Chapter XXII: Appendix: No. I (4)

{64c} His body was ultimately interred at Fotheringay. Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 161. Ralph Brooke seems to intend to make a similar statement in his _Catalogue of Nobility_, fo. 267; and see Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 373. It was first interred at Pontefract, and afterwards at Fotheringay; and it seems extraordinary that the Lancastrians, who practised such an indignity to his memory, as fixing his head upon the gate of York, should take the trouble of carrying his headless corpse to Pontefract for interment; but we learn from more than one historical source, that the corpse was first buried at Pontefract, and afterwards removed, and interred at Fotheringay. After the battle of Towton, Edward IV. had the Duke of York’s head taken down from York gate, and interred with the body. Leland adverts to the removal of the duke’s body from Pontefract to Fotheringay by Edward IV., as follows:—

“causid the body of his father Duke of York to be brought from
Pontefract thither” [Fotheringay], “and to be layid on the north side
of the Highe Altare, where is also buried, King Edward IV.’s mother,
in a vaulte, over the which is a pratie chappelle.” {65b} The body
of the young Earl of Rutland was also first interred at Pontefract,
and afterwards at Fotheringay.—Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, pp.
374 and 375. _Catalogue of the Nobility_, &c., by Ralph Brooke, p.
189.

{65a} John Harrow of London, and a Captain named Hanson, were taken prisoners at the battle, and were beheaded with the Earl of Salisbury, at Pontefract, and their heads were set upon the gates of York.—See Fabyan’s _Chronicles_, fo. 210.

{65b} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 6.

{67a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 18th of January, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

{67b} Edward was Earl of March and Ulster, and Lord of Wigmore and Clare, and afterwards King Edward IV.; and, although not usually called Duke of York by historians, there does not seem to be any reason why he was not so called, between the time of his father’s death, and his accession to the throne of England. Edward was the eldest son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, and was born at Rouen, in Normandy, on the 29th of April, 1441. His claim to the throne of England was founded upon his being descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward III. (See Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, in Chap. IX.) His reign commenced on the 4th of March, 1461 (see _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 464 and Fabyan, fo. 218); he was crowned at Westminster on the 29th of June, 1461, and died on the 9th of April, 1483, in the forty-second year of his age, and the twenty-second of his reign.

{69a} James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire. See Chap. IV.

{69b} The following it a copy of a paper upon the extraordinary and abrupt changes of fortune of Jasper Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of Bedford, in the fifteenth century, written by the author of this work, and read by him in person, on the 31st of March, 1856, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, for which the thanks of the meeting were voted to him:—

“Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield,
from the place of his birth, was a nobleman celebrated for his
descent, and for the royal and illustrious alliances of his family.
He was one of the noble personages who lived and distinguished
himself in the fifteenth century: a period memorable in the history
of England, for foreign and domestic wars, and civil dissensions, and
for the strange mutations of fortune, which its princes and nobles
were doomed to experience; and perhaps we may search the pages of
history, in fruitless endeavours to discover an instance of any
nobleman, who experienced such abrupt and extraordinary vicissitudes,
and such sudden and astonishing transitions, on several occasions,
from power and wealth, to exile and poverty, and again from the
miseries of a poor outlaw and fugitive, to rank, possessions, and
honours, as fell to the lot of Jasper Earl of Pembroke.

“It matters now little to us, whether in the wars of York and
Lancaster, and the violence and exasperation of the contending
factions, the one party or the other was in the right; but under
every possible circumstance, whether the cause which he espoused was
successful or unfortunate, he uniformly supported the Lancastrian
interest; and when we consider how many personages of high rank
fought during those lamentable conflicts, sometimes on one side and
sometimes on the other, and joined the winning party, as seemed best
to suit their own interests, we must at least give him credit for
consistency, and perhaps for sincerity. One reason of some moment,
may, however, be found for his strenuous and consistent support of
the Lancastrian party. He was half-brother of King Henry VI., being
the son of Sir Owen Tudor, who was descended from persons of the
first consideration, and of a family of great antiquity in Wales, by
his wife Queen Katherine, daughter of Charles VI. King of France, and
widow of Henry V. King of England, and had by Queen Katherine, two
sons, the oldest of whom was Edmund Earl of Richmond, usually
denominated Edmund of Hadham, who married Margaret, daughter of John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, son of John Earl of Somerset, a son of
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward III., by whom
he had a son, Henry Earl of Richmond, who was afterwards King Henry
VII.; and the second son of Sir Owen Tudor was Jasper Tutor, who was,
in consequence of his father’s marriage with Queen Katherine, uncle
of King Henry VII. King Henry VI. created Jasper Tudor, Earl of
Pembroke; and in consequence of his recovering the castle of Denbigh,
and other strongholds in Wales, out of the hands of the adversaries
of Henry, he obtained a grant of 1000 marks, payable out of the
lordships of Denbigh and Radnor.

“The Earl of Pembroke appeared in 1460–1, in arms, with James Butler,
Earl of Wiltshire, and a considerable army, as supporters of Henry
VI.; and on the 2nd of February, in that year, fought at the battle
of Mortimer’s Cross, against the Yorkists, under the command of
Edward Earl of March, afterwards King Edward IV.; but the Lancastrian
army was completely defeated, and the two earls were compelled to
escape by flight. It may be fairly presumed, that he was not present
at the battle of Towton in 1461, as he was not included in the list
of those persons who were attainted by the act of Parliament of 1st
Edward IV. (1461), _Rot. Parl._ vol. v. fo. 477, for taking a part in
that battle; yet he seems nevertheless to have been exerting himself
in arms for Henry VI. about that time, because in a subsequent part
of the same act of Parliament, he was attainted for having with
others, as alleged, at different times since the 4th of March in that
year, incited the enemies of King Edward IV. to enter the realm and
to commence hostilities against him; and also for having made war
against the King ‘at a place called Tutehill, besid’ the Toune of
Carnarvan, in Wales, on Friday next after the Fest of Translacion of
Seint Edward last past, rered werre ayenst the same our Soverayne
Lord, purposying then and there to have proceeded to his destruction,
of fals and cruell violence ayenst their feith and Liegeaunce.’ From
that passage it can scarcely be doubted, that an engagement between
some forces of the hostile factions, took place near Carnarvon, in
1461, but I am not aware that any historian has handed down to us,
any account of it, or even noticed it: an additional proof, if any
were wanting, that much more bloodshed and misery were experienced in
this country, during the Wars of the Roses, than our old annalists
and chroniclers have recorded. The Earl of Pembroke lost his rank,
his possessions, and, in a word, his all, by the attainder, for all
that he had was confiscated. His earldom was conferred upon William
Herbert of Ragland; and Jasper Tudor became an outlaw and a fugitive,
and, as is very forcibly expressed by Baker, in his _Chronicles_,
‘The Earl of Pembroke went from country to country, little better
than a vagabond.’

“Again the scene suddenly changed. In 1470, William Herbert, the
rival Earl of Pembroke, was captured by the Lancastrians at the
battle of Edgecott, in Northamptonshire (usually called the battle of
Banbury, from its contiguity to that town), and was beheaded. Jasper
Tudor, who still claimed the title of Earl of Pembroke, landed in the
west with George Duke of Clarence (who then sided with the Earl of
Warwick in the Lancastrian interest), and King Edward was driven from
his throne and kingdom by the Earl of Warwick. Jasper Tudor was
shortly afterwards restored to his rank and title, and a second time
became Earl of Pembroke, resumed his possessions in Wales; and
finding his nephew, Henry Earl of Richmond, then scarcely ten years
of age, in the care of the widow of his deceased rival, William
Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, he removed him from her superintendence,
took him and presented him to Henry VI., who, on seeing him, is said
(with what truth may well be doubted) to have made a speech almost
prophetic of Richmond’s future fortunes.

“Another sudden and startling change occurred in this strange and
wonderful drama. Edward IV. returned to England in 1471, and
obtained a decisive victory over the Earl of Warwick, at Barnet.
Queen Margaret landed at Weymouth; the Lancastrians once more took up
arms, and Pembroke proceeded to raise forces in Pembrokeshire, with
the intention of succouring her. The disastrous battle of
Tewkesbury, and the consequent utter ruin of the Lancastrian party,
compelled him to retire to Chepstow, and to disband his forces. He
then had a very narrow escape with his life. Edward IV. sent Roger
Vaughan, a valiant person, to surprise Pembroke there; but he
captured Vaughan, beheaded him, and proceeded from thence to the town
of Pembroke. Still he was in imminent danger. Morgan ap Thomas
pursued him, and commenced the siege of that town; but David ap
Thomas, who was the brother of Morgan ap Thomas, although of the
opposite party, came to his assistance, and succeeded in raising the
siege, and Pembroke got from thence in eight days, and sailed with
his nephew, the young Earl of Richmond, from Tenby, intending to
proceed to France. His ill fortune still prevailed: the winds drove
them upon the coast of Brittany; they were forced to put into a port
of that country, and could not be well excused from paying their
respects to the Duke of Brittany; but when they would have taken
their departure, they were given to understand, that they were not at
liberty to proceed. The Duke of Brittany considering, that these two
noblemen might be of some advantage to him, assigned to them the town
of Vannes for their residence. They were outwardly treated with all
respect due to their birth and rank, but were narrowly watched.
Pembroke’s exile was a protracted one, and he remained abroad, an
outlaw, a fugitive, and in poverty, during several years, most of
which he passed in Brittany, but a short time was spent in France,
just before his return to England as after mentioned. His earldom
was conferred by Edward IV. upon his son, Prince Edward, and was
afterwards held by Richard III. At length, in consequence of the
death of Edward, the odium and unpopularity in which Richard was held
by many, and the English nation being at last weary of civil war,
violence, and bloodshed, the prospect was opened, of his return to
England, and of the accession to the throne of his nephew, Henry Earl
of Richmond.

“In October, 1483, an attempt was made, to effect a hostile landing
in England, by the Earl of Richmond, with some forces, which were
intended to have been supported by the rising of Henry Stafford, Duke
of Buckingham, and others. That expedition was an utter and
disastrous failure. Richmond’s fleet was dispersed by a storm; and
although the ship in which he sailed appeared off Poole, in
Dorsetshire, he found it dangerous, as well as useless, to attempt to
land, and was compelled to return to Brittany. The insurrection was
suppressed, the duke was executed, and Jasper Tudor, with the
bitterness of disappointed hopes, was doomed for some time longer, to
remain in banishment. The old historians do not expressly mention
his having been with Richmond, in that expedition; but it seems quite
impossible, to doubt the fact, of his having accompanied him.

“Once more the scene changed in this most strange and eventful drama.
In 1485, the Earl of Richmond, with Jasper Tudor and some few troops
from France, landed at Milford, in South Wales, and having been
joined by their friends and supporters, the battle of Bosworth (at
which the latter had a principal command) placed Richmond on the
throne of England, by the title of Henry VII.

“By that event Jasper Tudor found himself for the third time, Earl of
Pembroke. He was restored to his honours and possessions, created
Duke of Bedford, made one of the Privy Council, and one of the
Commissioners for executing the office of High Steward of England, on
the occasion of the ceremony of the coronation of Henry; also Justice
of South Wales, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and had besides
considerable and valuable possessions, lands, and offices, conferred
upon him.

“In 1487, he was joint general, with John De Vere, Earl of Oxford, at
the battle of Stoke, where the Earl of Lincoln was defeated. He was
afterwards again appointed joint general with the Earl of Oxford, of
the army sent into Flanders, in aid of the Emperor Maximilian,
against the French. He married Katharine, sixth daughter of Richard
Widevile or Wodevile, Earl of Rivers, sister of Elizabeth, Queen of
Edward IV., and widow of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was
executed, as before mentioned, in 1483.

“He continued to enjoy his titles, ranks, and great possessions,
until his death, which took place on the 21st of December, 1495. He
did not leave any issue, and was interred in the Abbey of Keynsham.
Is it possible to find, in the whole history of the English peerage,
a nobleman who experienced more strange and astonishing vicissitudes
of fortune? Well may it be said that truth is stranger than
fiction!”

{72a} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 462.

{72b} The year, according to the present style, was 1461; but at that time the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March following; and until that day arrived, the then year would be called 1460.

{72c} I have three times visited the field of battle of Mortimer’s Cross: viz., in May 1854, May 1855, and May 1856.

{73a} On the occasion of my last visit to the field of battle, on the 24th of May, 1856, I witnessed there a rare and very beautiful natural phenomenon; a species of rainbow, of remarkable grandeur, appeared, not as an arch in the sky, as is usual, but forming a splendid and broad border to the horizon, and encircling and appearing to rest with its under edge upon the earth, towards the north, and to touch with its upper edge a canopy of clouds, the darkness of which formed a striking contrast, which set off its brilliant prismatic colours to great advantage. Its beauty and singularity strikingly brought to my mind, the remarkable phenomenon, seen by Edward, on the same spot, so many years before.

{73b} Many years afterwards, at the battle of Barnet, Edward’s device was accidentally of great service, because in the mist, the star with rays, the device of the Earl of Oxford, who was fighting on the side of Lancaster, was mistaken for that of Edward, the sun in splendour; and the Lancastrian archers, deceived by the resemblance, shot at the followers of the Earl of Oxford, and the mistake contributed considerably to the loss of the battle by the Lancastrians.

{73c} Hall says, “he fiercely set on his enemies, and them shortly discomfited.”

{73d} He is called Sir Owen Tudor by Hall, Holinshed, Speed, and Grafton, in their respective accounts of the battle, and he is also so called by Sandford in his _Genealogical History_, p. 297, and Sir Owen ap Merydeth ap Tudor, _ibid._ p. 242, which are certainly high authorities for believing that he was a knight; but Sandford elsewhere calls him “Owen Tudor” only, _ibid._ p. 283, 284. Yet Baker, in the part of his _Chronicles_ in which the marriage of Owen Tudor with Katherine, widow of King Henry V., is mentioned, calls him “Owen Tudor an Esquire of Wales.” He is also called “a Squyer of Wales” in Leland’s _Collectanea_, vol. ii. fo. 492 [708]. Ralph Brooke, in his _Catalogue of the Nobility_, &c., says that Katherine married “a noble Gentleman named Owen Theoder of Wales.” Fabyan, fo. 627, calls him a knyght of Wales.

{73e} “Owen Meredith, _alias_ Tudor, buried in the Grey Freyers in navi Ecclesiæ, in sacello sine ulla sepulchri memoria.—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. iv. fo. 175 _a_ [83].

“Owen Meridik, corruptly cawlled Owen Thider, Father to Edmund Erle of Richemount, and Graund Fathar to Kynge Henry the Seventhe, buried in the Grey Freres, in the Northe Syde of the Body of the Churche in a Chapell.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. viii. fo. 76 _b_ [35].

{74a} The authorities for the historical parts of the paper, are Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, Baker, Leland, Ralph Brooke, Dugdale, and Sandford. It is remarkable, that Fabyan does not give an account of the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.

{74b} This spot is sometimes called West Field.

{75a} It seems to be very clear that the taking of that route was to enable them to ravage the Earl of March’s possessions there.

{76a} Politely communicated by the Rev. R. D. Evans, rector of Kingsland, who stated that the discovery of them took place when he was a boy. I visited in 1855 a large mount in front of the rectory-house, in which, as he informed me, he had found (but not of late years) pieces of iron. Leland states, “There was a Castle at Kingesland a 2 miles West North West from Leominster, the ditches whereof and part of the Keepe be yet seene by the West part of Kingsland Church. Constant Fame sayth that King Merewald sometimes laye at this place since of later tymes it longid to the E. of Marche, now to the King.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. iv. part 2, fo. 178 _a_ [90]. Kingsland Church well merits inspection, as it contains several objects of interest to an antiquary. It is said to have been erected by one of the Mortimers in the reign of Edward I.—See an account of it in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ of 1826, vol. xcvi. part 2, pp. 393, 583.

{76b} There is in the Museum at Hereford, an ancient spur, found in the neighbourhood of Mortimer’s Cross, but not upon the field of battle, of the description called the prick spur, of steel, plated with silver, presented to the Museum in 1839, and which I saw in the Museum in May 1855.

{77} Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. viii. fo. 32.

{78a} Blackstone’s _Commentaries_, 3rd edition (by Stephen), vol. ii. p. 584.

{78b} Burn’s _Law Dictionary_, vol. ii. p. 108. The same observations equally apply to the Lords Marchers on the boundaries between England and Scotland.

{79a} Carte’s _England_, vol. iii. p. 135. There was also a seal of the Marches, which was abrogated by the act 4th Henry VII., which enacted that all grants and writings of lands or things pertaining to the earldom of March, should be under the Broad Seal, and not under a special seal.

{79b} Statute 27th Henry VIII. c. 27. But, notwithstanding the abolition of the local jurisdiction and of the almost lawless powers of the Lords Marchers, by the effect of the act 27th Henry VIII. c. 27, the Court of the Lord President and Council of the Marches of Wales, was still kept up. It was a court of extensive jurisdiction, which was erected by King Edward IV., in honour of the Earls of March, from whom he was descended; and he appointed it to be held at Ludlow; and in the thirty-third year of Henry VIII., the court was confirmed by act of Parliament, which enacted, “that there shall be and remain a President and Council, in the dominion of Wales, and marches of the same.” The first President is said to have been Anthony Widevile, Earl Rivers, in the 18th of Edward IV.; and the last was the Earl of Macclesfield, in 1689: the court having been abolished by act of Parliament of 1st William and Mary.

{80a} Some parts of the inscription seem open to objection. From what has been already mentioned in a former note, it may easily be conjectured why the year is stated to be 1460, instead of 1461, as a modern historical writer would have designated it; but it does not appear easy to assign a reason, why the name “Mortimer” is inscribed instead of “Plantagenet.”

{80b} The inscription is not altogether accurate, in stating that the battle of Mortimer’s Cross fixed Edward IV. on the throne of England. He certainly was proclaimed King by his partisans, in London, soon after that battle, but he was indebted to the subsequent battle of Towton, for his being really placed upon the throne. The statute 1st Edward IV., passed in 1461, declares the 4th of March to be the date when Edward IV. commenced his reign; “the fourth day of the moneth of Marche last past toke upon hym to use his right and title to the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship and entred into the exercise of the Roiall estate, dignite, preemynence and power of the same coroune, and to the Reigne and governaunce of the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship; and the same fourth day of March amoeved Henry late called King Henry the Sixt son to Henry, son to the seid Henry late Erle of Derby, son to the seid John of Gaunt, from the occupation, usurpation, intrusion, reigne, and governaunce of the same Reame of Englond and Lordship.” _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. 1461, vol. v. fo. 464. See also Fabyan, fo. 218.

{81a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Towton was read before meetings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 11th and 18th of January, 1849, and the thanks of the meetings were voted for it to the author. Several additions have, however, been made in it, and some material alterations and corrections have been introduced, in consequence of further information acquired by the author, during his subsequent visits to the field of battle.

{81b} I visited the field of battle on the 28th of July and 7th of August, 1848, and again in the years 1849, 1850, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, and 1856. In one of those visits (on the 2nd of August, 1853) I walked with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, entirely across the field of battle, commencing on the ground occupied by the left wing of the Lancastrians, along the whole line, to the spot occupied by their right wing; and we descended from thence through the meadows to the river Cock. Any antiquary inclined to pursue the same walk, should leave the Ferrybridge road, between Dintingdale and Towton, and enter the fields at the spot, where he may observe one of them of very large size, nearly opposite a white farmhouse standing on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road. He may easily procure a countryman, for a small gratuity, to act as guide to him, if he has doubts about getting well over one or two fences, which, however, really do not present much difficulty. The Lancastrians evidently had selected the highest ground, commanding an extensive prospect, with the depression or valley after mentioned, in front of a considerable portion of their line. It was clearly the strongest position near Towton.

{82a} Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1455.—See Chap. III.

{82b} Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker. (See Chap. II.) John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was also one of the commanders on the side of the Yorkists, at the second battle of St. Alban’s.

{82c} The second battle of St. Alban’s was fought on Shrove Tuesday, the 17th of February, 1460–1.

{82d} The claims of King Henry VI. to the throne of England were grounded upon his descent from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III., by Blanche his wife. (See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.) Henry was the eldest son of King Henry V. and Queen Katherine, born at Windsor in 1421; succeeded to the crown, when an infant, upon his father’s death, on the 31st of August, 1422; was crowned at Westminster, on the 6th of November, 1429: and also at Notre Dame at Paris, on the 17th of November, 1431; was deposed on the 4th of March, 1461 (see _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 464), and was reinstated upon the throne for a short period in 1470 and 1471; but with the battles of Barnet, fought on the 14th of April, and of Tewkesbury on the 4th of May, 1471, all further chance of his reigning was extinguished, and he died in the Tower of London soon after the latter battle.

{83a} William Lord Bonvile was the father of William Bonvile, who married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Lord Harrington, by whom he had a son, William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, who was slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460.—See Chap. IV.

{83b} Sir Thomas Kiriel was a commander of note and bravery in the wars in France. See Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 78, and vol. iii. fos. 26, 27.

{83c} Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March (though usually designated by that title by historians, became in fact, Duke of York, upon his father’s death), was the eldest son of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife. He was afterwards King Edward IV., and died on the 9th of April, 1483.—See Chap. V., and Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, Chap. IX.

{83d} Thomas Bourchier was originally Bishop of Ely, and afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1454, and retained that see until he died very aged in 1486, having held it 32 years, and in the reigns of five kings. He was also Lord Chancellor and a Cardinal.—See Chap. III.

{83e} George Neville, fourth son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was Bishop of Exeter and Lord Chancellor in 1460, and afterwards (in 1466) Archbishop of York.—See Chap. III.

{84a} John Mowbray, third Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Nottingham, and Earl Marshal of England, the son of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and Katherine his wife, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, married Eleanor, daughter of William Lord Bourchier, and sister of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex. He fought for the Yorkist party at the second battle of St. Alban’s in 1460–1, and died in the first year of Edward IV., 1461, and was buried in the Abbey of Thetford. His son, John Mowbray, Earl of Surrey, succeeded him as Duke of Norfolk.

{84b} William Neville, Lord Falconberg, was the second son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, a daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; he had served in France, and fought at the battles of Northampton and Towton, and was created Earl of Kent in the first year of Edward IV., and afterwards made High Admiral of England, and a Knight of the Garter, for the important services which he had rendered to the House of York. He died about the second year of Edward IV., and was buried at the Priory of Gisborough, in Yorkshire. His being uncle to Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker, may account for his fighting on the side of Edward IV., and having a principal command at the battles of Northampton and of Towton.—See Chap. III.

{84c} According to the present style, the year was 1461; but at that time, the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March, and consequently, until that day arrived, the year was then called 1460.

{85a} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. p. 464. See also Fabyan’s _Chronicles_, fo. 218.

{85b} Edward Prince of Wales, the only child of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret, was born on the 13th of October, 1453; created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty second year of Henry VI.; and was murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471.—See Chaps. III. and VII.; and Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.

{86a} See observations in a note _infra_ in this chapter, respecting Lord Fitzwalter.

{86b} John Lord Clifford was the son of Thomas Lord Clifford, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chap. IV.

{86c} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.

{87a} “This feeld was as much fought in Saxton Paroch, as in Towton, yet it berith the name of Towton.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 47.

{87b} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 478. Appendix No. 1.

{87c} In order to avoid a repetition of references, the authorities referred to in this paper for the historical facts, are Hall, Holinshed, Leland, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, John Habington, _Hist. Croy. Cont._, Francis Biondi, Fabyan, Grafton, Baker, and _Rotuli Parl._

{88a} Upon this eminence, close to the village, is a small wood called Benshar Wood.

{88b} I could not learn anything respecting the comparative antiquity of the bridge, but I consider it very improbable that there was any bridge over the Cock in 1461.

{89} I visited the bridge and the river Cock at Stutton, in 1849. I consider it very probable that a portion of the Lancastrians, in retreating, passed the Cock at that place either by a bridge or ford.

There is also a small bridge called Kettleman’s Bridge, near Tadcaster, at the confluence of the rivers Cock and Wharf. It is not very long since an attempt was made, to show that it was a Roman bridge. I examined it carefully in August 1853, and, so far from considering it Roman, I do not even believe it to be a very old one. Similar bridges are not uncommon in some parts of Yorkshire. There is one which I have often seen, over the brook called Hock Beck, on the right side of and very near the road leading from Harrogate to Fewstone, which, though considerably narrower, resembles it very much. There was also another, very recently, which is now destroyed, over the same brook, at a place called Knox Mill, near Harrogate, on the right side of the road leading from Harrogate to Killingwell and Ripley; and I am informed that there is now another of the same kind at Fewstone.

{90a} John Lord Clifford, son of Thomas Lord Clifford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s in 1455. John Lord Clifford fought at the battle of Wakefield.—See Chap. IV.

{90b} Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, and J. Habington.

{90c} Shakespeare’s _Third Part of Henry VI._, act ii. scene 6.

{91} Before arriving at the depression, and close to it, on the right or eastward side of the road, some small quantities of stone, have been also dug in another place: but that quarry has never been of any large extent, and remained a considerable time without being worked, although the working of it on a small scale has been recently resumed.

{92a} It is scarcely possible to understand why it is stated, in a short paper, by the Rev. George Fyler Townsend, professing to give some account of the battle, and communicated at the meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York, in July 1846 (see report of the proceedings, pages 12 to 16), that the Lancastrians were drawn up at “Dartingdale,” or “Tartingdale,” between Towton and Saxton. I was informed, in reply to my inquiries made in the neighbourhood, that no person living near there, ever heard of such names. The rev. writer seems to have confused those names with Towton Dale. He also erroneously states, that the Lords Clifford, Northumberland, and Dacre, drew up their men, and that those “three Lancastrian leaders all met their deaths in this battle.” It apparently escaped his recollection, that Lord Clifford was slain on the previous day.

{92b} Mr. Kendall, of Towton Hall, informed me that he has seen, in clearing out the drains there, many large pieces of oak dug out, black with age, and with lying in peaty soil.

{93} Dr. Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. p. 157.

{94a} _Modern Universal British Traveller_, published by T. Cooke, 1779, p. 554. The articles respecting England by Charles Burlington, Esq. On the 31st of July, 1851, on the occasion of one of my visits to Towton Field, I was informed by the wife of a farmer named Lawn, who had formerly occupied as tenant, part of the field of battle, that a youth belonging to the family, had not long previously found there, and brought to her, the finger-bones of a man.

{94b} Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_) vol. i. p. 157.

{94c} Kindly communicated by the Rev. William Jepson Newman.

{95a} Politely communicated by Colonel Grant, R.A., in 1854.

{95b} A representation of the spur is given in the _Archæologia_, vol. ii. plate 20.

{96} Ralph Lord Dacre, slain at the battle of Towton, was the son and heir of Thomas Lord Dacre, of the North, (according to Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 23; vol. iii. p. 244; there was another family called Lord Dacre, of the South, of the name of Fynes or Fienes), and succeeded his father in the title, in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VI. After the battle of Towton, Ralph Lord Dacre was attainted by the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., and all his possessions were forfeited to the crown; viz., “the mannor of Barton, and moiety of the mannor of Hoffe in com. Westmorl; as also the Castle of Naworth, with the manners of Irthington, Dacre, Kirke Oswald, Farlam Blakenwayt, Lasyngby, Brampton, Burgh upon the Sands, Aykton, Roclyffe, Glasenby, Blockhall, and Castel-Caryot. in com. Cumbr: and the mannors of Halton, Fyshwike, Eccleston, and Over-Kellet, in com. Lanc.” (Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii p. 23.) To him succeeded in the title, his brother, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Knight, who conducted himself so submissively and usefully to the House of York, as to make his peace with Edward IV., and had the office of Master Forester of the forest of Inglewood, in Cumberland, conferred upon him for life, in the ninth year of Edward IV., and he afterwards held several other important offices. He was one of the persons included in the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., passed against the Lancastrians who took a part in the battle of Towton. He, however, succeeded in getting the attainder against himself reversed by the act of 12th and 13th of Edward IV. _Rot. Parl._ vol. vi. A.D. 1472–3, fo. 43. Humphrey Lord Dacre, was one of the lords who, in the Parliament Chamber in the eleventh year of Edward IV., swore to be faithful to Prince Edward, eldest son of Edward IV. In the second year of Richard III., he was constituted Warden of the Marches; and having been summoned to Parliament in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and first of Richard III., died in the first year of Henry VII.

{97} Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. fo. 156.

{98a} Amongst others, I have to express my thanks to John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall, for both oral and written communications on the subject. I was induced, for the sake of accuracy, both to see and write to him for information respecting the field of battle, and he was good enough to read over the paper upon it, as originally drawn, and to make a few corrections in it, and also to favour me with some notes which I have incorporated into the account.

I have also to thank the Rev. Dr. Carter, of Saxton Parsonage, for his kindness and attention, in giving me some useful information, and for taking the trouble of reading over the part of this paper, which related to Saxton Church and Churchyard.

{98b} Dr. Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. fo. 157.

{99a} It is certain that at Towton, the archers were originally placed in front of the other troops, and it seems naturally to follow, that when the main bodies came to close quarters, the archers would be withdrawn to the rear. If so, that would make a very considerable difference in the extent of the front of each army. I am informed that in modern warfare, the space usually allowed for each foot soldier is about one foot nine inches, and for each horseman in marching order, about four feet six inches.

{99b} Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, of that family, was the son of Henry, second Earl of Northumberland, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Eleanor, second daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and was brother of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.

{99c} Sir Andrew Trollop, as he is called by several writers, but called Andrew Trollop, only, by others, was a military commander of considerable repute, and had served in France. He had originally joined the Duke of York, but seceded with some forces to Henry VI., from the encampment of the Yorkists, at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459. The act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not notice his having been engaged at the battle of Towton, but includes in the list of Lancastrians, who had taken a part at the battle of Wakefield, “Andrew Trollop late of Guysnes Squier,” whom we may fairly conclude, was the same person, and who, in the interval between the two battles, may possibly have received the honour of knighthood.

{100a} Sir John Wenlock was originally a supporter of the Lancastrian party, fought, and was severely wounded, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd of May (called by some historical writers, the 23rd of May), 1455. He was appointed to several offices of distinction, and was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VI.; but afterwards, going over to the Yorkists, he was in arms for that party at the encampment at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459, for which, he was attainted by the Parliament held at Coventry, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI. However, he lost little by that; for having accompanied Edward IV., and distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, in 1461, he obtained the office of Chief Butler of England, and the stewardship of the castle and lordship of Berkhampsted, in Hertfordshire; he was created Baron Wenlock, in the first year of Edward IV., and also made one of the Privy Council. He afterwards again changed sides, and appeared in arms for Henry VI., at the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471; when, in consequence of his not having with his troops supported the Duke of Somerset, the duke, with his axe, beat out Lord Wenlock’s brains. He seems not to have left any issue. He had considerable possessions in the neighbourhood of Luton, in Bedfordshire; and the Wenlock Chapel in Luton Church, which is a very beautiful structure and well worth visiting, is said to have been erected by him.

{100b} Sir John Dinham or Denham, was a distinguished military commander, and a decided partisan of the Yorkists; and in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., being at Calais, he proceeded suddenly, by the direction of the Earl of Warwick, to Sandwich, and there surprised Lord Rivers, and his son Lord Scales, of the opposite party, and took several King’s ships lying in the harbour, and brought them to Calais. After Edward IV. had obtained the crown, Sir John Denham was so much esteemed by him, that in the sixth year of that King’s reign, he was summoned to Parliament as Baron Denham; he had several grants of valuable offices, and also of considerable possessions, then in the crown, by reason of the death of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Devonshire, without issue, and of the forfeiture of Thomas Courtenay, late Earl of Devonshire. After having been made a Knight of the Garter, he died in the seventeenth year of Henry VII. He is called “John Lord Dynham” in _Rot. Parl._ 12 and 13 Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 16.

{100c} “Towton Village is a mile from Saxton, wher is a great Chapell begon by Richard III. but not finishid. Syr John Multon’s lather layid the first stone of it. In this Chappelle were buried also many of the men slayn at Palme Sunday Feeld.”—Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 47 [44].

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

{101b} There is a statement in Thomas Sprott’s _Fragment_, printed by Hearne, that the battle commenced at four o’clock in the afternoon, continued all night, and terminated on the following afternoon, which is quoted in Turner’s _History of England_, vol. iii. p. 229; but that statement, which seems to be only the tale of an anonymous writer, is not entitled to any weight, when put into the scale, against the accounts given by the old historians, respecting the commencement and termination of the battle. Mr. Turner has even improved upon the statement, and says that the armies fought by the light of fire and torches. Armies in those days did not usually fight by torch or fire light. When did any old historical writer mention such an event occurring in any of the wars of the English, of that century? The statement seems to be completely erroneous; and the mistake has perhaps arisen from confounding the engagement which took place at Dintingdale, on the 28th of March (and possibly at four o’clock in the afternoon), with the great battle on the 29th of March. It is, however, not unlikely, that each army endeavoured to harass the other, by frequent discharges of cannon, during the night before the battle. As some proof of the probability of such an occurrence, we are expressly told in Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, p. 684, that during the night before the battle of Barnet, the Lancastrians continually discharged cannons at the camp of Edward IV., and by Leland (see 1 Lel. _Coll._ fo. 504), that they fired guns at each other all the night.

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

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

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

{103d} Sir John Heron of the Ford, was of an ancient and influential Border family; and for many generations the members of the family enjoyed considerable landed possessions in Northumberland, and often signalised their valour in the wars of the Borders. He fought on the Lancastrian side at the battles of Wakefield [see Chap. IV. p. 60] and Towton, and was attainted by the act of 1st Edward IV.; but his son, Roger Heron, obtained a reversal of the attainder by an act of Parliament of 12th and 13th Edward IV., _Rot. Parl._ 1472–3, vol. vi. fo. 47.

{103e} Stow’s _Annals_, p. 415.

{103f} This appears to be an error: John Talbot, third Earl of Shrewsbury, was the son of John Talbot, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460 (see Chap. III.), and grandson of John Talbot, the first Earl of Shrewsbury, renowned for his warlike exploits in France, and slain by a cannon shot at the battle of Castillon, near Bourdeaux, on the 7th of July, 1453. According to Ralph Brooke, in his _Catalogue of the Nobility_, &c., p. 197, John, the third Earl of Shrewsbury, was not slain at Towton, but died at Coventry in 1473, and was buried at Worksop. See also Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 332, where his death in the 13th of Edward IV. is mentioned.

{103g} William Viscount Beaumont, was the son and heir of John Viscount Beaumont, slain at the battle of Northampton on the 9th of July, 1460, fighting on the Lancastrian side (see Chap. III.); and married—first, Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Scrope, brother to Lord Scrope of Bolton; and secondly, Joan, daughter of Humphrey Duke of Buckingham. William Viscount Beaumont fought for that party at the battle of Towton, and, according to Dugdale, was taken prisoner there. He was attainted by the act of attainder of the first year of Edward IV. He took part with John Earl of Oxford, for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Barnet, in 1471, and fled into Scotland, and afterwards into France, landed with the Earl of Oxford in Cornwall, and assisted him in holding St. Michael’s Mount against Edward IV.; but upon its surrender, he was brought prisoner, with the earl, to the King. Upon the accession to the throne of Henry VII., he was restored by an act of Parliament; and died without issue, in the twenty-fourth year of that king’s reign.

{104a} Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, was the brother and heir presumptive to Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland. Many years ago, when I wrote the paper on the battle of Stoke, I, on the authority of Hall and Holinshed, mentioned the Earl of Westmoreland, as having been slain at Towton; Fabyan also says that the earl was slain there. I am now satisfied, that those writers have erroneously mentioned the death of the Earl of Westmoreland, who did not die until the second year of Richard III.; and that, instead of him, they meant Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, who was the second Earl of Westmoreland’s brother and heir presumptive. See Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Leland’s _Coll._ vol. ii. p. 715 [498], in which is the following statement, ‘Syr John Nevel the Erle of Westmerlandes brother and Andrew Trollop were killid at this tyme.’; see also the act of attainder against the Lancastrian leaders, _Rot. Parl._ 1st Edward IV. vol. v. p. 476, which does not name the Earl of Westmoreland, but it does include, “John, late Lord Nevill”; besides which, Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland, was summoned to the very Parliament which passed this act of attainder; consequently, it cannot be supposed that he had taken a part in the battle. See also the act of reversal of the attainder, _Rot. Parl._ 12th and 13th Edward IV. vol. vi. p. 24, of “Rauf Nevyll, first begoten son of John Nevyll Knyght, late Lord Nevyll,” attainted by the name of “John, late Lord Nevyll,” who was afterwards third Earl of Westmoreland.

{104b} According to Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol. ii. pp. 85 and 86, Robert Lord Willoughby of Eresby, a valiant and celebrated commander, distinguished in the French wars, died in the thirtieth year of Henry VI., leaving Joan, the wife of Sir Richard Welles, his daughter and heir; and, the issue male of the principal branch being thus extinct, Sir Robert Willoughby, son of Thomas, a younger brother of the last Robert Lord Willoughby, became the next heir male, and is stated to have died on the 30th of May, in the fifth year of Edward IV. (_Quære_—Could it have been Thomas, the younger brother, who was called Lord Willoughby, and slain at the battle of Towton?) The death of Lord Willoughby is mentioned in Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. p. 219; and in note 12 at the foot, it is stated that “Richard Welles, a son of Lord Welles, in 1455, was summoned as Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife Joanna, heir of the great warrior, Robert Lord Willoughby.” See note respecting Leo Lord Welles, _infra_, note 3. Dugdale, however, does not mention Sir Richard Welles or Lord Willoughby, as having been engaged at Towton Field.

{104c} Leo Lord Welles, of the Lancastrian party, slain at Towton Field, and attainted by Parliament in first of Edward IV., was grandson and heir of John Lord Welles, whose oldest son, Eudo, died in his lifetime. Leo Lord Welles left issue (by Joan his first wife, daughter and heir of Sir Robert Waterton), Sir Richard Welles, his next heir, who, in the fourth year of Edward IV. (having also the title of Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife, Joan, daughter and heir of Robert Lord Willoughby), had, through the King’s special favour, restoration of the goods, &c., of which his father died seized; and the next year had restitution of various manors, lordships, property, &c., which had come to the crown by the attainder of his lather, Leo Lord Welles. In the ninth year of Edward IV., the said Richard Lord Welles, and his son and heir, Sir Robert Welles, were concerned in the insurrection of the Lancastrians in Lincolnshire, and, with Sir Thomas Dimock, were beheaded. According to Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 12, this Richard Lord Welles, was summoned to Parliament by the name of Richard Welles, Lord Willoughby, from the thirty-third year of Henry VI., to the 6th of Edward IV., inclusive.

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

{105a} Anthony Widevile, or Wodevile, had summons to Parliament by the title of Lord Scales, in right of his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Lord Scales, of Nucells, widow of Henry Bourchier, and was afterwards Earl Rivers. He was brother of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV. He was not slain at Towton Field, although he seems to have taken a part in the battle. (See Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. p. 219, note 13.) He was the son and heir of Richard Widevile, or Wodevile, Earl Rivers, and Jaquette his wife, daughter of Peter Earl of St. Pol, and widow of John Duke of Bedford, third son of King Henry IV.; and he was, when Earl Rivers, beheaded at Pontefract, by order of the Council, during the Protectorate, and, as is believed, at the instigation of Richard Duke of Gloucester, on the 13th of June, 1483. Lord Richard Grey (son of the Queen Dowager Elizabeth, by her first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby), and Sir Thomas Vaughan, were executed there, at the same time. The Wodeviles were originally of the Lancastrian party; and Sir John Grey of Groby, the first husband of Elizabeth afterwards the Queen of Edward IV., lost his life fighting for that party, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but after Elizabeth’s charms had made a conquest of the heart of Edward, and he had married her, the Wodeviles became staunch Yorkists.

{105b} Thomas Lord Grey of Rugemont, called “Thomas Grey, Knight, Lord Rugemond Grey,” in the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., was originally Sir Thomas Grey, Knight, grandson of Reginald Lord Grey of Ruthin, and a younger brother of Edmund Grey, first Earl of Kent, and was advanced to the dignity of Baron of Rugemont Grey, in the twenty-eighth year of Henry VI.; being a zealous Lancastrian, he was, after the battle of Towton, included in the act of attainder, and having died without issue, his title became extinct. He is charged in the act of attainder, with other treasonable acts committed after the battle of Towton; and amongst others, with having on the 26th of June then last, in conjunction with Thomas Lord Roos, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Sir John Fortescue, Sir William Talboys, Sir Edward Mountford, Thomas Neville, Clerk; Humphrey Neville, Esq.; and Thomas Elwick, Esq., made war against the King at Ryton and Branspeth, in the bishoprick of Durham. _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (A.D. 1461), vol. v. p. 476. See Appendix No. I.

{105c} There appears to be an error in the statement of Stow, that Lord Fitzhugh perished at the battle of Towton; because William Lord Fitzhugh, who married Margery, daughter of William Lord Willoughby of Eresby, died in the thirty-first year of the reign of Henry VI., and was succeeded by his son and heir, Henry Lord Fitzhugh, who was a supporter of the Lancastrian party during the life of Henry VI.; but after the accession of Edward IV., was held in respect by him, and was employed by him in the fourth year of his reign at the siege of Dunstanborough Castle, and other matters of importance; and died in the twelfth year of that King’s reign. He married Alice, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and sister of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker. The act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not include Lord Fitzhugh, from which circumstance, a presumption arises, that he was not engaged in the battle.