[187a]Rot. Parl.3 Henry VII., vol. vi. fo. 397. See Appendix No. V. See also Hutton’sBosworth 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]LelandiCollectanea, p. 214. See Appendix No. IV. and No. VII.
[188b]Hall’sChronicles, 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’sDormant 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’sLife of Richard III.
[188d]Hall, Holinshed, Dugdale.—See Chap. VIII.
[188e]Hall, Dugdale’sBaronage.
[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, calledThe 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’sEboracum, 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’sBaronage, 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’sChronicles, 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’sBaronage, 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 theCatalogue of Nobility, by Ralph Brooke, p. 205; and William Lord Harrington, by Dugdale, in hisBaronage, 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’sBar.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, calledHistoric 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 theHistoric 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 theHistoric Doubtsrelies 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 hisHistory 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’aBar., 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’sGenealogical 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’sChronicles, 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’sChronicles, vol. i. fo. 684. In Mr. Hutton’s interesting work upon theBattle 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’sBaronage, 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’sBaronage, 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’sCollections of Original Letters, vol. ii. p. 65, Lord Cromwell, Lord Saye, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier; and, according to Warkworth’sChronicle, Lord Cromwell son and heir to the Earl of Essex, Lord Barnes’ [QuæreBerners’] son and heir, Lord Saye, and others.
[210a]Shakespeare’sHenry 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’sBosworth Field, Introduction xxxv.
[210d]Hutton’sBosworth 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’sState of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. i. pp. 361 and 363. See alsoArchæologia, vol. xxxii. p. 379. In Hallam’s talented work on theState 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 theRotuli Parliamentorumof 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 “IXgrosses 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 theArchæologia, 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’sMilitary 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’sFædera, vol. viii. fo. 159.
[219c]Ibid.fo. 158.
[220]Grose’sMilitary Antiquities, vol. i. p. 399, noteu.
[224]See pages218and221, 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 pages218and221, 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’sCollection 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]Seesuprain this chapter, p.228.
[238]See also Grose’sMilitary 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 theHarleian Manuscriptsthere are several documents of the reign of Edward V. and Richard III. in which guns, serpentines, artillery, gunpowder, &c., are mentioned.
[242]See pages223and224.
[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’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 302; Lysons’Mag. Brit.,Cheshire(notef), p. 356.
[245c]Lysons’Mag. Brit.,Cheshire, p. 482; Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 302.
[245d]Lysons’Mag. Brit.,Cheshire, p. 482, referring toHeraldic Collections, by W. Smith, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant in the Heralds’ College, p. 78; and in a note in third vol. of Ormerod’sCheshire, p. 302, he mentions the same fact respecting that embassy.
[246a]Ormerod’sCheshire, 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 inHarl. 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’sExtinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, title “Wyche.”
[246c]Lysons’Mag. Brit.,Cheshire, p. 356.
[246d]Ormerod’sCheshire, 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.”
“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’sCheshire, 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’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 311 (notep). 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’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 311 (note).
[264a]Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 311.
[264b]See Chapter II. p. 26.
[264c]Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 311.
[264d]Although Ormerod (in vol. i. xxxii. notey, 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 5Rot. 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’sChroniclesit is stated to have been fought on the day of St. Tecla, 23rd September, 1459; and in Hall’s and in Grafton’sChronicles, St. Tecla’s day is also mentioned to have been the day of the battle; and in Baker’sChroniclesand Stow’sAnnals, 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, notey), 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 theBorough, 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’sCheshire, 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’sCheshire, vol. iii. pp. 326, 327; and Burke’sExtinct 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’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 327.
[271c]Archæologia, vol. xxxiii. p. 65.
[272a]Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 327.
[272b]Since writing the above, I have again (on the 28th January, 1850) visited the old hall at Handford, and examined the escutcheon there, under circumstances more favourable for examination; and I ascertained that it contains on the dexter side, 1st and 4th the arms, as above described, of Brereton proper; 2nd and 3rd, a cheveron between three crescents; and on the sinister side the wife’s arms, as above described.
[273a]Edmondson’sHeraldry, vol. ii., where the crescent is (as to some, at least, of the Cheshire Breretons) stated to be “charged with a mullet, or.” Edmondson also states that the muzzle of the crest (Bear’s head and neck) is “studded or.” Ormerod also mentions an additional crest of this branch of the family, “a Griphon with wings elevated gules, standing on a chapeau gules, turned up or;” but if so, it is not introduced at the old hall.
[273b]The ancient family of Praers was of Barthomley, and also of Baddiley, in Cheshire, now extinct. John Honford, of Honford, married Margery, daughter of William Praers, of Baddiley, Sheriff of Cheshire in 23rd Edward III.—Ormerod, vol. iii. pp. 162, 327.
[273c]On again inspecting it (on 28th January, 1850), I ascertained that the crest is charged, on the neck, with a cross crosslet, seemingly (for it is not distinct) within an annulet or a crescent.
[274]In consequence of his death, on the 15th of June, 1852, after this paper was written, the estate now belongs to the author.
[275]Prior to the erection of the bridge, there however was, and had been, as far back as could be recollected, a plank, with a handrail, over the stream, by which foot-passengers could cross.
[279a]Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 322. He afterwards, in a note (ibid.p. 328), gives the following, as a description (from the original grant) of the crest:—“Crest, on a wreath, an eagle’s head couped or, holding in its beak an eagle’s leg and claws, unguled gules.”
[279b]It is fair to conclude, from the occurrence of those initials and of the rebus, that the date of the erection of the chapel may have been coeval with the building of Handford Hall, in 1562.
[281a]Small round-headed arches, very similar to those on the staircase of Handford Hall, are to be seen, carved on the pulpit of Wilmslow Church, and on the back of the ancient pew (which has the date 1557) in the Booth or Earl of Stamford’s Chapel, in the chancel; but the arches are of course not cut through the wood, in either instance, in Wilmslow Church, as they are on the staircase of Handford Hall.
[283a]The letter upon the office of Keeper of the Menagerie in the Tower of London, in the reign of Edward IV., was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 29th of November, 1849, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.
[283b]Richard Duke of Gloucester became King Richard III. on the 18th of June, 1483.—See Chaps. VII. and VIII.
[287a]The paper upon the probable period of the extinction of Wolves in England, was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool on the 15th of December, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.
[287b]Pennant’sBritish Zoology, vol. i. p. 65, and the authorities there cited.
[287c]Goldsmith’sNatural History, vol. iii. p. 180; Coke’sInstitutes, vol. iv. p. 316; Pennant’sBritish Zoology, vol. i. p. 48. By our cruel forest laws after the Conquest, the penalty for killing a stag or boar, was the loss of eyes.—Hallam’sView of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. ii. 8th edition, 8vo, p. 94. Charles I. turned out wild boars in the New Forest, Hampshire, but they were all destroyed in the civil wars.—Pennant’sBritish Zoology, vol. i. p. 48. An attempt was made in the last century, to reintroduce wild swine into England, for some were turned loose by General Howe, in his forests in Hampshire; but the attempt was a failure, for the country people destroyed them.—Bingley’sBritish Quadrupeds, p. 449.
[288a]Pennant’sBritish Quadrupeds, vol. i. p. 86. Holinshed, in hisChronicles, written in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, states that the beaver was to be met with in Scotland, at the time when he wrote. “There are likewise martins, bevers, foxes, and wezels.”—See hisDescription of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 11.
[288b]Leland’sItinerary, vol. vii. pp. 16 [28], and 63 [81].
[288c]It is said to have been killed by Sir Ewen Cameron.—See Pennant’sBritish Zoology, vol. i. p. 63, and the authorities there cited; Pennant’sHistory of Quadrupeds, vol. i. p. 231.
[288d]Pennant’sBritish Zoology, vol. i. p. 64; Pennant’sHistory of Quadrupeds, vol. i. p. 231, citing Smith’sHistory of Cork, vol. ii. p. 226. But inNotes and Queries, published in 1856, 2nd series, No. 14, p. 282, and No. 32, p. 120, correspondents state, that wolves were not extinct in the mountains of Wicklow, until many years after 1710.
[289]Camden’sMagna Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 16.
[290a]Camden’sMagna Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 445, under the title “Strathnavern.”
[290b]Ibid., vol. iii. p. 464.
[290c]Camden’sMagna Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. iii. p. 16.
[291a]Hume’sHistory of England, vol. i., quarto edition, p. 136.
[291b]Brougham’sLives of Men of Letters and Science of the Time of George III., p. 216.
[292a]Dr. Whitaker’sHistory of Whalley, 3rd edition, p. 200 (note), referring to Burton’sMonast. Ebor.underFors Abbey; Dr. Whitaker’sHistory of Richmondshire, vol. i. p. 409. It is remarkable that so laborious and talented an antiquary as Dr. Whitaker, states that the above was the last positive evidence which he had met with of the existence of wolves in England. He also disputes the vulgar opinion of their extirpation by Edgar.
[292b]Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 504.
[292c]Ibid., p. 701.
[293]Fædera(modern edition), tome i. pt. ii. p. 591;ibid.folio edition of 1705, tome ii. p. 168.
[294a]Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 466.
[294b]Camden’sMag. Britannia, Gough’s edition, vol. ii. p. 302; Lysons’Mag. Brit., title Derbyshire, pp. clxix and 280, quoting Dodsworth’sCollections from Exchequer Records.
[294c]Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 549.
[294d]Ibid.p. 466.
[295a]Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 467.
[295b]Baker’sChronicles, fo. 218. We cannot reasonably doubt that the wild boar, being a favourite beast of chase, and not being so destructive an animal as the wolf, would remain in this country a considerable time after the wolf was destroyed.
[297]Coke’sInstitutes of the Laws of England, vol. iv. pp. 315, 316.
[298]Camden states that when he wrote wolves did not appear in England (Mag. Britannia, Gough’s edit. vol. iii. p. 16); but, as there were then abundance of them in Scotland, it was clear that they could not be prevented from roaming from thence into England, and breeding there.
[315a]Of Speke Hall, according to Banks, vol. ii. p. 395.
[315b]He was of Cornwall, according to Carte, vol. ii. p. 829.
[321]The errata has been applied in this transcription.—DP.
[323]John Stafford, a younger son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, was created Earl of Wiltshire in the ninth year, and died in the thirteenth year, of Edward IV.