Chapter XXIII: Appendix: No. I (5)

{105d} It does not appear from the _Baronages_, that in 1461, there was any nobleman called Lord Molineux; nor is any such mentioned in the act of attainder of the first year of Edward IV. It has probably been written by mistake for Lord Molins, or Molyns, by which title Robert Lord Hungerford had been commonly called, in consequence of his marriage with Alianore, daughter and heir of William Lord Molyns, who was slain in France, in the seventh year of Henry VI. Robert Lord Hungerford, called Lord Molyns, however, was not slain at Towton Field, although he fought there. Upon the loss of the day, he fled to York, where King Henry then was, and proceeded with him from thence to Scotland, and was attainted in the first year of Edward IV. He again appeared in arms, in the north of England, for the Lancastrian party, was engaged at the battle of Hexham in 1463, taken prisoner there, and conveyed to Newcastle, where he was beheaded, and was buried in the north aisle of Salisbury Cathedral. By lady Alianore, his wife, he left three sons. The eldest, Thomas, took part with the Earl of Warwick, upon his defection from Edward IV., and, endeavouring to effect the restoration of Henry VI., was taken and tried for high treason, at Salisbury, in the eighth year of Edward IV., was condemned and beheaded. But in the first year of Henry VII., his attainder, and that of his father, were reversed in Parliament, and his heir had restitution of his lands and honours.

{106a} Lord Henry Buckingham. (_Quære_—Meant for Lord Henry Stafford, of Buckingham, one of the family of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham?) Henry Stafford, who was the second son of Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham (beheaded in the first year of Richard III.), and brother of Edward Stafford, third Duke of Buckingham, could not have been the person meant, because he was living long after the battle of Towton, and was created Earl of Wiltshire, in the first year of Henry VIII. (See Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 170.) We can, however, scarcely doubt, that one of the family was slain at that battle; and Lord Henry of Buckingham, is also mentioned amongst the slain, in the first volume of Fenn’s _Original Letters_, fo. 220; John Stafford and Humphrey Stafford, apparently also of that family, are there mentioned, as having been engaged in that battle on the part of Edward IV.

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

{106c} _Quære_—Is Sir Gervase Clifton mentioned in error in the list, by Stow? A knight of that name was executed after the battle of Tewkesbury, and another perished at the battle of Bosworth. See Chapters VII. and VIII.

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

{106e} _Rot Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 477. See Appendix No. L

{107a} John Morton, mentioned above as the Parson of “Blokesworth” [Bloxworth] in Dorsetshire, was afterwards Bishop of Ely, and in the reign of Henry VII., was Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury, and also a Cardinal. It is remarkable, that several priests and ecclesiastics are included in the above-mentioned act of attainder; but there does not appear to be any foundation for Lord Campbell’s assertion, that any of them fought at the battle of Towton, nor, from the general deportment and actions of Morton, does such a line of conduct seem probable, with respect to him. I believe that not any ancient historian has stated that ecclesiastics were in arms, and fought for or against the House of Lancaster; they might, however, be very useful with their tenants, vassals, advice, influence, and exertions. In Lord Campbell’s _Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. i. p. 418, it is, however, correctly stated, that John Morton “had the rich living of Blokesworth” conferred upon him in the reign of Henry VI. His attainder, and also that of Ralph Mackerell, Clerk, were reversed in the twelfth and thirteenth year of Edward IV.—_Rot. Parl._ vol. vi. 12 and 13 Edward IV. pp. 26 and 27.

{107b} Sir John Fortescue was a lawyer of great talents and eminence, and was made Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, in the reign of Henry VI. He was a judge of high integrity, and an excellent man, and, what was rare in that age, he was a literary character; some of his works are of merit, and have been handed down to us. At the time of the battle of Towton, he was no longer a young man, and, however much he might have devoted his talents and exertions to the Lancastrian party, before the battle, it seems a great stretch of credulity to think, that the judge was actually screwed up in armour, and “mixed in the moody fight,” and “displayed undaunted valour at Towton,” as Lord Campbell states. The latter appears also to labour under the same mistake, with respect to Fortescue’s fighting propensities at Towton, as with respect to those of John Morton, who was a priest, as already mentioned.—See Campbell’s _Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. i. p. 369.

{109} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 477–478. See Appendix No. I.

{110} William Lord Hastings, was the son of Sir Leonard Hastings, Knight, by Alice his wife, daughter of Lord Camois, and was a valiant and active partisan of the House of York, distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, and on other occasions, and was created Baron Hastings, Lord Chamberlain of the Household, and Chamberlain of Wales, in the first year of Edward IV., and had large possessions bestowed upon him by that king; amongst which was a grant of the manor of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in Leicestershire, which had lately belonged to James Earl of Wiltshire, then attainted, (where Hastings subsequently either erected or restored the castle there, for his own residence, pursuant to the King’s license, of first Edward IV., to make several castles), also of the honour, castle, and lordship of Belvior, and other possessions in Leicestershire, and elsewhere. He adhered to Edward IV. in his adversity, when he was compelled, by the Earl of Warwick, to fly to the Continent in 1470, and accompanied him on his return to England. He also fought at the battle of Barnet in 1471, where he had the command of 3000 horse, and at that of Tewkesbury, where he was one of the principal commanders. He was Lieutenant of Calais, and enjoyed several offices of great importance and trust, and was greatly in the confidence of King Edward IV.; and it is generally believed that his faithful attachment to the young princes, the sons of that king, was the reason why Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., caused him to be put to death. He was beheaded on a log of wood, in the Tower of London, without any trial, on the 13th of June, 1483, and is buried in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, near the grave of Edward IV. He married Catherine, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury (beheaded after the battle of Wakefield, in 1460), and widow of William Lord Bonvile (put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, on 17th February, 1460–1), by whom he left issue three sons and a daughter.

{111a} Walter Blount, Lord Montjoy, who was of the family of Sir Walter Blount, slain at the battle of Shrewsbury, died in 1474, leaving Edward Blount, his grandson (the son of William, his son, who died in his father’s lifetime), his next heir.

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

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

{111d} Leland mentions the titles and rank conferred by Edw. IV. upon his friends and adherents, as follows:—

Thomas Blunte made Lord Montejoy
William Hastinges made Lorde Hastinges.

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

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

{112} “Quei che restarono vivi presero la strada del ponte di Tadcaster, ma, non potendo arrivarvi, e credendo guadabile un picciolo rio detto Cocke vi s’annegarono la maggior parte: affermatosi costantemente essersi passato sopra il dosso de’ corpi morti, l’acque del detto rio, e del fiume Vuarf in cui eglisgorga, tinte in maniera, che parvero di puro sangue.”—_G. F. Biondi_, fo. 249.

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

{114a} His design was to have dislodged the body of Yorkists under Lord Fitzwalter’s command, posted at Ferrybridge, and to have prevented their army from passing the Aire there. It is remarkable that we do not read of any other forces having been sent to his support, from the main army of the Lancastrians.

{114b} In a note to Rapin’s _History of England_, translated by Tindal, it is stated, with reference to the engagement at Ferrybridge, “there was at this time no Lord Fitzwalter, for Walter Lord Fitzwalter died in 1432, and Sir John Ratcliffe, son of Ann, daughter of the said Lord Fitzwalter, had not summons to Parliament till the first of Henry VII. This Sir John, or his son, is probably the same whom Rapin, and other of our historians, call by anticipation Lord Fitzwalter. See Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 223, and vol. ii. p. 285.” But although it may readily be admitted, that it does not appear from our Baronages, that there was a Lord Fitzwalter in 1461, their silence seems scarcely sufficient to outweigh the clear and unqualified statements, of several of our old annalists and chroniclers, that a Lord Fitzwalter held a command of importance in the Yorkist army, and was slain in the action at Ferrybridge. Stow not only mentions that circumstance, but also states that Lord Fitzwalter was one of the noblemen who, on the 12th of March (before the battle of Towton), left London with Edward, and accompanied him on his march northward. Besides which, in Leland’s _Itinerary_, vol. i. fo. 105 [99] (see also Camden’s _Magna Britannia_, vol. iii. p. 49), in noticing Ferrybridge, it is stated, “wher the first Lord Fitzgualter of the Radecliffes was killid, flying from Cok beck Felde;” and, although the last part of the passage is not quite accurate, still the statement is of some value; and in Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, which are considered authentic records of the respective dates, at which they purport to have been written, Lord Fitzwalter is mentioned, in a letter from Clement Paston to John Paston, of the 23rd of January, 1460 (but, according to our present mode of reckoning, 1461), as having ridden northwards, and is said to have taken two hundred of Sir Andrew Trollop’s men; and the existence of a Lord Fitzwalter seems still more confirmed by another of those letters, which was written by William Paston and Thomas Playter, to John Paston, dated the 4th of April, 1461, giving the contents of a letter of credence from King Edward IV. to the Duchess of York, respecting the battle of Towton, which distinctly mentions that Lord Fitzwalter was slain, and that he had been engaged on Edward’s part. (See Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. pp. 205, 219.) As so many old writers have mentioned the existence of a Lord Fitzwalter at that period, it seems improbable that all of them could have been in error.

{115a} The Bastard of Salisbury, who also held a principal command in the Yorkist forces, was also slain there. Some historians tell us that the Earl of Warwick stabbed his horse on hearing of the disaster at Ferrybridge. It is an improbable tale. We may perhaps safely admit, that he, as a warrior, knew the value of a good horse too well to destroy it wantonly and uselessly.

{115b} P. 125. In one of my visits to Dintingdale, I met with a labouring man there, who informed me that he recollected the discovery, about eighteen years before, of a pit or hole, at Dintingdale, on or close to the turnpike road, containing human bones. As I received that information from him in August, 1853, the discovery must have taken place about 1835.

{116a} If, as is very probable, the high road at that time turned off near Dintingdale towards Saxton, it is all but certain, that the Yorkists had succeeded in getting possession of that village before Lord Clifford could retreat thither, and they consequently could easily intercept him at Dintingdale.

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

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

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

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

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

{116g} 1 Holinshed 687.

{116h} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 276. See Appendix, No. III.; and Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 82; in which he mentions cannon balls having been dug up there.

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

{117a} _Rot. Parl._ 4th Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 545; the 7th and 8th Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 613; and the 13th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 93.

{117b} Edward IV. also used the Lion argent as one of the devices of the House of York, in consequence of its having been borne by the Mortimers, Earls of March, from whom he was descended; also the Dragon sejant sable, armed or, in consequence of his descent from the De Burghs, Earls of Ulster, whose cognizance was a Dragon; the falcon argent within a fetter-lock closed; the White Rose; the Sun in its glory, after the parhelion had been seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross; and (occasionally) the White Hart attired, accolled with a coronet, and chained or, on a mount vert, in honour of King Richard II., who used it, and who had nominated Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, great-grandfather of Edward IV., his successor to the crown of England. It is worthy of remark, that besides the circumstance of Edward IV. having had the Black Bull on his standard at the battle of Towton, his brother, Richard III., seems to have had, at the battle of Bosworth, on one of his standards, the Dun Cow (perhaps in allusion to the family tradition of the Earls of Warwick, with which family he was connected through Anne his wife, the daughter of Richard Neville, the great Earl of Warwick). See Holinshed, Hall, and Baker, who mention that Henry VII., after the battle of Bosworth, offered at St. Paul’s three standards, described as follows: viz., first, the figure of St. George; second, a Red Dragon, on white and green sarcenet; third, a Dun Cow upon yellow tartan. Hutton, in his _Bosworth Field_, p. 147, states, without giving his authority, that Henry VII., on his arrival in London, carried in front Richard III.’s three standards, the chief of which was St. George, and erected them in St. Paul’s Church; and also on p. 110, that Richmond’s (afterwards Henry VII.) standard at the battle of Bosworth, was a Red Dragon, upon green and white silk; and we know from other sources, that the Dragon Rouge was a favourite device of Henry VII. It seems, therefore, tolerably certain, that of the before-mentioned three standards, the second, or Red Dragon, was that of Henry VII., and we may reasonably conclude, that the other two were those captured from Richard III.

{118a} Robert Lord Hungerford married, in the lifetime of his father (Walter Lord Hungerford), Alianore, daughter and heir of William Lord Molins, or Molyns, and was, in consequence of that marriage, occasionally called Lord Molyns, and took part with the Lancastrians, at the battle of Towton. Upon the loss of the day, he fled to York, where King Henry then was, and from thence proceeded with him to Scotland. He was attainted by the act of Parliament of 1st Edward IV. In 1463, the Lancastrians again attempting to make head, and having got possession of several castles in the North, he once more appeared in arms, and was the chief of those who defended Alnwick Castle, with five hundred or six hundred Frenchmen; and soon afterwards was engaged at the battle of Hexham, in 1463; was taken prisoner, conveyed to Newcastle, and beheaded there, and was buried in the north aisle of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury.

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

{118c} _Ibid._ p. 217. Sir John Neville is called Lord Montague, in the authority quoted; but it seems incorrect to have done so, at that period, because he appears not to have been then created Marquis Montague. He was the brother of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), was a great supporter of Edward IV., and was created Lord Montague in the first year of Edward IV. He was afterwards created Earl of Northumberland in the fourth year of that King’s reign; but he resigned that title, and was created Marquis of Montague in the tenth year of his reign. He was slain, with his brother, on the 14th of April, 1471, at the battle of Gladmore Heath, usually called the battle of Barnet, having changed sides, and then fought against Edward IV.

{118d} Originally Sir John Bourchier, afterwards Lord Berners, he was fourth son of William Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, was brother of Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Ewe, afterwards of Essex, and was at first of the Lancastrian party, and fought for Henry VI. at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but after that time, he espoused the cause of the Yorkists. He married Margery, daughter and heir of Richard Lord Berners, and had summons to Parliament in the thirty-third year of Henry VI., and afterwards, by the title of Lord Berners. He died in the 14th of Edward IV. His oldest son, Humphrey, was slain at the battle of Barnet, fighting on King Edward’s part, in 1471.

{119} See Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 381. Carte, in his _History of England_, vol. ii. p. 758, gives the 28th of April, 1442, as the date of Edward’s birth.

{122a} It seems remarkable that the Yorkists were allowed to ascend the elevated ground from Saxton, and to come in front of the Lancastrians, without, as far as can be discovered from history, experiencing any check or resistance from the latter; but that may, perhaps, be accounted for, if the Lancastrians acted on the defensive upon a preconcerted plan, and did not choose to leave what they had purposely selected as a good position, and which certainly possessed considerable advantages.

{122b} It is, however, very probable that the action at Dintingdale was soon over, and if so, the Lancastrians may not have had sufficient time to have sent succours to Lord Clifford.

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

“In the Chyrch Yard were many of the Bones of men that were killid at
Palmesunday feld buried.

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

{123a} Their numbers show it to be quite impossible, that they could have any relation to some bones, which Leland and Stow mention, as having been removed by Mr. Hungate, from the field of Towton. The quantity of the latter must have been insignificant.

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

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

{125a} Drake’s _Eboracum_, p. 111.

{125b} This is evidently an error. It is remarkable that Dr. Whitaker calls it in that place the 20th of March, but the 29th in an engraving of the lid of the tomb, introduced almost immediately before.

{125c} Whitaker’s _Loidis and Elmete_ (_History of Leeds_), vol. i. p. 156. Dr. Whitaker states, that in this reading he was greatly assisted by the following copy of the inscription which he had obtained from Hopkinson’s MSS., as it was partly read and partly guessed at, by a transcriber, about the time of Charles I.:—

HIC JACET RANULPHUS DNS. DE DACRE ET GREYSTOCKE, HEROS, MILES
STRENUUS
QUI OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI,
VIDELICET
DOMINICA PALMARUM CUJUS ANIME P’PITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.

Dr. Whitaker also states his conviction that the word “heros” is a mistake for “verus,” and that “strenuus,” for which there has been no room in the line, has been another guess for the former epithet, “a true knight,” being the genuine language of chivalry.—_Ibid._, p. 156.

{127a} Such, for example, amongst others, as the murders of the Earl of Rutland, Edward Prince of Wales, Lord Hastings, &c. &c.

{127b} It is remarkable that three of the battles during those wars were fought on Sundays, viz., Blore Heath, Towton, and Barnet.

{127c} See some of the instances mentioned in _Rot. Parl._ 1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 476.

{127d} Voltaire’s _Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations_, tome xviii. p. 44.

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

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

{131a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Tewkesbury was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of March, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

{131b} I have paid six visits to the field of battle—two in May 1854, two in May 1856, and two in May 1856.

{131c} The authorities for the historical part of this paper are Hall, Holinshed, Stow, Speed; Leland’s _Collectanea_, vol. ii.; Grafton, Baker, Dugdale, Sandford, and Ralph Brooke.

{132a} The 13th of April is mentioned by some, and the 14th of April by other writers, as the day on which Margaret landed. If, as is probable, it occurred on the 14th of April, it was the same day as that on which the battle of Barnet was fought.

{132b} Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was daughter of René Duke of Anjou, and was married to Henry VI. on the 22nd of April, 1445.—See Chap. III.

{132c} Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of King Henry VI. and Queen Margaret (usually called Margaret of Anjou). He was born in the King’s Palace at Westminster, on the 13th of October, 1453, in the thirty-first year of Henry VI., and was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty-second year of his father’s reign. At the age of seventeen, he was affianced in France to Anne Neville, the second daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker. The murder of Prince Edward, immediately after the battle of Tewkesbury, will be noticed further on in this chapter. After his death, Anne his widow was married to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.

{132d} The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, otherwise called Knights of Rhodes, also called Knights Hospitallers, constituted an order of military ecclesiastics, of great renown, power, and wealth, before the Reformation. Their prior was esteemed the first baron in the kingdom. It may easily be imagined, that the support of the head of these powerful religious knights, was of no small moment to Margaret. Their chief establishment was at Clerkenwell, and it has given the name to St. John’s Square, St. John’s Street, and to the church of St. John, Clerkenwell. {132f} Of the magnificent priory which they possessed there, the only remains above ground are the ancient and curious gateway, called St. John’s Gate, and a single buttress of the old building in Jerusalem Court, leading into St. John’s Street. This religious body ceased to exist in England and in Ireland, in 1540; the act 32nd Henry VIII. c. 24, having been passed, by which their order was dissolved, and their lands and property vested in the King. Sir William Weston, Knight, was the last prior of that body in England. They are said to have been the last religious fraternity who surrendered their possessions to the grasp of Henry VIII.

{132e} See Holinshed’s _Chronicles_ and Speed’s _History_. Hall, Dugdale, and Grafton, however, state, that Queen Margaret proceeded to the Cistercian Abbey of Beaulieu, and took sanctuary there. In Baker’s _Chronicles_, it is stated that she first went to the Abbey of Cerne, and then to “Bewley” [Beaulieu] in Hampshire.

{132f} The ancient crypt still exists under the church, and it is said to be curious and interesting.

{133a} Anne Countess of Warwick arrived at Portsmouth, and went from thence to Southampton, intending to have joined the Queen at Weymouth; but having received intelligence of the total defeat of the Lancastrians, the deaths of her husband the King-Making Earl of Warwick, and of his brother the Marquis Montague, at the fatal battle of Barnet, she crossed the water into the New Forest, and took sanctuary in the Abbey of Beaulieu, in Hampshire.

{133b} Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the second son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, was the brother and heir of Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, beheaded after the battle of Hexham in 1463.—See Chaps. III. and IV.

{133c} Lord John Beaufort was the third son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chaps. III. and IV.

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

{133e} John Lord Wenlock. He fought on the Lancastrian side, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, in which he was severely wounded; for the Yorkists, at the battle of Towton, in 1461; and appeared again in arms for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471.—See Chap. VI.

{133f} Jasper Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield, was second son of Sir Owen Tudor, and Katherine, widow of King Henry V., and half-brother to King Henry VI. Full particulars are given of him in Chap. V. page 69, note 2.

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

{134b} Holinshed calls it Thursday the 1st of May; but there is evidently some little confusion in his dates, as to Edward’s movements. Holinshed states that the battle of Tewkesbury was fought on Saturday the 4th of May; and if so, it is impossible that the preceding Thursday could have been the 1st of May. He must either have meant Wednesday the 1st of May, or Thursday the 2nd of May.

{135} Originally Sir William Beauchamp, Knight, son of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick and Alcester. In the twenty-fifth year of Henry VI. he was advanced to the title and dignity of Lord Beauchamp of Powick, and constituted Justice of South Wales, and had a grant of an annuity of £60 per annum, out of the fee farm of the city of Gloucester, to him and his heirs for ever, for the better support of that honour; and in the 28th of Henry VI. he was made Lord Treasurer of England, but did not hold that office full two years. He died in 1475, and left by Margaret, his wife, the above-mentioned Sir Richard Beauchamp, his son and heir, then forty years of age.

{136a} “In her passage towarde Tewkesbury the Lord Beaucampe toke from her rereward, more ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to her no smal prejudice.”—Hall’s _Chronicles_, fo. 31.

{136b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_.

{137a} The proximity of the enemy must also have rendered it very dangerous even to have attempted to cross the river Avon, notwithstanding it had a bridge over it.

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

{137c} There has been for ages, a bridge over the Avon, at Tewkesbury, over which the road towards Hereford passes, not far from the place where it joins the Severn; but there was not one over the Severn, until centuries after the battle of Tewkesbury. The want of a bridge over the latter river at Tewkesbury, was long felt as a great inconvenience. However, in 1823, an act of Parliament was passed for erecting a bridge over it; but, after making some progress, it was found that the estimates of the expense were erroneous, and that a large additional sum of money would be requisite to complete the bridge, and roads leading to it; a new act was passed, containing additional powers, under which the iron bridge was completed, and it was accordingly opened for passengers in 1826.

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

{138b} Holinshed says that Edward “lodged that night in a field not past three miles distant from them;” but Hall says that King Edward “was come within a mile to Tewkesbury.” A medium distance between the three miles and the one mile, would perhaps be correct.

{138c} Holinshed. See also the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV. (1475), in which the battle is stated to have been fought on the 4th of May.—_Rot. Parl._ 14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fos. 145 and 146. Hall, however, calls it the 3rd of May.

The date of the 4th of May appeared upon the tomb of Sir John Delves, who was slain in the battle, and his body and that of his son are said to have been first interred at Tewkesbury, and afterwards at Wybonbury, in Cheshire.—Pennant’s _Journey from Chester to London_, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’ _Mag. Brit. Cheshire_, p. 828; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268.

{139a} Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., the eighth and youngest son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October, 1452. The Duchess of York, upon hearing of the deaths of her husband the Duke of York, and of her son the Earl of Rutland, at Wakefield, in 1460, sent her younger sons, George, afterwards Duke of Clarence, and Richard, afterwards Duke of Gloucester, abroad to Utrecht, where they remained under the protection of Philip Duke of Burgundy, until the accession of Edward IV. to the throne of England, enabled them to return with safety. Richard was created Duke of Gloucester and Lord Admiral of England, in 1461. He distinguished himself by his valour at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. He married Anne, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales. His reign commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483; and was slain at the battle of Bosworth on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months. Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign. He did not leave any issue; Edward, his only child by Queen Anne, who was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, on the 24th of August, 1483, died before him.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

{139b} George Duke of Clarence, the sixth son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, married Isabel, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), was attainted by Parliament, in 17th year of Edward IV., and was put to death in the Tower of London, on the 18th of February, 1477–78.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

{139c} Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, was the eldest son of Sir John Grey, of Groby (eldest son of Edward Lord Ferrers of Groby), slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Elizabeth Wideville, or Wodeville, afterwards the Queen of Edward IV. He married Cecily, daughter and heir of William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, and great-grand-daughter of William Lord Bonvile, who was put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in 1460–1. He was created Lord Harrington and Bonvile, by Edward IV., in the fifteenth year of his reign, and in the same year was also created Marquis of Dorset. After Richard III. had obtained the crown, Dorset was attainted of high treason; but took sanctuary, and got privately away, and fled into Brittany, with a view to taking part with Henry Earl of Richmond. At the instigation of his mother, the Queen Dowager, he appeared for a time to waver, and inclined to leave the party of the Earl of Richmond in despair of his success, and to return to England, and make his peace with Richard III.; but eventually remained abroad, until after the fall of Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, and the accession to the throne of Henry VII.; who then soon sent to Paris for Dorset, who, together with Sir John Bourchier (the brother of the Bishop of Exeter), had been left there by Henry, in pledge for money borrowed there. He returned to England, was restored to his honours, and made one of the Privy Council of Henry VII. He died in the tenth year of Henry VII., 1494, and Cecily his widow afterwards married Henry Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire, second son of Henry, second Duke of Buckingham, who was beheaded in the first year of Richard III.

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

{140a} The park of Tewkesbury is mentioned by Leland: “Fordehampton, a faire place, upon Severne, _in dextra ripa_, a mile beneth Theokesbyri, and agayn the parke of Theokesbyri, standing _in læva ripa_.”—Lel. _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 94 [83].

{140b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_.

{141a} Holinshed, with reference to Gloucester’s gaining this advantage over Somerset, uses the expression, “winning the hedge and ditch of him, entered the close, and with great violence, put him and his people up towards the hill, from whence they were descended.”

{141b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_.

{142a} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_. The mills are shown in the engraving of Tewkesbury, given in Dyde’s _History of Tewkesbury_.

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

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

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

{143a} It will be recollected that the Duke of Clarence was put to death in 1477–78, in the Tower of London. He was interred at Tewkesbury. See Stow’s _Annals_, p. 431; the _Catalogue of Nobility_, &c. by Ralph Brooke, p. 52; Additions to Camden’s _Britannia_, by Gough, edition of 1789, vol. i. p. 269; Sandford, p. 413; Rapin, vol. i. (in Notis, p. 624). Those accounts appear to be corroborated by the circumstance, that the Duke’s wife Isabel was interred in a stone arched vault, near the high altar, in the Abbey Church there. Leland, in his _Itinerary_, vol. vi. fo. 92 [p. 81], states that she died at the Castle of Warwick, on the 22nd of December, 1476, and was buried at Tewkesbury, of which she was the patroness. The entrance to the vault is covered by a large blue stone, under which is a flight of eight steps, which lead to the vault, which was opened and examined in 1826, on the occasion of some repairs, when the skulls and some bones of a man and a woman were discovered in it; besides which there were also six large stones at the south end of it, which apparently had been placed there, in order to support two coffins abreast; which adds not a little to the supposition that he was buried in the same tomb with the Duchess. Sandford expressly states that the Duke was buried at Tewkesbury, near the body of his Duchess. It was evident that the vault had been long previously entered, probably at the time of the dissolution of abbeys, or of the parliamentarian wars, and rifled of every thing worth taking away. The floor of the vault was paved; and extending nearly the length and breadth of it, was the representation of a cross, formed by the insertion of bricks, some of which contained the arms of England, of the Clares, &c.; and others contained representations of _fleurs-de-lis_, birds, ornamented letters, &c. Under the belief that the mortal remains so discovered, were those of the ill-fated Duke of Clarence, and of Isabel his wife, the skulls and bones were collected, placed in an ancient stone coffin, and the vault again closed up. It furnishes us with an impressive moral, and appears like an awful and just retribution, that so soon after the Duke had assisted in, or at least countenanced, the murder of Prince Edward, after the battle of Tewkesbury, his own death by violence, by the tyrannical orders of his brother, Edward IV., should have occurred, and his corpse should have been deposited in the Abbey Church, within sight of which the murder was committed.

{144} Fabyan says, that it was the King’s servants who committed the murder. If, as seems improbable, he means domestic servants, it does not make any difference in the crime, whether the noblemen present committed the murder with their own hands, or sanctioned its commission by domestics.

{145a} It is said that human bones were found there; but it is unfortunate that no full and detailed account seems to have been preserved of the examination of the grave, or what kind of human bones, whether male or female, old or young, were discovered, for they might have done much to throw light upon the subject. I could not obtain any further information relative to it, from the person who showed me through the Abbey Church. The practice of interring corpses in stone coffins continued a considerable time after the date of the battle of Tewkesbury. The corpse of Richard III. was interred, after the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, in a stone coffin, in the Grey Friars Church at Leicester. His remains were, at the time of the destruction of religious houses, disturbed, and the stone coffin was converted into a watering-trough, at the White Horse Inn, in Gallow Tree Gate, and was so used until it was broken to pieces.—Hutton’s _Battle of Bosworth_, pp. 142, 143. See also Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 410, where he mentions that the stone coffin was made a drinking-trough for horses at a common inn.

{145b} Additions to Camden’s _Britannia_, by Gough, published in 1789, vol. i. p. 269. That account evidently refers to a prior examination to that already noticed, as having occurred before the inscription (of which a copy has been given) was placed there, in 1796, because Gough’s edition of Camden’s _Mag. Brit._ was published in 1789.

At present there is not any monument to the memory of the Duke of Clarence or his wife, nor did I hear that any was known to have ever been there.

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

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

{146c} Sir Thomas Tresham is stated, in the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV. (1475), to have been of Sywell, in the county of Northampton. _Rot. Parl._ 14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 145. _Quære_—if he were the same Sir Thomas Tresham, or a son of the Sir Thomas Tresham attainted in the 1st of Edward IV. (1461), for having been engaged at the battle of Towton against Edward, but whose attainder was reversed in the 7th and 8th Edw. IV. (1467 and 1468)?

{146d} Stowe, p. 425; Lel. _Collect._ vol. ii. p. 506. There appears to be an error in those writers with respect to the name of the son and heir of Sir John Delves, as they call the former James instead of John Delves. See Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 255, 266, 269. An act of attainder, passed in 14th of Edward IV. (1475), against the Lancastrians, includes John Delves, describing him as late of Uttoxeter, in the county of Stafford, Esquire. _Rot. Parl._ 14th Edward IV. vol. vi fo. 145. Although they were of a Cheshire family, yet, as it had originally come from Staffordshire, it is not improbable that Sir John Delves, or his son John Delves, had possessions in both counties. Their ancestor, Sir John Delves, obtained in 1364, a royal license to make a castellated mansion, or castellet, at Doddington, of which there are still some remains, a view of which is given in Omerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 269.

{146e} These streets are Church Street, High Street, and Barton Street. Not many years ago, an old building, called the Tolsey or Town Hall (there is now a narrow street, called, from that building, Tolzey Lane, close to its site) and two small houses, of mean appearance, occupied a portion of the space, in the centre of the town, but being found inconvenient, and even dangerous, the liberality of Sir William Codrington, then one of the representatives of the town in Parliament, enabled the corporation to remove them, and a commodious market-house has been erected, by subscription, on the east side of the open space, which is now used for the purposes of a market.—Dyde’e _History of Tewkesbury_, pp. 82 and 83.

{147a} In the parish church of Wybonbury, in Cheshire, there were, prior to the repairs and alterations made in 1591 and 1793, some monuments of the family of Delves, amongst which, was one to the memory of Sir John Delves (mentioning his death on the 4th of May, 1471), and of Ellen his wife, and of John his son and heir.—See Pennant’s _Journey from Chester to London_, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’ _Mag. Brit. Cheshire_, 823; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268. Consequently it appears that the bodies of both the father and son were first buried at Tewkesbury, and afterwards removed and interred at Wybonbury. According to Pennant, p. 38, the following was a copy of the inscription:—

HIC JACET JOHANNES DELVES, MILES, ET ELENA UXOR EJUS, NEC NON
JOHANNES DELVES ARMIGER FILIUS ET HERES PREDICTI JOHIS QUI
QUIDEM JOHANNES MILES OBIIT QUARTO DIE MAII ANNO DNI.
MCCCCLXXI. QUORUM ANIMABUS PROPITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.

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

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

{149b} It is here called a mile-post, because on that part of the road, wooden mile-posts (not mile-stones) are used.

{149c} It is occasionally spelt “Home.” Some parts of the elevated ground are now called Holme Ground, or Holme Hill. “Ther was at the south-west ende of the Abbay a Castel caullid Holme. The tyme of the Building of it is oncerteyne.” {149d}

“There hath beene yn tyme of mynd sum Partes of the Castel stonding
now sum ruines of the Botoms of Waulles appere. Now it is caullid
Holme Hylle. George Duke of Clarence, Brother to King Edward, had
thought to have brought Avon aboute the Towne and to have enlarged
the Town.” {149d}

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

{150a} The elevated ground above mentioned, which includes the place called “Margaret’s Camp,” seems to be the same which (although it has no very great pretensions to be called a hill) is alluded to by Holinshed, when he states that the Lancastrian forces were driven up towards the hill from whence they descended.

{150b} The winding or circuitous state of the old road, seems in some degree to corroborate the statement of Holinshed, as to the Lancastrian camp being defended with “cumbersome lanes, deep ditches,” &c. &c.; indeed it is remarkable, that even now, there are ditches of very awkward size and depth, on the north and west sides of the garden at Gupshill Farm.

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

{151} It seems strange, that Mr. Dyde, in his _History of Tewkesbury_, suggests, that Margaret’s encampment was at a place adjoining the town and abbey, called the Vineyard. Little as we may truly think of the Duke of Somerset’s talents as a military commander, he could scarcely have made so ridiculous a mistake, as to have fixed upon so low and insecure a spot, as the Vineyard, commanded by the high ground of Holme Hill, and with the little river the Swilgate not in his front, but in his rear. What Mr. Dyde has mistaken for intrenchments, are nothing more than some trifling inequalities in a spot of ground close to the abbey, which in all probability, was formerly used as a garden or vineyard, as its name implies.

{152} There are two hamlets in the parish of Tewkesbury, viz., one called the Mythe, and the other Southwick and the Park, situated on the westward of the town, and on the road leading towards Cheltenham; and it is in the latter portion of the parish that Margaret’s Camp is situated.

{153a} The ball is almost a perfect globe, except at one spot, where it is rather defective, and may perhaps have been eaten into by rust.

{153b} Holinshed.

{153c} Hall’s _Chronicles_, fo. 31.

{154a} Holinshed.

{154b} _MS. Chronicle_ of John Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society, p. 18.

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

{154d} The fact of that part of the elevated ground where Margaret’s Camp is situated, being even now called “Gupshill,” may also be well worthy of notice; because it is far from improbable, that it may be only a corruption of the other word “Gastons.”

{154e} Holinshed.

{157a} The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Bosworth was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, on the 3rd of November, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

{157b} Its real name is Redmoor Plain, so called from the colour of the soil. Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A., page 68.

{158a} Richard III., the youngest son of Richard Duke of York by Cecily his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October, 1452, and was created Duke of Gloucester in 1461. He married Anne, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales (son of Henry VI.). His reign commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483, and was slain at the battle of Bosworth, on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months. Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign. He did not leave any issue: Edward Prince of Wales, his only child by Queen Anne, having died before him.—See Chap. VII. and Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.

{158b} Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, was the son of Edmund of Hadham, Earl of Richmond, by his wife Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, descended from an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, and was born at the Castle of Pembroke about 1455. His pretensions to the crown of England, were founded upon his descent, through the Beauforts, from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III. (See Pedigree No. 4 in Chap. IX.) But nothing could be more wild and contrary to the laws and constitution of England, than such a claim; because he claimed through his great-grandfather, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, who was the son of John of Gaunt, by Katharine Swinford, but born before their marriage; and, although the issue were declared legitimate for general purposes, by a charter of 20th Richard II. (which was confirmed by an act of Parliament—see _Rot. Parl._ 20th Richard II. vol. iii. fo. 343; Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, pp. 313, 314; Coke’s _Inst._ vol. 4, p. xxxvii.; Blackstone’s _Com._ by Stephens, 3rd edit. vol. ii. p. 417), it contained an express exception as to the royal dignities; the words in the charter, as given at length by Coke and Sandford, are, “excepta dignitate regali;” and it is remarkable, that these words seem to have been intentionally omitted in the printed copy of the act in _Rot. Parl._ vol. iii. fo. 243; (_Quære_—were the words cunningly obliterated from the roll by the order of Henry VII.?); besides which, several personages, amongst whom were the daughters of Edward IV., and after them the son and daughter of George Duke of Clarence, were living, and in the due order of the succession. By the battle of Bosworth, Richmond became King Henry VII.; he was crowned on the 30th of October, 1485; and married the Princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King Edward IV. (the marriage gave him his best title to the throne); and he died at Richmond on the 21st of April, 1509, in the fifty-third year of his age, having reigned twenty-three years and about eight months.—See Pedigree No. 4, Chap. IX. There is something remarkable with respect to the number and rank of the personages who were candidates for the hand of the Princess Elizabeth:—1stly, she was intended by her father, King Edward IV., to be the bride of George Neville, Duke of Bedford, the son of John Neville, Marquis Montague (slain at the battle of Barnet); 2ndly, she was affianced to Charles, the Dauphin of France, son of King Louis XI.; 3rdly, she was courted by her uncle, King Richard III., who probably intended, as has been the fashion of royalty in Portugal, to obtain the Pope’s permission to marry a niece; 4thly, she married King Henry VII., and, consequently, became a Queen, on the 19th of January, 1486.

{159} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A., Advertisement, pp. iii. and iv.

{160a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 69; and see _ibid._, Advertisement, pp. iv. and v., where an error is pointed out in his statement as to the number of acres.

{160b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, pp. 69 and 70.

{160c} _Ibid._, p. 87.

{160d} _Ibid._, additional particulars, p. 241.

{160e} Some land occupied as part of Sutton Field Farm, by Mr. Cooper, a farmer of respectability, is called Cornhill Furze, and lies on the north side of the road leading from Shenton to Sutton Cheney.

{161a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 88.

{161b} On his way from Lichfield to Tamworth, he was joined by Sir Thomas Bourchier and Sir Walter Hungerford, who had deserted Richard’s party, and with some difficulty joined the Earl of Richmond.

{161c} Thomas Lord Stanley. See Chap. II.

{161d} Sir William Stanley. See Chap. II.

{161e} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Additional Particulars, pp. 195, 196.

{162a} “Margaret Beaufort, sole daughter and heiress of John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, became Countess of Richmond by her marriage with her first husband, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond; her second husband was Sir Henry Stafford (a son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton, and a brother of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, and also a brother of John Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire); and her third husband was Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby. The Countess of Richmond had only one child, viz., Henry Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., by her marriage with Edmund Earl of Richmond (see Pedigree No. 4, chap. ix. p. 201); and she had not any children either by her second or third husband, as if, to use the words of Sandford, in his _Genealogical History_, p. 319, ‘she had been designed to be the mother of a king onely.’ She lived to see her son Henry VII. and her grandson Henry VIII. successively kings, and died in the first year of the reign of the latter, on the 3rd July, 1509, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.”

{162b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Additional Particulars, pp. 196, 197. Baker, in his _Chronicles_ calls the hill, Anne Beam; and, considering the age when he wrote, the spelling is not so very much amiss. It is now called Ambien Hill, and also Amyon Hill.

{163a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 94.

{163b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 97.

{163c} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow.

{163d} Hutton, p. 96.

{163e} Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow. It must be borne in mind, that the morass formed part of what is at present the wood, and that a portion of the latter extends nearly to the well. Henry’s army, in advancing, would naturally bear away a little to the left, in order to avoid the morass.

{163f} Hutton, p. 69.

{163g} _Ibid._, pp. 87, 94.