Chapter XXIV: Appendix: No. I (6)

{164} Baker, in his _Chronicles_, fo. 232, states, that Richard’s “vanguard was led by the Duke of Norfolk, which consisted of one thousand two hundred bowmen, flanked with two hundred cuyrassiers, under the conduct of the Earl of Surrey; the battel King Richard led himself, which consisted of a thousand bill-men empaled with two thousand pikes; the rereward was led by Sir Thomas Brackenbury, consisting of two thousand mingled, with two wings of horsemen, containing fifteen hundred, all of them cast into square maniples, expecting the Lord Stanley’s coming with two thousand, most of them horsemen.” Instead of Sir Thomas Brackenbury, Baker probably meant Sir Robert Brackenbury, who lost his life in the battle; but in either case, he appears to be in error, as to the commander of the rear of Richard’s army, which not only other old historians, but even Baker, on the next page, states, to have been commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. “In this battel Henry, Earl of Northumberland, who led King Richard’s rereward, never strook stroke.”—Baker, fo. 233.

{165a} Philippe de Commines, 5me livre, fo. 151.

{165b} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Henry VII. (A.D. 1485) vol. vi. folios 275 and 276. See Appendix No. 3.

{165c} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, pp. 82 and 97.

{165d} John Howard was a son of Sir Robert Howard, by Margaret, daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and was a faithful supporter of Edward IV., who created him a baron in 1461. Richard III. created him Duke of Norfolk on the 14th of June, 1483. He had the honour of being placed in the vanguard of Richard’s army at the battle of Bosworth.

{165e} Thomas Howard, son of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, before mentioned, was created Earl of Surrey in the first year of Richard III. He also had the honour of having a principal command in Richard’s vanguard; and, according to some accounts, he was taken prisoner, but, according to others, he escaped from the field, and afterwards, upon an amnesty being published, he submitted to Henry. He was imprisoned for a considerable period, but was at length reconciled to Henry VII., and was made Lord Treasurer of England in the sixteenth year of his reign; and was created Duke of Norfolk in 1514, the fifth year of Henry VIII.’s reign.

{165f} Henry Percy, fourth Earl of Northumberland of that name, was the son and heir of Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, slain at the battle of Towton. (See Chap. VI.) At the battle of Bosworth he commanded the rear of Richard’s army, but he is considered to have been lukewarm and indifferent, and his forces are said not to have struck a blow; he immediately submitted to Henry, and was taken into favour by him, and was made one of his Privy Council, and was slain in the fourth year of his reign at a place called Cock Edge, near Thirsk, in Yorkshire, by the populace, in an insurrection on account of a tax imposed by Parliament, which the King had ordered him to levy.

{166a} Francis Viscount Lovel escaped from Bosworth Field, and fought at the battle of Stoke in 1487, and was slain there, or at least never appeared afterwards. (See Chap. IX.)

{166b} John Lord Zouch was attainted for taking part with Richard at the battle of Bosworth, but his attainder was reversed in 4th Henry VII.—See _Rot. Parl._ 4th Henry VII. (A.D. 1488), vol. vi. fo. 24, and 11th Henry VII. (A.D. 1495), vol. vi. fo. 484. He died in the fourth or fifth year of Edward VI.

{166c} Sir Walter Devereux, in the twenty-sixth year of Henry VI. married Anne, sole daughter and heiress of William Lord Ferrers of Chartley, in Staffordshire, she being then aged eleven years and eight months, had livery of her lands, and in 1st Edward IV. was advanced to the dignity of a baron by the title of Lord Ferrers. At his death at Bosworth Field, he left by his wife Anne a son John, who succeeded him in his title and honours.

{166d} Probably of the family of Ratcliffes, Barons Fitzwalter. See Chap. VI.

{166e} Sir Gervase Clifton was of an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, of which the members still remain settled in that county. His father, Sir Gervase Clifton, fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Tewkesbury, and was afterwards executed there. See Chap. VII.

{166f} Sir Robert Brackenbury was Constable of the Tower of London and Master of the Mint. He stood high in the estimation of Richard III., who employed him in several matters of importance.

{166g} Jasper (called of Hatfield) Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of Bedford. See Chap. V. He, with his nephew the Earl of Richmond, commanded the main body at the battle of Bosworth.

{166h} John De Vere, thirteenth Earl of Oxford. He was the son of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford (beheaded in the first year of Edward IV.), and of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Howard the younger, and was a staunch Lancastrian, fought on the part of Henry VI. at the battle of Barnet in 1471, afterwards held St. Michael’s Mount, on the coast of Cornwall, against Edward IV., and on its surrender was sent prisoner to the Castle of Hammes in Picardy. He was attainted in the fourteenth year of Edward IV. He afterwards escaped from Hammes and joined Henry Earl of Richmond, whom he accompanied to England in 1485, and commanded the van of Richmond’s army, consisting principally of archers, at the battle of Bosworth. After the accession to the throne of Henry VII. he was restored to his rank and possessions; was joint commander with Jasper Duke of Bedford against the Earl of Lincoln at the battle of Stoke; and also held a joint command with him of the forces sent by Henry VII. in aid of the Emperor Maximilian against the French; and was also, in the twelfth year of Henry VII. one of the chief commanders against Lord Audley and the insurgents at the battle of Blackheath. In the first year of Henry VIII. he obtained a confirmation of the office of Lord Chamberlain. He married, first, Margaret, daughter of Richard Earl of Salisbury; and, secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Richard Scrope, and widow of William Viscount Beaumont, and died on the 10th of March, in the fourth of Henry VIII., without leaving any living issue, and was succeeded by his nephew, John de Vere.

{167a} Sir William Brandon was the son of Sir William Brandon, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Wingfield, and was, with his brother Thomas Brandon, concerned in the insurrection of the Duke of Buckingham against Richard III. in 1483. Upon its miscarriage the brothers fled into Brittany. After the death of Sir William at Bosworth Field, Thomas was made one of the esquires of the body of Henry VII., and had the honour of carrying his buckler at the battle of Stoke, and about the end of his reign was made a Knight of the Garter. He died in the first year of Henry VIII., and left a son, who was created Viscount Lisle in the fifth year of Henry VIII., and afterwards raised to the dignity of Duke of Suffolk.

{167b} Sir Gilbert Talbot was the brother of John, third Earl of Shrewsbury, and uncle and guardian of George, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, then a minor, and commanded Henry’s right wing at the battle of Bosworth.

{167c} Sir John Savage, commonly called “Sir John Savage, Junior,” of Clifton, now usually called Rock Savage, in Cheshire, was a nephew of Thomas Lord Stanley, and had the command of Henry’s left wing at the battle of Bosworth. He was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VII., and was slain at the siege of Boulogne in 1492.—Stow’s _Annals_, fo. 469 and 488; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. i. pp. 525 and 527.

{167d} He died in 1488 without issue, leaving a brother, Sir Nicholas Byron, his heir, who was the ancestor of the late Lord Byron, the celebrated poet.

{167e} Thomas Lord Stanley. (See Chap. II.) There is a very remarkable peculiarity connected with Lord Stanley’s (and the same observation applies in some degree also to Sir William Stanley’s) defection from Richard, and with his joining the Earl of Richmond, which has never been explained, as far as I am aware, by any author. Richard thought that he could secure Lord Stanley in his interest, by conferring benefits upon him, and made him Constable of England for life, with an annuity of £100 a year payable out of the revenue of the county of Lancaster, and created him a Knight of the Garter. The reasons usually assigned by historians for Lord Stanley’s defection are, his attachment to the memory of Edward IV., and his being faithful to the young King Edward V.; the attempt believed to have been made by Richard to cause him to be destroyed at the council (when Lord Hastings was seized and beheaded) in 1483; and his being then committed to prison for a time by Richard—all which are said to have rankled in his mind; besides the influence which his wife exercised over him in favour of the Earl of Richmond, Lord Stanley having married to his second wife the Countess of Richmond, the mother of the earl. The date of Lord Stanley’s marriage with the Countess of Richmond does not appear to be stated in the Baronages, but it certainly occurred at least ten years before the reign of Richard III., because the Countess of Richmond is mentioned as being the wife of Lord Stanley in _Rot. Parl._ 13th Edward IV. (1473) vol. vi. fo. 77. No plan for an insurrection could be better arranged than that of the Duke of Buckingham in the first year of Richard III. (1483), yet nothing could have worse success. But if Lord Stanley and his brother had brought forward their power, and had taken an active part in it, the probability is, that Richard would at that time have been dethroned. Neither Lord Stanley nor Sir William Stanley, however, appears to have taken the slightest step, or to have been in any shape concerned in that insurrection; yet precisely the same reasons which are assigned for Lord Stanley’s defection from Richard at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, appear equally to apply to influence him in 1483, when the Duke of Buckingham took up arms. It is very difficult to account for Lord Stanley’s then remaining quiescent, unless we may infer that there was a feeling of jealousy in his mind, and that he suspected that as the Duke of Buckingham was a more powerful nobleman than himself and was of the blood royal of England (see Chap. III. pp. 48, 49, note 4), it was possible that he might, if successful, claim the crown in his own right; or that Lord Stanley did not consider that the feeling of the noblemen and gentry against Richard, was then sufficiently ripe or decided for an insurrection; or that he was watching events, with the purpose of adhering at last to the strongest.

{168a} When Richard made his charge it should seem that he advanced from his right centre, because the ancient historians state that he “rode out _of the syde_ of the range of his battaile” (Hall, fo. 34; Grafton, fo. 851); “rode out _of the side of_ the range of his battel” (Holinshed, fo. 759).

{168b} Sir William Stanley, whose services were so opportunely given, and of such inestimable value, was requited by Henry’s putting him to death, in 1496, on a very questionable and frivolous charge. See Chap. II.

{169a} The historical authorities for this paper are Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, Sandford, and vol. vi. _Rot. Parl._

{169b} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 75.

{169c} _Ibid._ 129.

{170} Baker, 235; Stow; Hutton, 143. Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 410. A tablet has been recently (in 1856) put up on one of the new buildings near Bow Bridge, with an inscription treating the locality as if it were the supposed place of the final interment of Richard III.; but although it may perhaps be a disappointment to those who have caused the tablet to be placed there, to learn that the correctness of their theory is not admitted by others, still it is only proper to mention, that there does not appear to be any authority for such a supposition: indeed, after his remains had been pulled out of the grave and got rid of at the river, it is not likely that anybody would know or care what became of them.

{171} William Catesby was a lawyer of eminence in the reign of Richard III., was one of his chief counsellors, and was the Speaker of the House of Commons in the only Parliament held in the reign of Richard III. He was a descendant from an ancient family at Lapworth, near Birmingham. He is usually called Sir William Catesby by historians; but is certainly only treated as an esquire, not as a knight, in the act of attainder of 1st Henry VII. (see _Rot. Parl._ 1st Henry VII. A.D. 1485, vol. vi. fo. 275, Appendix No. 3), and in the act of the reversal of the attainder in favour of his son and heir, George Catesby, in the 11th year of the reign of Henry VII. (see _Rot. Parl._ 11th Henry VIII. A.D. 1495, vol. vi. fo. 490; in which the latter is called the son and heir “of William Catysby Squier,” which seems tolerably conclusive of his not having been knighted).

{172a} _Rot. Parl._ 1st Henry VII. (in November, 1485), vol. v. fo. 276. See Appendix No. 3.

{172b} As if to make the injustice and mockery of such a proceeding the more glaring, the act of Parliament states the battle to have been fought in the first year of Henry’s reign (1485); but it might perhaps have perplexed Henry to have asked him at what exact date the first year of his reign commenced, and how men could commit treason against him before the commencement of it.

{173} Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. ii. p. 356, and plate 30.

{174} Mr. Hutton’s contrast of their characters contains much truth:—“But were I allowed to treat royalty with plainness, Richard was an accomplished rascal, and Henry not one jot better.”—Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 73.

{175} _Carte_, vol. ii. p. 866.

{176a} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, p. 179.

{176b} Shakespeare’s _Richard III._ act i. scene 4.

{177a} A copy of the paper, but in rather a more extended form, upon the Field of the Battle of Stoke was presented by the author, to the Society of Antiquaries of London, at a meeting, on the 17th of December, 1846, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

{177b} John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, was the eldest son of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, second daughter of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and sister of Edward IV. and of Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 2, _infra_, in this chapter.

{177c} Margaret, the widow of Charles Duke of Burgundy, was the third daughter of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, formerly Cecily Neville.—See Pedigree No. 2, _infra_, in this chapter.

{178a} For the descent of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4, _infra_, in this chapter.

{178b} It has been said, that at first Lambert was intended to have personated Richard Duke of York, one of the young princes, the son of King Edward IV., who had been imprisoned in the Tower, but that the difference in their ages rendered it inexpedient.

{178c} _Rot. Parl._ 3 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 397.—See Appendix No. V.

{178d} Francis Viscount Lovel was the son of John Lord Lovel; the latter was one of those Lancastrians who accompanied the Lords Scales and Hungerford to London, in hopes of gaining the citizens, and were obliged to take refuge in the Tower, in 1460; he died in the fourth year of Edward IV., leaving by Joan his wife, sister of William Viscount Beaumont, Francis, his son and heir. Francis Lord Lovel accompanied Richard Duke of Gloucester, in the expedition to Scotland, in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and was advanced to the dignity of Viscount Lovel. In the reign of Richard III. he was made Lord Chamberlain, and had other important offices conferred upon him. He fought for Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485 (see Chap. VIII.), and, having escaped from thence, took sanctuary at St. John’s, at Colchester. He afterwards quitted it privately, and got away to Sir Thomas Broughton’s house in Lancashire, and lurked there for some months, from whence he proceeded to Flanders, to Margaret Duchess of Burgundy; and from thence went with Martin Swartz into Ireland, joined in the insurrection of the Earl of Lincoln, and was slain at the battle of Stoke. (See Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 560.) He married Anne, the daughter of Henry Lord Fitzhugh, Baron of Ravenswath (by Alice his wife, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury), but did not leave any issue.

{179a} _Rot. Parl._ 11th Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502.—See Appendix No. VI.

{179b} See Collection of “Documents relating to Lambert Symnell’s Rebellion in the second year of King Henry VII.,” selected from the _Municipal Archives of York_, by Robert Davies, Esq., F.S.A.; communicated to the Meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York, in 1846; published in 1847, pp. 27, 28.

{180a} Jasper Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.

{180b} John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

{180c} Thomas Lord Stanley.—See Chaps. III. and VIII.

{180d} George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, was son of John, third earl, and grandson of John, second Earl Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.

{180e} Lel. _Coll._ vol. iv. fo. 210.—See Appendix No. IV.

{181} After the earl’s forces had crossed the Trent at Fiskerton, and found themselves upon its right bank, Stoke Marsh, now enclosed, lay immediately before them; and beyond it, little more than a quarter of a mile distant, was the foot of the eminence already mentioned.

{182a} On the right, an artificial mount of small size, exists in the contiguous field, which is traditionally considered as having been occupied by some of the hostile forces, previous to the battle of Stoke. The small mount is said to have been thrown up or added to, for the purposes of a windmill, which once stood there.

{182b} For the Pedigree of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4, _infra_, in this chapter.

{185a} 4 Lelandi _Collect_, p. 211.—See Appendix No. IV.

{185b} 4 Lel. _Col._ p. 210, 212.—See Appendix No. IV.

{186a} Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, formerly Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.

{186b} John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

{186c} George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury. He was the son of John, third Earl, and grandson of John, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.

{186d} Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the son of Sir Henry Neville (the son of George Lord Latimer, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick), and died in the twenty-second year of Henry VIII.

{186e} Edward Lord Hastings, son of William Lord Hastings (put to death by Richard Duke of Gloucester, in 1488—see Chap. VI.) by Katherine, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of William Bonvile Lord Harrington, was created Earl of Huntingdon, in the twenty-first, and died in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VIII.

{186f} Thomas Stanley, first Earl of Derby.—See Chap. II.

{186g} Sir Edward Fielding was the son and heir of Sir William Fielding, who fell at the battle of Tewkesbury, fighting for the Lancastrian party, and was interred there; he was the ancestor of William Fielding, created Earl of Denbigh, in the twentieth year of James I.

{186h} See Chap. VIII.

{186i} Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 299. There was also another person of the name of Brandon, and probably of the same family—Robert Brandon, who appears to have distinguished himself at the battle of Stoke, because he was knighted on the occasion.—See Leland’s _Collectanea_, vol. iv. p. 210, Appendix No. IV.

{186j} _Rot. Parl._ 3 Henry VII. part 15, vol. vi. fo. 397. See Appendix No. V. But see _Rot. Parl._ 11 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502. Appendix No. VI., where the 20th of June is mentioned as the date of the battle.

{187a} _Rot. Parl._ 3 Henry VII., vol. vi. fo. 397. See Appendix No. V. See also Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, pp. 82, 97: An act of attainder was passed against the adherents of Richard III., after the battle of Bosworth, which mentions the use of guns amongst other arms, by them.—_Rot. Parl._ 1 Henry VII., vol. vi. p. 276. See Appendix No. III.

{187b} Hall, Holinshed, Bacon, Pol. Virgil, Baker.

{187c} Lambert Simnel was made a turnspit in the King’s kitchen, and was afterwards made a falconer; the priest, his tutor, was never again heard of.

{188a} Lelandi _Collectanea_, p. 214. See Appendix No. IV. and No. VII.

{188b} Hall’s _Chronicles_, and Bacon, mention a rumour of his being drowned in swimming the Trent; but the latter adds, “But another report leaves him not there, but that he lived long after, in a cave or vault;” and in the 2nd volume, p. 321, Banks’s _Dormant and Extinct Baronage_, is a copy of a letter, dated 1737, from William Cooper, Esq., clerk of the Parliament, detailing some interesting particulars of the discovery, in 1708, of a human skeleton, in a vault at Minster Lovel, in Oxfordshire, which formerly belonged to Lord Lovel, supposed by many, to be the remains of that unfortunate nobleman. See Appendix No. VII.

{188c} Buck’s _Life of Richard III._

{188d} Hall, Holinshed, Dugdale.—See Chap. VIII.

{188e} Hall, Dugdale’s _Baronage_.

{189} Lel. _Col._ vol. iv. p. 213. See Appendix No. IV.

{190} I have paid four visits to the field of the battle of Stoke, viz., in June, 1823; June, 1824; August, 1825; and September, 1827.

{191a} A passage, calculated to mislead, exists in a work, called _The Beauties of England and Wales_. It contains an assertion, unsupported by any proof, “that the battle must have been fought in the plain, between Stoke and Thorpe, rather than Stoke and Elston.” The clear and unqualified statements of the old chroniclers and annalists, that it was fought at Stoke, the evidence of the relics dug up, and the tradition of the neighbourhood, make it however quite certain that it could not have been fought in the place suggested in that work.

{191b} _Rot. Parl._ 17 Edward IV. and 1 Richard III.

{191c} Ralph Brooke, Sandford, Dugdale, Baker.

{192a} Dugdale, Speed.

{192b} Buck.

{192c} Of coarse, I pay no attention to Henry’s proclamation, published in Drake’s _Eboracum_, p. 122, which is so incorrect, as to assert, that the Earl of Lincoln, the Earl of Surrey, and Lord Lovel, were slain there.

{192d} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Henry VII., vol. vi. See Appendix No. III.

{192e} See 4 Lel. _Coll._ p. 210. He also attended Henry VII. in his first progress into Yorkshire. See 4 Lel. _Coll._ p. 186.

{193a} Sir John Neville (commonly called John Lord Neville), was the brother and heir presumptive of Ralph Neville, second Earl of Westmoreland.—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Lel. _Coll._ vol. ii. p. 715 [498]; act of attainder, 1 Edward IV. (1461), _Rot. Parl._ vol. v. p. 476; act of reversal of the attainder, 12th and 13th Edward IV., _Rot. Parl._ vol. vi. p. 24. A remarkable error exists in Hall’s, Holinshed’s, and Fabyan’s _Chronicles_, in which it is stated, that the Earl of Westmoreland perished at the battle of Towton; but, in fact, the first Earl of Westmoreland of that family, died in 4th Henry VI., and the second Earl of Westmoreland, in 2nd Richard III.—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300. Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, married Anne, the widow of his nephew, John Neville (the son and heir apparent of Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland), who died before his father.—See Chap. VI.

{193b} It is stated by Dugdale, in vol. i. p. 248, that John Tibtoft, Earl of Worcester, married her niece, Cecily, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of Henry de Beauchamp, Duke of Warwick, and was executed on Tower Hill, in 1470; but that is scarcely reconcileable with what Dugdale afterwards states of his marriage in vol. ii. p. 41.

{194a} He is called William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, in the _Catalogue of Nobility_, by Ralph Brooke, p. 205; and William Lord Harrington, by Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, vol. iii. p. 236; and William Lord Bonvile, in the same work, vol. i. pp. 581 and 585. He was the son of William Bonvile, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heiress of William Lord Harrington, and the grandson of William Lord Bonvile, who was put to death by Queen Margaret and the Lancastrian leaders, after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in 1461.—See Chaps. IV. and VI.

{194b} _Catalogue of Nobility_, _&c._, by Ralph Brooke, p. 174; and Dugdale’s _Bar._ vol. i. p. 304. A descrepancy is, however, apparent in Dugdale’s work, as he, in another place, erroneously states, that the Earl of Oxford married Katherine Neville—vol. i. p. 198.

{195a} Horatio Walpole, Earl of Orford, in his work, called _Historic Doubts_, has attempted to disprove the charge against Richard III. of the murder of his nephews, the two princes, in the Tower of London. The work is curious and interesting; but that author seems to have failed in removing from Richard, the stigma of this shocking crime. “Si l’on a fait de lui, des jugemens téméraires, c’est lui, qui en est coupable. Il est certain qu’il enferma ses neveux dans la Tour; ils ne pararent plus, c’est à lui d’en répondre;” {195b} and perhaps few persons can read the remarks on the _Historic Doubts_, published by the Rev. Dr. Milles, and the Rev. Robert Masters, in the 1st and 2nd vols. _Archæologia_, pp. 361 and 198, without perceiving, that what the author of the _Historic Doubts_ relies on as proofs of Richard III.’s innocence, are very ably rebutted by those writers; and that what he terms the coronation roll of King Richard III., in which are items for robes, &c. for King Edward V. (from which he would infer, that the latter monarch was alive, and even present at the coronation of the former), is only a wardrobe account of Piers Curteys, the king’s wardrober, kept from the time of the death of Edward IV., of which the deliveries for the expected coronation, of course, form a considerable part; but that the robes, &c., alluded to were prepared for the use of Edward V., at his own intended coronation, and not at that of his uncle, who took effectual measures, that, notwithstanding Piers Curteys’s arrangements, they should never be used for the purpose which he contemplated. That idea receives a strong confirmation from Sir Thomas More, who, in his _History of the Life and Reign of Edward V._, mentions the preparations for his coronation.

{195b} _Essai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations_, Œuvres de Voltaire, tome 18me, p. 48.

{196a} Hall, Bacon, Baker; _Catalogue of Nobility_, _&c._ by Ralph Brooke; Dugdale’a _Bar._, Sir T. More, Hutton, Pol. Virgil, Sandford, Banks, Walpole; Acts of Attainder, _Rot. Parl._ 17 Edward IV., 1 Richard III., 1 Henry VII., and 3 Henry VII.—See Pedigrees, Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

{196b} She outlived her husband, Richard Duke of York, thirty-five years, died at the Castle of Berkhampsted, on the 31st of May, 1495, _an._ 10th of Henry VII., and was interred by the body of her husband, at Fotheringay.—Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 369.

{197} Precis du Siècle de Louis XV., Œurres de Voltaire, tome 22, pp. 210 and 223.

{204} It will perhaps occur to the reader, from what has been already mentioned, that the words “Near this spot,” would be more appropriate and correct, than “On this spot.”

{205} Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick.—See Chap. II. p. 24, note 2.

{206a} George Duke of Clarence.—See Chap. VII.

{206b} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 684.

{206c} Lel. _Coll._ vol. fo. 504; Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 684; MS. Chronicle by Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society, p. 16. Holinshed, however, states, that Edward would not allow his guns to be fired during the night, in order that the enemy might not be aware of the exact position of the Yorkists.

{207a} See note 2, p. 206.

{207b} Richard Duke of Gloucester.—See Chaps. VII. and VIII.

{207c} William Lord Hastings.—See Chap. VI.

{207d} John Neville, Marquis Montague.—See Chap. II. p. 27, note 4; and Chap. VI. p. 118, note 2.

{207e} John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.

{207f} Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter.—See Chap. IV. p. 54, note 2.

{207g} Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.—See Chap. VII.

{207h} Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. i. fo. 684. In Mr. Hutton’s interesting work upon the _Battle of Bosworth_, Introduction, p. xxx., he gives a different account, and states that Warwick’s left extended towards the east, and far outflanked Edward’s right.

{208} Edward’s device of the Sun in Splendour, was adopted from the parhelion seen at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.—See Chap. V. pp. 72, 73.

{209a} Humphrey Bourchier, third son of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex, married Joan, daughter of Richard Stanhope, and niece and co-heir of Ralph Lord Cromwell, of Tatshall, had summons to Parliament, in 1, 2, 6, and 9th of Edward IV., by the title of Lord Cromwell, was slain at the battle of Barnet, left no issue, and was interred in Westminster Abbey.—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. fo. 133.

{209b} William Fienes, Lord Saye, succeeded his father, James Fienes Lord Saye, who was put to death by Jack Cade and his mob, in Cheapside, in London, in 1451. His son, William Lord Saye, upon the arrival in England of the Earls of March and Warwick, in 1460, joined them, and marched with them against King Henry VI., to Northampton. In 1463, he attended King Edward, with his army, to the North, for the recovery of the castles in Northumberland, then held by the Lancastrians, and in the same year, was made Vice-Admiral under the Earl of Warwick, then High Admiral. He accompanied Edward the Fourth, in 1470, when he was driven out of the kingdom by the Earl of Warwick, and afterwards landed with Edward at Ravenspur, and fought for him, and was slain at the battle of Barnet.

{209c} John Bourchier, Lord Berners, was the fourth son of William Bourchier, Earl of Ewe (see Chap. VI. p. 118, note 3). John Lord Berners’ eldest son, Sir Humphrey Bourchier, slain in his father’s lifetime, fighting on Edward’s part, at the battle of Barnet, was interred in Westminster Abbey, and left by Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and heir of Sir Frederick Tilney, and widow of Sir Thomas Howard, John Bourchier, Lord Berners, his son and heir, and another son, Sir Thomas Bourchier, who joined Henry Earl of Richmond, upon his march towards Bosworth Field, and took part with him in that battle.—Dugdale’s _Baronage_, vol. ii. fo. 132.

{209d} There were slain on Edward’s part, at the battle of Barnet, according to Holinshed—Lord Cromwell, Lord Saye, Lord Montjoye’s son and heir, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of Lord Berners; according to Speed, Lord Cromwell, Lord Bourchier, Lord Barnes [_Quære_—Berners], son and heir to the Lord Saye, and Sir John Lisle; according to Stow, Humphrey Bourchier Lord Cromwell, Henry Bourchier, son of Lord Berners, and Sir John Lisle; according to Hall, and to Grafton, Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of Lord Berners, but no other person of any note; according to a letter from Sir John Paston to his mother, published in Fenn’s _Collections of Original Letters_, vol. ii. p. 65, Lord Cromwell, Lord Saye, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier; and, according to Warkworth’s _Chronicle_, Lord Cromwell son and heir to the Earl of Essex, Lord Barnes’ [_Quære_ Berners’] son and heir, Lord Saye, and others.

{210a} Shakespeare’s _Henry VI._ part iii. act iii. scene 3. It is remarkable, that in the same tragedy, in act ii. scene 3, Shakespeare conveys the same sentiment, but in different words, “Thou setter-up and plucker-down of Kings.”

{210b} Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 684; Lel. _Col._ vol. i. p. 504. _MS. Chronicle_, by Warkworth, p. 16.

{210c} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Introduction xxxv.

{210d} Hutton’s _Bosworth Field_, Introduction xxxiv.

{210e} According to Lysons, antiquaries have differed in their opinions, nevertheless, concerning the exact spot where the battle was fought: some supposing that it was fought near the obelisk; others, on Monkey Mead Plain, more to the north, within Enfield Chase. Lysons’ _Environs of London_, vol. iv. p. 2.

{211} A respectable person, who had formerly long resided close to it, mentioned to me the circumstance, of its having been removed, as above stated, and also that he had known it during fifty-six years. He also stated, in reply to my inquiries, that he did not know of his own knowledge, that any relics of the battle had been discovered; but that he had heard of such discoveries formerly.

In strict order of dates, the account of the Field of the Battle of Barnet, ought to have preceded that of the Field of the Battle of Tewkesbury; but that could not be done without inconvenience, because the manuscript of the other parts of the work had been written, and the arrangements had been made for printing them, before the author had visited the place where the battle of Barnet was fought, or had written an account of it.

{213} The paper upon the General Use of Firearms by the English, in the fifteenth century, was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 1st of February, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.

{215a} Vol. i. p. 150.

{215b} Statute of 4th and 6th Philip and Mary, c. ii. s. 17.

{215c} See Hallam’s _State of Europe during the Middle Ages_, vol. i. pp. 361 and 363. See also _Archæologia_, vol. xxxii. p. 379. In Hallam’s talented work on the _State of Europe during the Middle Ages_, vol. i. pp. 361 and 363, and in the notes to them, are some valuable observations on the early introduction of gunpowder. He appears to consider it of eastern invention, and ascribes to the Moors, with every appearance of probability, the introduction of it into Europe, and mentions some very early instances of the use of cannons in the fourteenth century. He even refers to a writer who seems to mention the use of gunpowder in engines of war, in 1249.

An interesting proof of the use of cannon and other engines by the French during the siege of a fortress in the fourteenth century, is given in the _Rotuli Parliamentorum_ of the 1st Richard II. (1377). A parliamentary proceeding, in the nature of an impeachment, was instituted against William de Weston, an English commander, who had been intrusted by King Edward III. (“jadys Roy d’Engl.’ aiel ñre Sr le Roy q’ore est”) with the custody of the castle of Outhrewyk, and who was charged with having improperly surrendered it to the enemy; “en temps de mesme nr̃e Sr̃ le Roy q’ore est, verray heir au dit aiel.” In the answer of William de Weston, which is given at length, it is stated, that he had not sufficient forces to defend the castle; and also that the enemy, in besieging it, had “IX grosses canons, un grant engyn, et un trebuchet,” * * * “Et deins brief temps apres, ils comenceront a traire & getter de lour canons & engyns & ensi continneront de jonr en autre lour assalt” * * * “les murs en plusours lieux feurent enfebles par lour mervaillouses ordinances” * * * “Item mesme celui nuyt les enemys firont attrere toutes lours ordinances des engins, trebuchett, et canons.” {216b}

There is not any evidence of the period when the invention of gunpowder took place; but the general opinion of antiquaries appears to be, that it was a discovery of very remote antiquity; that its use may be dated back centuries before its first application to the purposes of war; and that for a very long period of time after its invention, it was merely used (more particularly in Asia) for recreative fireworks, and brilliant spectacles. Whilst on the subject of fireworks, it may be advisable to mention here, that they were in common use in Europe in the fifteenth century. Fireworks are mentioned by Philip de Commines, {216c} as having been thrown for amusement into the air, and afterwards running flaming on the ground, at Estampes, after the battle of Montl’hery, in 1465. We also learn from the same authority, an instance in 1494, of fireworks having been exhibited at Venice, from the steeples of the city, and pieces of artillery having been discharged. {216d}

{216a} The defective construction of guns during very many years after the battle of Crescy, and the want of skill in the art of gunnery, as well as the silence of the English and French historians, seem almost conclusive against the use of them at that battle, although the contrary has been asserted.

There is an interesting and valuable paper, which was written by the Rev. Joseph Hunter, F.S.A., and published in the _Archæologia_, vol. xxxii. p. 379, which contains many proofs of the use of gunpowder and cannons in the time of Edward III.; but, although it must be admitted that the evidence which he adduces is quite sufficient to show that they were then in use for the purpose of besieging towns and fortresses, he does not bring forward any proofs, or even any strong reason, for our supposing that they were ever used in the open field, during the reign of Edward III.

{216b} _Rot. Parl._ 1 Richard II., 1377, vol. iii. p. 10. It also furnishes another proof, in addition to others, of the French employing Genoese cross-bowmen in their wars; as 700 of them are there mentioned, as employed by the French at the siege.

{216c} Philip de Commines, book 1, ch. v. pp. 13 and 14.

{216d} _Ibid._ book 7, ch. xv. p. 215.

{217a} Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 168, and vol. ii. p. 291.

{217b} It is by no means improbable, that the “bastons à feu,” the nature of which, is not clear, adverted to by Monstrelet, as with the convoy brought up by the English, in besieging Orleans in 1428, were some kind of portable firearms. He several times uses that expression, particularly in describing the wars of the Burgundians and French. It ought, however, to be mentioned here, that with reference to the attack by the Burgundians upon Paris, in 1460, he uses the expression, “canons serpentines, et autres bastons de pouldre et a feu, avec trait de bastons inuasibles a main.” During the early part and middle of the fifteenth century, if gun-carriages were occasionally used, they certainly were not always adopted; and when cannons had to be transported from place to place, they were frequently conveyed in carts or waggons; and we learn from the ancient historical writers, that at that period, for want of carts and waggons, the besiegers were occasionally obliged, on raising a siege, to abandon their cannons.

{218a} Philip de Commines, in book 5, c. iii. p. 118, in enumerating the strength of the Swiss army, and the other confederates, against Charles Duke of Burgundy, in 1476, before Morat, says, that they had “dix mille coulevrines,” by which, as has been correctly observed by Mr. Grose, it is impossible that he could have meant 10,000 of such unwieldly engines as cannons; he evidently meant hand-guns or firearms, sufficiently light to be portable. It is also certain that firearms (haquebuts or harquebusses), so small as to be used on horseback (the origin of the modern carbine and pistol), were used on the Continent, in the year 1495; because on the retreat of the French after the battle of Fernova, in Italy, fought in that year, the rear of their army was defended by 300 Germans, many of whom had “coulevrines,” and others on horseback were armed with “haquebutes.”—Philip de Commines, book 8, c. 7, p. 235.

{219a} The bombard appears, however, occasionally to have been used to denote any kind of cannon.

{219b} Rymer’s _Fædera_, vol. viii. fo. 159.

{219c} _Ibid._ fo. 158.

{220} Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 399, note _u_.

{224} See pages 218 and 221, as to the occasional use of the word “engines” to denote other descriptions of instruments used in war by the English, as well as firearms.

{227} See pages 218 and 221, as to the occasional use of the word engine, to denote other instruments used in war by the English besides firearms.

{228} Sir John Fastolf, was of Caistor Castle, near Yarmouth, in Norfolk, of an old and respectable family, and a reliant soldier, who distinguished himself in the wars in France, in the reign of Henry VI., and especially on the 12th of February, 1429, when having the command of a body of men, convoying provisions and supplies for the English, who were engaged in the siege of Orleans, he was attacked on his march thither, near Rovray St. Denis, by a much superior body of French and Scotch: but he obtained the victory, and succeeded in delivering the convoy in safety to the besiegers. He died on the 6th of November, 1459, aged about 80 years. There are some interesting particulars respecting him given in Fenn’s _Collection of Original Letters_, vol. i. pp. 52, 54, 72, 104, 120, 125, 150, 155, 164, 166, 170, 182, 240; and vol. ii. p. 48. Notwithstanding there is a degree of similarity in the names, Sir John Fastolf, who lived in the time of Henry VI., must not, however, be confounded with the fictitious character so admirably drawn by Shakespeare, the Sir John Falstaff, represented by him as living in the time of Henry IV., and dying in the reign of Henry V. As far as I can discover, there is not any old historian who mentions such a person as the imaginary Sir John Falstaff, or any person of a name similar to the latter, living at that period, whose habits and associates resemble those of the amusing character described by Shakespeare: a character which seems to have been only the offspring of our immortal Bard’s playful imagination.

{234} See _supra_ in this chapter, p. 228.

{238} See also Grose’s _Military Antiquities_, vol. ii. p. 291, where the passage is referred to.

{240} It appears from the above, that the wages of a Doctor of Laws (John Coke) were then two shillings, and of a public Notary one shilling per day.

{241} In the _Harleian Manuscripts_ there are several documents of the reign of Edward V. and Richard III. in which guns, serpentines, artillery, gunpowder, &c., are mentioned.

{242} See pages 223 and 224.

{245a} The paper upon the family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 18th of October, 1848, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

{245b} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302; Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_ (note _f_), p. 356.

{245c} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 482; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302.

{245d} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 482, referring to _Heraldic Collections_, by W. Smith, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant in the Heralds’ College, p. 78; and in a note in third vol. of Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, p. 302, he mentions the same fact respecting that embassy.

{246a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302 (note), in which he mentions the above arms to have been allowed them in 1663–64, and states that a pedigree of the family is given in _Harl. MSS._ 2040, 267.

{246b} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 356.

It may be well to mention here, with reference to the family of Wyche, or De la Wyche, that Richard Wyche, of Davenham, had a son, Richard. The latter was a merchant in London, married the daughter of Sir Richard Saltingstall, Knt., the Lord Major, and died in 1621, leaving twelve sons and six daughters, of whom the Right Hon. Sir Peter Wyche, Knt., was the sixth son. Sir Peter was gentleman of the privy chamber to Charles I., for twelve years ambassador at Constantinople, and afterwards comptroller of the household, and a privy councillor. He died in 1643, leaving two sons and a daughter, of whom the elder son, Sir Peter Wyche, was envoy to the court of Muscovy, in 1669. The younger, Sir Cyrill Wyche, Knt. (named after his godfather, the Patriarch of Constantinople), established the Norfolk branch of the family, sat for many years in Parliament, was secretary to the lieutenancy in Ireland, and one of the lords justices there. The second Sir Peter Wyche had four sons, of whom John was envoy extraordinary at Hamburgh; Barnard, from whom a branch of the family in Leicestershire descended, and Peter and George, died unmarried. Sir Cyrill Wyche, the son of John, was appointed by Queen Anne to be resident at Hamburgh, when only nineteen years of age; and in the reign of George I., he was minister and envoy extraordinary to the circle of Lower Saxony, also envoy extraordinary to the court of Russia; and was created a Baronet whilst at the Hans Towns, December 20th, 1729, but dying without surviving male issue, in 1756, the baronetcy became extinct.—Burke’s _Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England_, title “_Wyche_.”

{246c} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 356.

{246d} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 302.

{246e} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Chesh._, p. 356 (n. _f_).

{247} In consequence of his death, on the 15th of June, 1852, after this paper was written, the farm now belongs to the author.

{250a} In this closet is a curious substitute for what was unknown when the hall was built—a water-closet. A narrow flue descended into the garden from the closet, and was so built as to appear on the outside as part of the stack or range of chimney-flues; the stone side-supporters of its seat remain; and the soil and every thing offensive used to fall from it through the flue to the ground on the outside, at a hole below in the stone-work, which still remains, and which was purposely left open at the bottom of the chimney-stack, from whence it could be removed when found necessary. I have seen similar (which are, I believe, not uncommon), at Carlisle Castle, adjoining the apartment said to have been the place of confinement of Mary Queen of Scots, at the ancient tower, forming part of Brimstage Old Hall, in Cheshire; at Ludlow Castle, Goodrich Castle, Stoke Saye Castle, and several other old castles in England.

{250b} Such as Chorley Hall, Little Moreton Hall, and Moat Hall, and the site of Alderley Hall; the latter was burned down in 1779, and all vestiges of the walls of the mansion are gone.

{253a} The paper upon the old church of Wilmslow was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 3rd of May, 1849, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

{255a} At present they are not all perfect.

{255b} The piscine is very rarely found on the north side of any church or chapel.

{256} As the ancient family of Handford, of Handford, in the adjoining pariah of Cheadle, bore the etoile or star in their arms, it might be inferred that the ornament had been introduced from that circumstance, if the stars had been painted on shields (like armorial bearings); but that is not the case; as they are painted on circular ornaments.

{257a} Now nearly hidden from view by a quantity of ivy, which has carelessly been suffered to grow over it.

{257b} I seldom see such an example of bad taste, without thinking of a passage, written in some work of imagination (it may be one of Goldsmith’s, for ought I know), which I read when a boy, mentioning an inscription by churchwardens, to the following effect, “Repaired and beautified by Samuel Smear and Daniel Daub, churchwardens.”

{258} Why should we not here notice the grave of a brave man, a native of Styal, in the parish of Wilmslow, who did honour to Cheshire and to his regiment? In the churchyard, near the south side of the chancel is a raised tomb, to the memory of Captain John Worrell, son of Henry and Mary Worrell, of Styal. The following is a copy of the principal part of it:—

“who departed this life, September 28th, 1760, aged 77. He served 50
years in his Majestie’s regiment of Carbineers, and carried and
brought off, with honour, the standard, at the memorable battle of
Malplaquet. His gallant behaviour as a soldier, and his private
virtue as a member of society, gained him the esteem of every brave
and honest man.”

{259a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311.

{259b} “Henry Trafford, D.D., built the chancel, 1522; made the tomb north of the communion rails. He was a younger brother of the Traffords, of Trafford.”—_Parl. Reg._; see Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311 (note _p_). Is it possible that we are intended, by the above passage, to understand that he made the tomb on the north side of the communion rails, in anticipation of his own death?

{261} A portion of a large pillar at the head of the tomb, appears to have been cut away, as if to admit of part of it being placed there.

{262a} Lysons’ _Cheshire_, p. 451.

{262b} By his death, since this paper was read, the advowson now belongs to his son, Sir Humphrey De Trafford, Bart.

{263a} He died in 1856, having, not long before his death, sold the estate.

{263b} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311 (note).

{264a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311.

{264b} See Chapter II. p. 26.

{264c} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 311.

{264d} Although Ormerod (in vol. i. xxxii. note _y_, and vol. iii. p. 311,) mentions the date on the tomb as 1460, I found it impossible to ascertain whether that had ever been the case, because the two last letters of that part of the brass which contained the date, are missing. The date of the battle is given in 5 _Rot. Parl._ 38th Henry VI. p. 348 (a very high authority), as Sunday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle, in the 38th year of Henry VI., which was in 1459. In Holinshed’s _Chronicles_ it is stated to have been fought on the day of St. Tecla, 23rd September, 1459; and in Hall’s and in Grafton’s _Chronicles_, St. Tecla’s day is also mentioned to have been the day of the battle; and in Baker’s _Chronicles_ and Stow’s _Annals_, though the month and day are not named, 1459 is given as the year in which it was fought; Carte, the historian, also gives the date as Sunday, the 23rd September, 1459.

{265a} Ormerod states (vol. iii. p. 311, note _y_), that the inscription possesses considerable interest, as being the memorial of the first Cheshire male ancestor of the Booths, and of the heiress of Dunham Massey and the Bollin; and that it is the only inscription now remaining in the county, relating to any of the warriors who fell at Blore Heath.

{265b} A rubbing from the brass of Sir Robert Booth’s monument, which I exhibited to the meeting, was kindly lent to me for the purpose, by the rector, the Rev. William Brownlow, to whom I am much obliged, for several valuable suggestions and information relative to the church; amongst which I may mention, that it appears, from the churchwardens’ accounts, that, during the civil war, the pipes of the organ of the church were broken up by the Parliamentarian troops, to make bullets.

{266} Poem of the _Borough_, p. 21.

{267a} The paper upon Handford Hall and Cheadle Church, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, on the 3rd of January, 1850; and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.

{268a} _Cheetham Papers_, vol. i. p. 122.

{268b} _Ibid._, p. 161.

{268c} He afterwards spells it “Handford”: vol. i. p. 189.

{268d} Lysons’ _Mag. Brit._, _Cheshire_, p. 555; Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 326, 327.

{269a} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 55.

{269b} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 73. It is enclosed by a screen of carved oak, round the upper part of which is inscribed, “Pray, good people, for the prosperous estate of Sir Randulph Brereton of this work edificatour wyth his wyfe Dame Helenor,” &c.

{269c} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 73.

{270a} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. pp. 74, 75, 76.

{271a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. pp. 326, 327; and Burke’s _Extinct and Dormant Batonetage_. But in Lyons’ _Cheshire_, p. 555, the dates are given as, creation 1626, extinction 1678.

{271b} Extracted from the one in Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 327.

{271c} _Archæologia_, vol. xxxiii. p. 65.

{272a} Ormerod’s _Cheshire_, vol. iii. p. 327.