.
[432] Rot. Parl vol. ii. p. 52.
[433] Rymer, t. vii. p. 171.
[434] Rot. Parl. vol. iv. p. 169.
[435] Rot. Parl. vol. iv. p. 174, 176.
[436] Ibid. p. 201.
[437] I follow the orthography of the roll, which I hope will not be
inconvenient to the reader. Why this orthography, from obsolete and
difficult, so frequently becomes almost modern, as will appear in the
course of these extracts, I cannot conjecture. The usual irregularity of
ancient spelling is hardly sufficient to account for such variations;
but if there be any error, it belongs to the superintendents of that
publication, and is not mine.
[438] Rot. Parl. 6 H. VI. vol. iv. p. 326.
[439] Rot. Parl. 8 H. VI. vol. iv. p. 336.
[440] Rot. Parl. vol. v. p. 241.
[441] Paston Letters, vol. i. p. 81. The proofs of sound mind given in
this letter are not very decisive, but the wits of sovereigns are never
weighed in golden scales.
[442] This may seem an improper appellation for what is usually termed a
battle, wherein 5000 men are said to have fallen. But I rely here upon
my faithful guide, the Paston Letters, p. 100, one of which, written
immediately after the engagement, says that only sixscore were killed.
Surely this testimony outweighs a thousand ordinary chroniclers. And the
nature of the action, which was a sudden attack on the town of St.
Albans, without any pitched combat, renders the larger number
improbable. Whethamstede, himself abbot of St. Albans at the time, makes
the duke of York's army but 3000 fighting men. p. 352. This account of
the trifling loss of life in the battle of St. Albans is confirmed by a
contemporary letter, published in the Archaeologia (xx. 519). The whole
number of the slain was but forty-eight, including, however, several
lords.
[443] See some account of these in Paston Letters, vol. i. p. 114.
[444] Rot. Parl. vol. v. p. 284-290.
[445] Hall, p. 210.
[446] The ill-will of York and the queen began as early as 1449, as we
learn from an unequivocal testimony, a letter of that date in the Paston
collection, vol. i. p. 26.
[447] Upon this great question the fourth discourse in Sir Michael
Foster's Reports ought particularly to be read.
[448] Hale's Pleas of the Crown, vol. i. p. 61, 101 (edit. 1736).
[449] Rot. Parl. vol. v. p. 351.
[450] Id. p. 375. This entry in the roll is highly interesting and
important. It ought to be read in preference to any of our historians.
Hume, who drew from inferior
|