CHAPTER VIII.

THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH. {157a}

_King Richard_.—

“Caparison my horse: Call up Lord Stanley, bid him bring his power: I will lead forth my soldiers to the plain, And thus my battle shall be ordered. My foreward shall be drawn out all in length, Consisting equally of horse and foot; Our archers shall be placed in the midst: John Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Earl of Surrey, Shall have the leading of this foot and horse. They thus directed, we will follow In the main battle; whose puissance on either side Shall be well winged with our chiefest horse.”

SHAKESPEARE’S _Richard III._ act scene 3. (_Bosworth Field_.)

ON the 3rd of June, 1856, I visited the celebrated Field of the Battle of Bosworth, {157b} so called from its contiguity to the town of Market Bosworth, in Leicestershire, which is in sight of, and little more than a mile distant from, the field. It is a locality of great interest, from being the place where Richard III., the last of the Plantagenet Kings, {158a} lost his throne and life, on the 22nd of August, 1485, in battle; the result of which placed his rival, Henry Earl of Richmond, {158b} upon the throne of England, by the title of Henry VII.

The description of the field and of the battle, given by that painstaking antiquary W. Hutton, F.S.A., is so full, that I am unable to add much to the stock of information on those subjects, which is contained in his interesting work, to which, however, several references will be found in the following pages.

He has expressed some surprise, at the changes which had taken place between his visit in 1788, and that in 1807. He says:—“I paid a visit in July 1807, to Bosworth Field; but found so great an alteration, since I saw it in 1788, that I was totally lost. The manor had been enclosed; the fences were grown up; and my prospect impeded. King Richard’s Well, which figures in our histories, was nearly obliterated; the swamp where he fell, become firm land; and the rivulet proceeding from it, lost in an under-drain.” {159}

If so great a change had occurred prior to July 1807, it may well be imagined, that a still greater change had occurred when I visited it in 1856. On that occasion, I had the benefit of the local information and knowledge possessed by Mr. John Rubley, an extensive farmer, and a very well informed person, residing at Dadlington Fields, near there, who was kind enough to accompany me, and explain the various positions and points of the field of battle, without which, I should have found it impossible to have understood them, even with the aid of a copy of the plan of the field, from Mr. Hutton’s work, which I carried with me.

Amongst other changes which have occurred there, and which have altered its appearance, may be mentioned, the cutting of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch Canal, which extends through part of it.

Mr. Hutton states, that the south end of the field, by which Henry advanced, is three miles from Bosworth; and was, when he wrote, a wood of many acres. {160a} He adds, “About thirty yards above the wood is a spring, called at this day King Richard’s Well. A small discharge of water flows from the well, directly down the hill, through the wood, into the rivulet; but, having no channel cut for its passage, it penetrates through the soil, and forms that morass which Henry is said to have left on his right. Amyon Hill is nearly in the centre of the field, and is by much the highest ground; the summit is two or three hundred yards beyond the well. The hill has a steep descent on every side, but is steepest towards the north, or the Bosworth side, and terminates with a rill, a bog, and a flat, called Amyon Lays. The field extends a mile farther towards Bosworth, but that part was not the scene of action.” {160b}

He also informs us, that after Richard had made an oration, or address to his forces, his army marched _in battalia_, to Amyon Hill, where they arrived before Henry. {160c}

The wood called Amyon (or Ambien) Wood, still remains, and is, of course, much grown and changed, since Mr. Hutton’s time. A portion of the ground upon which it stands, seems to have been the scene of at least a part of the engagement. {160d} I walked with my son, Mr. Alexander Brooke, through a portion of it, and found that part rather wet and spongy; but there was not then any appearance of what could with propriety be called a morass, either in the wood, or below the well, or at the foot of the hill.

Mr. Hutton, in his account of the position of Richard’s army, immediately before the battle commenced, and of the place to which he considers Richard’s right wing extended, states that “The King’s right extended to the declivity of the hill, on the Bosworth side, called Cornhill Furze, {160e} or Amyon Lays, and his left towards King Richard’s well.” {161a} But it would perhaps be more correct and clear, to state, that the King’s right wing extended along the summit of Amyon Hill, towards the declivity, which slopes down in the direction of Market Bosworth, and of the road leading from Shenton to Sutton Cheney; that his centre occupied the ground where Amyon Hill Farm, tenanted by Mr. Bradfield, now is; and that his left wing probably extended a little beyond King Richard’s Well, which seems to have been in the front of a portion of his left wing. Consequently, Richard’s army must have faced to the south-westward, with Market Bosworth and Sutton Cheney, at a little distance, in its rear; and that of Henry, must have faced to the north-eastward. The precise position of the armies must, however, be admitted to be in some measure conjectural.

The marches of the hostile armies before the battle, may be concisely described thus:—Richmond set sail from Harfleur, on Sunday the 31st of July, 1485; landed at Milford Haven on the 6th of August; marched through Wales, by Dell, Haverfordwest, Cardigan, New Town, and Welsh Pool, to Shrewsbury, and then through Newport and Stafford, to Lichfield, where he encamped for a day or two, and arrived at Tamworth on the evening of the 18th. {161b} On the 19th, he went to Atherstone, where Lord Stanley {161c} and Sir William Stanley {161d} had an interview with him, and concerted the measures for their future operations. During all his march, he had constant additions to his forces, for others came in and joined him. On the 20th he encamped at Atherstone; and on the 21st, both armies were in sight of each other for the whole day; {161e} Henry having encamped at Whitemoors, close to the place where the battle of Bosworth was fought on the next day.

It is impossible to suppose that Henry could have acted with such folly, as to sail from France, with a very small body of men, described by Commines as a very sorry and unsoldierlike set, from gaols, hospitals, &c., and land in Wales, and from thence march into the heart of England, where any serious disaster must have caused the utter ruin of himself and his adherents, unless he had been well assured beforehand, of the co-operation of Lord Stanley, who was the third husband of his mother. {162a} Such a course of proceeding, by Henry, without being previously certain of Lord Stanley’s deserting Richard at a convenient opportunity, would have been an act of madness. Everything had, no doubt, been arranged between them before Henry embarked in France.

The fatal error which Richard committed, was previously to the battle, in intrusting the levying of forces to Lord Stanley, when he could not confidently trust him: Richard imagined that, by retaining in his custody George Lord Strange, the son of Lord Stanley, by way of hostage, he had sufficient security for his fidelity; but the result showed how frail and deceptive such a security really was.

Richard, on the 16th of August, led his army from Nottingham to Leicester, which town he entered with great pomp. On the 17th, he marched from it, expecting to meet his rival at Hinckley. That night he passed at Emsthorpe, where his officers slept in the church. On the 18th, he removed to Stapleton, where he pitched his camp on the ground called Bradshaws, and remained until Sunday, the 21st, when both armies came in sight of each other. In the evening, Richard removed with his forces to Amyon Hill. {162b} On the 22nd, the battle took place.

Mr. Hutton states, that “the King continued _in battalia_ near the top of the hill, unwilling to lose his advantageous ground; while Henry unfurled his banners, sounded the march of death, and advanced from the meadows below;” {163a} also, that Richmond “slowly marched up the ascent, where the wood now stands; the morass formed by King Richard’s Well, being on his right, and the sun, not on his back, or his right hand, but between both: the King’s troops looking on with their bows bent.” {163b} That account respecting the position of the sun when the battle commenced, differs in a slight degree from the accounts of the old historians, who state, that when Henry left the marsh on his right, he had the sun at his back, and that it was in the face of his enemies. {163c}

Those accounts seem to be all that we have to guide us, as to the precise position of Richard’s army, when the battle commenced; for the old historians have not devoted their attention to describing it.

The position upon the hill, was certainly, as Mr. Hutton correctly states, an excellent one, and Henry must have begun the attack at some disadvantage, for the hill was against him. {163d}

The old historical writers state, that when Henry marched from his camp to the attack, he left the morass on his right; {163e} which is important, and tends to confirm the explanation before attempted, respecting the position of Richard’s army. Mr. Hutton mentions, that Henry advanced from the south end of the field, {163f} and that Richard’s forces were posted _in battalia_ upon Amyon Hill. {163g} If so, it seems tolerably clear, that Henry’s army faced (as has been already mentioned) to the north-eastward, and that of Richard to the south-westward; and it appears naturally to follow, that Richard had the town of Market Bosworth, or the village of Sutton Cheney, or both of them in his rear, or rather in the rear of his left wing.

It is remarkable, that in Mr. Hutton’s plan of the field of battle, at page 1, Henry’s army is drawn, as facing towards the south-eastward; and Richard’s army is delineated facing towards the north-westward, with Market Bosworth at a distance, in advance of his right, and with Sutton Cheney rather to the rear of his right, and with his left extended towards the well; but with Lord Stanley’s forces interposed between it and the King’s army; yet in the other plan, delineated by Mr. Pridden, and introduced by J. Nichols, F.S.A., into the work; at page 244, Henry’s army is depicted facing to the north-eastward; and the army of Richard is delineated as facing to the south-westward (which seems to be probable), and with Sutton Cheney to the rear of his left, and with King Richard’s Well between the two armies, and rather before Richard’s right centre.

With respect, to the tradition, that Richard quenched his thirst at the well during the battle, I have merely to remark, that it was an improbable circumstance to have occurred in such a place.

In the army of King Richard, the Duke of Norfolk and his son the Earl of Surrey had the honour of leading the van, consisting principally of archers; the main body (or main battle, as it was at that time called) was led by the King in person; and the rear was commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. {164}

The van of the Earl of Richmond’s army, consisting also principally of archers, was commanded by the Earl of Oxford, the main body by the Earl of Richmond and his uncle Jasper Earl of Pembroke, the right wing by Sir Gilbert Talbot, and the left by Sir John Savage.

Cannons and other descriptions of firearms, were in common use by the English in war at that period, and we cannot dispute the fact of their having been used at the battle of Bosworth, because we know, from the accounts handed down to us by Philippe de Commines, the historian, that the King of France, besides advancing money, furnished the Earl of Richmond with some pieces of artillery for his expedition against Richard, “une bonne somme d’argent, et quelques pieces d’artillerie, et ainsi fut conduict, avec le navire de Normandie, pour descendre en Galles, dont il estoit;” {165a} besides which, guns are mentioned in the act of attainder of 1st Henry VII. {165b} passed against the adherents of Richard who took part in the battle; and cannon balls of a small size have been dug up upon Bosworth Field. {165c}

The principal commanders on the part of Richard were, the Duke of Norfolk {165d} (slain in the battle), his son the Earl of Surrey, {165e} the Earl of Northumberland, {165f} Francis Viscount Lovel, {166a} John Lord Zouch, {166b} Walter Lord Ferrers of Chartley, {166c} Sir Richard Ratcliffe, {166d} Sir Gervase Clifton, {166e} and Sir Robert Brackenbury. {166f} All the four last-mentioned commanders were slain in the battle.

The principal commanders on Henry’s part were, the Earl of Pembroke, {166g} the Earl of Oxford, {166h} Sir William Brandon, {167a} who was Henry’s standard-bearer; Sir Gilbert Talbot, {167b} of Grafton in Worcestershire; Sir John Savage, {167c} Sir John Byron, {167d} and, at an opportune time after the battle had commenced, Lord Stanley. {167e} The only person of note of Henry’s army who was slain in the battle was Sir William Brandon, his standard-bearer; and historians inform us, that he was slain by Richard with his own hand. Richard made a courageous and intrepid charge {168a} and attempt, with some of his forces, to cut his way to Henry, and to terminate the battle by despatching him; and in his charge slew Sir William Brandon, and unhorsed Sir John Cheney. Richard’s daring enterprise at first seemed likely to be attended with success, but was frustrated by Sir William Stanley, {168b} who then declared for Henry, and threw the weight of 3000 fresh soldiers into the scale of the latter, and attacked Richard’s right flank.

This appears to have been the important period of the battle alluded to by Shakespeare:—

_Catesby_.—“Rescue my Lord of Norfolk! Rescue! Rescue! The king enacts more wonders than a man, Daring an opposite to every danger; His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights, Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death. Rescue, fair Lord, or else the day is lost!”

SHAKESPEARE’S _Richard III._, act v., scene 4. (_Bosworth Field_.)

It was at a critical moment that Sir William Stanley declared for Henry, because, if he had deferred his aid a very short time longer, he might have deferred it for ever; for fortune seemed at that moment to be propitious to Richard’s enterprise and invincible courage; and Henry was in the utmost danger, and it was probable that he must either have perished or fled.

The consequence of Sir William Stanley’s opportune and most valuable assistance was, that Richard and most of the noblemen, knights, and soldiers, who accompanied him in the charge, were surrounded by superior numbers and slain, and Henry obtained the victory. {169a}

It is not known with any degree of certainty what the respective numbers were in the hostile armies, but it is supposed upon reasonable grounds, that Richard brought into the field about 12,000 men, that Henry brought 7000, Lord Stanley 5000, and Sir William Stanley 3000; {169b} consequently, Richard’s forces were considerably more numerous than his enemy’s at the commencement of the battle; but were considerably outnumbered by those on the side of Henry, after Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley had joined him. Authors differ very much respecting the number of the slain; some state it to have been very considerable. Mr. Hutton, on the contrary, inclines to think that it was only about 900 on both sides, {169c} of which by far the greatest carnage was in the pursuit. Probably his estimate is too low; but, as the battle did not last very long, and as the principal part of Richard’s forces were indifferent or reluctant to fight in his cause, it may perhaps be reasonably inferred that the slain did not very greatly exceed that number. Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton, concur in stating, that the number of the slain was not much more than 1000, which may probably be correct.

Henry, with great pomp, proceeded the same evening to Leicester. Richard’s corpse was found amongst the slain, covered with wounds, dirt, and blood, and was hung perfectly naked across a horse, the feet dangling on one side and the hands on the other, behind Blanc Sanglier, pursuivant at arms, so called from the Boar Argent, the cognizance of Richard, and was carried in triumph to Leicester that afternoon. This disgusting spectacle was meant as a disgrace to Richard, but it was really a disgrace to Henry. Insults offered by the victor to the corpse of a soldier slain in battle, be he whom he may, evince a great degree of meanness or cowardice on the part of the former. The body was exposed to public view during two days in the Town Hall, and was then interred in the Grey Friars Church. At the destruction of religious houses, his remains were turned out of it by the town’s people, and there is reason to believe that they were got rid of, by being thrown into the river at the end of Bow Bridge, at Leicester; “borne out of the city, and contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow Bridge, which giveth passage over a branch of Stoure, upon the west side of the towne.”—See Speed’s _Annals_, fo. 936; see also Thorsby’s _Views in Leicestershire_, p. 338. A stone coffin in which they had been deposited, was converted into a watering-trough at the White Horse Inn in Gallow Tree Gate, and was early in the last century broken to pieces. {170}

Happening to be in Leicester on the 5th of June, 1856, I did not omit to inquire for the Grey Friars Church; but although I discovered the street where it had stood, I found that every vestige of the church had disappeared.

There is a very absurd, but very common mistake, arising from the ignorance of authors, in stating that Richard wore his royal crown upon his helmet during the battle. Nothing can be more erroneous than such a statement. Richard was too old and experienced a soldier to put such a head-gear upon his helmet; nor could a real crown screwed to, or fastened upon a helmet, be worn for any rational purpose, during a battle. He, however, wore, as a distinguishing mark, and as an emblem of command, a comparatively small ornament, resembling a crown, upon his helmet, which was not at all strange or unprecedented; on the contrary, it was formerly a common practice. King Henry V. wore a similar ornament upon his helmet at the battle of Agincourt, in 1415, which was of some use, in sustaining the stroke of a battle-axe from the Duke of Alençon, which cleft it; and Thomas Duke of Clarence, second son of Henry IV., wore a coronet or circlet upon his helmet, when he was fighting valiantly, and slain at the battle of Baugé in France, in 1421; besides which, there are many monuments which I have seen in English cathedrals and churches, where the figures of warriors and men of rank are represented with ornaments resembling small crowns or coronets upon their helmets.

The account of the battle, and the description of the field, having been so fully given in the interesting work already mentioned, it would be superfluous for me to attempt to go into further particulars; I may, however, add, that the battle terminated in the defeat and death of Richard, rather in consequence of the defection of Lord Stanley and of his brother Sir William Stanley, and the indifference or disaffection of others, whom Richard relied upon, than of any valour or skill in Henry or his army.

Henry was immediately saluted as King of England by his forces; and, without waiting for the ratification of his claim by Parliament, or any other recognised authority, assumed the title of Henry VII.; and, scorning to be less tyrannical or less wicked than his predecessor, commenced his reign by putting to death, without any trial, and in cold blood, two days after the battle, William Catesby, {171} and two gentlemen from the North, of the name of Brecher, who had been taken prisoners; and sentencing to imprisonment for life, in the Tower, an innocent and defenceless boy, Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, whose only crime was his being the son of George Duke of Clarence, and the only surviving male of the royal house of Plantagenet, and whom Henry very wickedly at last put to death, in 1499. Henry also caused an act of attainder {172a} to be passed by Parliament, shortly after the battle, in which he had a great number of persons, who had been the subjects and adherents of Richard III., attainted, and declared guilty of high treason, and all their lands and possessions confiscated, on the alleged ground of their support of Richard against Henry, although Henry had never, previously to the battle of Bosworth, been recognised as King, nor had he even assumed the royal title or functions. It was, therefore, not only an iniquitous proceeding, but was an insult to the understandings of men, to treat any acts done by any persons in the service of the then reigning King, at the battle of Bosworth, as treasonable actions, committed against Henry. Those attainders and confiscations, affecting as they did the lives and property of many persons, whom Henry wished to destroy or crush, were acts of gross despotism and tyranny. {172b}

Many years ago, I saw, in the collection of Colonel Stretton, of Lenton Priory, in Nottinghamshire, some spurs and bridle-bits, said to be relics of Bosworth Field; and Grose, in his _Military Antiquities_, gives an engraving of a helmet found there. {173}

Many relics of the battle are described in Mr. Hutton’s work, which had been discovered there; besides which, human bones were found, about four years ago, in cutting a drain in a field, in front of the farm-house standing upon the slope of the hill, and called Amyon Hill Farm, mentioned before, belonging to Mr. Stuart, and occupied by Mr. Bradfield. The field where they were discovered, adjoins that in which King Richard’s Well is.

Mr. John Rubley informed me, that, not many years ago, he found a sword-hilt, upon the field of battle, which was afterwards given to Mr. Stuart. There are also a few relics of the battle preserved in the Public Museum at Leicester.

Persons desirous of visiting the field of battle, will find it expedient to go from Atherstone to Shenton, and soon after passing that village, instead of pursuing the road to Market Bosworth, to turn off to the right, by the road which leads from Shenton to Sutton Cheney, until they arrive at a large farm on the left, called Sutton Field Farm, occupied by Mr. Cooper, a considerable farmer. They should then turn off to the right, into a field road (which is passable in a carriage, but is not a good one for that purpose, and therefore walking is preferable), which ascends the northward side of Amyon Hill, frequently mentioned before, and cross its summit; and on the slope of the hill, on its southward side, is Amyon Hill Farm (which is upon the field of battle), and close to it, in an adjoining field, is King Richard’s Well. It is covered in with a small pyramid, built of rough stones, but is open on its south front; and on the inner wall, opposite to the open part, is the following inscription, cut in small Roman characters, from the pen of the reverend and learned Dr. Parr:—

AQVA EX HOC PVTEO HAVSTA SITIM SEDAVIT RICARDVS TERTIVS REX ANGLIAE CVM HENRICO COMITE DE RICHMONDIA ACERRIME ATQVE INFENSISSIME PRAELIANS ET VITA PARITER AC SCEPTRO ANTE NOCTEM CARITVRVS XI KAL. SEPT. A.D. MCCCCLXXXV.

The battle of Bosworth is often called the last of the wars of York and Lancaster. That is an error. The last battle in those wars was the battle of Stoke, fought in 1487.

It is a lamentable fact, that deeds of violence and bloodshed, on a large scale, did not cease in England with the death of the last Plantagenet King; for during the reign of the two first Tudor Kings, the crimes and offences disclosed by history, are so shocking, as to make us amazed at the wickedness and cruelty of man.

Although the habits and characters of Richard III. and of Henry VII. were widely different, each was sufficiently iniquitous in its way; {174} and it would be a task of great difficulty for any well-read historian, to decide which of those two men was the most wicked. Both of them were usurpers, and neither of them had any legal right to the throne; and if they had lived nearer these times, and in humble life, it is not improbable that the intrepid disposition and invincible courage of Richard might have made him a daring robber or highwayman; and the mean and avaricious propensities of Henry, might have caused him to become an adroit pickpocket or sordid miser.

It was very much the fashion for historical writers, who lived in the times of the Tudor sovereigns, in order to court popularity with them, to calumniate Richard, blacken his memory, and in their accounts of him, to represent him as a kind of monster, deformed in person, and malignant in mind, with not a few other strange assertions, which subsequent generations have been induced to consider either as absurdities or exaggerations.

Upon a cool and dispassionate comparison, however, of the characters of Richard III. and Henry VII., both of them wicked and unscrupulous men, the contrast is not favourable to Henry.

Richard committed sanguinary crimes, in order to obtain the crown; but even his enemies do not accuse him of any tyrannical or unjust actions, as a King: Henry had not the opportunity of perpetrating such offences before he obtained the crown; but history is replete with instances of his tyranny and injustice during the whole of his life, after he became a King. Richard possessed great talents, and natural capacity; but his reign was so short, that he had not many opportunities of evincing his abilities for exercising the royal functions; yet he passed some excellent laws for the benefit of his subjects: Henry was sagacious and clever in many respects, and during his rather long reign, he also passed some very good laws; but, as has been correctly observed, his laws were ever calculated with a view to his own profit; {175} he encouraged commerce, as it improved his customs, and brought money in to his subjects, which he could squeeze out at pleasure. {175} Richard was munificent and liberal: Henry was mean and avaricious. Richard was bold, enterprising, and courageous: Henry was timorous, selfish, and cautious. Richard and Henry, however, closely resembled each other in one respect: each of them was unscrupulous, and did not hesitate without remorse to put to death a fellow-creature who had incurred his displeasure, or was an obstacle to the success of his measures.

Richard is believed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V. and the young Duke of York; and Henry is known to have inhumanly and very wickedly put to death Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick—an action which has been properly designated “as vile a murder as that of Edward V.; nay, were it possible to speak in palliation of this worst of crimes, Richard was the least culpable, for he had one temptation which Henry had not—Edward V. had an absolute right to the crown, but Warwick only a shadow.” {176a} The crime of illegally depriving a human being of life is very solemnly reprobated by Shakespeare, in his usual beautiful and powerful language:—

“Erroneous vassal! the great King of kings Hath, in the table of his law, commanded, That thou shalt do no murder. Wilt thou then Spurn at his edict, and fulfil a man’s? Take heed; for he holds vengeance in his hand, To hurl upon their heads that break his law.” {176b}