnes.”
1471.—On the night before the battle of Barnet, between the forces of
Edward IV. and the Earl of Warwick, “and shotte gunnes al night one at the
other.”—1 Lel. Coll. fo. 504.
“And eche of them loosede gonnes at othere alle the nyght.”—MS.
Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 16, printed for the Camden Society.
Besides which, we also learn from Holinshed, that the Lancastrians, during
the night before the battle, continually discharged their cannons at the camp
of Edward IV.; and Holinshed adds:—
“The King would not suffer anie of his gunnes in all that night to be shot
off, least thereby they might have gessed the ground, and so levelled their
artillerie to his annoyance.”—Holinshed’s Chronicles, vol. i. fo. 684.
Same year.—A small cannon-ball, weighing a pound and a half, was dug up
near the obelisk erected upon Gladmore Heath, where the battle of Barnet
was fought.—Hutton’s Bosworth Field, Introduction, p. xxxv.
1471.—In the march of Queen Margaret and her army from Gloucester
towards Tewkesbury, “the Lord Beaucampe toke from her rereward, more
ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to her no smal
prejudice.”—Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 31.
Same year.—At the battle of Tewkesbury the Yorkists were well furnished
“with great artillerie,” and the Lancastrians defended themselves “with shot
of arrowes and great artillerie, although they had not the like plentie of guns
as the King had.”—1 Holinshed, fo. 687.
1471, May 14th.—Thomas Neville, called the Bastard of Falconbridge, and
the common people, and undisciplined forces under him, being denied a
passage through the city of London, “sette upon diverse parties therof, as
Bysshoppes Gate, Algate, London Brydge, and a long the waters syde, and

shot gonnes and arowes, and fyred the gates with cruell malyce, as
Bysshoppes Gate and Algate, and fought,” &c.—Fabyan’s Chron., fo. 223.
1471.—Another old writer (Leland) states, that “they shot his ordinaunce at
the cyte and brent aboute London Bridge and at Aldgate.”—1 Lel. Coll. fo.
506.
Another account states that he “loosede his gonnes into the citee.”—MS.
Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 19, printed for the Camden Society.
Same year.—And another writer states, that “Hereupon, having brought
certeine peeces of artillerie foorth of their ships, they planted the same
alongst the water side right over against the citie, and shot off lustilie, to
annoie them within, so much as was possible. But the citizens on the other
side lodged their great artillerie against their adversaries, and with violent
shot thereof so galled them, that they durst not abide in anie place alongst
the water side, but were driven even from their owne ordinance.”—1
Holinshed, fo. 690.
Same year.—At the renewal of the truce between Edward IV. and the Duke
of Brittany, stipulations were introduced for the safety of merchants, “de
harnois, d’armures, d’artilleries,” &c.—11 Fædera, fo. 726.
1474, 8th December.—Warrant of 14 Edward IV. to Richard Copeote, to
provide whatever was requisite for “bumbardos, canones, culverynes,
fowelers, serpentynes, et alios canones quoscumque, ac pulveres, sulphir,
saltpetyr, petras, ferrum, plumbum, et omnimodas alias stuffuras, pro
eisdem canonibus necessarias et oportunas,” &c.—Same, fo. 841.
1475.—In the enumeration of the English forces in the fourteenth year of
Edward IV., we find ordnance repeatedly mentioned. [240]—Same, fo. 844.
Same year,—With the forces of Edward IV., when in France, there were a
great number of men whose province it was to pitch their tents, attend upon
their artillery, and enclose their camp, “pour servir a leur artillerie et clorre
leur cāp.”—Philippe de Commines, book iv. ch. v. fo. 93.
1475.—Before the interview between the English and French Kings,
Edward IV. was about a league from Picquigny, “accompaigné de vignt

mille Anglois bien artillez de dās son dit parc.”—Nouvelles Chroniques
added to Monstrelet, fo. 181.
1480.—Edward IV., in his preparations for the invasion of Scotland, with an
army commanded by the Duke of Gloucester, “wherefore al the winter
season he mustred his souldiers, prepared his ordinance, rigged his shippes,
and left nothyng apperteignying to the warre unpurveyed or unloked for.”—
Hall’s Chronicles, fo. 54.
“even in the winter season mustered his men, prepared his artillery, and
rigged his ships, that nothing should bee unready at the next spring.”—
Speed’s Annals, fo. 876.
1480–1, 2nd March.—Warrant of 20th Edward IV. to William Temple, to
seize and provide for the expedition against Scotland, whatever was
requisite for “bumbardos, canones, culverynes, fowelers, serpentynes, et
alios canones quoscumque, ac pulveres, sulphureos, saltpetre, petras,
ferrum, plumbum, et omnimodas, alias stuffuras, pro eisdem canonibus
necessarias et oportunas,” &c.—12 Fædera, fo. 140.
1482, 30th June.—Warrant of 22nd Edward IV. to the Bishop of Lincoln,
Keeper of the Privy Seal, authorising him to cause John Ebryngton,
Treasurer of the Household, to pay £200 “unto our moost dere brothre
Richard Duc of Gloucestre, for the cariage of his ordenance into Scotland.”
The carriage of the ordnance is afterwards twice mentioned, and it then
directs the payment of £100 “unto the Maistre of oure Ordenance, for the
bying of 120 draught horsez, for the cariage of our seid Ordenance fro our
seid towne of Newcastell, northward,” &c.—12 Fædera, fo. 158. [241]
That document consequently furnishes another instance of a Master of the
Ordnance prior to the reign of Richard III. [242]
1483 to 1485.—King Richard III., in altering the north part of Warwick
Castle, “beganne and half finished a mighty towre, or strength, for to shoote
out gunnes.”—4 Lel. Itin. fol. 163b.
1483.—On the 30th of December there was a great fire at Leadenhall, in
London, which, besides other damage, burnt “all the stockes for gunnes,
and other like provision, belonging to the Citty.”—Stow’s Annals, fo. 466.

1485.—In the account given by Philippe de Commines, of the assistance
afforded by the French King to the Earl of Richmond, for his expedition to
England, it is stated that “Peu de temps apres, ou luy paya trois ou quatre
mille hommes, pour le passage seulement: et fut baillee par le Roy qui est
de present, à ceux qui estoyent avec luy, une bonne somme d’argent, et
quelques pieces d’artillerie: et ainsi fut conduict, avec le navire de
Normandie, pour descendre en Galles, dont il estoit.”—Philippe de
Commines, 5me livre, fo. 151.
Same year.—In the act of attainder passed after the battle of Bosworth, it is
stated that the forces and adherents of Richard III. were “with banners
spred, mightyly armed and defenced with all manner armes, as gunnes,
bowes, arrowes, speres, gleves, axes, and all other manner articles apt or
needful to gef and cause mightie battaille agen oure said soveraigne Lord,”
&c. Rot. Parl. 1 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 276; see Appendix No. III.
1485.—“Cannon balls, of a small size, have also been dug up in the field of
the battle of Bosworth.”—Hutton’s Bosworth Field, pp. 82 and 97.
Same year.—In the 1st Henry VII., Nicholas Leventhorp held the office of
“keping of the artillerie within the castell of Pountfrett, parcell of the
Duchie of Lancastre, within the countie of York,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 1 Henry
VII. vol. vi. fo. 341.
1487.—Documents selected from the Municipal Archives of the city of
York, connected with the Earl of Lincoln’s rebellion, and the imposture of
Lambert Simnel, in the reign of Henry VII., have been published: one of
which is of the 23rd of April, 1487, from the mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, and
common council of York, to the King, representing that the “said citie is not
well furnesshed with artilment and stuff of ordnaunce,” and praying that
“some of youre ordnaunce and artilment of werr might be sent hidder.”
Collection of “Original documents relating to Lambert Symnell’s rebellion,
in the second year of King Henry VII.;” selected from the Municipal
Archives of the city of York, by Robert Davies, Esq., F.S.A.; communicated
to the meeting of the Archæological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,
held at York, in 1846: published in 1847, p. 10.

A reply, of the 30th of April, written by order of the King, to the
application, has been preserved, stating that William Tunstall, constable of
the castle of Scarborough, was ordered, by royal letters, to deliver to them
“twelve serpentynes, some more some less, of diverse sortes, garnysshed
with chambre and powder thereunto according.”—Ibid., p. 15.
A further communication, of the 14th of May, was made from the mayor,
aldermen, sheriffs, &c., of York, to the King, representing that he had
addressed William Tunstall, the constable of the castle of Scarborough, by
letter, “for 12 serpentynes, with chambre and powdre garnysshed
sufficiently for the same,” to be delivered to that city; and that they had
applied accordingly for them, and had been answered “by your said
constable, that ther is not 4 serpentynes within your said castell;” and
praying the King “to provide for ordinaunce to be sent to this your said
citie, for the more defence of the same.”—Ibid., pp. 20, 21.
1487.—In the act of attainder, passed after the battle of Stoke, against the
Earl of Lincoln and his adherents, it is stated that they were “with force and
armes, that ys to saye, swerdys, speris, marespikes, bowes, gonnes, harneys,
brigandynes, hawberkes, and many other wepyns and harneys defensible,”
&c.—Rot. Parl. 3 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 397; see App. No. V.
1492, 8th Henry VII.—In the request and application to Henry VII. by the
commanders of the English army before Boulogne, for concluding peace,
one reason assigned is, “the King’s ordinaunce and artillerye must nedys
come by sea from Englond and Caleis,” &c.—12 Fædera, fo. 492.
1495.—The act of attainder against Sir William Stanley and others, alleged
to have been adherents of Perkin Warbeck, states, that the latter landed at
Deal, in Kent, on the 3rd of July, in the tenth year of Henry VII.,
accompanied by a great multitude of people, rebels and traitors, “with
baners displayed, and with armours defensives, as jakkes, salettis,
brigandynes, bowes, billes, haubertes, curesses, gunnes, speres, marispikes,
crosse-bowes, and other enhabilments of warres,” &c.—Rot. Parl. 11 Henry
VII., 1495, vol. vi. fo. 504.
1497.—In the preparations for the battle of Blackheath, between Henry the
VII.th’s forces and the Cornish insurgents, some of the commanders in the
army of the former “were appointed, with some cornets of horse, and

bandes of foot, and good store of artillery wheeling about, to put themselves
beyond the hill, where the rebels were encamped,” &c.—Bacon’s Life of
Henry VII. (in Kennett’s Lives of the Kings and Queens of England), fo.
619.

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

The ancient family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, was located at a very early
period at Davenham, and afterwards removed to Nether Alderley, in
Cheshire, where the members of it possessed an estate, and a mansion
called Soss Moss Hall, [245b] which, after being for several generations in the
family, were purchased by Sir Edward Stanley, Bart., in 1753, from William
Wyche, Esq.; [245c] and are now the property of Sir Edward’s descendant,
Lord Stanley of Alderley.
The family appears to have been of great consideration, and of long
standing in the county, and one of the family, Sir Peter Wyche, was
ambassador to Constantinople, in the reign of Charles I.; [245d] he was first
cousin of Richard Wyche, the first of the family who settled at Alderley.
The armorial bearings of the members of the family were, “Azure, a pile
ermine; crest, an arm embowed azure, cuffed ermine, holding a trefoil vert.”
[246a]
In the second volume of Edmonson’s Heraldry, the crest is rather
differently stated, viz., crest, “a dexter arm embowed, habited gules, turned
up or; holding in the hand proper a sprig vert.”
In Lysons’ Magna Britannia the family is named [246b] amongst the Cheshire
families still resident in the county, whose descent has been continued in an
uninterrupted male line for more than three centuries, and some of them for
a much greater length of time. [246c]

In Ormerod’s Cheshire [246d] it is stated that some of the descendants of the
family of Wyche were still remaining in the neighbourhood of Soss Moss
Hall; that work was published in 1819: and in Lysons’ Mag. Britannia, [246e]
which was published in 1810, it is stated that the immediate descendant of
this ancient family, then (in 1810), rented a farm in the neighbourhood.
It lies in my power to corroborate those statements. William Wyche, a
tenant of my father, Richard Brooke, Esq., of Liverpool, resided, when
those works were written, and during many years previously, on a farm
which belongs to my father, [247] rather more than a mile from Soss Moss
Hall; the farm, which is called the Peck Mill Farm, is in Little Warford, in
the parish of Rostherne, and there is not any reason to doubt that William
Wyche, the tenant, was, as he claimed to be, a lineal descendant of this
ancient family. He was an old man, of limited education even for a small
farmer, so much so that if he could read, he could not write perfectly. He
died about 1821, and the farm was then occupied by his widow, Elizabeth
Wyche, for several years, and afterwards by his son, Samuel Wyche, who
was in very poor circumstances, and left it in 1839.
On the 28th of April, 1822, and again on 26th of December, 1831, I went to
look at Soss Moss Hall; and on the 4th of September, 1848, I happened to
be at the Peck Mill Farm, and feeling a desire once more to examine the
seat of this ancient family, I walked from the farm to Soss Moss, to amuse
myself with another inspection of the old hall, and I found little or no
change in it since my first visit. It stands about three hundred yards to the
southward of the public road at Soss Moss, in Nether Alderley, and about
half that distance from the London and North-Western (formerly the
Manchester and Birmingham) Railway, which lies between the road and the
mansion. It is two stories high, besides having one or two rooms in the
roof, and is of very antique appearance, principally built of timber and
plaster, the timber being disposed in squares, in the style sometimes called
“pillar and panel.” On the east end is the following inscription, cut in
antique letters, in stone, on a projecting stack of chimneys, or range of
chimney flues, of great size:—
T. WYCHE
1583

which, no doubt, gives the correct date of the building or rebuilding of the
eastern wing. In a room in the western wing, used as a dairy or milk-room,
is a stone slab (similar to those used in dairies for placing vessels of milk
upon), with the letters cut on it, in similar characters, E W. W W. Of course
they relate to other members of the family of Wyche.
On entering the edifice, we come into a room on the ground floor, now used
as what is there termed a house-place (partaking in some degree both of the
nature of a sitting-room and a kitchen), lighted by a large window, with
small panes of glass let into lead, in the cottage style; over it is a border of
carved small round ornaments, resembling the roundles of heraldry. This
room has evidently been once the large hall, or part of the large hall, or
principal room of the mansion; it has much the appearance of having had a
portion of the east end cut off to form other rooms, on the ground floor,
which are now used for various purposes; at present it looks small and
insignificant for such a mansion.
The ceiling of this room is formed of oak planks, quite black, with strong
heavy beams of oak of the same colour. It has had a very large projecting
chimney, with chimney-corners and a fire-place; but, although the form and
appearance remain, it is in part built up, and a common modern grate and
fire-place are substituted.
The principal staircase is of oak planks, and its balustrade is of the same
wood, with large flat balusters, and a heavy carved hand-rail, all black with
age. On the first floor, up the stairs, on the landing, in one of the bed-
chambers, and in a cheese-room, the old oak floors remain nearly entire;
and the oak floor also partially remains in another room at the eastern end
of the building, on the same story; into this room a communication was not
long since made from the bed-chamber before mentioned, and in making it
the workmen discovered that they were merely reopening an old door-case
(which had been long blocked up), with its jambs and lintel.
The room into which the communication was so opened had formerly been
let off as part of a distinct dwelling; it lies at the eastern extremity of the
mansion, and is now used as a bedchamber. It is remarkable for being the
place of discovery of an ancient painting, which it is to be regretted was
never seen by any person capable of copying or properly describing it. The

old hall is now tenanted by a farmer, who informed me that, in 1847, when
he was making a fire-place in it, at the east end, and close to the range of
chimney-flues before mentioned, with which the fire-place now
communicates, he caused some plaster to be removed, and by that removal
exposed to view a painting on stone, representing several men and females,
about five or six inches in height. The only description which he could give
me of them was, that they appeared to him to have very droll dresses, like
long flowing robes, of different colours, with ornaments, which he
supposed to represent large buttons; that some of the figures had curiously
shaped hats (his description of them conveyed to me the idea of their being
something in the style of Spanish hats), and he stated that the painting did
not appear to him to represent any Scripture subject. It was covered over
again with building materials when the fire-place was completed. It is
much to be regretted that the figures were not copied, or at least examined
by some person conversant with such subjects; as it is more than probable
that they would have afforded a curious and authentic illustration of the
dresses of persons of the higher classes, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth,
about 1583. Some slight indications of a similar painting were once visible,
over the fire-place, in a room on the ground floor under the room which will
be next described.
There is also, on the first floor, and at the east end of the mansion, another
chamber, which once had a door of communication with the room in which
the painting was discovered, but of which the door-way, though visible, is
now built up, and which is at present entered from the outside of the
building, by a modern staircase and door. In this chamber there is a closet,
built of stone, and ingeniously built into and forming part of the stack or
range of chimney-flues before mentioned. The chamber has a fire-place, on
the left of which is the stone closet before mentioned, which was once
entered by a thin oaken door, of which the lower half still remains, the
upper portion having been sawn off. The closet has been lighted from the
outside, by two small apertures in the stone work at the back of it, now built
up. [250a]
I could not discover that there were any traces of the old hall having ever
been surrounded by a moat, as is the case with some other halls near that
part of Cheshire. [250b]

Upon the whole, considering that it belonged to a family of eminence in the
county, I was disappointed with the size of Soss Moss Hall, the appearance
of the rooms, and the want of the conveniences and comforts which, even
three centuries ago, such a family might be reasonably supposed to require;
nor does the hall convey to a spectator the idea of a mansion formerly
inhabited by a leading family in the county. Besides which, the situation of
the hall is bad: it is quite in a flat, the soil is poor and sandy; the public road
near it was bad in several places, within my recollection; and, from the
appearance of bog-earth in many situations close to it, there cannot be a
doubt that, less than three centuries ago, the land about it must have been
wet, and almost a swamp; and certainly it was not the situation which we
should expect a family of a certain rank in the county, to select for their
principal mansion.
The last time that I heard anything of the son of old William Wyche was in
September, 1848, when I learnt that he had been for some time an ostler at a
small inn at Knutsford, and had since been a labouring gardener at
Manchester, or in its vicinity, and was then in very indifferent
circumstances, and out of work. Such has been the falling away, and sad
reverse, in the fortunes of the old and once high and influential Cheshire
family of Wyche, or De la Wyche!

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

The village of Wilmslow is in the hundred of Macclesfield, in Cheshire, and
before the introduction of railways, the mail-coach road from Manchester to
Birmingham passed through it. It has not the advantage of having a market,
but has some little trade, and possesses the convenience of being one of the
stations of the London and North-Western (formerly the Manchester and
Birmingham) Railway, which passes close to it; and it is pleasantly situate
on the south bank of the river Bollin, which there flows through a
picturesque and beautiful valley.
The parish of Wilmslow (anciently called Le Bolyn) contains four
townships:—Bollin Fee, which comprehends the hamlets of Bollin-cum-
Norcliffe, Hough, and Dean Row; Pownall Fee, which comprehends the
hamlets of Morley and Styal; Chorley, also comprehended in the manor of
Pownall Fee; and Fulshaw.
Wilmslow, in strictness, singularly enough, consists exclusively of the
parish church with its churchyard, and of a small plot of land, now covered
with buildings, near the church; and nearly the whole of the town is built in
the hamlets of Hough and Dean Row.
The church is dedicated to St. Bartholomew, and is built of dark-coloured
stone, close to the river, and consequently derives no advantage from
elevation or position. The tower is ornamented with battlements and
pinnacles, and has a peal of six bells; and both the tower and the church are
of the Gothic style of architecture, though with some modern alterations.
The church has evidently been rebuilt and considerably altered, at various
periods, one of the latest of which must have been not long prior to the
Reformation; and it has a clerestory and rood-loft. The nave of the church

is spacious, and on each side of it, and of the chancel, are lofty and pointed
arches, supported by octagonal pillars.
The pulpit has some handsome carved work, of a style which was common
in the time of Elizabeth and James I. On each side of the chancel is an
oratory or chapel. These chapels are separated from the altar, by projecting
wing-walls, and also from the body of the chancel, by portions of an oaken
screen, much mutilated; but the portions which remain are sufficient to
show that it has been handsome; and on the south side, some small Tudor
roses are yet visible in many parts; and a continuation of the wood-work,
much defaced, extends under the rood-loft, so as to separate the chancel
from the nave.
The chapel on the south side of the chancel is called the Earl of Stamford’s
Chapel, or the Booth Chapel. The present Earl of Stamford is a descendant
of the family of that name. It contains a massive raised tomb, evidently of
very great antiquity, built against the wall on the south side, and bearing a
strong resemblance to an altar; the inscription, if it ever contained any, is
now quite obliterated. A grave-stone near it commemorates the “fifth son of
S. William Booth, of Dunham Massey, who departed this life the 28th day
of March, 1620,” at least so the date appeared to me; but there is some
difficulty in deciding upon the two last figures of it, because the wood-work
of a partition nearly covers them. Adjoining to it is another grave-stone,
much defaced, to the memory of Lady Elizabeth Booth, who died on the
14th June, 1636. It appears, from a statement of donations painted up in
another part of the church, that this lady benevolently left a sum of money,
for the distribution of twelve loaves of bread weekly, to poor aged persons
in Wilmslow; a dole which is still kept up.
In this chapel, close to the left side of the door, on entering from the
churchyard, is an ancient pew, with carved panels at the back, on one of
which are cut the following initials and date:—
SGBB
1557.
Probably meant for Sir George Booth, of Bollin, because at one period, the
Booths resided at Bollin Hall, near Wilmslow, which was, after many

mutations and alterations, reduced to the rank of a farmhouse, and was at
last pulled down, when the railway was made.
The chapel or oratory, on the north side of the chancel and altar, is called
the Pownall Chapel, and in its east window are four scrolls, in stained glass,
each containing the words, “Ego autem in Dño gaudebo.” [255b] On the north
side of the chapel, is a piscina [255a] in the wall; and on the south side, on the
floor, close to the projecting wing-wall, separating it from the altar, is a
grave-stone, evidently of great antiquity, with a singularly shaped cross
carved upon it, the ends of the arms of which are sloped off, instead of
being carved square; and the inscription is almost illegible, except that on
each side of the cross, there are yet to be seen the initials T H S, in the old
characters.
At the east end of the chancel, is a large and handsome altar window, of the
Perpendicular Gothic style; and on the outside, immediately above it, is a
carved shield of arms, containing “the Griffin segreant,” the armorial
bearing of the Traffords. In the projecting wall, on the north side of the
altar, is a small square open recess, apparently intended, in former ages, for
an almbury, or aumbery, in which the sacred vessels, and articles used in the
celebration of the mass, were usually kept. The roof of the church is very
handsome, of oak, the cross beams being elaborately carved, and in various
places in the roof, the initial letters H. T. appear in the ancient character,
doubtless intended for Henry Trafford, the last rector of Wilmslow, before
the overthrow of the Papal supremacy, and the first of that rectory of the
Reformed religion, if the Reformation can strictly be said to have been
established, during the lifetime of the capricious monarch, Henry VIII. I
shall have occasion to say more of this ecclesiastic hereafter. There are also
one or two shields of arms painted on the beams, containing “the Griffin
segreant, gules;” they furnish additional proof, that a large portion of the
church, and probably the roof, were rebuilt or renovated, just before the
Reformation. Amongst other ornaments on the roof, an etoile, or star,
appears painted in several places where the beams intersect each other. [256]
The font is massive, quite devoid of ornament, and bears the appearance of
great antiquity.

At the west end of the church is an arch, which is said to have formerly
opened into the belfry of the tower; it is an exact segment of a circle; but as
it has not the slightest appearance of the zig-zag, or dog’s-tooth, or any
other of the ornaments so generally met with, on Norman arches, I am of
opinion that it is of a comparatively modern date, and was probably erected
when a portion of the church and its tower were rebuilt or altered, not long
before the Reformation. This idea receives some degree of countenance
from the circumstance, that on the south-west corner of the outside of the
tower, is a niche with its carved canopy, which formerly contained an
image, said to have been that of the Virgin Mary.
The church porch, which fronts the south, has been handsome, and much
ornamented, but is now considerably defaced, and over the porch entrance
is a handsomely carved niche with its canopy, [257a] which is said to have
contained an image of Saint Bartholomew, the tutelary saint of the church;
but at present, in lieu of the old saint, the niche is disfigured by an unsightly
slab, or piece of stone, of a different colour to the rest of the stonework near
it, let into the niche with an inscription, communicating the important fact,
that certain good men were churchwardens some thirty or forty years ago.
[257b]
The fact of the existence on the walls of an old church, of niches, which
contain, or formerly contained, images, is a sufficient proof, that they must
have been erected, at least before the Reformation.
On the south side of the nave of the church is a chapel, projecting into the
churchyard, called the Hawthorn Chapel, which, in the last century but one,
belonged to a junior branch of the Leighs, of Hawthorn Hall, near
Wilmslow. The arms of Leigh, “argent, a lion rampant, gardant, gules,”
with a crescent for difference, and also the crest of the family, appear
painted over an arch, which connects it with the church, and also in stained
glass in the window of the chapel.
This chapel appears, from the style of its window, to have been rebuilt or
altered, since the general prevalence of the Gothic style, but as some
remains of inscriptions, in ancient characters, have been discovered on its
walls, the inference is, that it is an old chapel rebuilt or much altered.
Hawthorn Hall, and the estate belonging to it, afterwards came from the
Leighs to the family of Page, who were the proprietors of it, and resided

there, during a considerable part of the eighteenth century, and at last sold it
to a person named Bower, and it is now used as a school. It is about half a
mile from Wilmslow, and is an antique brick mansion, with large gables,
and a small cupola, and much resembles the style of mansions which were
in fashion during the reign of William III., said to have been adopted from
the Dutch. The same armorial bearings, before mentioned, of the Leighs,
with the crescent for difference, appears over the principal entrances, on the
north and south fronts of the mansion; and on the lead spouts are the initials
of one of the Leighs, J L, and the date, 1698; which probably may also give
us a hint of the date of the rebuilding of the chapel.
In my observations on Wilmslow Church, I ought not to omit mentioning,
that in the churchyard, at the east end, is an ancient grave-stone, with the
date 1596, and on the north side of the church is another, of the same date,
inscribed with the names, “Phe. Dale.” [258]
Under the altar is an under-ground chapel or sacristy, which at one time was
unworthily used as a charnel-house, and when I visited it, in January, 1849,
it was a place of deposit for bricks and rubbish; I am glad to hear that they
have since been removed. With some difficulty I entered it from the
churchyard, by an opening which exists under the large altar window. It is
not vaulted with stone, as might have been expected, but the wooden floor
near the altar forms its roof. Three recesses, resembling sedilia, in the
Gothic style, and which, if they had been discovered near an altar, would be
at once pronounced to be sedilia, are formed in the wall in front of the
opening, and the centre one has an inclined groove on each side, cut into the
stone, which rather conveys the impression as if a temporary desk, for
reading, had formerly been sometimes fixed up there. It is lighted by
loopholes, opening into the churchyard; and on the south side is a narrow
winding staircase, of which many of the steps remain, which at one time
gave access from the altar to it, but the communication is now built up. The
steps in it commence under a plain Gothic arch, and the staircase was
lighted by a loophole, which still remains.
The following is a list of the names of the various Rectors of Wilmslow,
from 1339:—[259a]

Hugo Fitton.

1339—2nd September Thomas de Chatterton.
Thomas Ffrost.
1412—28th April Galfridus Boseley.
Willielmus de Bothe.
1418—26th Julii Georgius Radcliffe.
Galfridus Boseley.
1419—11th September Georgius Radcliffe.
1425—20th October Ricardus Radcliffe.
1456— Radulphus Davenport.
1500—13th February Robertus Broke.
1522—Ante Henry Trafford, D.D. [259b]
1537—Circa Henry Ryle.
1542— Henry Trafford.
1591—30th September William Massie, B.D.
1610—27th August Thomas Wright.
1654—12th December, ante John Brereton.
1660— Thomas Wright.
1661—28th November Peter Ledsham.
1673—16th February Francis Mosley.
1699—24th August John Usherwood, A.M.
1705—9th December Joshua Wakefield.
1718—21st November Henry Moore, D.D.
1770—4th March Edward Berresford, A.M.
1787—16th April Croxton Johnson, LL.B.
1814—28th March Joseph Bradshaw, A.M.

The Rev. John Matthias Turner, D.D., afterwards Bishop of Calcutta,
succeeded to the rectory about 1823, an interval having elapsed subsequent
to the death of Mr. Bradshaw, about 1820, during which the living was in
sequestration.
The present rector is the Rev. William Brownlow, M.A., who succeeded the
Rev. Dr. Turner, in 1829.
Whilst describing Wilmslow Church, although I avow myself a Protestant,
and a member of the Church of England, without any kind of leaning
towards the Church of Rome, and without even admiration of her rites or
ceremonies, I feel myself called upon, as an act of common justice to our
Roman Catholic predecessors, to mention, that I have remarked, both in
Wilmslow Church, and in various other ancient churches erected before the
Reformation, that they appear better calculated for hearing, or, in other
words, for the transmission of sound, than more modern churches; yet we
might suppose that the large arches and massive pillars in the former would
militate against that effect. It may be that the architects of an age gone by,
understood the science of acoustics better than those of our time, and I
throw out the suggestion (without giving any confident opinion), whether
the pillars, arches, and carved oak roof, may not have the effect of
preventing the too great number of pulses, or repetitions of sound in a given
time, by returns from the walls, on the principle, that although the human
voice in a large room, quite devoid of furniture, carpets, curtains, or a
crowded assembly, will often produce a confused and indistinct echo, yet
the resonance of the room becomes diminished, and the reverberation of
sound becomes less, and consequently we can sometimes hear better, when
the speaker is delivering his address in the room, when it is properly
furnished, and contains a number of auditors. I may also add, that there is
not any place of worship which I have been accustomed to attend, where I
am more impressed (if so much) with feelings of devotion, than when
attending divine service in this and other ancient churches erected before
the Reformation; whether those feelings may arise from the reflection
forcing itself upon the mind, that generations after generations of our
fellow-creatures have worshipped there, and died since the walls of the
sacred edifice were erected, or whether the massive walls, pillars, arches,
and Gothic windows, naturally produce a certain degree of solemnity or

seriousness on the mind, I cannot say; I can only speak to the effect which I
have mentioned, be the cause what it may.
There is a very ancient chest in the vestry, in which are contained the parish
books, which is said to be 500 years old. It is formed out of one solid block
of oak, nearly four feet wide, by five feet long, and three feet deep.
On the north side of the altar, and erected as a continuation of the wing-wall
before mentioned, is a very remarkable and perfect monument. On an altar-
tomb, [261] and in flowing ecclesiastical robes, lies, the size of life, the effigy
of Henry Trafford, who was rector of Wilmslow, both whilst the Roman
Catholic religion was predominant here, and after the overthrow of the
Papal supremacy. He obtained the living at least as early as 1522, and died
in 1537; and the figure is interesting, as combining, so to speak, badges of
both the old and the reformed religion. The head has the tonsure or shaven
crown, but it rests upon a large clasped book, evidently intended for a
Bible: a combination which I do not recollect having ever seen in any other
monument. On the leaves of the Bible, parts of a short inscription are
visible; but I was not able to read more than the words “ut non,” which are
not very legible. Round the four upper edges of the tomb is the following
inscription, which unfortunately is not cut, but painted on the stone, and
although now legible, it is by no means certain that it will long continue so:
—

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

In English the inscription reads thus:—

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

In Lysons’ Mag. Brit. [262a] it is stated, that on the side of this tomb are
painted an emaciated body, and scrolls with inscriptions, in text-hand. I
however could not discover any trace of them, and probably they have been
for some time defaced.
In the reign of Henry V. the advowson of Wilmslow came to the family of
Trafford, and now belongs to Sir T. J. De Trafford, [262b] Bart.
In the north wall of the Pownall Chapel are two obtuse arches, with
crockets and foliage; one containing a tomb, on which rests the figure of a
man, in flowing robes, his head resting between two tuns or casks, with a
scroll on his body, containing the word “Neuton.” The adjoining one
contains a tomb, on which rests the figure of a female, in a flowing robe,
with the head resting on a garb, or sheaf of corn, and with a purse or pouch
attached to her girdle. Both tombs have fronts, ornamented with remains of
carved work and shields, but they are so much in the dark, by the
construction of the seats, and the valances in the pews, that even with a
candle which the sexton brought me, I could not discover any armorial
bearings. The pew adjoining the tomb which has the figure of the man, was
not long ago used by the residents of Pownall Hall, near Wilmslow, which
formerly belonged to an ancient family named Fitton, afterwards to another
named Pownall, and, after passing through many hands, was purchased by
Mr. John Worrall, in 1817, and was again sold, some eighteen or nineteen
years ago, to James Pownall, Esq., [263a] of Liverpool, who resided there for
some time after his purchase.
It is well known what a proneness existed, during the middle ages, to make
punning rebuses, even in sacred buildings; and if the male figure be
intended for the effigy of Humphrey Newton, after mentioned, I cannot
discover a reason for the head of that figure being placed or fitted between
two tuns or casks, which appears intended as a rebus or figurative enigma
on the word Fit-ton, and has no allusion, that I am aware of, to the word
Newton. I do not mean to hazard any opinion as to the time when the word
“Neuton” was inscribed on it; but, if it were originally inscribed there, I
cannot see the application of the punning rebus to the name Newton. I
could not find the slightest trace of any inscription except that, on either of
the monuments; but we are informed, on the authority of Ormerod, [263b] that
on the man’s tomb was formerly the following inscription:—“Orate pro

Humphrido Neuton de Pownall Armigero, et Elena uxore ejus, fil: et hered:
Tho. Fitton et Cecilie ux: ejus, qui obiit A.D. MCCCCC.” A modern
inscription, in stained glass, also commemorating Humphrey Newton and
Ellen his wife, has been recently placed in the window above the tomb.
In the chancel, in the front of the altar, is a grave-stone, with brasses,
representing a male and female, Sir Robert Booth, Knight, of Bollin and
Dunham, and Douce, his wife, with the right hand of the former clasping
that of the latter. This Sir Robert Booth is said [264a] to have been slain at the
battle of Blore Heath, in the wars of York and Lancaster; and there is every
reason to believe the statement, which is corroborated in a remarkable
manner, by the fact that the battle was fought on St. Tecla’s day, [264b] 1459,
which saint’s day is mentioned in the inscription on the brass, as the date of
his death. The following is a copy of the inscription, given by Ormerod:[264c]
—“Hic jacent corpus Roberti del Bothe, militis, quondam d’ni de Bolyn,
Thorneton, et Dunh’m qui obiit in festo s’ce Tecle Virginis anno domini
mill’mo ccccLX [264d] et corpus Dulcie ux’ris d’ci Rob’ti del Bothe que obiit in
castrino s’cte be’e Virginis anno Domini mill’mo CCCC quinquagesimo
tercio, quorum animabus p’p’tietur Deus. Amen.”
Some parts of the inscription have been purloined or lost, and some portions
are preserved in the vestry, and a small part still remains affixed to the
stone; but if the inscription given by Ormerod be correct, as there is reason
to believe, one or two fragments, which probably got loose, have been
injudiciously riveted on, in wrong places. Immediately following the part
of the date relating to the husband, “mill’mo CCCC,” the pieces of brass
containing the words “quinquagesimo tercio, quorum animabus p’p’tietur
Deus. Amen,” have been riveted on in a wrong place, and, so far from
having any relation to the death of the husband, clearly allude to the death
of the wife, in 1453, and conclude with the prayer so common, in those
times, for the souls of both of them.
Such portions of the inscription as I could ascertain, from a careful
inspection both of the parts of the inscription and brass fixed to the stone,
and of the parts which are loose, are marked in italics in the above copy of
the inscription. [265a]

The brass has originally had a handsome Gothic canopy engraved over each
figure, but at present one portion, that over the husband, is missing. He is
represented without a helmet, and bareheaded, and in the armour of that
age, but without gauntlets (which indeed would have been a little
incongruous, as he is clasping the hand of his wife), and with a plated
gorget, and rather remarkable pauldrons; his feet rest upon a greyhound,
and near them is a shield of four quarters, of which the dexter chief only
can be deciphered, which represents a lion passant gardant. The wife is
represented in a loose robe, with her hair flowing, and without any kind of
head-dress, except a narrow fillet or band, on which precious stones appear
to have been represented, and at her feet is a small dog; over her head is a
shield, on which is a bend with three garbs. A similar coat of arms appears
on the wood-work attached to a seat, situate very near the grave, carved
boldly, and evidently at a remote period back, and it is also seen in stained
glass in the large altar window; it appears to be the arms of Fitton, which
were, “argent, on a bend azure, three garbs, or.” Some few other armorial
bearings and fragments of stained glass, but in very indifferent preservation,
may be seen in the window of the chancel. [265b]
In concluding, I must here express my regret that this interesting monument
should be so situated as to be exposed to great risk of injury, and even of
destruction. It is usually covered by a mat, but that is not a certain
safeguard against its being worn and trampled under foot, by persons
passing through the chancel, and it is close to the place where the charity
children sit, a class of beings not very likely to respect old monuments. The
same plan might be advantageously pursued respecting it, which has been
successfully adopted with other monuments, in other churches: it might, at a
very trivial expense, be removed, with the grave-stone to which it is
attached, and placed, in an upright position, on one of the walls of the
chancel, and a common grave-stone might be put down in the place of the
present one, with a few words engraved, commemorating the removal. The
inscription on the Trafford tomb might, at a light expense, be cut in, by a
skilful man, so as to be a copy, verbatim et literatim, of the words now
painted on it, and precisely in their present characters and places, in order to
prevent the inscription from being lost.
It is to be hoped that some of the members of the families of the personages
interred under the two last-named monuments, will adopt some plan, with

the sanction of the rector, for their preservation; if not, it would be judicious
for some few individuals, who possess sufficient taste to appreciate those
interesting memorials of an age long past, to set on foot a small
subscription, and adopt measures to preserve them from further injury or
mutilation.
The following lines, from Crabbe, [266] may, without impropriety, be quoted
here, after describing the ancient monuments in the church:

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

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

Handford is a township of the parish of Cheadle, in Cheshire, in the
hundred of Macclesfield, intersected by the London and North Western
(formerly the Manchester and Birmingham) Railway, and situated eleven
miles from Manchester, and five miles south-west-by-south from Stockport.
The village of Handford is agreeably situated in a pleasant part of Cheshire,
upon the turnpike-road leading from Manchester to Wilmslow and
Congleton. On entering the village from the northward, a neat but small
country church, of brick, which is a chapel-of-ease under Cheadle, lying on
the left side of the road, and a well-built National School, on the right, are
conspicuous objects.
The Village Green is noticed by Sir William Brereton, Bart., of Handford,
whose family I shall soon have occasion to advert to, and whose travels in
Holland, England, &c. &c., in 1634 and 1635, have been published by the
Cheetham Society, in vol. i. of the Cheetham Papers. He refers to the
Village Green, [268a] when narrating his travels in Scotland, and in describing
one of the places of public entertainment, he calls it “a poorer house than
any upon Handforth Green;” and again [268b] he afterwards states that he had
been in a small tavern in Ireland, “a little low thatched Irish house, not to be
compared unto Jane Kelsall’s, of the Green at Handforth.” [268c] Her cottage
has disappeared, and the Green has long been enclosed: no appearance of
either of them now remains, and it may be a question whether portions of
the railway and its station do not stand on what was once the south-eastern

end of the Green; it is, however, to a certain degree, preserved from
oblivion, by the field enclosed from its site, being still called the Green
Field.
Handford is also sometimes known by the names of Hanford, Honford,
Handforth, Handford-cum-Bosden, and Handforth-cum-Bosden (Handford
being a joint township with the township of Bosden). Some centuries ago
the manor and estate of Handford belonged to the ancient family of
Handford of Handford; then, by marriage, to that of Brereton, in the reign
of Elizabeth; [268d] they afterwards passed, under a deed of settlement, to that
of Booth, Sir William Brereton having, in the reign of Charles II., settled
them, in default of male issue of his son, on Nathaniel Booth, Esq., of
Mottram St. Andrew, in tail male; but the estate did not remain any
considerable time with the Booths, and it soon became subdivided amongst
various proprietors. The manorial rights, however, remained a much longer
period with the Booths; the manor having been sold and conveyed, in 1766,
by Nathaniel, Baron Delamer, formerly Nathaniel Booth, Esq., and others,
to Edward Wrench, Esq., of Chester; in 1805, it was again sold, to Mr.
Joseph Cooper, of Handford; and, in 1808, it was once more sold, by the
devisees in trust under his will, to Mr. William Pass, of Altrincham.
The family of Brereton, and also those of Grosvenor and Davenport, are
mentioned by Ormerod, in his History of Cheshire, as families which can be
proved, by ancient deeds, to have existed at or near the time of the
Conquest.
I do not pretend to give a full historical account of the old family of
Brereton, especially as some very interesting particulars respecting it, have
been recently given by Sir Fortunatus Dwarris, in a paper, read before the
Society of Antiquaries. [269a] Sir Randle Brereton, of Shocklach and Malpas
Hall, in Cheshire, grandson of the founder of that branch, was Chamberlain
of Chester, in the 19th and 20th years of the reign of Henry VII., and one of
the Knights of the body to that King. He is mentioned generally as
Chamberlain to Henry VII., in the 21st year of that monarch’s reign, and
that he held that office twenty-six years, to the 23rd of Henry VIII., by
whom he was made a Knight Banneret, as a reward for his conduct at
Terouenne and Tournay. He built the Brereton Chapel [269b] in the Church of

Malpas, in 1522, where he was buried, leaving issue nine sons and three
daughters. [269c]
Sir Randle Brereton’s second and ninth sons were founders respectively of
the Tatton and the Handford branches of the Breretons. His seventh son
succeeded his father as Chamberlain of Chester, and was Groom of the
Chamber to King Henry VIII. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Charles
Earl of Worcester, widow of Sir John Savage, and was beheaded, upon a
most questionable charge of criminal intercourse with Queen Anne Boleyn,
in 1536, when he was twenty-eight years of age, and a young married man.
It may be noticed incidentally that Queen Anne Boleyn’s favourite lap-dog
(an Italian greyhound) was named Urian, the name of a brother of the
Groom of the Chamber, and a family name in the Malpas Hall branch of the
Brereton family, derived from the early Barons of Malpas. “Trifles light as
air are to the jealous confirmations strong as proofs of Holy Writ.”
Sir Urian Brereton, the ninth son of Sir Randle Brereton, of the Shocklach
and Malpas Hall branch, married Margaret, the daughter and sole heiress of
William Handford, Esq., of Handford. His son, grandson, and great-
grandson, were all of the name of William; and it was the latter (Sir William
Brereton, Bart.), who was the distinguished Parliamentarian general, [270a] and
whose achievements are so well known to persons who have devoted their
attention to the unhappy war between Charles I. and the Parliament, in
which—now that the excess of party-heat has long ago subsided, and the
history of those times can be dispassionately considered—there is too much
reason to believe that both parties were in the wrong. His notorious
aversion to church government, noticed by Clarendon, was probably
heightened by circumstances; but he appears, by his early travels, to have
been always of a sober, serious, and religious turn of mind, with a penchant
for spicy sermons. He married a daughter of Sir George Booth, who was
considered the cornerstone of the Presbyterian interest in Cheshire, and is
described by writers of the day as “free, grave, godly, brave Booth, the
flower of Cheshire.” Sir William Brereton was also the friend and
neighbour of Henry Bradshaw, of Colonel Duckinfield, and of Lenthall; the
latter of whom afterwards married his daughter. The cruel and unjust
execution of the Groom of the Chamber, by Henry VIII., rankled in the
breasts of his family and connections; the imposition of ship-money had led
Sir William Brereton into collision with the citizens of Chester; and he had

disputes with the church and corporation of that city, about exemptions
from tolls, and for murage, on account of his lands of St. Mary’s Nunnery in
Chester, granted by the Crown to his family.
The before-mentioned William Brereton, of Handford, was created a
Baronet in 1626–7, and the title became extinct on the death of Sir Thomas
Brereton, Bart., in 1673. [271a]
A copy of the principal portion of the Pedigree of the Breretons, of
Handford, [271b] so far as is necessary to elucidate the subject, will be given
afterwards.
Another branch of this ancient family was that of the Breretons, of Brereton
Hall, Cheshire. It is, however, foreign to the purpose to go into any
particulars with respect to that branch, here, further than to mention, that
that branch was ennobled; and, as a proof of the divisions which existed in
some of the principal families during the disastrous period of the civil war,
Lord Brereton, of the latter branch, eminently distinguished himself by his
devotion to the opposite cause, and raised troops and ventured his life and
property on the part of King Charles I. Lord Brereton was taken prisoner,
with his wife and son; he suffered sequestration of his estates, and was
ultimately reduced to compound for them, and to pay a composition for his
son. After the restoration, Lord Brereton was associated with the Earl of
Derby, in the Lord Lieutenancy of the county of Chester; he was also
member for the county in the first Parliament ensuing, as many of the
members of his family had been in prior Parliaments. [271c]
The old hall at Handford, formerly the residence of the Breretons, lies
nearly half a mile from and on the south-eastward side of the village, and is
approached, after crossing the bridge built over the railway before
mentioned, by a lane lending from thence into a pleasant and picturesque
valley, through which a small brook runs, and after crossing it we arrive at
the old hall.
This mansion, like many others situated in various parts of Cheshire, is
principally built of timber and plaster, the timber being disposed in squares,
which are filled up with plaster. At the front or main door is a porch, the
entrance to which is under a beam of oak, supported at each end by a very
large beam, of that wood. On the transverse beam, which forms what may

be considered a kind of arch, at the entrance, the following inscription is
carved, in Old English characters:—

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

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

At the upper part of the corresponding or right door-post is the crest of the
Breretons, a bear’s head and neck erased muzzled. [273c] The fronts of the
door-posts of the porch have also been ornamented with carving; and the
before-mentioned border with the brier is also continued down to the
ground, on each of the door-posts.
This mansion is stated by Ormerod to have originally formed a quadrangle,
but I could not satisfy myself, by inspection, whether that had been the
case, although it is clear that it was once much larger than it now is. Early
in 1849, in digging a drain in front of the hall, in a place which had been
part of a garden, some human bones were found, with some wood, possibly
parts of coffins, conveying an impression as if there had once been a place
of interment there; but the remains were inconsiderable, and the researches
were not pursued by any further excavation. There were persons, who have
not been very long dead, who used to say that there had been grave-stones
existing as late as in the last century, close to the hall. Traces of
foundations have also been formerly discovered at the hall, conjectured to
have formed part of a chapel; of course such a conjecture must be received
with caution; as the mansion was once considerably larger, it does not
follow that they may not have formed part of the foundations of other parts
of it.
The hall has long been used as a farm-house, and belongs to the Rev. Henry
Wright, of Mottram St. Andrew.
The brook before mentioned is one of the tributaries of a small river, called
the Dean, and flows upon part of an estate at Handford, called the Brooke
Farm, belonging to my father, Richard Brooke, Esq., [274] and which has been
for a very long period in my family. The brook separates that estate in part
from the adjoining one held with the hall, belonging to the Rev. Henry
Wright. Some indications of fishponds and terraces may be seen in part of
the field, which slopes down from the hall, towards the brook, conveying
strongly the idea of the spot having been the site of a garden or pleasure-
ground. As a proof how indifferent and inattentive the families of high
consideration in the county were, in comparatively recent times, to many of
the conveniences and requisites which respectable families now consider
indispensable, I may observe, that the only road from the highway and
village to the hall, crossed the brook, and that there was not any bridge

there until about 1846 or 1847. [275] The Breretons must consequently have
been obliged to cross it on horseback, or on stepping-stones, or have waded
through it; and though the brook is quiet, and very shallow in dry weather, it
is liable to rise and become much swollen after heavy rains, as I have more
than once seen; and the act of crossing it in the dark, and after a
continuance of wet weather, must have been a feat frequently attended not
merely with much inconvenience, but with some danger. That circumstance
may be mentioned, as exhibiting a feature in the habits of the country
gentry of consideration in Cheshire, in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, when the Breretons resided at the hall.
The interior of Handford Hall has been much changed, and the rooms
considerably altered; the alterations, however useful they may be to a
farmer, are sad desecrations in the eyes of an antiquary; but still something
remains to interest the latter. The staircase is of oak, and is wide and
handsome, with highly ornamented flat balusters, the upper part of which is
curiously carved in open work, so as to form rather small and round-headed
arches, cut through the wood, in a style occasionally used in the times of
Elizabeth and James I. Above the arches are carved ornaments, not unlike
lozenges, and the balustrade is surmounted with a heavy carved handrail, all
of oak; and the whole balustrade, though handsomer than that of Soss Moss
Hall, described by me in a former paper, has some resemblance to it. On
the landing on the first floor, at the head of the stairs, is a large folding door,
each fold of which is laid out in panels, on the lowest of which were
formerly four ornaments of fleurs-de-lis, placed at the top, bottom, and on
each side respectively; and each four pointing towards the centre of the
panel; several of these fleurs-de-lis ornaments still remain. Above them are
other panels, each decorated with four lozenge-shaped ornaments, also
disposed so that each points to the centre. I was struck with the
resemblance to the lozenge-shaped carved ornaments which are to be seen
on the pulpit of Wilmslow Church, only a mile distant from Handford, and
mentioned in a former paper. The folding door before mentioned, opened
into what was the principal apartment on that floor, but which is now quite
stripped of all appearance of antiquity. Several windows of the old hall
have been modernized, but there are still some of them remaining,
apparently as they have been for many generations, with small squares of
glass let into lead, such as may be seen in many old houses.

There are several modern additions of brick, and other alterations in the
hall, which detract from its appearance; still it has an air of antiquity, and
correctly conveys the impression of having been the residence of a family
of importance.
The chapel-of-ease, before mentioned, in the village of Handford, was built
in 1837, by subscription of the landowners there, and of other benevolent
persons; the scheme having been set on foot and much assisted by the
exertions of the Rev. Edward Trafford Leigh, the then rector of Cheadle, in
which parish it is situated.
A handsome brick viaduct of the Railway crosses a picturesque valley at
Handford, through which the river Dean flows; and, after joining the Bollin
near Wilmslow, the combined rivers fall into the Mersey, near Altrincham.
The place of interment of the Breretons of Handford was in the parish
church of Cheadle, distant nearly four miles from the hall. The church is in
the village of Cheadle, and is an old stone edifice of the Gothic style of
architecture, with a chancel, a clerestory, a nave with four pointed arches on
each side, resting on octagonal pillars, and with side aisles. It has a square
tower, with six bells. It is a rectory which has for many years been in the
patronage of the Broughtons; and the present rector is the Rev. Charles
James Cummings.
There is a striking general resemblance between the churches of Cheadle,
Wilmslow, and Bowdon, all in the same part of Cheshire; and they all
appear to have been rebuilt, or considerably altered, or repaired, not long
before the Reformation; and tradition says, that all three were repaired or
rebuilt at the same time, which receives considerable corroboration, not
merely from the resemblance in the appearance and style of the churches,
but also from the fact, that an inscription, which I saw a few years ago, and
which probably still remains, on the stained glass of a window at Bowdon
Church, mentions the name of a prior of Birkenhead, the last or one of the
last priors of that place, who is stated in the inscription, to have presented
the window to the church.
The church at Cheadle is dedicated to the Virgin Mary. A chapel, called the
Handford Chapel, is on the south side of the church. In this chapel is a
large altar tomb, on which are recumbent marble figures of two knights or

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

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

On the dexter side of that inscription is a shield of the arms of Brereton,
before described, with the badge of Baronetcy; the crescent gules, before
mentioned, appears on the first bar in the arms, but there is not the cross
crosslet (before adverted to, in noticing the arms at Handford Hall); and on
the sinister side is a shield of the arms of Ward, “chequy, or and azure, a
bend ermine.” The east and south sides of the monument are so close to the
walls, that it is impossible to ascertain what they contain by way of
inscriptions or heraldic devices; and the same remark applies to the west

end, where the side of a pew completely precludes all examination. All the
three effigies are said to be those of Breretons, and there does not seem to
be any fair doubt of the fact. The tombs seem to have been removed to
their present position, as it is scarcely probable that they were originally
crowded close to each other, and to the walls, as they now are.
In the east window of the Handford Chapel is a mutilated shield of arms, in
stained glass; the parts remaining are, as far as I could distinguish, as
follows:—On the dexter side, on a chief azure, three bucks’ heads caboshed,
or, for Stanley (the rest of the dexter side is so much injured that it cannot
be distinguished); impaling the arms of a female, evidently one of the
Handfords, of which only the following quarterings remain distinguishable,
viz.: second, gules, a scythe argent, for Praers; fourth, sable, a star, with six
or eight rays (it is not easy to distinguish the number), argent, for Handford;
the crest is rather defaced, but seems to be an eagle’s head erased, holding
in its beak an eagle’s leg and claws erased.
Ormerod describes the arms in the window, as the arms of “Stanley
impaling Handford, on a chief engrailed azure, three bucks or; impaling
Handford, first and fourth, sable, a star of six rays argent; second and third,
gules, a scythe argent, Praers; crest, an eagle’s head erased or, holding in the
mouth a claw gules.” [279a] It is probable that the stained glass (with the arms)
was more perfect when Ormerod wrote, than at present; but he seems to
have fallen into an error, in mentioning three “bucks” instead of “bucks’
heads” on the chief. On the dexter side of the arms is the inscription
“Vanitas vanitatum.” The chapel has a carved oak screen or frame-work,
enclosing it on the west and north sides, with some carving, not very
dissimilar to lace-work, but much injured; with a cornice containing the
before-mentioned rebus, of a brier and a tun, for Brereton, repeated thirteen
times, with the initial letters V and B between each alternately, for “Urian”
and “Brereton,” on the north side, but the rebus has been destroyed on the
west side. [279b] At the bottom of the screen, on each of those sides, are
panels, carved so as to resemble drapery, in upright folds, with two arrows
showing themselves upon the drapery on one or two of the panels, and
which probably may also have formerly appeared on some of the others.
On the north side of the church is the part called the Mosely Chapel, and
sometimes called the Bamford Chapel, which has on the south and west

sides a screen or frame-work of carved oak, of a plainer style, and
apparently of an older date, than that of the Handford Chapel. It is much
mutilated, and there are on it traces of an inscription, in the old characters,
of which only a few letters are still visible and legible; but I was informed,
by Mr. George Smith, the clerk, that the pulpit, which has been removed,
and placed close to the screen, now conceals other imperfect portions of the
inscription, which, however, he had previously carefully copied (a measure
highly creditable to him), and that the imperfect portions which exist, are as
follows:—“rginis — — artu milīmo — uīgētismo XXIX”; the latter being
meant for the date—millesimo quingentesimo undetricesimo (1529).
The roof of the church is of oak, supported by elaborately carved oak
beams, with cross rafters, also handsomely carved, and with bosses at the
intersecting points of the rafters; in several places the etoiles or stars,
similar to those mentioned in my account of Wilmslow Church, are also
carved on the bosses. Some modern bosses have been recently introduced
in the roof of the chancel, and of the side aisles, where the old ones had
disappeared; they have been carved in good taste by Mr. Smith, in strict
conformity with the remaining ancient ones; he is not only the clerk of the
church, but also a mason, and the Gothic font, which was presented by him,
and is now used in the church, is of his design and workmanship.
On the east window, which has been sadly altered for the worse, is a
mutilated inscription, in stained glass (which may, however, have originally
belonged to a much older window), with the date 1556.
The chancel is separated from the nave by a slight screen of carved oak,
nearly denuded of all ornament, which seems to have been the lower part of
the rood-loft, the upper portion having been long since destroyed.
On a grave-stone near the altar is a small brass plate, with the arms of
Bulkeley, three bulls’ heads couped, and the following inscription:—

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

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

CHAPTER XIV.

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

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

“Liverpool, 17th November, 1849.
“Dear Sir,—I have been recently much interested, in reading Mr.
Collier’s Annals of the Stage. My curiosity was excited, by the
passage in vol. i. pp. 35 and 36, in which he gives in a note, a copy
from the Harl. MSS., No. 433, of a warrant of 1st Richard III., [283b] to
John Brown, appointing him keeper of the King’s bears and apes; and
Mr. Collier there slates, that if a keeper of those animals were known
before the reign of Richard the Third, he is not aware of any earlier
record of his existence, as a licensed court officer. On reading the
passage, I felt a strong impression, that the Rotuli Parliamentorum
contained proofs of the existence, at an earlier date than that reign, of
an officer of a similar description, to the one alluded to by Mr. Collier.
Although I have not succeeded in discovering, that any person is
previously mentioned, as being the keeper, by royal authority, of bears
and apes in England, I have discovered in the 5th vol. of the Rotuli
Parliamentorum, proofs in three different instances, in the reign of
Edward IV.; one of which is as early as 1461, of the fact of a keeper
(Ralph Hastings, Esq.), having been appointed, by letters patent of that

King, to what would, in more modern times, be called the Royal
Menagerie, in the Tower of London. Lions and lionesses are there
mentioned, as being kept in the Tower, in all the three instances; and
leopards are mentioned in the first of them. As Edward IV. only came
to the throne on the 4th of March, 1461, and as the references to the
grant of the office are worded in a commonplace manner, as if it were
nothing extraordinary, it is only fair to presume, that the keeping of
foreign animals in the Tower, and the appointment of an officer to have
the custody of them, not only existed in the reign of Edward IV., but
may have occurred at least as far back as the reign of Henry VI.
“It is probable that the passages in the Rotuli Parliamentorum, to
which I have alluded, are well known to many of our Society, still
there may be some who are not aware of them; and I am induced to
subjoin extracts, and request them to be read before the Society, under
the impression that all information of this nature is useful, as tending
to give us an insight into the customs and habits of an age gone by.
“I remain, dear Sir,
“Yours faithfully,
“Richard Brooke.
“To Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S.,
Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, &c. &c.”

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

“Provided also, that this seid acte of assumpcion or resumpcion,
extend not nor in any wise be prejudiciall unto Rauff Hastynges,
Squier for oure body, of or in any graunte made unto hym by oure lrēs
patentes, berying date the XXX day of Juyn the first yere of oure reigne,
of the office of kepyng lyons, leonesses and leopardes, within our
Toure of London that tyme beying, and of theym that within the same
Toure for the tyme shal be, with a place for the Keper of such lyons,
leonessez and leopardes there deputed, with another place there, which
for the same lyons, leonessez and leopardes within oure seid Toure is

ordeyned, with the wages of xiid. by day for hymself, and for
sustentation of every lyon, leonessez and leopardes abovesaid vid. by
day, duryng the lyf of the said Rauf. But that oure seid lrēs patentes
stande good and effectuell after the contenue of the same; the seid acte
or any other acte in this Parlement made or to be made
notwithstonding.”

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

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

Perhaps the latter passage may be considered as elucidated, in some degree,
by another passage, which occurs in the subsequent act of 7th and 8th
Edward IV., as will be next noticed; and that 6d. a day was allowed for the
keep of each lion, &c.: no trifling sum at that time.
The Act of Resumption of 7th and 8th Edward IV. A.D. 1467 and 1468 (Rot.
Parl. vol. v. fo. 598), also contains a proviso and reservation to the same
effect as the last, respecting the grant of the office to Ralph Hastings; but
mentions 1s. a day only, for his fees, besides a further allowance for the
keep of the animals. It provides that the act should not prejudice the grant
to Ralph Hastings, of the office—

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

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

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

Several descriptions of wild animals were, at one period, inhabitants of
Great Britain, which, with the increase of population and civilization, have
become extinct, amongst which may be mentioned, the wolf, bear, [287b] and
wild boar. [287c] We may, however, perhaps regret the extinction of other
animals, which were not of a destructive kind; for example, the beaver [288a] is
generally admitted by naturalists, to have been, and the roe deer certainly
was, formerly, a native of England. The beaver is no longer to be found
amongst us; and the roe deer is not now to be met with in any part of this
country to the south of Scotland: the latter, however, remained wild in
England and Wales, until the reign of King Henry VIII. [288b] The fox would
probably have also disappeared ere now, if it had not been for his superior
cunning, and his conducing to the sports of the field; the otter is become

rather scarce; and the seal is now rarely found upon the coasts of England.
The poor harmless badger, although still occasionally met with in some
unenclosed or wild parts, has, notwithstanding his inoffensive and
unobtrusive habits, been exterminated in several of the English counties,
and is become rare in most of them.
The inquiries pursued in this paper will, however, be with reference to the
wolf only.
It is admitted by all writers upon the natural history of the British Isles, that
wolves once abounded in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland; and it is an
interesting circumstance, that we know with tolerable exactness, something
of the dates of their extinction in Scotland and Ireland. The last wolf that is
known to have been wild in Scotland, was killed about the year 1680; [288c]
and the last presentment for killing wolves in Ireland, was made in the
county of Cork, about the year 1710. [288d]
It is remarkable, that when Buffon wrote in the last century, he or
Daubenton, who assisted him, did not believe that wolves had become
extinct in Great Britain. The following remarkable passage occurs in
Button’s Natural History:—“Les Anglais pretendent en avoir purgé leur
Isle, cependant on m’a assuré, qu ’il y en avait en Ecosse. Comme il y a
peu de bois, dans la partie meridionale, de la Grand Bretagne, on a eu plus
de facilité pour les detruire.”—Buffon’s Natural History, vol. vii. p. 50, title
“Du Loup”; in which work Buffon was assisted by Daubenton, the
naturalist. As Buffon was born in 1707, and Daubenton in 1716, it is quite
possible that one or both of them, received the information upon that point,
from some person, who had lived in Scotland, before the extinction of
wolves in that country; and, consequently, it might easily be believed by
either of them, that wolves were to be found there, at the time when that
passage was written.
Holinshed wrote his Chronicles in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and he
mentions, that wolves then abounded in Scotland:—

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

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

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

Although it appears to be known with some degree of certainty, about what
period they ceased to exist in Scotland and Ireland, there is a great difficulty
in ascertaining, at what date they became extinct in England; and in
consequence of its greater population, its not having many mountainous and
wild districts, and, as suggested in Buffon’s work, its not having extensive
woods, it is certain, that wolves would be much sooner exterminated in
England, than in Scotland or Ireland.
At the time of the Anglo-Saxon sway, wolves abounded in great numbers in
England; and in the tenth century, in the reign of Athelstan, a place of
retreat was erected at Flixton, in Yorkshire, in order to protect travellers
from being devoured by wolves. [290c]
It has been said, that in the reign of Edgar, also in the tenth century, an
annual tribute was imposed upon the Welsh princes, of three hundred
wolves’ heads, in order to effect their destruction. If that be true, it is only
reasonable to suppose, that considerable numbers would be destroyed, by
the adoption of that expedient; but it is strange that some authors, copying
from one another, and without giving themselves the trouble of searching

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

“There is continual proof, that he took what he found set down in
former works, without weighing the relative value of conflicting
authorities, and generally resorted to the most accessible sources of
information. There have been instances without number, adduced of
his inaccuracy in citing even the authorities to which he confined his
researches.
“Nor can we acquit him on another charge, not rarely brought against
him, and partaking of the two former: neglect or carelessness about the
truth, and infidelity in relating it.” [291b]

The Abbey of Fors, in Wensleydale, in Yorkshire, was founded in the year
1145, which is nearly two centuries after the reign of Edgar; and some time
afterwards, Alan Earl of Bretagne, gave to the monks of that abbey the
privilege of taking, by themselves or their servants, the remains of the deer
which had been killed and partly devoured by the wolves, in the forest of
Wensleydale. [292a]
In the 10th year of the reign of William I. (1075), Robert de Hurfravill, lord
of Tours and Vian, otherwise called Robert with the Beard, being a kinsman
to the King, obtained from him a grant of the lordship, valley, and forest of
Riddesdale, in the county of Northumberland, with all the castles, manors,
lands, woods, pastures, waters, pools, and royal franchises, which were
formerly possessed by Mildred, the son of Akman, late lord of Riddesdale,
and which came to that king upon his conquest of England, to hold, by the
service of defending that part of the country, for ever, from enemies, and
wolves. [292b]
In the 1st year of King John (1199), he granted to William Briwere, a
license, “to hunt the hare, fox, cat, and wolf, throughout all Devonshire; and
likewise the goat out of the regard [sight] of the forest; and to have free
warren throughout all his own lands, for hares, pheasants, and partridges.”
[292c]

In the 9th year of Edward I. (1281), wolves existed in such numbers in
several parts of England, that a royal commission was issued by him, to
Peter Corbet, for the destruction, by means of men, dogs, and engines, of
wolves, in all forests, parks, and other places, in Gloucestershire,
Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire; and all
bailiffs, &c., were commanded to be aiding and assisting Peter Corbet, in
the destruction of wolves in those counties.
The commission is alluded to by Bingley, the Naturalist; but it is
remarkable that he has altogether omitted to give the date or any reference,
where an account of it was to be found. Dr. Whitaker does not notice it,
although he more than once, in his History of Craven, adverts to the
existence of wolves in England after the reign of Edgar. As the mandate is
a curiosity, it is given here precisely as it appears in the Fædera.—

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

“Rex omnibus Ballivis etc: Sciatis quod injunximus dilecto & fideli
nostro Petro Corbet, quod in omnibus forestis, & parcis, & aliis locis,
infra comitatus nostros Gloucestr’ Wygorn’ Hereford’ Salop’ et
Stafford’ in quibus lupi poterunt inveniri, lupos, cum hominibus,
canibus & ingeniis suis, capiat, & destruat, modis omnibus quibus
viderit expedire.
“Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem Petro in omnibus, quæ ad
captionem luporum in comitatibus prædictis, pertinet, intendentes sitis
& auxiliantes, quotiens opus fuerit, & prædictus Petrus vobis scire
faciet ex parte nostra.
“In cujus &c. duratur’ quamdin nobis placuerit. Teste Rege apud
Westm’ decimo quarto die Maii.” [293]
(TRANSLATION.)
The King, to all bailiffs, &c. Know ye, that we have enjoined our dear
and faithful Peter Corbet, that in all forests, parks, and other places,
within our counties of Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Salop, and
Stafford, in which wolves may be found, that he take and destroy
wolves, with his men, dogs, and engines, in all ways, in which it shall
seem expedient; and we command you therefore that you be aiding and
assisting the said Peter, in all things that relate to the capture of
wolves, in the aforesaid counties, as often as occasion may require,
and the said Peter may make known to you on our part.
In witness, &c., so long as it shall be our pleasure. Witness the King,
at Westminster, the 14th day of May.

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

In the 25th year of Edward I. (1296), John de Engaine, Lord of Blatherwic,
died, seized of lands in Pightesse, or Pytesse, in Northamptonshire, found to
be held of the King, by service of hunting the wolf, fox, and badger. [294a]
In the reign of Edward II. (1820), John le Wolfhunt, or Wolfhurt, son and
heir of John le Wolfhunt, or Wolfhurt, held lands at Wormhill, in
Derbyshire, by the service of chasing and taking all wolves that might come
into the King’s Forest of the Peak, in that county. [294b]
In the 11th year of Edward III. (1336), John Lord Roos, of Hamlake, had a
charter granted to him, by the King, of free warren in lands in
Nottinghamshire and Oxfordshire, and also to hunt the fox, wolf, hare, and
cat, throughout the King’s forest of Nottinghamshire. [294c]
In the 33rd year of Edward III. (1358), Vitalis Engaine died, seized of part
of the lordships of Laxton and Pichesse, in Northamptonshire, held by petit
serjeanty, to hunt the wolf whensoever the King should command. [294d]
In the 41st year of Edward III. (1366), Thomas de Engaine, Lord of
Blatherwic, died, seized of lands, meadows, and rent, in Pightesse, in
Northamptonshire, held by the service of “finding, at his own proper costs,
certain dogs, for the destruction of wolves, foxes, martrons [marten cats],
cats [wild cats], and other vermine,” within the counties of Northampton,
Rutland, Oxford, Essex, and Buckingham. [295a]
Of course it is not pretended, that upon the deaths of any of the before-
mentioned personages, who died seized of lands, held by the tenure of
hunting or destroying wolves, such a tenure is conclusive evidence that
those animals existed at the times of the deaths of those personages
respectively, because it may have happened that the lands may have
descended from father to son, several times, after the dates of the original
royal grants or charters creating such tenures; still, even in that case,
enough has been shown to prove that they were not extinct until centuries
after the time of King Edgar. Besides which, it must not be forgotten, that
the charter before mentioned, of the 11th year of Edward III. (1836), to
John Lord Roos, of Hamlake, then gave him a license to hunt the wolf in
the King’s Forest of Nottinghamshire, &c., which would have been useless
if there had not then been any such animal to hunt. We therefore have some
evidence that wolves existed in England in the fourteenth century; but it is

very probable that they had been destroyed in the more populous and
cultivated counties, although for more than a century longer they might
continue to be occasionally met with, in the wild and thinly peopled parts of
England, especially in the northern counties.
In the fifteenth century they probably became scarce.
In the 14th year of Edward IV. (1474), that monarch invaded France, and
negotiations for a truce were commenced between Louis XI. and Edward,
and we learn, from Baker’s Chronicles, that King Louis then presented
Edward with the handsomest horse which Louis had in his stable, and an
ass, and also “a wolf and a wild boar, beasts at that time rare in
England.”[295b] Those are the exact words of Baker, and are very interesting,
and, with reference to the objects of this paper, very valuable. It will be
remarked, that he does not state or insinuate that wolves had been
exterminated, or had ceased to exist in England, but merely that they had
then become rare. We therefore have got so far towards the latter part of the
fifteenth century, and appear not yet to have reached the period of their
extinction. I have read somewhere, that it is traditionally stated that they
were to be found either in the Forest of Dean or in the Forest of Dartmoor,
as late as in the time of Queen Elizabeth; but unfortunately I omitted to take
a note of the publication in which it was mentioned; and, although I have
since devoted some time in endeavouring to discover it, I have not yet
succeeded.
Shakespeare wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and his allusion to
England, and also to wolves, is worthy of notice, as showing his impression
of their having at one period abounded in England, viz.:—

“O, thou wilt be a wilderness again,
Peopled with wolves, thy old inhabitants.”
Shakespeare’s Henry IV. 2nd part, act 4, sc. 4.

Some passages in a very learned and celebrated work—the Institutes of the
Law of England—by Sir Edward Coke (afterwards Lord Chief Justice of
England, from that circumstance often called Lord Coke), who was a
lawyer of great talents, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, will perhaps excite
surprise, and are very important with reference to the subject of this inquiry.

He was born in 1551; was made Solicitor General by Queen Elizabeth in
1592, and Attorney General in 1594. He was appointed Chief Justice of the
Court of Common Pleas by James I. in 1606, and Lord Chief Justice of the
Court of King’s Bench in 1613. His celebrated works—the Commentary
upon Sir Thomas Littleton’s Treatise, and the Institutes of the Laws of
England—required vast time and labour; and it is almost incredible that
they could have been written after he became a judge; and consequently, it
may be admitted, as is generally believed, that they were written whilst he
was at the bar, and in the reign of Elizabeth.
It is well known that the precincts of the forests in England had courts of
their own, and were governed by different laws from the rest of England;
and of course, in treating upon the laws of this country, so learned and so
accurate a writer, as Coke is admitted to have been, could not avoid noticing
them. In the part of his Institutes upon the Forest Courts, he describes the
jurisdiction and functions of those tribunals, and the animals to be met with
in the forests of England; and, in the quaint and peculiar language incident
to writers of the time of Queen Elizabeth, he proceeds to mention the beasts
of chase and of the forest. The following are extracts from his work upon
that subject:—

“There be many beasts of the forest by the laws of the forests of
England. The hart in summer, the hinde in winter, and all that proceed
as of them: the buck in summer, the doe in winter, and the proceed of
them; the hare, male and female, and their proceed; the wild boar, male
and female, and their proceed; and the wolf, male and female, and their
proceed; the fox, male and female, and their proceed; the martin, male
and female; capreolus the roe, as it appeareth before, is no beast of the
forest, but it is a beast of chase.”
“The proceads of the hare, the first year a leveret, the second a hare,
the third a great hare. Of a wilde boar: a pig, a hogge, a hog-stear, a
boar, and after a sanglier.”
“No beast of the forest that is solivagum et nocivum, is venison, as the
fox, the wolf, the martin, because they be no meat, but caro eorum est
nociva.”

“So as the red deer, the fallow deer, the wilde boar, and the hare, are
venison. Whereupon these two conclusions in the law of the forest do
follow: first, whatsoever beast of the forest is for the food of man is
venison, and therewith agreeth Virgil, describing a feast:—
“‘Implentur veteris bacchi pinguisq: ferinæ.’” [297]

It is to be presumed, that a writer, whose works are so accurate as Coke’s
are admitted to be, would not have stated that the wolf was an animal of
chase in England, at the time when he wrote, in the sixteenth century, in the
reign of Elizabeth, if it had then been extinct; and it must be borne in mind,
that he has used the present tense in writing of it; which it is not likely that
he would have done, if he had intended to write respecting an animal which
had formerly been a beast of chase, but which had ceased to exist in
England. We have, therefore, got to the point, that the wolf may fairly be
believed not to have become extinct in England until at least some time in,
or perhaps soon after, the reign of Elizabeth. I am, however, far from
contending that it then existed in the southern or midland counties. On the
contrary, it appears probable, that when Coke wrote, it had become extinct
in all parts of England, except in some few of the most northern counties, of
which two are contiguous to Scotland. In the southern parts, it may perhaps
be presumed to have ceased to exist about, or soon after, the period of the
accession of the Tudors to the throne; and it will be borne in mind that only
seventy-three years elapsed between the accession of the first of that family,
Henry VII. in 1485, and that of Elizabeth, who was the last of them, in
1558; and that no very extraordinary change took place in the cultivation or
population of England, during that period. As we have the clear evidence of
writers of such authenticity as Holinshed and Camden, that in the time of
Elizabeth, all parts of Scotland abounded with wolves, and as there was
nothing to prevent those animals from rambling across the Border, either in
search of prey, or for bringing forth their young, or in consequence of any
other natural instinct, it would be impossible, at that time, with a scanty
population, and with the desolation incident to the unsettled state of the
Borders, to keep the northern counties of England always free from them,
and to prevent their breeding there. [298] Those parts of England were
exposed to the incursions of Borderers and freebooters from Scotland,
whose lawless and dangerous habits were almost as intolerable to their own
countrymen as to the English, and who principally subsisted by pillage, and

rendered life and property insecure, and, as a natural consequence, those
parts were very thinly inhabited. Many very large districts in the northern
counties consisted of wild wastes, forests, hills, woody valleys, and
swamps, with a very scanty and semi-barbarous population: disadvantages
which militated very much against the early extermination of savage
animals. A change for the better, however, took place in the population, the
civilization, and the appearance of the country, about the close of the reign
of Elizabeth. I, however, am not aware that any English writer, since the
time of Coke, has given us any reason to suppose that wolves were to be
found in England after the termination of her reign. We can scarcely
suppose that Coke was incorrect in mentioning wolves as beasts of chase in
England at the time when he wrote; it seems, however, only reasonable to
believe, under all the circumstances, that they were at that time extinct in all
the southern parts; but that a few then remained in their fastnesses and
retreats in forests, hills, and wild districts, in some of the northern counties
of England, and especially in the parts adjacent to Scotland, and furnished
employment and sport to the hunters, and that, with the increase of
population and cultivation, the clearing away of woods and forests, and the
more general use of firearms, they at last became extinct in the northern
counties, about the commencement of the seventeenth century, which was
near the period of the close of the reign of Elizabeth.

APPENDIX.

No. I.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of the 1st Edward IV., passed against
the Lancastrians who had taken part in the second Battle of St. Alban’s,
the Battle of Wakefield, and the Battle of Towton.—Rot. Parl. 1 Edward
IV. (A.D. 1461), vol. v. p. 476, 477, and 478.

“For asmoche as Henry, late Kyng Henry the sixt, ayenst the honoure
and trouth that owe to be stablisshed in every Christien Prynce,
dissimilyng with the right noble and famous Prynce Richard Duc of
York, to whome it lyked at the grete and speciall instaunce of the same
Henry, and of the Lordes Spuelx and Temporelx, and Commyns of the
Reame of Englond, solempnely to hym made, and for the tender and
naturall zele and affection that he bare unto the commyn wele, good
pollitique, and restful governaunce therof, to take his viage from the
Cite of London, toward the North parties of the seid Reame, to
represse, subdue and resist the unleefull and inordynat commotion and
riotte there bigonne, to the subversion of the seid Cõen wele, politique
and restfull governaunce: Natheles procured, stered and excited, ayenst
his promisse, and the forme of the Convention and Concorde made
bitwene hem of and uppon the right and title of the seid Coroune, roiall
power, dignite, estate, preemynence and possession of the seid Reame,
the murdre of the same Duc. And where the seid Henry Usurpour,
dissimilyng the destruction of other lordes and persones of the same
reame, by his writts, called to assist hym to attend uppon his persone,
to resiste and represse another commocion of people, by his assent and
wille gadered, and waged not oonly in the North parties, but also oute
of Scotlond, commyng from the same parties with Margarete late
called Quene of Englond, and hir son Edward, late called Prynce of

Wales, extendyng to the extreme destruction of the seid Reame,
namely of the South parties therof, wherof experience sheweth the
clerenes, respect had to the spoile by theym of Godds chirch, of
Chalesses, Crosses of sylver, Boxes for the Sacrament, and other
onourments longyng therunto, of defoulyng and ravisshing religious
wymmen, wedowes and maydens, of unmanly and abhomynable
entretyng of wymmen beyng in the naturall labour and bataille of
travailyng of child, by the moyne therof piteously disperaged, Heven
sorowyng the lost therby of the Soules that shuld have been of the
felauship of Cristendom and of the blisse of Heven, not abhorryng of
unmanly, unnaturall and beestly cruelte to drawe wymmen beyng in
childebedde from their bedds naked, and to spoile hem of all her
goods, a piteous desolacion. The same Henry, actour, factour and
provoker of the seid commocion, and assentyng of covyne with the
seid Margarete, Henry Duc of Somerset, and Henry late Erle of
Northumberlond, in a battaille to be shewed unto hym, and offered of
fraudulent dissimilacion, in a feld beside the toune of Seint Albones,
the XVII day of Feverer last past, not joynyng his persone and blode to
the defence, tuition and salvacion of the same Lordes and persones
commen to assist hym by his auctorite and commaundement, lyke a
victorious and a noble captayne, but lyke a disseyvable coward, ayenst
princely and knyghtly duetee, sodenly, privately and shamefully
refused theym, sufferyng and procuryng to disseivably th’effucion of
their blode, and horrible murdre and deth, not havyng therof sorowe,
pitee or compassion; adheryng to the seid Margaret, and to the seid
Duc of Somerset, and other Lordes and persones that committed the
seid orrible and cruell murdre of the seid Duc of York, and of the Erles
of Rutlond and Salesbury, and also of the seid people, in the seid felde
beside the seid toune of Seint Albones, yevyng therfor to the seid Duc
and other assistyng theym therin, a speciall laude and thank; from
thensforth appliyng to theym and to their outrageous and unlawfull
riotts and misgovernaunce; after that sufferying wilfully thoo worthy
and good Knyghtes, William Lord Bonvile, and Sir Thomas Kiryell,
for the prowesse of knyghthode approved in their persones called to
the order of the Garter, and William Gower Squier, the Berer of oon of
his Baners, whom to he made feith and assurans under Kynges word,
proeedyng from his mouth, to kepe and defend theym there from all

hurt, joupardie and perell, to be murdred, and after that tyrannyously
heded, with grete violence, withoute processe of lawe or any pitee,
contrary to his seid feith and promysse, abhomynable in the heryng of
all Christen Prynces. For asmoch also as Henry Duc of Somerset,
purposyng, ymaginyng and compassyng, of extreme and insaciate
malice and violence, to destroy the right noble and famous Prynce of
wurthy memorie, Richard late Duc of York, fader to oure Liege and
Soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the fourth, and in his lyf verrey Kyng in
right of the reame of Englond, singuler protectour lover and defensour
of the good governaunce, pollicie, commyn wele, peas and tranquillite
therof; and also Thomas Courteney late Erle of Devonshire, Henry
Erle of Northumberlond, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Nevill,
John Whelpdale late of Lychefeld, Clerk, Philip Lowes late of
Thouresby in the counte of Lincoln Clerk, Bawdewyn Fulforth
Knyght, Alexander Hody Knyght, Nicholas Latymer Knyght, James
Loterell Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Fyndern
Knyght, Henry Lewes Knyght, John Heron of the Forde Knyght,
Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert
Whityngham Knyght, William Grymmesby late of London late Squier,
Thomas Tunstall late of Thurland in the shire of Lancastr’ Squier,
Symond Hammes Knyght, Thomas Dalton late of Lilbourne in the
counte of Northumberlond Gentilman, James Dalton late of the same
Gentilman, George Dalton late of the same Gentilman, John Clapam
late of Skipton in Craven in Yorkshire Yoman, Andrew Trollop late of
Guysnes Squier, Antony Notehill Knyght, John Botiller late of Howke
in the counte of Dorset Squier, Gawen Lampleugh late of Warkeworth
in the shire of Northumberlond Gentilman, Edmund Fyssh late of York
Taylleour, Thomas Frysell late of the same Smyth, John Smothyng late
of the same Yoman, John Caterall late of Brayton in the counte of York
Gentilman, Thomas Barton late of Helmesley in the counte of York
Gentilman, William Fyppes late of Sonthduffeld in the counte of York
Yoman, Henry Clyff th’ elder late of Lokyngton in the counte of York
Yoman, Robert Tomlynson late of Helagh in the counte of York
Yoman, and Thomas Barton late of York Mason; at Wakefeld in the
shire of York, on Tywesday the xxx day of Decembr’ last past, with
grete despite and cruell violence, horrible and unmanly tyrannye,
murdred the seid right noble Prynce Duc of York. And where also

Henry Duc of Excestr’, Henry Duc of Somerset, Thomas Courteney
late Erle of Devonshire, Henry late Erle of Northumberlond, William
Vicecount Beaumont, Thomas Lord Roos, John late Lord Clyfford,
Leo late Lord Welles, John late Lord Nevill, Thomas Gray Knyght
Lord Rugemond Gray, Randolf late Lord Dacre, Humfrey Dacre
Knyght, John Morton late Person of Blokesworth in the shire of Dorset
Clerk, Rauff Makerell late Person of Ryseby in the shire of Suff’
Clerk, Thomas Mannyng late of New Wyndesore in Berkshire Clerk,
John Whelpdale late of Lychefeld in the counte of Stafford Clerk, John
Nayler late of London Squier, John Preston late Wakefield in the shire
of York Preest, Philip Wentworth Knyght, John Fortescu Knyght,
William Tailboys Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas
Tresham Knyght, William Vaux Knyght, Edmund Hampden Knyght,
Thomas Fyndern Knyght, John Courteney Knyght, Henry Lewes
Knyght, Nicholas Latymer, Knyght, Waltier Nuthill late of Ryston in
Holdernes in the shire of York Squier, John Heron of the Forde
Knyght, Richard Tunstall Knyght, Henry Belyngeham Knyght, Robert
Whityngham Knyght, John Ormond otherwise called John Botillier
Knyght, William Mille Knyght, Symonde Hammes Knyght, William
Holand Knyght called the Bastard of Excestr’, William Josep’ late of
London Squier, Everard Dykby late of Stokedry in the shire of
Ruthlond Squier, John Myrfyn late of Suthwerk in the shire of Surr’
Squier, Thomas Philip late of Dertyngton in Devonshire Squier,
Thomas Brampton late of Guysnes Squier, Giles Seyntlowe late of
London Squier, Thomas Claymond, the seid Thomas Tunstall Squier,
Thomas Crawford late of Caleys Squier, John Aldeley late of Guysnes
Squyer, John Lenche of Wyche in the shire of Worcestre Squier,
Thomas Ormond otherwise called Thomas Botillier Knyght, Robert
Bellyngeham late of Burnalshede in the shire of Westmerlond Squier,
Thomas Everyngham late of Newhall in the shire of Leycestr’ Knyght,
John Penycok late of Waybrigge in the counte of Surr’ Squier, William
Grymmesby late of Grymmesby in the shire of Lincoln’ Squier, Henry
Ross late of Rokyngham in the shire of Northampton Knyght, Thomas
Danyell late of Rysyng in the shire of Norff’ Squier, John Doubiggyng
late of the same Gentilman, Richard Kirkeby late of Kirkeby Ireleth in
the shire of Lancastr’ Gentilman, William Ackeworth late of Luton in
the shire of Bed’ Squier, William Weynsford late of London Squier,

Richard Stucley late of Lambehith in the counte of Surr’ Squier,
Thomas Stanley late of Carlile Gentilman, Thomas Litley late of
London Grocer, John Maydenwell late of Kirton in Lyndesey in the
counte of Lincoln, Gentilman, Edward Ellesmere late of London
Squier, John Dauson late of Westmynster in the shire of Midd’ Yoman,
Henry Spencer late of the same Yoman, John Smothyng late of York
Yoman, John Beaumont late of Goodby in the shire of Leyc’
Gentilman, Henry Beaumont late of the same Gentilman, Roger
Wharton otherwise called Roger of the Halle, late of Burgh in the shire
of Westmerlond Grome, John Joskyn late of Branghing in the shire of
Hertf’ Squier, Richard Litestr’ the yonger late of Wakefeld Yoman,
Thomas Carr late of Westmynster Yoman, Robert Bollyng late of
Bollyng in the shire of York Gentilman, Robert Hatecale late of
Barleburgh in the same shire Yoman, Richard Everyngham late of
Pontfreyt in the same shire Squier, Richard Fulnaby of Fulnaby in the
shire of Lincoln Gentilman, Laurence Hille late of Moch Wycombe in
the counte of Buk’ Yoman, Rauff Chernok late of Thorley in the counte
of Lancastr’ Gentilman, Richard Gaitford of Estretford in Cley in the
shire of Notyngh’ Gentilman, John Chapman late of Wymbourne
Mynster in Dorset shire Yoman, and Richard Cokerell late of York
Marchaunt; on Sonday called comynly Palme Sonday, the xxix day of
Marche, the first yere of his reigne, in a feld bitwene the townes of
Shirbourne in Elmett, and Tadcastr’ in the seid Shire of York, called
Saxtonfeld and Tawtonfeeld, in the shire of York, accompanyed with
the Frensshmen and Scotts, the Kynges Ennemyes, falsely and
traiterously ayenst their feith and liegeaunce, there rered werre ayenst
the same Kyng Edward, their rightwise, true, and naturall liege Lord,
purposyng there and then to have distroyed hym, and deposed hym of
his roiall estate, coroune and dignite; and then and there, to that entent,
falsely and traiterously moved bataille ayenst his seid astate, shedyng
therin the blode of a grete nombre of his subgetts: In the which
bataille, it pleased Almyghty God to yeve unto hym, of the mysterie of
his myght and grace, the victorie of his ennemyes and rebelles, and to
subdue and avoyde th’ effect of their fals and traiterous purpose. And
where also the seid Henry, late called Kyng Henry the Sixt, Margarete
his wyf, late called Quene of Englond, and Edward her Son, late called
Prynce of Wales, and also Henry Duc of Excestre, Henry Duc of

Somerset, Thomas Lord Roos, Thomas Grey Knyght Lord Rugemond
Gray, in the fest of Seint Marc Evangelist last past, purposyng and
ymaginyng the destruction of oure seid Soverayne Lord Kyng Edward,
to depose hym of his roiall astate and dignite, procured of James Kyng
of Scotts, and of his subgetts, then ennemyes of oure seid Soverayne
Lord, their eyde, assistence and armed power, to entre uppon the same
oure Soverayne Lord into his seid reame, to put hym from the reigne
therof, and to distroy hym; and to that entent, convened with the same
James Kyng of Scotts, and ayeinst their feith and liegeaunce,
delyvered to hym to his possession and obeisaunce, in the seid Fest,
the toune and castell of Berwyk, of oure seid liege Lordes, then beyng
their rightwisse, true, and naturall liege Lord, to that ende and effect,
that the seid Kyng of Scotts soo than possessed of the seid toune and
castell, the key of the Estmarches of Englond, shuld therby have entre,
to execute the unjust, untrue, and malicious purpose and entent of the
same Henry, Margaret and Edward. And for asmoch also as the seid
Margarete, and also Henry Duc of Excestr’, Henry Duc of Somerset,
Jasper Erle of Pembroke, James late Erle of Wilteshire, Robert Lord
Hungerford, Thomas Mannyng Clerk, John Lax, late Parsoune of
Walton in the shire of Somerset Clerk, Henry Lewes Knyght, Robert
Whityngham Knyght, John Ormond otherwise called John Botillier
Knyght, Frere Robert Gasley, of the ordre of the Freres Prechours, and
Thomas Cornewayle Squier, have ayenst their feith and liegeaunce,
dyvers tymes sith the fourth day of Marche last past, stured, laboured
and provoked the ennemyes of oure seid soverayne Lord Kyng Edward
the Fourth, of outeward landes, to entre into his seid reame with grete
bataille, to rere werre ayenst his astate within this seid reame, to
conquere the same from his possession and obeysaunce, to depose hym
of roiall astate, corounes and dignite, and to destroy his moost noble
persone and subgetts. And where also the same Margarete, and
Edward her son, and also the seid Henry Duc of Excestr’, Thomas
Grey Lord Rugemonde Grey, Humfrey Dacre Knyght, Edmund
Hampden Knyght, Robert Whityngham Knyght, Henry Bellyngeham
Knyght, and Richard Tunstall Knyght, adheryng to the Scotts,
ennemyes of oure seid soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the Fourth,
convened with the same Scotts, procuryng, desiring and wagyng theym
to enter into his seid reame, to make there werre ayenst his Roiall

Majeste, bringyng the same Scotts and ennemyes to his cite of Carlile,
besegyng and envirounyng it, brennyng the subarbes therof, distroiyng
the howses, habitacions and landes of his subgetts nygh therunto, in
manere of conquest; purposyng, ayenst their feith and liegeaunce, to
have delyvered the seid cite, the key of the Westmarches of Englond,
into the possession and obeysaunce of the seid Kyng of Scotts, and to
have spoiled the coroune of Englond therof, as they didde of the seid
toune of Berwyk. And over that, where the seid Henry, late called
Kyng of Englond the Sixt, and also Thomas Lord Roos, Thomas Gray
Lord Rugemond Grey, Humfrey Dacre Knyght, John Fortescu Knyght,
William Tailboys Knyght, Edmund Mountford Knyght, Thomas Nevill
late of Brauncepath in the Bisshopryke of Durham Clerk, Humfrey
Nevill late of the same Squier, and Thomas Elwyke late of Caleys
Squier, the XXVI day of Juyne last past, at Ryton and Brauncepath in
the Bisshopryke of Durham, with standardes and gyturons unrolled,
rered werre ayenst oure seid Lord Kyng Edward, purposying to have
deposed hym of his roiall astate, coroune and dignite, ayenst their feith
and liegeaunce. And for asmoch also as Henry Duc of Excestre, Jasper
Erle of Pembroke, and Thomas Fitz Herry late of Herford Squier, at a
place called Tutehill, besid’ the toune of Carnarvan in Wales, on Friday
next after the fest of Translacion of Seint Edward last past, rered werre
ayenst the same oure soverayne Lord, purposyng then and there to
have proceeded to his destruction, of fals and cruell violence, ayenst
their feith and liegeaunce.”

The act then declares Henry, late called King Henry the Sixth, convicted of
high treason, and to forfeit all castles, manors, lordships, lands, &c. &c.,
parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the said Margaret, late called Queen
of England, convicted of high treason; and the said Margaret, and also the
said Edward her son, disabled from having or enjoying any name of dignity,
pre-eminence, &c. &c.; and declares the said Margaret, and Edward her
son, to forfeit all castles, manors, lordships, lands, goods, &c. &c.; and also
declares the noblemen comprised in it disabled from having or enjoying any
name of dignity, pre-eminence, &c. &c.; and the noblemen, knights, and
other persons comprised in the act, convicted of high treason, and to forfeit
all their manors, lordships, lands, possessions, &c. to the King; except such
as were within the liberty of the Bishop of Durham, which were declared

forfeited to the Bishop, who claimed them in right of the Cathedral Church
of St. Cuthbert of Durham; within which liberty the Bishops of Durham
were alleged to have had immemorially the right to all forfeitures of that
description.

No. II.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 14th Edward IV. passed against some
of the Lancastrians who had taken part in the Battles of Barnet,
Tewkesbury, &c.—Rot. Parl. 14th Edward IV. (A.D. 1475), vol. vi. fos. 144,
145, 146.

“And also where John Veer late Erl of Oxford, late of Wyvenho in the
counte of Essex Knyght, George Veer, late of the same toune Knyght,
Thomas Veer late of the same toune Knyght, Robert Harlyston, late of
Shymplyng in the counte of Suffolk Squyer, William Godmanston, late
of Bromle in the counte of Essex, Squyer, John Durraunt, late of
Colleweston in the counte of Northampton Yoman, and Robert
Gybbon, late of Wyngfeld in the counte of Suffolk Squyer, in the
solempne and high fest of Ester Day, the which was the XIIIIth day of
Aprill, the XIth yere of the reigne of our said sovereigne liege Lord, at
Barnet in the counte of Hertford, and there and thenne togider
assembled theym, with grete multitude of his innaturall subgiettes,
rebelles and traytours, felonsle falsle and traiterousle, levied werre
agayns Kyng Edward the IIIIth, their naturall liege Lord, his roiall
persone then and there beyng, and his baner displayed, entendyng
traiterousle then and there the fynall distruction of his said moost roiall
persone, purposyng to have distroyd’ hym, and deposed hym of his
roiall astate, corone and dignitee, and there and then falsle and
traiterousle made and reared werre agayns his astate, sheddyng there
the blode of grete nombre of his subgiettes; in the which bataill, it
pleased Almyghty God to gyf hym victorie of hys ennemyes and
rebelles, and to subdue the effecte of their fals and traiterous purpose.
And also where Thomas Tresham late of Sywell in the counte of
Northampton Knyght, John Delves, late of Uttokeshater, in the counte
of Stafford Squyer, and Robert Baynton, late of Farleston in the counte
of Wilteshire Knyght, with grete nombre of rebelles and traytours,

assembled theym the IIIth day of the moneth of May, the said XIth yere
of the reigne of oure said sovereigne Lord, at Tewkesbury in the
counte of Gloucestr’, and there and then felonsle falsle and traiterousle
levied werre agayns Kyng Edward the IIIIth, their naturall liege Lord,
his roiall persone then and there beyng, and his baner displaied,
entendyng traiterousle then and there the fynall destruction of his said
moost roiall persone.”

The act then declares the persons comprised in it convicted of high treason,
and all their castles, manors, lordships, lands, &c., forfeited to the King, and
also declares that they were disabled from having or enjoying any name of
dignity, pre-eminence, &c. &c.

No. III.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 1st Henry VII., passed against the
Yorkists who had taken part in the Battle of Bosworth.—Rot. Parl. 1st
Henry VII. (A.D. 1485), vol. vi. fos. 275 and 276.

“Forasmoche as every king, prince, and liege lord, the more hie that he
be in estate and prehemenence, the more singularly he is bound to the
advancement and preferring of that indefferent vertue justice; and
promoteinge and rewardinge vertue, and bi oppressinge and
punishinge vice: Wherefore oure soveraigne lord, calleinge unto hys
blessed remembraunce thys high and grete charge adjoyned to hys
royall majestie and estate, not oblivious nor puttinge out of hys godly
mind the unnaturall, mischeivous, and grete perjuries, treasons,
homicides and murdres, in shedding of infants blood, with manie other
wronges, odious offences, and abominac̃ ons ayenst God and man, and
in es̃ pall oure said soveraigne lord, committed and doone by Richard
late Duke of Glouc’, callinge and nameinge hymself, by usurpac̃ on,
King Richard the IIId; the which, with John late Duke of Norff’,
Thomas Erle of Surrie, Francis Lovell Kñt Visc’ Lovell, Walter
Devereux Kñt, late Lord Ferrers, John Lord Zouche, Robert
Harrington, Richard Charleton, Richard Ratcliffe, William Berkley of
Welley, Robert Brakenbury, Thomas Pillkinton, Robert Midletoune,
James Harrington, Kñts, Walter Hopton, William Catesby, Roger

Wake, William Sapcott, Humfrey Stafford, William Clerke of
Wenlocke, Jeffrey St̃ Jermin, Richard Watkins, Herrauld of Armes,
Richard Revell of Derbishyre, Thomas Poulter of the countee of Kent
the younger, John Walsh otherwyse called Hastinges, John Kendale,
late secretarie to the said Richard late Duke, John Buck, Andrew Ratt,
and William Bramton of Burford, the XXIst daie of August, the first
yere of the reigne of oure soveraigne lord, assembled to theyme atte
Leicestre in the countee of Leicestre a grete hoste, traiterously
intendinge, imagininge and conspireinge the destrucc̃ on of the kinges
royall ps̃ oune, oure soveraigne leige lord. And they, with the same
hoste, with banners spred, mightyly armed and defenced with all
manner armes, as gunnes, bowes, arrowes, speres, gleves, axes, and all
other manner articles apt or needfull to gef and cause mightie battaille
agen oure said soveraigne lord, kept togedre from the said XXIId daie of
the said month thanne next followinge, and theyme conduced to a feld
within the said shyre of Leicestre, there bi grete and continued
deliberacõne, traiterously levied warre ayenst oure said soveraine lord,
and his true subjects there being in his service and assistance under a
banner of oure said soveraine lord, to the subversion of this realme,
and com̃ on weale of the same.”

The act then proceeds to declare Richard Duke of Gloucester otherwise
called King Richard III., and all the noblemen, knights, and other persons
comprised in the act, convicted of high treason, and disabled and forejudged
of all honours, dignity, pre-eminences, &c. &c., and all their castles,
manors, lordships, lands, goods, &c., forfeited to the King.

No. IV.

Proclamation by Henry VII., for enforcing order and discipline in his Army;
and Extract from a Journal of the March and Proceedings of Henry VII.
previously to the Battle of Stoke; from a manuscript in the Cottonian
Library.—Lelandi Collectanea, vol. iv. p. 210.

“The King our souveraigne lorde straytly charge and comaunde, that
no maner of man, of whatsoever state, degre, or condition he bee, robe
ne spoyle any chyrche, ne take oute of the same any ornament theron

belonging, nor touche ne sett hande on the pixe wherein the blessed
sacrament is conteynede, nor yet robbe ne spoyle any maner man or
woman, upon peyne of deth. Also that no maner of persones ne
persones whatsoever they bee make no quarell to any man, nor sease
nor vex ne troble any man by body or goodes for any offense, or by
color of any offence hertofor doon or comyttede agenst the roial
Majestie of the King our saide souveraigne lorde, withoute his
auctoritie and especial comaundement geven unto hym or theym, that
so doon in that behalfe upon peyne of deth. Also that no maner of
persones ne persones whatsoever they bee, ravishe no religios woman,
nor mannes wiff, doughter, maydene, ne no mannes ne womans
servaunt, or take, ne presume to take, any maner of vytayll, horsemet,
nor mannes mete, withoute paying therfor the reasonable pryce therof,
assisede by the clerke of the market or other the king’s officers therfor
ordeynede, upon peyne of deth. Also that no maner of persones ne
persones, whatsoever thay bee, take uppon theym to logge theymsilfs,
nor take no maner of logging, ne harbygage, but suche as shal be
assignede unto hym or theym by the King’s herbygeours, nor disloge
no man, nor chaunge no logging after that he be assignede, without
advyse and assent of the said harbygeours, uppon peine of
imprisonment and to be punyshede at the wille of our saide
souveraigne lorde. Also that no maner of man, whatsoever he bee,
make no quarell with any other man, whatsoever be bee, for no maner
of cause, old ne newe; ne make no maner of fray, within the hooste ne
withoute, upon peyne of imprisonment and to bee punishede according
to ther trespas and defautes. And if ther happen any suche quarell of
affray to be made by any evyll disposede personnes, that then no
maner of man, for any acquentaunce or filiship that they bee of, take
noo parte with no suche mysdooers in any suche affrayes or quarells,
upon peyne of imprisonment and to be punyshed at the King’s wille.
But that every man endevor hymsilf to take al suche mysdooers and
brynge theym to the marshalls ward, to be punyshed according to ther
desertes. Also that no maner of personne, whatsoever he bee, hurte,
troble, bete, ne lette no maner of personne, man, woman, or childe
bryngyng any vitayle unto the Kings hooste, upon payne of
imprisonment and his bodye to bee at the Kings wille. And over this,
that every man, being of the reteyne of our saide souveraigne lorde, at

the furste sounde or blaste of the trumpet to saddil hys hors; at the 2d
doo brydell; and at the 3d be redy on horsebake to wayte upon his
highnesse, upon peyne of imprisonment. Also, that no maner of
personne, whatsoever he bee, make no skryes, showtings, or blowing
of hornesse in the Kings hooste after the wache bee sett, upon peyne of
imprisonment and his bodye to be at the Kings wille. Also, that no
vagabonde, nor other, folowe the Kings hooste, but suche as be
reteynede, or have maisters within the same, upon peyne of
imprisonment and to bee punyshede in example for other; and that no
coman wooman folow the Kings hooste, upon payne of imprisonment
and openly to be punyshede in example of al other. Also, whansoever
it shall please the King our souveraigne lorde to comaunde any of hys
officers of armes to charge any thing in his name, by hys high
comaundement, or by the comaundement of his counstable or
marshall, that it be observed and kept, upon payne of imprisonment
and his body to be punyshed at the Kings pleasure.
“From thens” [Kenilworth] “the King procedede to Coventrye, wher
the Bishop of Wynchester toke his leve and went to the Quene and the
Prince, and the substance of his companye waytede upon the King,
under the standerde of his neveu th Erle of Devonshir. From Coventrie
the King remeved unto Leycester, wherby the comaundement of the
mooste Reverende Fader in God, th Archbishop of Canterbury, then
Chanceller of England, the Kings proclamations were put in
execusion. And in especyal voydyng comen women and vagabonds,
for ther wer imprisonede great nomber of both. Wherfor ther was
more reste in the King’s hooste, and the better rule. And on the
morow, which was on the Monday, the King lefte ther the forsaide
Reverende Fader in God and roode to Loughborough; and the saide
Lorde Chancellors folks were commyttede by his neveu, Robert
Morton, unto the stander of th Erle of Oxinforde, in the fowarde. And
at Loughborough, the stokks and prisonnes wer reasonabley fylled
with harlatts and vagabonds. And after that were but fewe in the
hooste unto the tyme the felde was doon. On Tewsday the King
remevede and lay al nyght in the felde, under a wode called Bonley
Rice. And on the Wednesday the King’s marshalls and herbigers of his
hoste did not so welle ther diligence that way, for when the King

remevede ther was no propre grounde appoyntede wher the Kings
hooste shulde logge that nyght hen following, but it was a royal and a
marvelouse faire and a wele tempered day. And the King, with his
hooste, wandrede her and ther a great espace of tyme, and so came to a
fayre longe hille, wher the King sett his folks in array of batell, that is
to say, a bow and a bill at his bak, and al the fowarde were wele and
warely loggede under the hille to Notyngham warde. And when the
King hade sene his people in this fayr array, he roode to a village 3
myles a this side Notingham, on the highway syde, wher in a
gentilmannes place his grace logede. And in that village, and in a bene
felde to Notingham warde, lougede al his batell; whiche evening wer
taken certeyn espies, whiche noysede in the contrey that the King had
ben fledde. And sume were hangede on the ashe at Notyngham
Brygge ende. And on the morowe, whiche was Corpus Christi day,
after the King had harde the dyvyne servyce in the pariche chirche, and
the trumpetts hadde blowne to horse, the King, not letting his hoste to
understand his entente, rode bakewarde to see, and also welcome the
Lord Strannge, whichc brought with hym a great hoste, inow to have
beten al the Kings enemies, only of my Lorde his faders th’ Erle of
Derbye folks and his. And al wer fayre embaytailled, whiche
unknowne turnyng to the hooste, causede many folks for to marvaille.
Also the Kings standerde and muche cariage folowde after the King,
unto the tyme the King was advertysede by Garter King of Armes,
whom the King comaunded to turne them al ageyn, whiche so dide
theym al in bataile on the hef heder side of the great hille a this side
Notingham, unto the tyme the King came. That nyght the Kings
hooste lay under the ende of all that hille towarde Notingham to
Lenton warde, and his fowarde befor hym to Notyngham Bruge
warde. And th Erle of Derbyes host on the Kings lifte hand to the
meadowes besides Lenton. And that evenyng ther was a great skrye, at
wiche skrye ther flede many men; but it was great joy to see how sone
the King was redye and his true men in array. And from thens, on the
Friday, the King, understanding that his enemyes and rebelles drew
towards Newarke warde, passing by Southwelle and the furside of
Trente, the King with his hoste remevede thedarwards, and logged that
nyght beside a village callede Ratcliff, 9 miles oute of Newarke. That
evening ther was a great skrye, whiche causede many cowards to flee;

but th Erle of Oxinforde, and al the nobles in the fowarde with hym,
wer sone in a good array and in a fayr bataile, and so was the King and
al the very men that ther wer. And in this estrye I harde of no man of
worship that fledde but raskells.
“On the morne, which was Satirday, the King erly arros and harde 2
masses, wherof the Lorde John Fox, Bishop of Excester, sange the ton;
and the King had 5 good and true men of the village of Ratecliff,
whiche shewde his grace the beste way for to conduyt his hoost to
Newark, whiche knew welle the countrey, and shewde wher wer
marres, and wher was the river of Trent, and wher wer vilages or
grovys for bushements, or strayt weyes, that the King might conduyt
his hoost the better. Of whiche guides the King gave 2 to th’ Erle of
Oxinforde to conduyt the fowarde, and the remanent reteyned at his
pleasure. And so in good order and array, before 9 of the clok, beside
a village called Stook, a large myle oute of Newarke, his fowarde
recountrede his enemyes and rebells, wher by the helpe of Almighty
God, he hadde the victorye. And ther was taken the lad that his rebells
callede King Edwarde, whos name was indede Lambert, by a vaylent
and a gentil esquier of the Kings howse, called Robert Bellingham.
And ther was slayne th’ Erle of Lincoln John, and dyvers other
gentilmen, and the Vicount Lorde Lovell put to flight. And ther was
slayne of Englishe, Duche, and Irishemen M IIII. And that day the
king made 13 baneretts and LII knyghts, whose names ensueth.
“Theis bee the names of the baneretts:

Sir Gilbert Talbot, Theis III wer made byfor the batell.
Sir John Cheyny,
Sir William Stow,

“And after the batel were made the same day:

Sir John of Aronndell, Sir Richard Crofte,
Sir Thomas Cokesay, Sir Humfrey Stanley,
Sir John Forstin, Sir Richarde de la Ver,
Sir Edward Benyngfelde, Sir John Mortymer,

Sir James Blount, Sir William Trouthbek.

“The names of the knyghts made at the same bataill:

Sir James Audley, Sir James Harrington,
Sir Edward Norres, Syr John Devenyshe,
Sir Robert Clifforde, Sir John Sabarotts,
Sir George Opton, Sir Thomas Lovell,
Sir Robert Abroughton, Sir Humfrey Savage,
Sir John Paston, Sir Antony Browne,
Sir Henry Willoughby, Sir Thomas Grey,
Sir Richard Pole, Sir Nicholas Vaux,
Sir Richard Fitzlewes, Sir William Tyrwytt,
Sir Edwarde Abrough, Sir Amyas Pallet,
Sir George Lovell, Sir Rauff Langforth,
Sir John Longvile, Sir Henry Bould,
Sir Thomas Terell, Sir William Redmyll,
Sir Roger Bellyngam, Sir Thomas Blount,
Sir William Carew, Sir Robert Cheyny,
Sir William Trouthbeck, Sir John Wyndan,
Sir Thomas Pooll, Sir John A. Musgrove,
Sir William Vampage, Sir George Nevell,
Sir James Parker, Sir Raf Shirley,
Syr Edwarde Darell, Sir William Litilton,
Sir Edwarde Pykerynge, Sir William Norres, [315a]
Sir Thomas of Wolton, Syr Thomas Hanseide,
Syr William Sandes, Sir Christofer Wroughton,
Syr Robert Brandon, Syr Thomas Lyn,
Syr Mores Barkley, Sir Moses Aborough,
Sir John Dygby, Syr Thomas Manyngton.

No. V.

Extract from the Act of Attainder against John, Earl of Lincoln, and his
Adherents.—Rotul. Parl. 3rd Henry VII. (A.D. 1487), vol. vi. fo. 397.

“Forasmoch as the XIXth day of the moneth of Marche last past John,
late Erle of Lincolne, nothyng consideryng the greate and sovereygn
kyndnes that oure sovereygne leige lorde that nowe ys, at dyvers
sundry tymes contynuelly shewed to the said late erle, but the
contrarye to kynd and naturall remembraunce his faith trouth and
allegeaunce conspired and ymagyned the most dolorouse and
lamentable murder, deth, and destruction of the roiall psone of oure
said sovereygne and leige lorde, and also distruction of all this realme,
and to pform his said malicious purpose traiterously departed to the
parties beyond the see, and ther accompanyed hymselfe with many
other false traitours and enemyes to our said sovereygne leige lorde, by
longe tyme contynuyng his malyce, prepared a grete navye for the
coostes of Brabon, and arryved in the portes of Irland, where he, with
Sr̃ Henry Bodrugan [315b] and John Beaumound, Squier, ymagyned and
conspired the destruction and deposition of oure said sovereygne liege
lorde; and for the execution of the same ther, the XXIIIIth day of May
last passed at the cite of Develyn, contrarie to his homage and faith,
trouth, and allegiaunce, trayterously renownced, revoked, and
disclaymed his owne said most naturall sovereygene leige lord the
kyng, and caused oone Lambert Symnell, a child of X yere of age,
sonne to Thomas Symnell, late of Oxforde, joynonre, to be proclamed,
erecte, and reputed as kyng of this realme, and to hym did feith and
homage, to the grete dishonour and despite of all this realme, and
frome thens contynuyng in his malicious and trayterous purpose arived
with a greate navie in Furnes, in Lancashire, the IIIIth day of June last
past, accompanyed with a greate multytude of straungers with force
and armes, that ys to saye, swerdys, speris, marespikes, bowes, gonnes,
harneys, brigandynes, hawberkes, and many other wepyns and harneys
defensible, and frome thens the same day he, with Sr̃ Thomas
Broughton, knyght, Thomas Haryngton, Robert Percy, of Knaresburgh,
in the countie of Yorke, Richard Harleston, John a Broughton, brother
unto the said Sr̃ Thomas Broughton, knyght, Thomas Batell, James
Haryngton, Edward Frank, Richard Middelton, squiers; Robert Hilton,
Clement Skelton, Alexander Apilby, Richard Banke, Edmund Juse,

Thomas Blandrehasset, gentilmen; John Mallary, of Lichbarowe, in the
countie of Northton, Robert Mallary, of Fallesley, in the same countie,
Gyles Mallary, of Grevysnorton, in the same countie, William Mallary,
of Stowe, in the same countie, Robert Mannyng, late of Dunstaple,
Willyam Kay, of Halyfax, gentilman, Roger Hartlyngton, Richard
Hoiggessone, John Avyntry, Rowland Robynson, yomen; with many
other ill-disposed psones and traytours, defensible and in like warrely
maner arrayed to the nomber of VIIIM persones ymagynyng,
compassyng, and conspiryng the deth and deposition, and utter
destruction of oure said soveraygne leige lorde the kyng, and the
subversion of all this realme, for the execucion and pfourmyng of the
said myschevous and traiterous purpose contynuelly in hostyle maner
passed fro thens from place to place to they come to Stoke, in the
countie of Notyngham; where the XVI day of June last past, with baners
displayed, levied warre ayenst the psone of his sovereygne and naturall
leige lorde, and gave to hym myghty and stronge batell, trayterously
and contrarie to all trouth, knyghthode, honour, allegeaunce, feith, and
affyaunce, intendyng utterly to have slayne, murdred, and cruelly
destroyed oure foresaid leige lorde and most Cristen prynce, to the
uttermost and grettest adventure of the noble and roiall persone of oure
seid leige lorde, destruction, dishonour, and subversion of all this
realme. For the which malicious compassed greate and heynous
offence, not alloonly commytted ayen oure said sovereygne lorde, but
also ayenst the unyversall and comen wele of this realme, ys requisite
sore and grevous punycion; and also for an example hereafter that non
other be bold in like wise to offend: Therfore be it enacted by oure
sovereygne lorde the Kyng by the advyse of all the lordes sp̃ uall and
temporall, and the com̃ ons in this present parliament assembled, and
by the auctorite of the same, that the said John, late Erle of Lincoln, Sr̃
Henry Bodrugan, Thomas Broughton, knyghtes; John Beaumond,
Thomas Haryngton, Robert Percy,” &c. &c., “be reputed, jugged, and
taken as traytours, and convicte and attaynte of high treason,” &c. &c.
And the act proceeds to declare all their castles, lordships, manors,
lands, goods, &c. &c. forfeited to the King.

No. VI.

Extract from the Act of Attainder of 11th Henry VII., against Francis Lovel,
late Lord Lovel.—Rot. Parl. 11th Henry VII. (A.D. 1495), vol. vi. fo. 502.

“Forasmoch as John, late Erle of Lincoln, Fraunces Lovell, late Lord
Lovell, and divers other with theym, trayterously ymagynyng and
compassyng the deth and destruccion of our sovereign lord the king,
assembled themself with other evil disposed peopull, to the nombre of
VM p̃ sones, at Stoke, in the countie of Notyngham, the XXth day of
June, the IId yere of the reigne of our said sovereign lord the kinge that
nowe is, and then and there, for the pformaunce of their cursed
myschevous and wreched purpose, in pleyne feild, at the same Stoke,
in the said countie, with their baners displayed, contrary to theyr
alligeaunce ayenst the king our and their naturall sovereign lord, levied
and rered warre and made bataille ayenst him, for whiche traiterous
and unnatural dede the said John, Erle of Lincolne, with dyvers other
then and there traiterously offendyng, were late by auctorite of
parliament, in a parliament holden at Westm’, the IIIde yere of the
reigne of the king our sovereigne lord that now is, deemed convict and
atteynt of high treason; in the whiche acte of atteyndre the said
Fraunces Lovell was ignorauntly left oute and omitted, to the moost
perillous ensample of other being of suche traiterous myndes.
Wherfore be it ordeyned, enacted, and established, by the lordes sp̃ uall
and temporall, and the comons in this p̃ sent parliament assembled, and
by auctorite of the same, that the said Fraunces stande and be deemed
adjuged, convicte, and atteynte of high treason, for his rehersed
trayterous dede, and forfeite to the kinge,” all the honours, castles,
manors, lordships, possessions, hereditaments, &c. &c., which he
possessed on the 20th June, in 2nd Henry VII.

This is a most extraordinary statute. It commences with calling Lord Lovel,
the “late Lord Lovell,” without there appearing to be any certain proof of
his death; and it is contradictory of the act attainting the Earl of Lincoln and
others (see Appendix No. V.), which alleges, that their forces amounted to
8000 men, and that the battle took place on the 16th of June; whilst in this
the insurgent troops are only stated to be 5000, and the 20th of June is
mentioned as the day of the battle. It is also scarcely credible, that the
attainder of Lord Lovel could have been, as alleged, inadvertently omitted

in the former statute; nor is it easy to assign any plausible reason, why an
avaricious sovereign like Henry VII. should allow eight years to elapse after
the insurrection, without passing this act of attainder, when the unhappy
nobleman’s large possessions offered so tempting a bait. Indeed, if Henry’s
object, in passing it, were to be enabled legally to seize upon them, such a
statute appears unnecessary, because Lord Lovel was attainted by the act of
1st Henry VII., for fighting at Bosworth (see Appendix No. III.); and there
is no reason to suppose that this attainder was ever reversed, or that he ever
submitted himself to allegiance to Henry.
There is a tradition, that Lord Lovel escaped from the field of battle of
Stoke, and took refuge in the north of England, and there, like Lord
Clifford, lived several years in obscurity, concealed from his enemies; but it
does not appear to be authenticated or supported by any historical authority.

No. VII.

Copy of a Letter given in Banks’s Dormant and Extinct Baronage, vol. ii. p.
321, from William Cowper, Esq., Clerk of the Parliament.

“Hertingfordbury Park, 9th August, 1737.
“Sir,—I met to’ther day with a memorandum I had made some years
ago, perhaps not unworthy your notice. You may remember that Lord
Bacon, in his History of Henry VII., giving an account of the battle of
Stoke, sais of the Lord Lovel, who was among the rebels, that he fled,
and swame over the Trent on horseback, but could not recover the
further side by reason of the steepenesse of the banke, and so was
drowned in the river. But another report leaves him not there, but that
he lived long after in a cave or vault.
“Apropos to this; on the 6th of May, 1728, the present Duke of Rutland
related in my hearing, that about twenty years then before, viz., in
1708, upon occasion of new laying a chimney, at Minster Luvel, there
was discovered a large vault or room under ground, in which was the
entire skeleton of a man, as having been sitting at a table, which was
before him, with a book, paper, pen, &c. &c.; in another part of the
room lay a cap, all much mouldered and decayed. Which the family

and others judged to be this Lord Luvel, whose exit has hitherto been
so uncertain.”

See also, Additions to Camden’s Magna Britannia (by Gough), edition of
1789, vol. ii. fo. 289, where the same circumstance is narrated, with the
addition, that the clothing of the body seemed to have been rich; that it was
seated in a chair, with a table and a mass-book before it; and also that, upon
the admission of the air, the body soon fell to dust.

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. [321]

Page 1, note 2, After the words, “and May, 1856,” add “and also in
September, 1856, which was after part of this work had been sent to the
press.”
„ 2. In the last line of note *, after the words, “according to,” insert the
name, “Fabyan.”
„ 3. Before “Market Drayton,” insert “Hodnet, and.”
„ 5. After the words, “offered battle to his enemies,” add “2,” and at the
foot of the page, insert as note “2”: “A portion of the suburbs of Shrewsbury
was intentionally burnt; that measure being considered requisite for the
safety of the town, in consequence of the approach of Hotspur’s army.—
Rot. Parl. 9 Henry IV., vol. iii. fo. 619.”
„ 5. For note “2,” substitute “3.”
„ 10. Instead of “fragments of human bones, armour, spurs,” read “human
bones, fragments of armour, spurs.”
„ 10. For “the Rev. J. O. Hopkins,” read “the late Rev. J. O. Hopkins.”
„ 11, note 4. For “very many of the bones of men,” read “the bones of
many men.”
„ 22, note 2. Instead of “18th of February, 1477,” read “18th of February,
1477–8.”
„ 28, note 2. For “the 16th of February, 1495,” read “the 16th of February,
1494–5.”
„ 35. Insert the figures “35” at the head of the page.

„ 39, note 3. For “28th of April, 1442,” read “29th of April, 1441.”
„ 44, note 2. Before the name “Hall,” insert “Fabyan.”
„ 49. For “1459,” read “1460.”
„ 50. In the second line of the continuation of the note, before the name
“Hall,” insert “Fabyan.”
Page 53, note 4. Add, “Dugdale and Stow state that the Duke of York left
London on the 2nd of December, and arrived at Sandal on Christmas eve.
If he consumed twenty-two days in his march from London to Sandal, the
delay seems very extraordinary.”
„ 54, note 3. Instead of “Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (the son of
Edmund Beaufort, grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), after the
death,” read “Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was the son of Edmund
Beaufort (grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), who, after the
death.”
„ 54. In the seventh line of the same note, instead of “his eldest son,
Henry,” read “The eldest son, Henry.”
„ 55, note 1. After the words, “fighting on behalf of Henry VI., and there
buried,” add, “Leland, in his Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 93 [p. 82], also states that
Thomas Earl of Devonshire was slain at Tewkesbury, and buried there.”
„ 58. Instead of “His army, surrendered and overwhelmed with numbers,”
read “His array nearly surrounded and overwhelmed by numbers.”
„ 64, note 2. Instead of “Quære, has not the lane been,” read “The lane is;”
and instead of “which formerly stood,” read “which stands, or very recently
stood.”
„ 68. In the continuation of the note, after the words, “vol. v. fo. 464,” add,
“and Fabyan, fo. 218.”
„ 72. In the continuation of the note, for “21st of December, 1493,” read
“21st of December, 1495.”

„ 73. For “his forces courageously attacked the army,” read “his army
courageously attacked the forces.”
„ 73. At the end of note 4, add, “Fabyan, fo. 627, calls him a knyght of
Wales.”
„ 92, note 1. Instead of “the Rev. George Townsend,” read “the Rev.
George Fyler Townsend;” and instead of “p. 12,” insert “pages 12 to 16.”
„ 99, note 1. After the words, “each horseman,” add, “in marching order.”
„ 103, note 4. After the words, “battles of Wakefield,” insert “[See Chap.
IV. p. 60.]”
Page 104, note 1. After the words, “Dugdale’s Baronage,” add “vol. i.;”
and after the passage, “Leland’s Coll. vol. ii. p. 715,” omit “[500],” and
insert “[498], in which is the following statement, ‘Syr John Nevel the Erle
of Westmerlandes brother and Andrew Trollop were killid at this tyme.’”
„ 111. After the words, “were restored,” add, “4,” and as a note at the foot
of the page, insert, “4 Leland mentions the titles and rank conferred by
Edw. IV. upon his friends and adherents, as follows:—

Thomas Blunte made Lord Montejoy
William Hastinges made Lorde Hastinges.
“‘Edward at his coronation creatid his brother George Duke of
Clarence; and Richard the younger, Duke of Gloucester; the Lord
Montacute, the Erle of Warwike’s brother, the Erle of Northumbreland;
William Stafford Esquier, Lord Staford of Southwike; Syr [William]
Herbart, Lord Herbart; and after Erle of Pembroke; and the saide Lord
Staford Erle of Devonshire; the Lord Gray of Ruthine, Erle of Kent;
the Lord Bourchier Erle of Essex; the Lord John of Bokingham, [323]
Erle of Wyltshire; Syr Thomas Blunt Knight, the Lord Montjoye; Syr
John Haward, Lord Haward; William Hastinges, Lord Hastinges and
Greate Chambrelayn; and the Lorde Ryvers; Denham Esquyer, Lord
Deneham; and worthy as is afore shewid.’—Lel. Collect., vol. ii. p.
715, 716 [449].”

“It is of course admitted, that Edward at his coronation ennobled his
brothers the Duke of Clarence and Duke of Gloucester; but Leland
appears to have expressed himself either not clearly, or not with his
usual accuracy, with respect to the dates of the conferring of the titles
upon several of the other personages, before mentioned, as may be
easily ascertained by a reference to the works of Ralph Brooke, or
Dugdale; from which it plainly appears, that although Edward did not
forget eventually to reward many of his supporters and adherents with
rank and titles, yet in some instances several years elapsed, after his
coronation, before they were ennobled, or, as the case might be, were
advanced in the peerage.”

Page 117, note 2. Instead of “ocnnected,” read “connected.”
„ 123. Instead of “called by Stow,” read “called by Leland and Stow.”
„ 123, note 2. Add before the name “Stow,” the words, “Lel. Itinerary, vol.
vi. fo. 17 [p. 16].”
„ 127, note 4. Instead of “des Mœurs,” read “sur les Mœurs.”
„ 140. For “right hand to be,” read “right hard to be.”
„ 142, note 1. For “The mills were,” read “The Mills are.”
„ 143, note 1. After the words, “in the abbey church there,” add, “Leland,
in his Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 92 [p. 81], states that she died at the Castle of
Warwick, on the 22nd of December, 1476, and was buried at Tewkesbury,
of which she was the patroness.”
„ 145, note 1. For “Sanderson’s,” read “Sandford’s.”
„ 149, note 3. For “Holme Castle,” read “Holme Ground.”

„ 162. Introduce as note 1, to the words, “third husband of his mother,” 1 as
follows:—

“Margaret Beaufort, sole daughter and heiress of John Beaufort, first
Duke of Somerset, became Countess of Richmond by her marriage
with her first husband, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond; her second

husband was Sir Henry Stafford (a son of Humphrey Stafford, first
Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton, and a brother
of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, slain at the first battle of St.
Alban’s, and also a brother of John Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire); and her
third husband was Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby.
The Countess of Richmond had only one child, viz., Henry Earl of
Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., by her marriage with Edmund
Earl of Richmond (see Pedigree No. 4, chap. ix. p. 201); and she had
not any children either by her second or third husband, as if, to use the
words of Sandford, in his Genealogical History, p. 319, ‘she had been
designed to be the mother of a king onely.’ She lived to see her son
Henry VII. and her grandson Henry VIII. successively kings, and died
in the first year of the reign of the latter, on the 3rd July, 1509, and was
buried in Westminster Abbey.”

Page 162. For note “1” read “2,” and in the note, for “Ann Beam” read
“Anne Beam.”
„ 170. After the words, “town’s people,” add, “and there is reason to
believe that they were got rid of, by being thrown into the river at the end of
Bow Bridge, at Leicester;” “borne out of the city, and contemptuously
bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge, which giveth passage over a branch
of Stoure, upon the west side of the towne.”—See Speed’s Annals, fo. 936;
see also Thorsby’s Views in Leicestershire, p. 338: and instead of the words,
“were deposited,” insert “had been deposited.”
„ 170, note 1. After “Hutton, 143,” add “Sandford’s Genealogical History,
p. 410. A tablet has been recently (in 1856) put up on one of the new
buildings near Bow Bridge, with an inscription treating the locality as if it
were the supposed place of the final interment of Richard III.; but although
it may perhaps be a disappointment to those who have caused the tablet to
be placed there, to learn that the correctness of their theory is not admitted
by others, still it is only proper to mention, that there does not appear to be
any authority for such a supposition: indeed, after his remains had been
pulled out of the grave and got rid of at the river, it is not likely that
anybody would know or care what became of them.”

„ 173. Instead of “which he afterwards gave,” read “which was afterwards
given.”
„ 180. In note 1, instead of “chap. iv.” read chap. “v.”
„ 189. For “the cliff occupied by his left wing, was, as before observed,
almost inassailable,” read, “the cliff occupied, as before observed, by his
left wing, was almost inassailable.”
„ 193, note 1. Instead of “[500],” read “[498].”
„ 203. After the words, “in the fifteenth century,” insert “and had no
relation to the wars of York and Lancaster.”
„ 210, note 2, add “MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 16.”
„ 274. Instead of “the Brooke Farm estate,” read “the Brooke Farm.”
Page 289. For “ou m’a assuire,” read “on m’a assuré.”
„ 294. After the words, “in that county,” add the figure “2.”
„ 296. For “the Institutes of England,” read “the Institutes of the Laws of
England.”
„ 298, note 1. Instead of the words, “there were not any wolves in
England,” insert “wolves did not appear in England.” He uses the
following expression respecting them: “though none of those animals
appear at present in England, nor on the borders toward Scotland, though
very common in that kingdom.”

INDEX.

A.

Acton, Robert, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 148.
Act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., against persons who had been engaged
at the second battle of St. Alban’s, the battle of Wakefield, and the battle of
Towton, 107, 301.
Act of attainder of 38th Henry VI., against persons who had been engaged
at the battle of Blore Heath, and other alleged offences, 28.
Act of attainder of 14th Edward IV., against persons who had been engaged
at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, 308.
Act of attainder of 1st Henry VII., against persons who had been engaged at
the battle of Bosworth, 309.
Act of attainder of 3rd Henry VII., against John Earl of Lincoln, and others,
who had been engaged at the battle of Stoke, 315.
Act of attainder of 11th Henry VII., against Francis Lord Lovel, for having
been engaged at the battle of Stoke, 317.
Adbright, Hussee, 18, 19.
Alban’s, St., first battle of, 2 (note), 23 (note), 43 (note), 54 (note).
Alban’s, St., second battle of, 82.
Alderley, Cheshire, 245.
Amyon (or Ambien) Hill and Wood, near Market Bosworth, 160, 162.

Anjou, Margaret of.—See “Queen Margaret.”
Anjou, René Duke of, 42 (note), 147.
Anne, Queen, wife of Richard III.—See “Queen Anne.”
Arquebuse, harquebus, hacquebut, hackbut, or hagbut, 214 to 244.
Artillery, occasional use of, by the English, in sieges of the fourteenth
century, 213 to 216.
Artillery, general use of, by the English, in war, in the fifteenth century, 217
to 244.
Arundel, Sir John, 133.
Audley, James Touchet, Lord, 25; slain at Blore Heath, 26.
Audley, Sir Humphrey, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, 146.

B.

Banbury, battle of, 193, 199.
Barnet, battle of, 205.
Barrow, Henry, slain at Tewkesbury, 148.
Basilisk, 220.
Battlefield, and Battlefield Church, 7 to 19.
Battlewell House and Battlewell Gate, near Evesham, 203.
Bear, formerly wild in England, 287.
Beauchamp, of Powick, William Lord, 185.
Beauchamp, Sir Richard, governor of the city and castle of Gloucester, 135.
Beaufort, Lord John, slain at Tewkesbury, 133, 142.
Beaumont, John Viscount, slain at Northampton, 46.

Beaumont, William Viscount, 103.
Beaver, formerly wild in England, 288.
Bedford, Jasper Tudor, Duke of, previously Earl of Pembroke, 69, 133, 166,
180, 186; extraordinary and abrupt changes of fortune of, 69 (note).
Berners, John Bourchier, Lord, 118.
Blore Heath, battle of, 21.
Blount, Sir Walter, slain at Shrewsbury, 7, 8, 111 (note).
Boar, wild, formerly in England, 287, 295, 297.
Bombard, 219 to 244.
Bonvile, William Lord, put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s,
82, 83.
Booth, Sir Robert, said to have been slain at Blore Heath, 264, 265.
Bosworth, battle of, 157.
Bourchier, Thomas, Cardinal, and Archbishop of Canterbury, 40, 83.
Bourchier, Henry Viscount (originally Earl of Ewe, and afterwards Earl of
Essex), 41, 44.
Bourchier, Humphrey Lord Cromwell, slain at Barnet, 194.
Bourchier, Sir Edward, slain at Wakefield, 29 (note), 58.
Bourchier, Sir John (afterwards Lord Berners), 29 (note), 118.
Bourchier, Sir Thomas, 161 (note).
Bourchier, Sir Humphrey, slain at Barnet, 118, 209.
Bourchier, William, Earl of Ewe, 40 (note 1), 118 (note 4), 209 (note 3).
Bourgeoise, 220.

Bouverie, Edward, Esq., battle of Northampton fought upon the estate of,
50 (note).
Brackenbury, Sir Robert, slain at Bosworth, 166.
Brandon, Sir William, slain at Bosworth, 167, 168.
Brandon, Thomas, 167 (note), 186.
Brecher, two gentlemen of that name put to death by Henry VII., after the
battle of Bosworth, 171.
Brereton, Cheshire family of, 269.
Brereton, Sir William, Bart., the distinguished Parliamentary commander,
270.
Bromley, Sir Robert, Bart., battle of Stoke fought upon the estate of, 185,
190.
Broughton, Sir Thomas, slain at Stoke, 178, 187.
Bows and arrows used in war in this country as late as in the Civil War of
Charles I. and the Parliament, 214.
Bows and arrows, option given by an act of Parliament of Philip and Mary,
to provide a bow and arrows, or a haquebut, 215.
Buckingham, Lord Henry Stafford, of, 106.
Buckingham, Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of, 43; slain at Northampton,
46.
Buckingham, Henry Stafford, second Duke of, beheaded in first year of
Richard III., 48 (note), 49, 50 (note).
Buckingham, Edward Stafford, third Duke of, beheaded in 13th year of
Henry VIII., 50.
Bull, Black, a standard of Edward IV. at the battle of Towton, 117.
Burgundy, Charles Duke of, slain at the battle of Nancy, 23 (note), 177,
194, 199.