As the battle of Evesham was not fought in the fifteenth century and had no relation to the wars of York and Lancaster, it would not have been noticed here, if it had not been for the circumstance of my having visited the field of battle a few months before this work was sent to the press. Very little information, however, respecting that sanguinary conflict, can be obtained by inquiry upon the spot.
On the 28th and 29th of May, 1856, I visited the field of battle, which was fought on the 4th of August, 1265, between the forces of King Henry III., under the command of his eldest son Prince Edward, and those of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the rebellious barons, and terminated in the defeat of the latter with great slaughter.
The battle was fought in the spot now enclosed fields, upon the elevated tract of ground, adjoining the turnpike road from Evesham in Worcestershire, to Alcester and Warwick, very near a house called Battle-well House (which stands on the left side of the road in going from Evesham), and also near the tollbar, called Battle-well Gate, and almost a mile and a quarter from Evesham.
A lane turns off from the turnpike road near the tollbar, towards the river Avon, by which the defeated forces are said to have fled, and to have attempted to descend to the meadows, in order to cross the Avon, at a place now called Offenham Ferry. The lane was, until about 1741, the great high road from Worcester towards London. An old man, named Thomas Price, who lives at the lodge of the mansion belonging to Mrs. Blainey, which is situated on the side ofthe turnpike road, opposite to Battle-well House, and, consequently, upon the spot where the conflict took place, and who has resided there most of his life, informed me, that many years ago, he recollected seeing a battle-axe, which, with some human bones, had been ploughed up in a field, close to Battle-well House. A bridge is said to have formerly stood at Offenham Ferry, and some appearances of masonry, seemingly of the pier of the bridge, may still be discovered at the ferry. Close to it the ground is a little raised, and that spot is called “Dead Man’s Height,” or “Dead Man’s Bank,” where human remains and fragments of weapons, are said to have been formerly discovered, as well as in an orchard very near there, called “Twyners.” About two miles on the opposite side of the ferry, is a stone quarry upon a hill, at South Littleton, which was also in the line of retreat, and human bones, and parts of weapons, are said to have been found there, about thirty years ago.
In the beautiful grounds of E. T. Rudge, Esq., of Abbey Manor, near the field of battle, a small pillar has been erected with the following inscription:—
ON THIS SPOT[204]IN THE REIGN OF HENRY IIITHE BATTLE OF EVESHAMWAS FOUGHT AUGUST IV 1265BETWEEN THE KING’S FORCES COMMANDED BY HIS ELDEST SONPRINCE EDWARDANDTHE BARONS UNDERSIMON DE MONTFORT EARL OF LEICESTER;IN WHICHTHE PRINCE BY HIS SKILL AND VALOUROBTAINED A COMPLETE VICTORY,ANDTHE EARL WITH HIS ELDEST SON HENRY DE MONTFORT,EIGHTEEN BARONS, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY KNIGHTS,ANDFOUR THOUSAND SOLDIERS,WERE SLAIN IN THE BATTLE.
ON THIS SPOT[204]IN THE REIGN OF HENRY IIITHE BATTLE OF EVESHAMWAS FOUGHT AUGUST IV 1265BETWEEN THE KING’S FORCES COMMANDED BY HIS ELDEST SONPRINCE EDWARDANDTHE BARONS UNDERSIMON DE MONTFORT EARL OF LEICESTER;IN WHICHTHE PRINCE BY HIS SKILL AND VALOUROBTAINED A COMPLETE VICTORY,ANDTHE EARL WITH HIS ELDEST SON HENRY DE MONTFORT,EIGHTEEN BARONS, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY KNIGHTS,ANDFOUR THOUSAND SOLDIERS,WERE SLAIN IN THE BATTLE.
Warwick(wounded).—“Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend, or foe,And tell me, who is victor, York or Warwick?Why ask I that? My mangled body shows,My blood, my want of strength, my sick heart shows,That I must yield my body to the earth,And by my fall, the conquest to my foe.”Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part 3, act v. scene 2.(A Field of Battle,near Barnet.)
Warwick(wounded).—“Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend, or foe,And tell me, who is victor, York or Warwick?Why ask I that? My mangled body shows,My blood, my want of strength, my sick heart shows,That I must yield my body to the earth,And by my fall, the conquest to my foe.”
Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part 3, act v. scene 2.(A Field of Battle,near Barnet.)
TheBattle of Barnet was fought on the 14th of April, 1471, at a place formerly called Gladmore Heath, but which is now completely enclosed, about a mile north-west from Barnet, in the county of Middlesex, between the Yorkists, under King Edward IV., and the Lancastrians, commanded by Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick,[205]the King-Maker, in which the latter was slain, and the Yorkists were completely victorious.
I visited the field of battle on the 9th of July, 1856. The accounts of the battle given by the old historical writers are so imperfect, that they do not throw any light upon the precise positions which the hostile armies respectively occupied; and I could not, when upon the spot, obtain much new information of moment, relative to the battle.
After Edward IV. had returned from the Continent, and had landed at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, he proceeded to York, and from thencetowards London; and the Earl of Warwick, who was posted with his forces at Coventry, marched from it in pursuit of him:—
Warwick.—“I will away towards Barnet presently,And bid thee battle, Edward, if thou dars’t.”Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part iii. act v. scene 5.
Warwick.—“I will away towards Barnet presently,And bid thee battle, Edward, if thou dars’t.”
Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part iii. act v. scene 5.
The Earl of Warwick expected that the city of London would hold out against Edward, until he could arrive to its relief. On his march, he received the disastrous tidings, that Edward had been joyfully received into London; that Henry VI. was a prisoner; and that Warwick’s son-in-law, George Duke of Clarence,[206a]had renounced his engagements, and had gone over, near the town of Warwick, with all his forces, to Edward.
The Earl of Warwick was now in a situation of great peril, and, under other circumstances, would probably have attempted a retreat, but he was in the face of a superior army, and was some days’ march from any place of safety; he was too far advanced to retreat; and, although Clarence offered his mediation between Edward and Warwick, the latter proudly rejected it, and resolutely prepared for battle.
Edward had the superiority of numbers, as his army had become greatly increased, since Clarence had deserted the Earl of Warwick, and had joined the Yorkists.
During the night preceding the battle, the Earl of Warwick and the Lancastrians were encamped on Gladmore Heath, on the north-westward side of Barnet, and they had posted a small advanced guard in that town. Edward, having advanced from London to Barnet, dislodged the few Lancastrian forces posted in it, and drove them towards the main body; he, however, did not suffer his men to remain in the town, but encamped in the open field, nearer his enemies than they were aware; and one old writer states, that he caused his people to keep as silent as possible, in order to prevent the Lancastrians from knowing the exact position of his army.[206b]
Both parties used artillery;[206c]and some historians state,[206c]that theyfired at each other, in the course of the night. We are also told, that the guns of the Earl of Warwick, were constantly fired at Edward’s forces during the night, but with little effect, in consequence of overshooting them, from their lying nearer than was supposed.[207a]
On Easter Sunday, the 14th of April, 1471, the day commenced with a thick fog, and both armies were placed in order of battle. On Edward’s part, the van was commanded by Richard Duke of Gloucester;[207b]the middle, by Edward in person, assisted by the Duke of Clarence (having with them King Henry as a prisoner); and the rear was under the command of Lord Hastings;[207c]besides which, Edward had a considerable body of men in reserve.
The Earl of Warwick gave the command of the Lancastrian right wing, which consisted of horse, to his brother, the Marquis Montague,[207d]and the Earl of Oxford;[207e]the left wing, also consisting in a great measure of horse, was under the command of the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Exeter;[207f]and the middle, which consisted principally of archers and bill-men, was commanded by the Duke of Somerset.[207g]
The battle commenced very early in the morning, Edward having between four and five o’clock, advanced his banners, and caused his trumpets to sound for battle; and as soon as the opposite forces got sight of each other, the conflict commenced with archery, and they shortly afterwards, encountered each other with hand blows. In consequence of the fog, the armies were inadvertently not drawn up exactly opposite each other; the Earl of Warwick’s right wing, under the command of the Earl of Oxford, extending a little beyond Edward’s left, which stood to the westward; and in consequence of it, that part of his army was rather overmatched;[207h]and we may readily believe,that from the same cause, Edward’s right wing outflanked Warwick’s left. By reason of that circumstance, and the fierceness and intrepidity, with which the Earl of Oxford attacked his enemies, he had at first a considerable degree of success; he broke a part of the ranks of the Yorkists, and several of the fugitives fled to London, and gave out that the Lancastrians were victorious. This, however, proved to be of no eventual advantage, and gave no encouragement to the other forces of Warwick, because the fog prevented their being fully aware of it; beside which, some of Oxford’s men commenced pillaging, instead of following up their first success. An unfortunate mistake also occurred in consequence of the fog: the device of the Earl of Oxford, a star with rays, being mistaken for that of Edward, the sun in splendour;[208]and the Lancastrian archers shot at Oxford’s troops, which caused Oxford and many of his men to suppose it to be the effect of treachery, and to quit the field.
The Duke of Gloucester gave proofs of the undaunted courage and daring spirit, for which he was always conspicuous, and which his enemies have never ventured to deny; he fought valiantly against the Lancastrians; and his two esquires, John Milwater and Thomas Parr, were slain at his feet.
Warwick, at the head of his troops, attacked the part of the Yorkist army, in which Edward was; and the battle was for a long time, obstinate and bloody. Edward, however, brought up his reserve at an opportune moment, and at length, the Earl of Warwick was slain, and a complete victory was obtained by Edward, over the Lancastrians. John Neville, Marquis Montague, and several knights, of whom Sir William Tyrrel was one, also perished. The Duke of Exeter was wounded, and left for dead upon the field, from seven in the morning, until four in the afternoon, when he was brought to the house of one of his servants named Ruthland, where he was attended by a surgeon; he was conveyed to sanctuary at Westminster, and afterwards went abroad. The Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Oxford fled, in the company of some northern men, towards Scotland; but changing their plans, Somerset made for Wales, in order to join Jasper Earl of Pembroke; and Oxford escaped to France, from whence, he not long afterwards returned, with some men, and seized the fortress of St. Michael’sMount, on the coast of Cornwall, which he held for several months, against King Edward’s forces.
On King Edward’s side, there were slain, Lord Cromwell;[209a]Lord Saye;[209b]Sir Humphrey Bourchier, son of John Lord Berners;[209c]Sir John Lisle;[209d]and about 1500 men; but the loss on the Lancastrian side is said to have amounted to about double that number, Edward having given orders not to give any quarter. Most of the slain were buried on the plain where they had fallen, and where, according to Stow, a chapel was afterwards built, in memory of them, of whichthere are now no remains; but he states, that when he wrote, it was a dwelling-house, and the upper portions remained. Some of the bodies of the persons who had been of a higher rank, are said to have been removed, and interred in the church in Austin Friars, London.
The bodies of the Earl of Warwick, and the Marquis Montague, were conveyed in a cart to London, and for three days lay in Saint Paul’s Cathedral Church, with their faces exposed to view, so that no person could doubt their deaths; and they were then buried with their ancestors, in Bisham Abbey, in Berkshire, where they remained until the dissolution of monasteries, when the abbey was destroyed, and all knowledge of the exact spots where they were interred, is now forgotten.
Such was the end of the career of the great, valiant, and powerful Earl of Warwick, who has been not incorrectly described as the “proud setter-up and puller-down of Kings,”[210a]and who had been mainly instrumental in dethroning Henry VI. and making Edward IV. a King; and again, in dethroning Edward, and restoring Henry.
Warwick(wounded).—“For who liv’d King, but I could dig his grave?And who durst smile, when Warwick bent his brow?Lo, now my glory smear’d in dust and blood!My parks, my walks, my manors that I had,Even now forsake me; and of all my lands,Is nothing left me, but my body’s length!”Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part iii. act v. scene 2.(A Field of Battle near Barnet.)
Warwick(wounded).—“For who liv’d King, but I could dig his grave?And who durst smile, when Warwick bent his brow?Lo, now my glory smear’d in dust and blood!My parks, my walks, my manors that I had,Even now forsake me; and of all my lands,Is nothing left me, but my body’s length!”
Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part iii. act v. scene 2.(A Field of Battle near Barnet.)
From the accounts given by the old historians,[210b]it is clear that cannons or some other description of firearms were used at the battle of Barnet. Besides which, W. Hutton, F.S.A., states that the keeper of the Red Cow Tavern, near the obelisk after mentioned, preserved a ball of a pound and a half weight, which he dug out of the ground.[210c]
An obelisk of stone, apparently about eighteen or twenty feet high, commemorative of the battle,[210d]and of the place[210e]where it was fought, was erected by Sir Jeremy Sambroke, Bart., in 1740.
It stands about a mile beyond Barnet, and just beyond the small village of Hadley, and is in the county of Middlesex, but near the borders of Hertfordshire, and on the right side of the high road, close to the point where the roads diverge in one direction to South Mims and St. Alban’s, and in the other to Hatfield.
It stood originally close to the tavern called the Two Brewers, to which it is still very near; but about fourteen or fifteen years ago, it was removed thirty-two yards more towards the South Mims side, where it now stands.[211]
The obelisk is often called Hadley High Stone, and contains the following inscription:—
HERE WASFOUGHT THEFAMOUS BATTLEBETWEEN EDWARDTHE 4TH AND THEEARL OF WARWICKAPRIL THE 14THANNO1471IN WHICH THE EARLWAS DEFEATEDAND SLAIN.
HERE WASFOUGHT THEFAMOUS BATTLEBETWEEN EDWARDTHE 4TH AND THEEARL OF WARWICKAPRIL THE 14THANNO1471IN WHICH THE EARLWAS DEFEATEDAND SLAIN.
(Enter,on the walls,the Master Gunner and his Son.)Master Gunner.—“Sirrah, thou know’st how Orleans is besieg’d,And how the English have the suburbe won.”Son.—“Father, I know; and oft have shot at them,Howe’er, unfortunate, I miss’d my aim.”Master Gunner.—“But now thou shalt not. Be thou rul’d by me:Chief Master Gunner am I of this town;Something I must do to procure me grace.The Prince’s espials have informed me,How the English, in the suburbs close intrench’d,Wont, through a secret grate of iron barsIn yonder tower, to overpeer the city;And thence discover how, with most advantage,They may vex us, with shot, or with assault.To intercept this inconvenience,A piece of ordnance ’gainst it I have plac’d;And fully even these three days have I watch’dIf I could see them.”Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part 1, act i. scene 4.(Before Orleans.)
(Enter,on the walls,the Master Gunner and his Son.)
Master Gunner.—“Sirrah, thou know’st how Orleans is besieg’d,And how the English have the suburbe won.”
Son.—“Father, I know; and oft have shot at them,Howe’er, unfortunate, I miss’d my aim.”
Master Gunner.—“But now thou shalt not. Be thou rul’d by me:Chief Master Gunner am I of this town;Something I must do to procure me grace.The Prince’s espials have informed me,How the English, in the suburbs close intrench’d,Wont, through a secret grate of iron barsIn yonder tower, to overpeer the city;And thence discover how, with most advantage,They may vex us, with shot, or with assault.To intercept this inconvenience,A piece of ordnance ’gainst it I have plac’d;And fully even these three days have I watch’dIf I could see them.”
Shakespeare’sHenry VI.part 1, act i. scene 4.(Before Orleans.)
Itis a fact admitted by historians, that in the reign of King Edward III., the English, not unfrequently, made use of cannons in sieges, during their wars with the French; but whether theyever used them in the open field, in the fourteenth century, as has been asserted, is a point which may well be doubted.
History is replete with instances of the extreme caution and reluctance, with which the English adopt innovations upon ancient customs, even when recommended by the probability of improvement. Their implicit belief in the excellence of the long bow, and the proud recollection of the splendid victories which they had obtained by means of it, would, for a considerable period of time, render it a useless task, to attempt to convince them, of the superiority of the newly discovered military engines. Until their efficacy had been often proved, their shape and workmanship had attained some degree of perfection, and the artificers employed in their production, had become sufficiently skilful, to make different kinds and sizes, one description of which was portable, and was eventually called Hand Cannon, Hand Gun, or Hand Culverin, and, subsequently, Harquebuss, Arquebuse, Haquebut, Hackbut and Hagbut, the origin of the modern Musket, the advantages of the recently discovered engines of war, would be very slow in disclosing themselves; and would by no means be sufficiently obvious, to induce a warlike nation, precipitately to admit them into general use.
The change in the art of war, by the application of gunpowder to military purposes, was extremely slow and gradual.
If any person, ignorant of, or not reflecting upon, that circumstance, should ask, at what period the ancient weapons were laid aside, and firearms introduced in their stead; the answer is readily and correctly given. There never was such a period. More than two centuries elapsed, after the common application of gunpowder to warlike purposes in Europe, before the English and the other European nations, entirely relinquished the use of bows and arrows, and in lieu of them, but by slow degrees adopted the use of firearms.
Archery for the purposes of war, had not been altogether abandoned in this country, even at the breaking out of the civil war, in the reign of Charles I.
It has been correctly remarked by Mr. Grose, in hisMilitary Antiquities,[215a]that there is amongst old soldiers, a great dislike to innovations, because, by adopting new weapons, and, consequently, a new exercise, the old and expert soldiers find themselves in a worse state than new recruits, as they have not only a new exercise to learn, but also the old one to forget.
Indeed, as late as the year 1557, so evenly did the public opinion run, between the comparative efficacy of the ancient and new systems, that in that year, by an act of Parliament (of the 4th and 5th of Philip and Mary),[215b]respecting the providing of armour and weapons, various persons, in Wales, Lancashire, and Cheshire, were required to provide and keep a haquebut; or, in lieu of one, the alternative was given to each of them, to keep a long bow and sheaf of arrows, in such instances, where he was required by that act, to provide himself with the former.
Some interesting and curious examples may be found of the use of cannons of various kinds, by the English, in their wars with the French, in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III.;[215c]but although it is indisputable that they were then made use of in sieges, and in the defence of fortified places, there does not appear to be any evidence, that they were made use of in that century, in the field, by theEnglish;[216a]and the defective construction of the cannons of the time of Edward III., and the silence of the English and French historians, raise very strong doubts, whether they ever were so used at that period.
It is, however, the use of them in the fifteenth century, to which our attention is at present to be devoted. Although writers admit the occasional use of cannons and other firearms by the English, in that century, it has been commonly imagined, that they were not generally used by them until the following one. I, therefore, shall endeavour to show, that that idea is not correct, and that in the fifteenth century, firearms of various descriptions and sizes, were in general use by them, as principal and important military weapons; that they appear seldom to have undertaken any warlike expedition of magnitude without them; that they constantly attacked and defended towns and fortresses with them; that they used them in the open field; and also, that there is some evidence of guns being in use even on shipboard. The English, as early as in the middle of that century, were also sometimes armed with portable guns, or small arms, then called Hand Coulevrines, or hand guns; and they are expressly mentioned by Monstrelet by the name of “Coulevrines à main,” and he states, that they were reserved to the English, at Caen, in 1450, when they capitulated under the Duke of Somerset. This was considerably earlier than the period, when Mr. Grose, in his work onMilitary Antiquities,[217a]supposes that they were first used in England; as he mentions the year 1471, on the occasion of the landing of Edward IV. at Ravenspur, as the period of their introduction into this country.
Monstrelet, as will be afterwards noticed, mentions “Petis Canons” as having been carried in eight little boats across the Seine, by the English, in attacking Pont de l’Arche, in 1418, which, and also the “Artillerie menue,” occasionally mentioned by him, probably apply to guns of a size small enough to be portable.[217b]
We cannot well entertain doubts of the fact of the English having made use of portable firearms in the fifteenth century, when we reflect that there is undisputed historical evidence of the use of them, at that period, by continental nations, who reckoned them by thousands in their armies; and that before the close of that century, they appear to have been even used on the Continent by cavalry as well as by infantry.[218a]
Very early in the fifteenth century, firearms varied very much in size, appearance, and denomination; and even as early as in the year 1406, the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France, in preparing for the siege of Calais, had, according to Monstrelet, “bombardes, canons, artilleries,” &c. &c. We also learn from the same authority, that in 1430, in raising the siege of Compeine, which was defended by the English, the Duke of Burgundy was obliged to abandon his ordnance, consisting of “bombardes, canons, veuglaires, serpentines, coulevrines, et autre artilleries.”
The word Artillery, and also the word Engine, did not, however, apply in the fifteenth century exclusively to cannons; forboth words were frequently used to designate all projectile weapons, such as balistæ, long-bows, cross-bows, guns of various descriptions, bombards (somewhat resembling the modern mortars), and also portable firearms.
Some descriptions of cannons, as, for example, those called bombards,[219a]which are considered to have been the first in use, threw large stones or balls, by a parabolic curve, against places besieged, whilst others were afterwards introduced, of a different description, which sent balls direct, or point blank.
In 1414, one Nicholas Merbury was Master of the Ordnance to Henry V., “Magistro Operationum Ingeniorum & Gunnarum.”[219b]There was also a Master of the Ordnance in 1481, in the reign of Edward IV.; and a warrant was then issued for the payment of £100 to the Master of the Ordnance, for the purchase of draught horses.[219c]
I apprehend that it will not be denied, that it affords very strong evidence of this destructive instrument of war, being brought to considerable perfection, and into general use, when the genus had thus become subdivided into species, and when a public officer existed, whose province it was to superintend that particular department of military affairs.
Later on, in the same century, it became still more subdivided, and appears to have consisted of many varieties; for we read of bombards, cannons, mortiers, veuglaires, guns, serpentines, ordnance, fowlers, coulevrines, hand-coulevrines, hand-guns, haquebuts, &c. &c.; from which it may be presumed, that gunnery had then become a science, and occupied a great portion of the attention of the military.
The bombard is supposed to have derived its name from the sound proceeding from its explosion; the mortier or mortar, from its death-dealing or destructive nature; the serpentinebasilisk and coulevrine, from some fancied resemblance in their appearance or effects to a serpent; the fowler, to the rapid and birdlike flight of its ball; and some of the large bombards were jocularly called “bourgeoise,” from their constant residence in one place, their weight rendering them inconvenient to move.[220]
Under whatever name or form, however, this destructive engine appeared, its general effects were, to a certain extent, similar; and I venture to think, that the authorities, which will now be referred to in chronological order, furnish strong proofs of its having become, not in occasional, but in general use for warlike purposes by the English, in the fifteenth century.
1403, 8th September.—Warrant of the 4th Henry IV. relative to the safe custody of the castle of Laghadyn, in Wales, “Utpote, in personis Defensalibus, victualibus, armaturis, artillariis, et omnibus aliis rebus, pro hujusmodi munitione garnisturâ et custodiâ ejusdem Castri, necessariis et opportunis.”—8 Rymer’sFædera, fo. 328; folio edition.
1404, 29th August.—Warrant of the 5th Henry IV. respecting the giving up of the castle or fortalice of Fascastle, in Scotland, to the Warden of the East Marches, “unâ cum artillaria, et aliis Rebus nostris, quibuscumque, in eodem Castro sive Fortalitio, existentibus.”—Same, fo. 370.
The word “artillery,” as has been already stated, was formerly often used to denote cannons and other weapons, the operation and efficacy of which entirely depended upon gunpowder, and also projectile weapons of various descriptions, such as long-bows, cross-bows of different kinds and sizes,balistæ catapultæ, &c. &c., which were used in war quite independently of gunpowder. The same observation also applies to the word “engine.” The English very frequently not only used engines which depended upon gunpowder for their operation, but others which were independent of it, in order to cast stones, &c., in sieges, in the fifteenth century. It is impossible, in every instance which will be noticed in the following pages, to determine clearly in which of those senses the word “artillery” or “engine” is used; and it must be left to the judgment of the reader to decide the meaning from the context.
1405.—Henry IV., at the siege of Berwick Castle, “caused a peece of Artillerie to be planted against one of the Towers, and at the first shot overthrowing part thereof, they within were put in such feare that they simplie yeelded themselves.”—Holinshed’sChronicles, vol. i. fo. 530.
1405, 4th March.—In the 6th Henry IV., in a warrant enumerating the stores and articles in the castle of “Hadlegh” [QuæreHarlech, in Merionethshire], “De stuffura pro Castro de Hadlegh,” there is mentioned amongst a variety of armour, weapons, and other articles, “Unum longum ferrum pro Gunnis opturandis.”—8 Rymer’sFædera, fo. 384.
Same year.—In the attack by Count St. Pol upon the castle of Mark, near Calais, and the relief by the English forces, “Et avecques eux menerent dix ou douze chars chargez de vivres et artilleries.”—Chroniques de Monstrelet, edition of 1572, vol. i. fo. 20.
The English also took away “tous les biens, chars, et artilleries, qu’avoient là menez leurs adversaries.”
And on the attempt upon the town of Andres the “Anglois de Calais issirent de leur ville, à tout foison de canons et autres instrumens de guerre, qu’ils avoient gaignez sur les Français, devant Merc.”—Same, vol. i. fo. 21.
Same year.—At the unsuccessful attack by the English upon the Castle de l’Escluse, the garrison “tant que par le trait, Canons et autre deffence rebouterent leurs adversaires,” &c.—Same, fo. 21.
1406.—Preparations by the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France for the siege of Calais, “Et y avoit aussi tres grand quantité de Charois menans bombardes, Canons, artilleries, vivres, et autres besonges necessaires à guerre.”—1Monstrelet, fo. 27.
Although the cannons in the two last instances were not used by, but were intended to be used against, the English, yet it has been considered advisable to notice them, in order to show that they were then commonly used in the wars in which the English were engaged, and were intended in each instance to be used against a town defended by the latter; and also to prove that at that period there were firearms of various denominations.
Same year, 7th Henry IV.—Account of the military stores stated byHenry Somer to have been delivered to William Loveney, Treasurer to the King’s sister, Philippa, Queen of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, &c., “2 Gunnes, 40 Libras pulveris pro Gunnes, 40 Petras pro Gunnes, 40 Tampons, 4 Touches, 1 Mallet, 2 Fire pannes, 40 Pavys, 24 Arcus, et 40 Garbas Sagittarum, pro Stuffura cujusdam navis, ordinata pro aula ejusdem Reginæ versus Dauciam, per Indenturam,” &c.; also “prædictis 2 canoins 40 l. pulveris,” &c.—8Fædera, fo. 447.
The above document furnishes evidence of the use of stone balls for cannons in 1406; and, although the language is not at all conclusive, it may be worthy of consideration whether it does not also afford some slight evidence of guns being in use on shipboard at that early date.
1407, 12th September.—Indenture of 8th Henry IV. between the King and Rees ap Griffith and others, containing the terms of the surrender by them of the castle of Aberystwith, in Wales, “facient seu faciet liberationem plenam Canonum seu instrumentorum Anglicè Gunnes vocatorum, arcuum, sagittarum, Balistarum, et aliorum Instrumentorum, infra dictum Castrum,” &c.—8Fædera, fo. 498.
1413, 1st September.—Warrant of the 1st Henry V. to John Sprong and John Louth, empowering them to take and provide “ad tot Equos, Boves, Plaustra, et Carectas, quot pro cariagio certorum gunnorum nostrorum, ac aliarum Rerum pro eisdem Gunnis necessarium, à villa Bristolliæ usque Civitatem nostram Londoniæ indiguerint,” &c.—9Fædera, fo. 49.
1414, 22nd September.—Warrant of the 2nd Henry V. to Nicholas Merbury, “Magistro Operationum, Ingeniorum, et Gunnarum nostrorum, ac aliarum Ordinationum nostrarum, pro guerrâ,” and to John Louth, “Clerico earundem Operationum,” to take and provide “ad tot Lathomos, Carpentarios, Serratores, Fabros, et Laboratores, quot pro operationibus Ingeniorum, Gunnarum, et Ordinationum prædictorum, necessarii fuerint, cum sufficienti maeremio Ferro,” &c.—Same, fo. 159.
In that warrant Nicholas Merbury is distinctly mentioned asthe Master of the Ordnance; yet, notwithstanding the existence of that document, and of another which will be afterwards referred to, of 22nd Edward IV., Mr. Grose, in hisMilitary Antiquities, vol. i. page 198, states that the first Master of the Ordnance that he could find on record was only in the first year of the reign of Richard III.; and it is strange that, in a note in vol. i. page 401, he afterwards mentions Nicholas Merbury as having been Master of the Ordnance in the 2nd year of Henry V., but he does not allude to the existence of any such officer in the reign of Edward IV.
1414, 26th September.—Warrant of the 2nd Henry V. to the Collectors of the customs and subsidies, and keepers of the passages of the port of London, &c., prohibiting the exportation of gunpowder without a special permission, “aliquod Gunpoudre versus partes exteras, in portu prædicto, absque speciali mandato nostro, transmitti permittatis.”—9Fædera, fo. 160.
1415.—The army of Henry V., on landing in France, is stated to have been composed of “environ six mille bacinets et 24 mille archiers sans les Canoniers et autres usans de flondelles et engins,[224]dōt ils avoiēt grād abondance.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. fo. 218.
It appears very difficult to ascertain the kind of instrument meant by “flondelles.” It seems far-fetched to consider it as a corruption of the words “frondes” (slings), besides which, there is not, as far as I am aware, any authority for supposing that the English used slings in battle. A word nearly similar (“fondeffles”) also occurs in 1Monstrelet, p. 27, and is used in conjunction with “eschelles,” which is evidently scaling ladders, which raises the presumption that it was some engine used in sieges.
Same year.—At the siege of Harfleur the English “asseirent leurs gros engins[224]les lieux plus convenables entour la dicte ville, etprestement icelle moult travaillerent par grosses pierres et dammageans les murs,” &c. &c. * * * “le Traict et pouldre de canons envoyez a iceux [the Besieged] par le Roy de France furent rencontrez et prins des dits assiegeans.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. p. 218.
1418, 10th February.—Warrant in 5th Henry V. to John Louthe:—“Clerico operationum Ordinationis nostræ;” and to John Benett, of Maidstone, mason, to press workmen to make “septem milium Lapidum pro Gunnes de diversis sortibus.”—9Fædera, fo. 542.
John Louthe, clerk of the Ordnance, and this warrant, in which he is named, are noticed by Grose, vol. i. p. 198.
Same year.—Warrant to the same John Louthe, to procure workmen and materials:—“Quot pro factura trescentorum Pavys Grossorum pro Gunnis, Quaterviginti Blokk, et septem milium Tampons pro eisdem, Quinquaginta jugorum de Ligno pro Bobus infra trahendis, Centum Cathenarum pro eisdem, Duodecim Carectarum Grossarum pro Gunnis Grossis supracariandis, viginti piparum de Pulvere de Carbonibus silicis, necessaria fuerint.”—Fædera, fo. 543.
The use of the words “Pavys grossorum pro Gunnis,” goes a long way to prove that gunners, like archers, were covered or protected in action, at that period, by the shield-like instruments called the Pavaise, Pavys, or Pavache.
Same year.—In the passage of the Seine, in his advance upon Pont de l’Arche, the English commander:—“vint pour passer Seine à tout huict petit naviaux; dedans lesquels il se meit en l’eaue accompaignè de son fils aáge de quinze ans, de soixante combattans et un seul cheval, avec petis canons, et autres habillemens de guerre: si feit nager en une petite isle qui estoit au meillieu de l’eaue, de laquelle ils pouvoient plainement traire sur les Francois dessusdits, qui gardoient le rivage.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. fo. 262.
1418.—Henry V.:—“avec toute sa puissance et gens de guerre et grande multitude d’engins et artilleries, assiegea la tres puissante et noble ville de Rouen, au mois de Juing,” &c. &c.; and directed against the gates and walls “plusieurs grosses bombardes et d’autres engins,” &c.; and the besieged used “bombardes, canons, engins vollans, arbalestres, et autres instrumens de guerre,” &c. &c.—Monstrelet, vol. i. fos. 264, 265.
The artillery, cannon, and powder, on the surrender of the under-mentioned cities, towns, or castles, are stipulated in the Treaties of Surrender, to be given up to the English, or to remain for their use:—
1417.
Touque.—“Vitaillez et Artillarie,” &c.—9 Rymer’sFædera,
fo. 480
Villiers.—“Vitaille et Artillerie,” &c.
487
Caen.—“Arbalastres, Treit, et autres Articlarie,” &c.
490
Falaize.—“Artilleries, Trait, Pouldre, Canons,” &c.
533
1418.
Cambray.—“Pouldres, Canons,” &c.
552
Hambye.—“Tous leurs Artilleries,” &c.
553
St. Lo.—“Poudres, Canons, et autres abillemens de guerre,” &c.
554
Hommet.—“Toutes leurs Artilleries,” &c.
555
Constance.—“Touz vivres et Artilleries,” &c.
556
Charenton.—“Canons, Pouldres, et tout autre manere de Trait,” &c.
557
St. Sauveur Le Visconte.—“Leur Artillerie, et les autres armures,” &c.
566
Juiry.—“Poudres, Canons,” &c.
585
1419.
Rouen.—“Artillariæ, Pulveres, et alia quæcumque habilimenta guerrarum,” &c.
665
Monstreville.—“Canons, Poudres, et toutz aultres bastons et abillemens pour la guerre et defens,” &c.
674
Eu, Monceaux, St. Marien, le Gaillera, et Guilleimcourt.—“Artillerie et abillemens de guerre,” &c. &c.
696
Grand Goulet et Petit Goulet.—“Vivres et Artillerie,” &c.
699
1420.—The English, at the siege of the Town and Castle of Monstreau:—“combattans icelle de gros engins pour desrompre les portes et murailles;” also, “feirent de tous costez approcher de la forteresse plusieurs gros engins[227]pour icelle confondre et abattre.”—Monstrelet, vol. i. pp. 291, 292.
Same year.—At the siege of Melun, by the English:—“feirent en plusieurs lieux asseoir leurs engins volans, bombardes, canons et autres instrumens et habillemens de guerre pour desrompre confondre et abbatre les murs de la ville,” &c.—Same, fo. 293.
Same year.—In the Treaty between Henry V. and the Duke of Bourbon, as given at length in Goodwin’sLife of Henry V., a stipulation was introduced for the restoration of “ammunition and artillery.”—Goodwin’sLife of Henry V., book vii. p. 295.
1421.—At the siege of Meaulx, by Henry V.:—“feit dresser plusieurs engins contre les portes et murailles de la ville pour l’abattre et demolir,” &c.
“Et brief ensuivant gaigna une petite isle assez pres du Marché en laquelle il feit asseoir plusieurs grosses bōbardes, qui moult terriblement greverēt les maisons du dit Marché et aussi les murailles d’icelle,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. i. fos. 310, 312.
1422.—At the siege of St. Valery, by the English, under the Earl of Warwick, they “commencerent à abattre la dicte ville de leurs pierres et engins sans cesser, jettans contre les murs d’icelle en les derompant en plusieurs lieux.”—Same, fo. 317.
Same year.—At the siege of Meulan, by the Duke of Bedford, he “là feit dresser contres les portes et murailles grans engins pour icelle confondre et abattre;” and in the Articles of Capitulation, it is provided that the fortress shall be given up, “fortiffiée et garnie de canons pouldres et arbalestres,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 2.
1427.—The French and Bretons, on raising the siege of St. James de Beuron, defended by the English:—“delaissant audit siege grand foison de bombardes vivres et autres artilleries.”—Monstrelet, vol. ii. fo. 35.
1428, March.—Indenture, in 6th Henry VI., containing the terms on which Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, engaged to serve in France, with an army, by which it was stipulated that he was to be paid 1000 marks:—“pour convertir et employer en cannons, pierres, charretes, pincees de feer, chasbles, et autres choses necessaires, pour iceulx canons,” &c.; and which also stipulates for the earl’s including in the number of men-at-arms, “quatre Maistres Cannoniers;” each of whom was to be considered as equal to a man-at-arms at 20 deniers Easterlings per day, and that the earl should have, at the King’s expense, “Escipeson pour les canons, pierres, et aultres choses, touchans et regardans le fait de l’artillerie.”—10Fædera, fo. 392.
Same year, 25th March.—Warrant in 6th Henry VI., for payment, amongst other matters, to John Parker, of Cheshunt, of 1000 marks:—“Pour converter et employer en canons, pierres, en charretes, chariottz, pinces de feer, chasbles, et autres choses necessaires pour icelz canons,” &c.—Same, fo. 395.
Same year, 28th April.—Warrant in 6th Henry VI., to John Parker, to seize and provide carriages for the conveyance of “canones, petras,” &c. &c.—Same, fo. 397.
Same year.—At the siege of Orleans, Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, was mortally wounded by the splinters of a stone, shot from a cannon (“veuglaire”), whilst reconnoitering there. The besieged defended themselves “en faisans plusieurs saillies en tirant de canons coulevrines et autres artilleries.”
The Duke of Bedford, Regent of France, is mentioned as sending, under the charge of Sir John Fastolf[228](of Norfolk),to the English, at this siege, “de quatre à cinq cēs que chars que charrettes,” loaded with “vivres, artilleries, et autres marchandizes;” and after an engagement with the French (called by them the “Battle of the Herrings”), the English proceeded in good order, “à tout leur charroy, et leur artillerie, comme brigandines, heaulmes, arbalestres, bastons à feu, et plusieurs autres armeures qu’il fault a gens de guerre par aucuns pou de jours devant la dictè ville,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. ii. fos. 38, 40, 41.
1430.—At the siege of Compeigne by the English (under the Earl of Huntingdon) and the Burgundians, the unsuccessful result of an attack by the French upon part of the works of the besiegers, is ascribed to “la grande déffence de ceux de dedans qui estoient en une grosse compaignie de combattans et bien pourveuz d’artillerie.” In raising the siege, there were left behind of the Burgundian ordnance, “tres grand nombre de grosses bombardes, canons, veuglaires, serpētines, coulevrines, et autres artilleries avec plusieurs engins,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 64.
1431.—The French, after a temporary success against the castle of Rouen, were compelled to give it up again to the English, on account of the want of provisions, and being “combattus de plusieurs gros engins que les dits Anglois feirent asseoir contre la grosse tour.”—Same, fo. 78.
1432.—The English under the Earl of Arundel, advancing from Paris towards Ligny-sur-Marne, had “foison de chars et charrettes, canons, artilleries, et autres instrumens de guerre,” &c.; and at Ligny, “Si feit Le Compte d’Arondel asseoir une grosse bombarde contre l’arche du pont levis de la ville, lequelle du premier coup qu’elle jecta rompit la dicte arche,” &c. &c.; also, “y assis grosses bombardes, dont ils avoient fait battre et travailler la muraille d’icelle.”—2Monstrelet, fo. 81.
1435.—The Earl of Arundel, in advancing to attack the castle of Gerberoy, took with him “Vivres et viandes artilleries et autres plusieurs instrumens de guerre a tout lesquels il se meit a chemin,” but was attacked and discomfited by the garrison, which “feiret apporter une coulevrine qu’ils avoiēt en leur fort, laquelle au secōd coup qu’ils la feirent jetter, ferit le dit Compte parmy la jambe vers la cheville du pied;” of which wound he soon afterwards died at Beauvais.—Same, vol. ii. fos. 101, 102.
1435.—At the siege of St. Denys, by Lord Talbot: “Toutesfois les dessusdictes portes et murailles furent fort empirées en plusieurs lieux par les engins d’icieux assiegeans.”—Same, fo. 116.
1436.—At the siege of Calais, by Philip Duke of Burgundy, his forces had a great number of “ribauldequins, portans canons, coulevrines, arbalestres, et plusieurs autres gros engins,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 129.
Whilst he was riding to reconnoitre the town, which was defended by the English, “vint une grosse pierre de canon au plus pres de luy laquelle occist une trompette et trois chevaux, dont celuiy du Seigneur de Saveuses estoient l’un.”—Same, fo. 130.
In the above quotation, the word “engine” seems to apply to such instruments of war as cannons, culverins, cross-bows, &c., and it tends to confirm what has been stated before, that the word was used both in describing those projectile weaponswhich were used with gunpowder, and also those which were used without it.
In raising the siege, the Burgundians left behind them, “plusieurs gros engine et autres habillemens de guerre qui estoient au dit Duc de Bourgongne; pource qu’on ne pouvoit trouver de chars ne de chevaux pour les emmenener;” and, upon the Duke of Burgundy’s ordering Jean de Croy to withdraw from the siege of Guisnes, he accordingly dislodged, “mais aucunes gros engins demourerent là, par ce qu’on ne les pouvoit chargèr sur les chars,” &c.—Same, fo. 133.
1439.—The Earl of Somerset, at the siege of the castle of Folleville, “Si feit prestement apprester une petite bombarde qu’il avoit amenée avecques luy, laquelle estoit excellentement bonne et roide, avec autres engins: lesquel engins bombardes et canons a l’une des fois occirent le Capitaine de Leans quand elles furent jectées.”—Monstrelet, fo. 166.
1440.—At the siege of Harfleur, the English, under Somerset, “assevient contre la porte et muraille d’icelle ville plusieurs bombardes et autres habillemens de guerre,” &c.—Same, vol. ii. fo. 169.
1441.—The English, under the Duke of York, Governor of France and Normandy, attempting to relieve Ponthoise, “avoient avecques eux tres grand nombre de chars, charettes, et chevaux chargez de vivres et artilleries,” &c.—Same, fo. 184.
The use of “petits canons et coulevrines,” by the French, at this siege, is also mentioned.—Same, fo. 186.
1449.—At the siege, by Count St. Pol, of the castle of Nogent, defended by the English, the French vanguard entered the basse court, and gained the barrier, “mais pource qu’ils doubtoient fort les canons ils se retrahirent pour attendre leurs compaignons.”—Same, vol. iii. fo. 10.
1449.—Assault of Ponteau de Mer, defended by the English, when the French, under Dunois, “entrerent tous dedans icelle villeautant d’une costé que d’autre: moyēnant aussi et par le feu de fusées qui y furent jettées par dedans les fossez ou ils estoient en l’eaue jusques au col,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. iii. fo. 11.
Same year.—The French, under Dunois, having come against Harcourt, defended by the English, the former, in making their approaches, “esquelles fut tué d’un canon un moult vaillant homme d’armés de la garnison de Louviers, et un Anglois fut pareillement tué d’une coulevrine,” &c.—Same, fo. 15.
Same year.—At the capitulation of the palace and castle of Rouen, by the Duke of Somerset, he stipulated for the departure in safety of himself and the English forces, with their goods, “reservé prisonniers et grosses artilleries,” &c.—3Monstrelet, fo. 21.
1449.—At the siege of Honfleur, defended by the English, under Curson, who “faisoient grand devoir d’eux deffendre et de tirer canons et autres traicts sur les Francois,” &c.—Same, fo. 26.
1450.—At the siege of Bayeux, by the French, defended by the English, “desquelles deux parties en y eut plusieurs de morts de traict et de coulevrines,” &c.—Same, fo. 28.
Same year.—At the siege of St. Sauveur Le Vicomte, defended by the English, “fut tué d’un canon, un vaillant escuyer du pays de Berry, noīné Jean de Blanchefort.”—Same, fo. 28.
Same year.—On the surrender of Caen, by the Duke of Somerset, to the French, he stipulated for the departure of the English, with their effects, but with a proviso as to delivering up the prisoners, acquitting the burgesses, and others in the town, of all demands, and not taking away any thing of theirs. “Et avec ce qu’ils lasseroient toute artillerie grosse et menue, reservé arcs, arbalestes et coulevrines à main.”—Same, fo. 30.
We have therefore here the hand-coulevrine (hand-culverin or hand-gun) distinctly mentioned as in use amongst the English.It was in all probability an iron cylinder or barrel, of clumsy and unwieldy form, let into a wooden stock, and fired from a rest or crutch, by means of a match. Mr. Grose seems not to have been aware of the above, and, in hisMilitary Antiquities, vol. i. page 153, and vol. ii. page 29, he mentions the year 1471, upon the landing of Edward IV. at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, as the period of the first introduction of hand-guns into this country.
1450.—Amongst the charges against William Duke of Suffolk, was, that having the custody of the castle of Wallingford, “he hath fortified it, and repaired it, and also stuffed it with gunnes, gunepowder, and other habilimentez of werre,” &c.—Rot. Parl.28 Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 177.
Same year.—In the 28th Henry VI., Conay ap Rice was called “yoman gonner of oure citee and castell of Westchestre,” &c.—Rot. Parl.28 Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 198.
Same year.—A representation appears on the Parliamentary Rolls, of the insufficient state of defence of the Isle of Wight, and that the castle was not then provided “with gonnes, gonnepowder, crosse-bowes, quarelles, longe-bowes, arowes, longe-speres, axes, and gleyves,” &c.—Same, fo. 204.
Same year.—And also that Harry Bruyn, Esquire, who had been appointed lieutenant of the Isle of Wight, had bestowed a “gret good of his own, bothe in gonnys and in arcerie,” &c., in that island.—Same, fo. 205.
Same year.—Upon the insurrection of Jack Cade, when he and his followers came to London, the mayor applied to Lord Scales, who commanded in the Tower of London, for assistance against the rebels, and he promised “his ayde with shoting of ordinaunce,” &c.—Hall, fo. 150.
The Lord Scales promised “his aid with shooting off the artillerie in the Tower,” &c.—1Holinshed, fo. 634.
1451.—At the siege of Bayonne, the English made a sortie, and were attacked by Bernard de Biarn and his forces, when he was wounded by the shot from a culverin, which pierced through his shield, and injured his leg. “Et ainsi que le dit messire Bernard s’en retournoit de la dicte escarmouche il fut frappé d’une coulevrine, qui perca son pavois et entra la plommée dedās sa jambe,” &c.—Monstrelet, vol. iii. fo. 38.
1452.—The Duke of York, at Brent Heath, near Dartford, “encamped his army very strongly bothe with trenches and artillery.”—Hall’sChronicles, fo. 163.
1454.—In the thirty-second year of Henry VI. the castle of Calais, and the castles and fortresses in the marches of it, were directed to be provided with “vitaile ordonnance habiliments of werre and artillerie.”—5Rot. Parl.fo. 255.
1455.—At the first battle of St. Albans, the Yorkists are mentioned, in theRolls of Parliament, as being assembled, “with grete multitude of people harneised, and other abillementis of werre, as gonnes and other, and come to the toune of Seint Albones,” &c.—Rot. Parl.38 Henry VI. vol. fo. 347.
1457–8.—A letter has been published from John Bokking, to Sir John Fastolf, of Norfolk,[234]from which the following is an extract:—“And my lord of Caunt’bury tolde me yat ye Frenche men have ben before yow, and ytyeshotte many gonnes, and so he tolde all yelords, I have desirid hym to move yecounsell for refreshing of yetoun of Yermowth wtstuff of ordnance and gonnes and gonne powdre, and he said he wolde.”—Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters(occasionally called the Paston Letters), vol. i. p. 156.
1459.—The act of attainder of the 38th year of the reign of Henry VI., mentions the encampment of the Yorkists at Ludford, near Ludlow, and states that they “traiterously raunged in bataill,fortefied their chosen ground, their cartes with gonnes sette before their batailles;” * * * “and than and there shotte their seid gonnes, and shotte as wele at youre most roiall persone, as at youre lordes and people with you than and there beying.”—Rot. Parl.38th Henry VI. vol. v. fo. 348.
1459.—At the Duke of Somerset’s repulse from Calais, “the artillarie shot so fierseley both out of the toune and Risebancke,” &c.—Hall, fo. 175.
Same year.—Attack by Sir John Denham upon Sandwich, where he “tooke the principall shippes of the Kynge’s navie then liying at the port, well furnished with ordinaunce and artillarie,” &c.—Same, fo. 175.
From the above passage it seems not unreasonable to infer that cannons were at that date used on shipboard by the English.
Same year.—Osbert Mountforth was sent towards Guisnes, to assist the Duke of Somerset, and was attacked and captured whilst lying in Sandwich, by John Denham and John Wenlock, and the former was badly wounded in the thigh, by a bombard, “in crure cum bombardo.”—Annales W. Wyrcestrii.
1460.—At the siege of the Tower of London, which was defended by the Lancastrians under Lord Scales, who “dayly shote their ordenaunce out, and had likewise great ordinaunce shott at them.”—Hall’sChronicles, fo. 176.
Same year.—“And they that were within the Tower cast wild fire into the city, and shot many small gunnes, whereby they brent and slew men, women, and children, in the streetes; also they of the city layd great guns on the further side of the Thames against the Tower, and brake the walls in divers places.”—Stow’sAnnals, pp. 408, 409.
Same year.—At the battle of Northampton, “the King’s ordinance of guns might not be shot, there was so great raine that day.”—Stow’sAnnals, fo. 409; see also Speed’sHistory, fo. 844.
The exact date uncertain, but in the reign of Henry VI.—An account is given in Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters, of a sea-fight, which took place in the reign of Henry VI., between some English ships and some ships of Holland, Zealand, Flanders, &c., in which Robert Wenyngton appears to have commanded the English vessels; and he states that the enemy’s ships “schotte atte us a 1000 gonnys and quarrell owte of nu’ber, and have slayn meny of my felyschyp and meymyd all soo.”—The meaning seems to be, that there were 1000 discharges from the enemy’s guns. The engagement is noticed here, although the guns were used on board the enemy’s vessels, because there can scarcely be a doubt, that if they were used on board those vessels, at that period, they must also have been in use on board English vessels.—Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 210.
1463.—At the siege of the castle of Bamborough, after the battle of Hexham, when defended by Sir Ralph Grey, the Earl of Warwick, “cum maximis bumbardis, obsedit idem castrum. Et ibi in casu quoque cujusdem parietis castri, excussione bumbardi, cecidit dictus R. Gray quem credebant mortuum.”Annales W. Wyrcestrii.
Same year.—At the sieges of the castles of Alnwick, Dunstanborough, and Bamborough, ordnance was sent from Newcastle, sufficient both for the sieges and for the field, in case any action in the field should be fought. Ordnance was, at the same period, conducted from Newcastle to Warkworth Castle, to the Earl of Warwick.—Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters, vol. i. p. 274.
1464.—In the fourth year of Edward IV., Henry Cressewell held the office of “kepyng of the artillery within oure castell of Pountfret, in oure shire of York.”—5Rot. Parl.4 Edw. IV. fo. 532.
Same year.—John Newburgh held the office “of keping of the artellerye within oure castell of Carnarvan, and gunner of alle oure townes and castells within Northewales.” &c.—Same, 4 Edward IV. fo. 543.
1464.—Roger Kelsall held “the office of the artyllary withynne our castell of Chestre.”—Rot. Parl.4 Edward IV. fo. 546.
1467–8.—Henry Cresswell continued to hold the office of keeping the artillery of the castle of Pontefract.—Same, 7 and 8 Edw. IV. fo. 585.
1469.—A letter of permission of this year, from the Duke of Norfolk, has been published, authorizing John Paston and the persons who had held the manor of Caistor, in Norfolk, against the duke (Caistor Castle had been besieged by him), to depart, with goods, horses, and harness, “except gonnes, crosse-bows, and quarrels, and alle other hostlements [warlike implements], to the said maneur annexed and belonginge.”—Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters, vol. ii. p. 27.
Same year.—At the battle fought near Hornfield, Lincolnshire, often called Lose Coat Field, the forces of Edward IV. “set on the Lincolnshir men, and sparkelid [scattered] them with his ordinaunce,” &c.—2 Lel.Coll.fo. 502, p. 719.
“And losyde his gonnys of his ordynaunce uppone them and faught with them, and anone the comons fledde away.”—MS. Chronicle, by J. Warkworth, p. 8,printed for the Camden Society.
1470.—Vaucler and his forces, on the Earl of Warwick’s attempting to enter Calais, “luy tirerent de grans coups de canon.”—Philippe de Commines, c. iv. fo. 65.
Same year.—On the Earl of Warwick preparing to return to England, the Duke of Burgundy equipped a fleet of vessels of war, “tous fort avaitaillez et garniz d’artillerie et gens de guerre, d’Anglois, Bourgonguons, Picards, et autres.”—Autres nouvelles Chroniques added to Monstrelet, fo. 164.
Same year.—The Earl of Warwick, on his arrival in England, went to Bristol, “et illec avoit laissé son artillerie, et de ses bagues, quand il s’en alla en Normandie.”—Same, fo. 165.
1471, 5th March.—Warrant after the restoration of Henry VI. to Thomas Mainwaring, Thomas Corwen, Thomas Aghton, &c., to provide for conveying a cannon from Bristol to Hornby Castle, and to deliver it to Sir Thomas Stanley of Stanley, for the purposes of the siege of that castle, “cum nos appunctuaverimus quendam canonem nostrum vocatum Mile End, una cum toto apparatu, et aliis necessariis eidem pertinentibus,” &c. &c.—11Fædera, 699.
1471.—Edward IV. landed at Ravenspur, with Lord Hastings, Lord Say, “andIXCEnglisch men andIIICFleminges, with hange gunnes.”—2 Lel.Coll.fo. 503, p. 721.
It can scarcely admit of any doubt that hand-guns must have been the weapons there meant, and that they were so called from being sufficiently light to be portable by the hand. The word “hange” seems to be merely a corruption of the word “hand,”[238]which is confirmed by the following authority:—
“And had with himIXCof Englismenne and three hundred of Flemmynges with hande-gonnes.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 18,printed for the Camden Society.
1471.—On the occasion of Edward IV.th’s public entry into London, before the battle of Barnet, “the eleventh of Aprill, King Edward quietlie made his entrie into the citie with his power, having five hundred smokie gunners marching foremost, being strangers, of such as he had brought over with him.”—1Holinshed, fo. 683.
It seems tolerably clear that the 500 men there described as smoke gunners, were armed with portable firearms, and probably carried lighted matches; and, although the numbers do not tally, we cannot well doubt that they were the same men already mentioned as armed with “hange-guns,” or “hande-gonnes.”
1471.—On the night before the battle of Barnet, between the forces of Edward IV. and the Earl of Warwick, “and shotte gunnes al night one at the other.”—1 Lel.Coll.fo. 504.
“And eche of them loosede gonnes at othere alle the nyght.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 16,printed for the Camden Society.
Besides which, we also learn from Holinshed, that the Lancastrians, during the night before the battle, continually discharged their cannons at the camp of Edward IV.; and Holinshed adds:—
“The King would not suffer anie of his gunnes in all that night to be shot off, least thereby they might have gessed the ground, and so levelled their artillerie to his annoyance.”—Holinshed’sChronicles, vol. i. fo. 684.
Same year.—A small cannon-ball, weighing a pound and a half, was dug up near the obelisk erected upon Gladmore Heath, where the battle of Barnet was fought.—Hutton’sBosworth Field, Introduction, p. xxxv.
1471.—In the march of Queen Margaret and her army from Gloucester towards Tewkesbury, “the Lord Beaucampe toke from her rereward, more ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to her no smal prejudice.”—Hall’sChronicles, fo. 31.
Same year.—At the battle of Tewkesbury the Yorkists were well furnished “with great artillerie,” and the Lancastrians defended themselves “with shot of arrowes and great artillerie, although they had not the like plentie of guns as the King had.”—1Holinshed, fo. 687.
1471, May 14th.—Thomas Neville, called the Bastard of Falconbridge, and the common people, and undisciplined forces under him, being denied a passage through the city of London, “sette upon diverse parties therof, as Bysshoppes Gate, Algate, London Brydge, and a long the waters syde, and shot gonnes and arowes, and fyred the gates with cruell malyce, as Bysshoppes Gate and Algate, and fought,” &c.—Fabyan’sChron., fo. 223.
1471.—Another old writer (Leland) states, that “they shot his ordinaunce at the cyte and brent aboute London Bridge and at Aldgate.”—1 Lel.Coll.fo. 506.
Another account states that he “loosede his gonnes into the citee.”—MS. Chronicle, by Warkworth, p. 19,printed for the Camden Society.