[73e]“Owen Meredith,aliasTudor, buried in the Grey Freyers in navi Ecclesiæ, in sacello sine ulla sepulchri memoria.—Leland’sItinerary, vol. iv. fo. 175a[83].
“Owen Meridik, corruptly cawlled Owen Thider, Father to Edmund Erle of Richemount, and Graund Fathar to Kynge Henry the Seventhe, buried in the Grey Freres, in the Northe Syde of the Body of the Churche in a Chapell.”—Leland’sItinerary, vol. viii. fo. 76b[35].
[74a]The authorities for the historical parts of the paper, are Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, Baker, Leland, Ralph Brooke, Dugdale, and Sandford. It is remarkable, that Fabyan does not give an account of the battle of Mortimer’s Cross.
[74b]This spot is sometimes called West Field.
[75a]It seems to be very clear that the taking of that route was to enable them to ravage the Earl of March’s possessions there.
[76a]Politely communicated by the Rev. R. D. Evans, rector of Kingsland, who stated that the discovery of them took place when he was a boy. I visited in 1855 a large mount in front of the rectory-house, in which, as he informed me, he had found (but not of late years) pieces of iron. Leland states, “There was a Castle at Kingesland a 2 miles West North West from Leominster, the ditches whereof and part of the Keepe be yet seene by the West part of Kingsland Church. Constant Fame sayth that King Merewald sometimes laye at this place since of later tymes it longid to the E. of Marche, now to the King.”—Leland’sItinerary, vol. iv. part 2, fo. 178a[90]. Kingsland Church well merits inspection, as it contains several objects of interest to an antiquary. It is said to have been erected by one of the Mortimers in the reign of Edward I.—See an account of it in theGentleman’s Magazineof 1826, vol. xcvi. part 2, pp. 393, 583.
[76b]There is in the Museum at Hereford, an ancient spur, found in the neighbourhood of Mortimer’s Cross, but not upon the field of battle, of the description called the prick spur, of steel, plated with silver, presented to the Museum in 1839, and which I saw in the Museum in May 1855.
[77]Leland’sItinerary, vol. viii. fo. 32.
[78a]Blackstone’sCommentaries, 3rd edition (by Stephen), vol. ii. p. 584.
[78b]Burn’sLaw Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 108. The same observations equally apply to the Lords Marchers on the boundaries between England and Scotland.
[79a]Carte’sEngland, vol. iii. p. 135. There was also a seal of the Marches, which was abrogated by the act 4th Henry VII., which enacted that all grants and writings of lands or things pertaining to the earldom of March, should be under the Broad Seal, and not under a special seal.
[79b]Statute 27th Henry VIII. c. 27. But, notwithstanding the abolition of the local jurisdiction and of the almost lawless powers of the Lords Marchers, by the effect of the act 27th Henry VIII. c. 27, the Court of the Lord President and Council of the Marches of Wales, was still kept up. It was a court of extensive jurisdiction, which was erected by King Edward IV., in honour of the Earls of March, from whom he was descended; and he appointed it to be held at Ludlow; and in the thirty-third year of Henry VIII., the court was confirmed by act of Parliament, which enacted, “that there shall be and remain a President and Council, in the dominion of Wales, and marches of the same.” The first President is said to have been Anthony Widevile, Earl Rivers, in the 18th of Edward IV.; and the last was the Earl of Macclesfield, in 1689: the court having been abolished by act of Parliament of 1st William and Mary.
[80a]Some parts of the inscription seem open to objection. From what has been already mentioned in a former note, it may easily be conjectured why the year is stated to be 1460, instead of 1461, as a modern historical writer would have designated it; but it does not appear easy to assign a reason, why the name “Mortimer” is inscribed instead of “Plantagenet.”
[80b]The inscription is not altogether accurate, in stating that the battle of Mortimer’s Cross fixed Edward IV. on the throne of England. He certainly was proclaimed King by his partisans, in London, soon after that battle, but he was indebted to the subsequent battle of Towton, for his being really placed upon the throne. The statute 1st Edward IV., passed in 1461, declares the 4th of March to be the date when Edward IV. commenced his reign; “the fourth day of the moneth of Marche last past toke upon hym to use his right and title to the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship and entred into the exercise of the Roiall estate, dignite, preemynence and power of the same coroune, and to the Reigne and governaunce of the seid Reame of Englond and Lordship; and the same fourth day of March amoeved Henry late called King Henry the Sixt son to Henry, son to the seid Henry late Erle of Derby, son to the seid John of Gaunt, from the occupation, usurpation, intrusion, reigne, and governaunce of the same Reame of Englond and Lordship.”Rot. Parl.1 Edward IV. 1461, vol. v. fo. 464. See also Fabyan, fo. 218.
[81a]The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Towton was read before meetings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 11th and 18th of January, 1849, and the thanks of the meetings were voted for it to the author. Several additions have, however, been made in it, and some material alterations and corrections have been introduced, in consequence of further information acquired by the author, during his subsequent visits to the field of battle.
[81b]I visited the field of battle on the 28th of July and 7th of August, 1848, and again in the years 1849, 1850, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, and 1856. In one of those visits (on the 2nd of August, 1853) I walked with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, entirely across the field of battle, commencing on the ground occupied by the left wing of the Lancastrians, along the whole line, to the spot occupied by their right wing; and we descended from thence through the meadows to the river Cock. Any antiquary inclined to pursue the same walk, should leave the Ferrybridge road, between Dintingdale and Towton, and enter the fields at the spot, where he may observe one of them of very large size, nearly opposite a white farmhouse standing on the eastward side of the Ferrybridge road. He may easily procure a countryman, for a small gratuity, to act as guide to him, if he has doubts about getting well over one or two fences, which, however, really do not present much difficulty. The Lancastrians evidently had selected the highest ground, commanding an extensive prospect, with the depression or valley after mentioned, in front of a considerable portion of their line. It was clearly the strongest position near Towton.
[82a]Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1455.—See Chap. III.
[82b]Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker. (See Chap. II.) John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, was also one of the commanders on the side of the Yorkists, at the second battle of St. Alban’s.
[82c]The second battle of St. Alban’s was fought on Shrove Tuesday, the 17th of February, 1460–1.
[82d]The claims of King Henry VI. to the throne of England were grounded upon his descent from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III., by Blanche his wife. (See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.) Henry was the eldest son of King Henry V. and Queen Katherine, born at Windsor in 1421; succeeded to the crown, when an infant, upon his father’s death, on the 31st of August, 1422; was crowned at Westminster, on the 6th of November, 1429: and also at Notre Dame at Paris, on the 17th of November, 1431; was deposed on the 4th of March, 1461 (seeRot. Parl.1 Edward IV. vol. v. fo. 464), and was reinstated upon the throne for a short period in 1470 and 1471; but with the battles of Barnet, fought on the 14th of April, and of Tewkesbury on the 4th of May, 1471, all further chance of his reigning was extinguished, and he died in the Tower of London soon after the latter battle.
[83a]William Lord Bonvile was the father of William Bonvile, who married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Lord Harrington, by whom he had a son, William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, who was slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460.—See Chap. IV.
[83b]Sir Thomas Kiriel was a commander of note and bravery in the wars in France. See Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 78, and vol. iii. fos. 26, 27.
[83c]Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March (though usually designated by that title by historians, became in fact, Duke of York, upon his father’s death), was the eldest son of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife. He was afterwards King Edward IV., and died on the 9th of April, 1483.—See Chap. V., and Pedigrees Nos. 1 and 2, Chap. IX.
[83d]Thomas Bourchier was originally Bishop of Ely, and afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1454, and retained that see until he died very aged in 1486, having held it 32 years, and in the reigns of five kings. He was also Lord Chancellor and a Cardinal.—See Chap. III.
[83e]George Neville, fourth son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, was Bishop of Exeter and Lord Chancellor in 1460, and afterwards (in 1466) Archbishop of York.—See Chap. III.
[84a]John Mowbray, third Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Nottingham, and Earl Marshal of England, the son of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and Katherine his wife, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, married Eleanor, daughter of William Lord Bourchier, and sister of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex. He fought for the Yorkist party at the second battle of St. Alban’s in 1460–1, and died in the first year of Edward IV., 1461, and was buried in the Abbey of Thetford. His son, John Mowbray, Earl of Surrey, succeeded him as Duke of Norfolk.
[84b]William Neville, Lord Falconberg, was the second son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, a daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; he had served in France, and fought at the battles of Northampton and Towton, and was created Earl of Kent in the first year of Edward IV., and afterwards made High Admiral of England, and a Knight of the Garter, for the important services which he had rendered to the House of York. He died about the second year of Edward IV., and was buried at the Priory of Gisborough, in Yorkshire. His being uncle to Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker, may account for his fighting on the side of Edward IV., and having a principal command at the battles of Northampton and of Towton.—See Chap. III.
[84c]According to the present style, the year was 1461; but at that time, the legal year did not commence until the 25th of March, and consequently, until that day arrived, the year was then called 1460.
[85a]Rot. Parl.1st Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. p. 464. See also Fabyan’sChronicles, fo. 218.
[85b]Edward Prince of Wales, the only child of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret, was born on the 13th of October, 1453; created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty second year of Henry VI.; and was murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471.—See Chaps. III. and VII.; and Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.
[86a]See observations in a noteinfrain this chapter, respecting Lord Fitzwalter.
[86b]John Lord Clifford was the son of Thomas Lord Clifford, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chap. IV.
[86c]Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.
[87a]“This feeld was as much fought in Saxton Paroch, as in Towton, yet it berith the name of Towton.”—Leland’sItinerary, vol. i. fo. 47.
[87b]Rot. Parl.1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 478. Appendix No. 1.
[87c]In order to avoid a repetition of references, the authorities referred to in this paper for the historical facts, are Hall, Holinshed, Leland, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, John Habington,Hist. Croy. Cont., Francis Biondi, Fabyan, Grafton, Baker, andRotuli Parl.
[88a]Upon this eminence, close to the village, is a small wood called Benshar Wood.
[88b]I could not learn anything respecting the comparative antiquity of the bridge, but I consider it very improbable that there was any bridge over the Cock in 1461.
[89]I visited the bridge and the river Cock at Stutton, in 1849. I consider it very probable that a portion of the Lancastrians, in retreating, passed the Cock at that place either by a bridge or ford.
There is also a small bridge called Kettleman’s Bridge, near Tadcaster, at the confluence of the rivers Cock and Wharf. It is not very long since an attempt was made, to show that it was a Roman bridge. I examined it carefully in August 1853, and, so far from considering it Roman, I do not even believe it to be a very old one. Similar bridges are not uncommon in some parts of Yorkshire. There is one which I have often seen, over the brook called Hock Beck, on the right side of and very near the road leading from Harrogate to Fewstone, which, though considerably narrower, resembles it very much. There was also another, very recently, which is now destroyed, over the same brook, at a place called Knox Mill, near Harrogate, on the right side of the road leading from Harrogate to Killingwell and Ripley; and I am informed that there is now another of the same kind at Fewstone.
[90a]John Lord Clifford, son of Thomas Lord Clifford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s in 1455. John Lord Clifford fought at the battle of Wakefield.—See Chap. IV.
[90b]Holinshed, Hall, Grafton, and J. Habington.
[90c]Shakespeare’sThird Part of Henry VI., act ii. scene 6.
[91]Before arriving at the depression, and close to it, on the right or eastward side of the road, some small quantities of stone, have been also dug in another place: but that quarry has never been of any large extent, and remained a considerable time without being worked, although the working of it on a small scale has been recently resumed.
[92a]It is scarcely possible to understand why it is stated, in a short paper, by the Rev. George Fyler Townsend, professing to give some account of the battle, and communicated at the meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York, in July 1846 (see report of the proceedings, pages 12 to 16), that the Lancastrians were drawn up at “Dartingdale,” or “Tartingdale,” between Towton and Saxton. I was informed, in reply to my inquiries made in the neighbourhood, that no person living near there, ever heard of such names. The rev. writer seems to have confused those names with Towton Dale. He also erroneously states, that the Lords Clifford, Northumberland, and Dacre, drew up their men, and that those “three Lancastrian leaders all met their deaths in this battle.” It apparently escaped his recollection, that Lord Clifford was slain on the previous day.
[92b]Mr. Kendall, of Towton Hall, informed me that he has seen, in clearing out the drains there, many large pieces of oak dug out, black with age, and with lying in peaty soil.
[93]Dr. Whitaker’sLoidis and Elmete(History of Leeds), vol. i. p. 157.
[94a]Modern Universal British Traveller, published by T. Cooke, 1779, p. 554. The articles respecting England by Charles Burlington, Esq. On the 31st of July, 1851, on the occasion of one of my visits to Towton Field, I was informed by the wife of a farmer named Lawn, who had formerly occupied as tenant, part of the field of battle, that a youth belonging to the family, had not long previously found there, and brought to her, the finger-bones of a man.
[94b]Whitaker’sLoidis and Elmete(History of Leeds) vol. i. p. 157.
[94c]Kindly communicated by the Rev. William Jepson Newman.
[95a]Politely communicated by Colonel Grant, R.A., in 1854.
[95b]A representation of the spur is given in theArchæologia, vol. ii. plate 20.
[96]Ralph Lord Dacre, slain at the battle of Towton, was the son and heir of Thomas Lord Dacre, of the North, (according to Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. ii. p. 23; vol. iii. p. 244; there was another family called Lord Dacre, of the South, of the name of Fynes or Fienes), and succeeded his father in the title, in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VI. After the battle of Towton, Ralph Lord Dacre was attainted by the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., and all his possessions were forfeited to the crown; viz., “the mannor of Barton, and moiety of the mannor of Hoffe in com. Westmorl; as also the Castle of Naworth, with the manners of Irthington, Dacre, Kirke Oswald, Farlam Blakenwayt, Lasyngby, Brampton, Burgh upon the Sands, Aykton, Roclyffe, Glasenby, Blockhall, and Castel-Caryot. in com. Cumbr: and the mannors of Halton, Fyshwike, Eccleston, and Over-Kellet, in com. Lanc.” (Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. ii p. 23.) To him succeeded in the title, his brother, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Knight, who conducted himself so submissively and usefully to the House of York, as to make his peace with Edward IV., and had the office of Master Forester of the forest of Inglewood, in Cumberland, conferred upon him for life, in the ninth year of Edward IV., and he afterwards held several other important offices. He was one of the persons included in the act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., passed against the Lancastrians who took a part in the battle of Towton. He, however, succeeded in getting the attainder against himself reversed by the act of 12th and 13th of Edward IV.Rot. Parl.vol. vi.A.D.1472–3, fo. 43. Humphrey Lord Dacre, was one of the lords who, in the Parliament Chamber in the eleventh year of Edward IV., swore to be faithful to Prince Edward, eldest son of Edward IV. In the second year of Richard III., he was constituted Warden of the Marches; and having been summoned to Parliament in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and first of Richard III., died in the first year of Henry VII.
[97]Whitaker’sLoidis and Elmete(History of Leeds), vol. i. fo. 156.
[98a]Amongst others, I have to express my thanks to John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall, for both oral and written communications on the subject. I was induced, for the sake of accuracy, both to see and write to him for information respecting the field of battle, and he was good enough to read over the paper upon it, as originally drawn, and to make a few corrections in it, and also to favour me with some notes which I have incorporated into the account.
I have also to thank the Rev. Dr. Carter, of Saxton Parsonage, for his kindness and attention, in giving me some useful information, and for taking the trouble of reading over the part of this paper, which related to Saxton Church and Churchyard.
[98b]Dr. Whitaker’sLoidis and Elmete(History of Leeds), vol. i. fo. 157.
[99a]It is certain that at Towton, the archers were originally placed in front of the other troops, and it seems naturally to follow, that when the main bodies came to close quarters, the archers would be withdrawn to the rear. If so, that would make a very considerable difference in the extent of the front of each army. I am informed that in modern warfare, the space usually allowed for each foot soldier is about one foot nine inches, and for each horseman in marching order, about four feet six inches.
[99b]Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, of that family, was the son of Henry, second Earl of Northumberland, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Eleanor, second daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, and was brother of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.
[99c]Sir Andrew Trollop, as he is called by several writers, but called Andrew Trollop, only, by others, was a military commander of considerable repute, and had served in France. He had originally joined the Duke of York, but seceded with some forces to Henry VI., from the encampment of the Yorkists, at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459. The act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not notice his having been engaged at the battle of Towton, but includes in the list of Lancastrians, who had taken a part at the battle of Wakefield, “Andrew Trollop late of Guysnes Squier,” whom we may fairly conclude, was the same person, and who, in the interval between the two battles, may possibly have received the honour of knighthood.
[100a]Sir John Wenlock was originally a supporter of the Lancastrian party, fought, and was severely wounded, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, on the 22nd of May (called by some historical writers, the 23rd of May), 1455. He was appointed to several offices of distinction, and was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VI.; but afterwards, going over to the Yorkists, he was in arms for that party at the encampment at Ludford, near Ludlow, in 1459, for which, he was attainted by the Parliament held at Coventry, in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI. However, he lost little by that; for having accompanied Edward IV., and distinguished himself at the battle of Towton, in 1461, he obtained the office of Chief Butler of England, and the stewardship of the castle and lordship of Berkhampsted, in Hertfordshire; he was created Baron Wenlock, in the first year of Edward IV., and also made one of the Privy Council. He afterwards again changed sides, and appeared in arms for Henry VI., at the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471; when, in consequence of his not having with his troops supported the Duke of Somerset, the duke, with his axe, beat out Lord Wenlock’s brains. He seems not to have left any issue. He had considerable possessions in the neighbourhood of Luton, in Bedfordshire; and the Wenlock Chapel in Luton Church, which is a very beautiful structure and well worth visiting, is said to have been erected by him.
[100b]Sir John Dinham or Denham, was a distinguished military commander, and a decided partisan of the Yorkists; and in the thirty-eighth year of Henry VI., being at Calais, he proceeded suddenly, by the direction of the Earl of Warwick, to Sandwich, and there surprised Lord Rivers, and his son Lord Scales, of the opposite party, and took several King’s ships lying in the harbour, and brought them to Calais. After Edward IV. had obtained the crown, Sir John Denham was so much esteemed by him, that in the sixth year of that King’s reign, he was summoned to Parliament as Baron Denham; he had several grants of valuable offices, and also of considerable possessions, then in the crown, by reason of the death of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Devonshire, without issue, and of the forfeiture of Thomas Courtenay, late Earl of Devonshire. After having been made a Knight of the Garter, he died in the seventeenth year of Henry VII. He is called “John Lord Dynham” inRot. Parl.12 and 13 Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 16.
[100c]“Towton Village is a mile from Saxton, wher is a great Chapell begon by Richard III. but not finishid. Syr John Multon’s lather layid the first stone of it. In this Chappelle were buried also many of the men slayn at Palme Sunday Feeld.”—Leland’sItinerary, vol. i. fo. 47 [44].
[101a]Communicated by John Kendall, Esq., of Towton Hall.
[101b]There is a statement in Thomas Sprott’sFragment, printed by Hearne, that the battle commenced at four o’clock in the afternoon, continued all night, and terminated on the following afternoon, which is quoted in Turner’sHistory of England, vol. iii. p. 229; but that statement, which seems to be only the tale of an anonymous writer, is not entitled to any weight, when put into the scale, against the accounts given by the old historians, respecting the commencement and termination of the battle. Mr. Turner has even improved upon the statement, and says that the armies fought by the light of fire and torches. Armies in those days did not usually fight by torch or fire light. When did any old historical writer mention such an event occurring in any of the wars of the English, of that century? The statement seems to be completely erroneous; and the mistake has perhaps arisen from confounding the engagement which took place at Dintingdale, on the 28th of March (and possibly at four o’clock in the afternoon), with the great battle on the 29th of March. It is, however, not unlikely, that each army endeavoured to harass the other, by frequent discharges of cannon, during the night before the battle. As some proof of the probability of such an occurrence, we are expressly told in Holinshed’sChronicles, p. 684, that during the night before the battle of Barnet, the Lancastrians continually discharged cannons at the camp of Edward IV., and by Leland (see 1 Lel.Coll.fo. 504), that they fired guns at each other all the night.
[103a]Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter. See Chap. IV.
[103b]Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. See Chaps. III. and IV.
[103c]Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire. See Chap. IV.
[103d]Sir John Heron of the Ford, was of an ancient and influential Border family; and for many generations the members of the family enjoyed considerable landed possessions in Northumberland, and often signalised their valour in the wars of the Borders. He fought on the Lancastrian side at the battles of Wakefield [see Chap. IV. p.60] and Towton, and was attainted by the act of 1st Edward IV.; but his son, Roger Heron, obtained a reversal of the attainder by an act of Parliament of 12th and 13th Edward IV.,Rot. Parl.1472–3, vol. vi. fo. 47.
[103e]Stow’sAnnals, p. 415.
[103f]This appears to be an error: John Talbot, third Earl of Shrewsbury, was the son of John Talbot, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460 (see Chap. III.), and grandson of John Talbot, the first Earl of Shrewsbury, renowned for his warlike exploits in France, and slain by a cannon shot at the battle of Castillon, near Bourdeaux, on the 7th of July, 1453. According to Ralph Brooke, in hisCatalogue of the Nobility, &c., p. 197, John, the third Earl of Shrewsbury, was not slain at Towton, but died at Coventry in 1473, and was buried at Worksop. See also Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 332, where his death in the 13th of Edward IV. is mentioned.
[103g]William Viscount Beaumont, was the son and heir of John Viscount Beaumont, slain at the battle of Northampton on the 9th of July, 1460, fighting on the Lancastrian side (see Chap. III.); and married—first, Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Scrope, brother to Lord Scrope of Bolton; and secondly, Joan, daughter of Humphrey Duke of Buckingham. William Viscount Beaumont fought for that party at the battle of Towton, and, according to Dugdale, was taken prisoner there. He was attainted by the act of attainder of the first year of Edward IV. He took part with John Earl of Oxford, for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Barnet, in 1471, and fled into Scotland, and afterwards into France, landed with the Earl of Oxford in Cornwall, and assisted him in holding St. Michael’s Mount against Edward IV.; but upon its surrender, he was brought prisoner, with the earl, to the King. Upon the accession to the throne of Henry VII., he was restored by an act of Parliament; and died without issue, in the twenty-fourth year of that king’s reign.
[104a]Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, was the brother and heir presumptive to Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland. Many years ago, when I wrote the paper on the battle of Stoke, I, on the authority of Hall and Holinshed, mentioned the Earl of Westmoreland, as having been slain at Towton; Fabyan also says that the earl was slain there. I am now satisfied, that those writers have erroneously mentioned the death of the Earl of Westmoreland, who did not die until the second year of Richard III.; and that, instead of him, they meant Sir John Neville, commonly called John Lord Neville, who was the second Earl of Westmoreland’s brother and heir presumptive. See Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. pp. 290, 299, 300; Leland’sColl.vol. ii. p. 715 [498], in which is the following statement, ‘Syr John Nevel the Erle of Westmerlandes brother and Andrew Trollop were killid at this tyme.’; see also the act of attainder against the Lancastrian leaders,Rot. Parl.1st Edward IV. vol. v. p. 476, which does not name the Earl of Westmoreland, but it does include, “John, late Lord Nevill”; besides which, Ralph, second Earl of Westmoreland, was summoned to the very Parliament which passed this act of attainder; consequently, it cannot be supposed that he had taken a part in the battle. See also the act of reversal of the attainder,Rot. Parl.12th and 13th Edward IV. vol. vi. p. 24, of “Rauf Nevyll, first begoten son of John Nevyll Knyght, late Lord Nevyll,” attainted by the name of “John, late Lord Nevyll,” who was afterwards third Earl of Westmoreland.
[104b]According to Dugdale, in hisBaronage, vol. ii. pp. 85 and 86, Robert Lord Willoughby of Eresby, a valiant and celebrated commander, distinguished in the French wars, died in the thirtieth year of Henry VI., leaving Joan, the wife of Sir Richard Welles, his daughter and heir; and, the issue male of the principal branch being thus extinct, Sir Robert Willoughby, son of Thomas, a younger brother of the last Robert Lord Willoughby, became the next heir male, and is stated to have died on the 30th of May, in the fifth year of Edward IV. (Quære—Could it have been Thomas, the younger brother, who was called Lord Willoughby, and slain at the battle of Towton?) The death of Lord Willoughby is mentioned in Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 219; and in note 12 at the foot, it is stated that “Richard Welles, a son of Lord Welles, in 1455, was summoned as Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife Joanna, heir of the great warrior, Robert Lord Willoughby.” See note respecting Leo Lord Welles,infra, note 3. Dugdale, however, does not mention Sir Richard Welles or Lord Willoughby, as having been engaged at Towton Field.
[104c]Leo Lord Welles, of the Lancastrian party, slain at Towton Field, and attainted by Parliament in first of Edward IV., was grandson and heir of John Lord Welles, whose oldest son, Eudo, died in his lifetime. Leo Lord Welles left issue (by Joan his first wife, daughter and heir of Sir Robert Waterton), Sir Richard Welles, his next heir, who, in the fourth year of Edward IV. (having also the title of Lord Willoughby, in right of his wife, Joan, daughter and heir of Robert Lord Willoughby), had, through the King’s special favour, restoration of the goods, &c., of which his father died seized; and the next year had restitution of various manors, lordships, property, &c., which had come to the crown by the attainder of his lather, Leo Lord Welles. In the ninth year of Edward IV., the said Richard Lord Welles, and his son and heir, Sir Robert Welles, were concerned in the insurrection of the Lancastrians in Lincolnshire, and, with Sir Thomas Dimock, were beheaded. According to Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 12, this Richard Lord Welles, was summoned to Parliament by the name of Richard Welles, Lord Willoughby, from the thirty-third year of Henry VI., to the 6th of Edward IV., inclusive.
[104d]Thomas Lord Roos. See Chap. IV.
[105a]Anthony Widevile, or Wodevile, had summons to Parliament by the title of Lord Scales, in right of his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Lord Scales, of Nucells, widow of Henry Bourchier, and was afterwards Earl Rivers. He was brother of Elizabeth, Queen of Edward IV. He was not slain at Towton Field, although he seems to have taken a part in the battle. (See Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 219, note 13.) He was the son and heir of Richard Widevile, or Wodevile, Earl Rivers, and Jaquette his wife, daughter of Peter Earl of St. Pol, and widow of John Duke of Bedford, third son of King Henry IV.; and he was, when Earl Rivers, beheaded at Pontefract, by order of the Council, during the Protectorate, and, as is believed, at the instigation of Richard Duke of Gloucester, on the 13th of June, 1483. Lord Richard Grey (son of the Queen Dowager Elizabeth, by her first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby), and Sir Thomas Vaughan, were executed there, at the same time. The Wodeviles were originally of the Lancastrian party; and Sir John Grey of Groby, the first husband of Elizabeth afterwards the Queen of Edward IV., lost his life fighting for that party, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455; but after Elizabeth’s charms had made a conquest of the heart of Edward, and he had married her, the Wodeviles became staunch Yorkists.
[105b]Thomas Lord Grey of Rugemont, called “Thomas Grey, Knight, Lord Rugemond Grey,” in the act of attainder of the 1st of Edward IV., was originally Sir Thomas Grey, Knight, grandson of Reginald Lord Grey of Ruthin, and a younger brother of Edmund Grey, first Earl of Kent, and was advanced to the dignity of Baron of Rugemont Grey, in the twenty-eighth year of Henry VI.; being a zealous Lancastrian, he was, after the battle of Towton, included in the act of attainder, and having died without issue, his title became extinct. He is charged in the act of attainder, with other treasonable acts committed after the battle of Towton; and amongst others, with having on the 26th of June then last, in conjunction with Thomas Lord Roos, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir Humphrey Dacre, Sir John Fortescue, Sir William Talboys, Sir Edward Mountford, Thomas Neville, Clerk; Humphrey Neville, Esq.; and Thomas Elwick, Esq., made war against the King at Ryton and Branspeth, in the bishoprick of Durham.Rot. Parl.1 Edward IV. (A.D.1461), vol. v. p. 476. See Appendix No. I.
[105c]There appears to be an error in the statement of Stow, that Lord Fitzhugh perished at the battle of Towton; because William Lord Fitzhugh, who married Margery, daughter of William Lord Willoughby of Eresby, died in the thirty-first year of the reign of Henry VI., and was succeeded by his son and heir, Henry Lord Fitzhugh, who was a supporter of the Lancastrian party during the life of Henry VI.; but after the accession of Edward IV., was held in respect by him, and was employed by him in the fourth year of his reign at the siege of Dunstanborough Castle, and other matters of importance; and died in the twelfth year of that King’s reign. He married Alice, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and sister of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the King-Maker. The act of attainder of 1st Edward IV., does not include Lord Fitzhugh, from which circumstance, a presumption arises, that he was not engaged in the battle.
[105d]It does not appear from theBaronages, 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’sBaronage, 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’sOriginal 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’sLives 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’sLives 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 MontejoyWilliam 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.”
Thomas Blunte made Lord MontejoyWilliam 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’sHistory 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’sBaronage, 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’sItinerary, vol. i. fo. 105 [99] (see also Camden’sMagna 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’sCollection 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’sCollection 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’sBosworth 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 hisBosworth 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’sCollection 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’sGenealogical History, p. 381. Carte, in hisHistory 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’sItinerary, 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.”
“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’sEboracum, 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’sLoidis 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 STRENUUSQUI OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI, VIDELICETDOMINICA PALMARUM CUJUS ANIME P’PITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.
HIC JACET RANULPHUS DNS. DE DACRE ET GREYSTOCKE, HEROS, MILES STRENUUSQUI OBIIT IN BELLO PRO REGE SUO HENRICO SEXTO ANNO MCCCCLXI, VIDELICETDOMINICA 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 inRot. Parl.1 Edward IV. (1461), vol. v. fo. 476.