William, Lord Hastings, the Ca‘lais Garrison and the Politics of YorkistEngland

DAVID GRUMMITT

To most students of Yorkist England, William, first Lord Hastings is best known for the remarkable set of indentures he made with his friends, and fellow members of the north midlands aristocracy.‘ Recent studies by Michael Hicks and Ian Rowney have concentrated on Hastings’s role as the crown’s chief representative in the North Midlands,2 but in so doing historians have tended to neglect, even ignore, the equally important other offices and roles that comprised his cursus honorum: king’s Chamberlain, Chamberlain of North Wales, king’s councillor, Chamberlain of the exchequer, lieutenant of Calais, diplomat and soldier. It is one of these other roles, the lieutenancy of Calais and its marches, and in particular the composition of the little-known expedi- tion that Hastings led to Calais in 1477, in the wake of the death of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgmdy, that is the concern of this paper. What does Hastings’s time as lieutenant of Calais tell us about his role in the government of late fifteenth-century England and, more importantly, what light does it shed on politics between 1477 to 1483? To what extent was Hastings able to develop a following amongst the soldiers of the Calais garrison, based upon his chivalric and military reputation and does this provide the basis for a reinterpretation of the politics of the period? The town and matches of Calais were one of the principal arenas for the struggle between York and Lancaster during the 1450s and 14605. The reason for this was simple: the situation in Calais gave the perfect opportunity for the exploitation of royal resources by those disaffected by royal policy. The most

262 important resource in Calais for any disgruntled magnate was the garrison. In the fifteenth century the Calais Pale was defended by as garrison of some 750 men in Calais castle and the town itself and at outlying castles at Guisnes, Hammes and Rysbank tower. In times of war the garrison could be augmented by special ‘crews’ brought in from England.3 Vital to the political importance of the Calais garrison were the wool merchants of the Calais staple. Stapler cash had a long history of underwriting the political power of the Calais garri- son and the act of retainer of 1466, whereby the staplers agreed to pay a fixed annual sum for the wages of the garrison in return for collecting the customs and subsidies on wool exports, confirmed the potential of the captain to oper- ate with a dangerous degree of independence from Westminster, safe in the knowledge that he did not need money from England to maintain his position.4 This potential had been demonstrated during the period 1460—1 and again in 1469—71 when Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick had been captain. Warwick, captain since 1456, had used his base in Calais to dominate the Narrow Seas, launch attacks on the English mainland and, during the 1460s, engage in an independent foreign policy with the French king, Louis XI.’ Following Warwick’s death at the battle of Bamet, the reassertion of royal authority in Calais demanded a careful policy of conciliation, tempered with firm resolve on the part of Edward IV. It was against this background that Hastings was appointed lieutenant of Calais in July 1471. Hastings indented with the king as lieutenant of Calais for ten years on 18 July 1471. This was confirmed by the issue of letters patent the same day. Soon afterwards he concluded a private indenture with John, Lord Howard, one of Edward’s knights of the body, to serve as his deputy there, and on 25 July this agreement was also ratified by letters patent.‘ These events were highly symbolic of Hastings’s relationship with the king and the new royal policy towards the town and marches. First, Hastings served as lieutenant not captain of Calais. Although Hastings’s patent gave him the privileges enjoyed by pre- vious captains—the same fees and wages, the same size of retinue and the power to appoint men to the garrison—the title locum tenenti demonstrated clearly that his authority descended from the king. Hastings’s choice of his deputy, although ostensibly carried out by the same private indentures that had characterised military service in England for the last two hundred years or so, may have been subject to royal approbation and, because of Howard’s own ties to the king, in itself highlighted the links between the king and Calais.7 Soon afterwards Hastings set sail from Sandwich to take possession of the town and marches. He was accompanied by 1,500 men of his own retinue and 200 men of the ‘old retinue’ of Calais, possibly including those members of the garrison who had took part in the successful defence of the Tower of London

263 against Fauconberg’s rebels earlier in the year.“ Two pieces of evidence from these first weeks of Hastings’s command point to the close ties between the king and the new lieutenant and his retinue. First, the 1,500 men who accompanied Hastings to Calais were clothed in the king’s livery, paid for by the treasurer of the king’s chamber from the issues of Hastings’s chamberlainship of North Wales.9 Second, the lieutenant’s first actions in Calais, to receive the submis- sion of the town and grant pardons to thirty-four members of the garrison with Warwick connections, originated in a formal mandate from the king enrolled on the Treaty Roll.lo Edward’s policy of the rehabilitation of former Warwick men, combined with a strong statement of royal intent, was reflected in other grants made in the first year of his second reign. On 28 July 1471 Edward confirmed Richard Whetehill’s command at Guisnes castle, an appointment originally made by Warwick. When Whetehill entered into a new indenture for Guisnes the follow- ing year, however, it stipulated he was to share the command with Hastings and that ‘the saide Lord Hastynges have the oversight of the saide castell and the pre eminence there at alle tymes whanne he cometh thidre and that aswel the forsaide Richard Whetehill as alle the souldiours . . . there be vnto him in that behalve obedient and assitent in alle thinges’.” Although the machinery of royal government in Calais remained largely unchanged, by his appointment of Hastings and by a public affirmation of the change of status of the governor of Calais, Edward signalled his intentions in regard to the government of the town and marches. One of the features of Warwick’s time in Calais had been the personal loyalty demonstrated to him by the other officers there. It is clear that even when they had received the office by royal grant, men like Wenlock and Whetehill owed their loyalty to the captain. When Philippe de Commynes arrived in Calais in October 1470 he found that every soldier had adopted Neville livery and was received by Wenlock wearing a gold ragged staff on his bonnet.l2 What then was the nature of the links between Hastings and the other officers in the 1470s? There is very little direct evidence that the office- holders were recruited by Hastings or owed any special personal loyalty to the lieutenant. The important knights and esquires who comprised the Calais council, the everyday governing body of the Pale, had, for the most parts, direct links to the king himself: John Howard, John Donne, Thomas Bourchier, Thomas Montgomery, John Dinham, William Pecche, Robert Chamberlain and Robert Radcliffe were all on the nominal roll of the king’s chamber.” By appointing men with a household connection—and thus a per- sonal oath of loyalty to the king sworn through Hastings as Chamberlain— Edward made loyalty to the crown synonymous with loyalty to the lieutenant

264 of Calais. The close identification between Hastings as lieutenant of Calais and his role as king’s Chamberlain was further reinforced when he was allowed five spears and twelve mounted archers from the Calais garrison to accompany him when attending the king in England.“ 0f the leading office-holders only John Blount, Lord Mountjoy, lieutenant of Hammes, was amongst Hastings’s indentured retainers as identified by Dunham. Mountjoy’s indenture with Hastings was sealed on 23 February 1480; however, he had been lieutenant of Hammes since 10 June 1470 and had served in Calais since at least March 1473.ls All had impressive military credentials, serving in the battles of the Wars of the Roses and reinforcing the notion that military skill was the prime factor in determining who served in the Calais garrison during the fifteenth century." After 1471 an increase in the scope of direct relationships with the king is also evident amongst the host of lesser gentry that comprised the bulk of the administrative and military class in Calais. Typical of these is the grant made to Robert Allerton in December 1477 of the searchership of Calais. Allerton was also an usher of the chamber and keeper of the king’s Privy Wardrobe. This grant was initiated by a petition from Allerton and warranted by the king’s signature; four months later Allerton petitioned again for a confirmation of his fees and wages. It may be that these petitions were introduced to the king by Hastings, and are perhaps suggestive of the way in which he used patronage at Calais to increase his personal standing and prestige amongst the king’s house- hold servants.I7 Another example of minor office mirroring a household con- nection is Thomas Thwaytes. Thwaytes was a yeoman of the chamber with considerable administrative experience in the king’s set-vice, serving as Edward’s treasurer of war in 1471, when he became bailiff of Marke and Oye in September 1479." This extension of the scope of the royal affinity down- wards may not be evidence of Edward reducing the personal influence of the lieutenant but rather that by the late-1470s some of the king’s household servants were finding service with Hastings in Calais increasingly attractive. This echoes the contemporary view of Hastings as someone who was ‘greatest about the king’ and whose ‘good lordship’ was important and desir- able where royal favour was sought. Hastings was an intimate companion of the king and he was therefore a natural channel for the demands made of royal patronage." As one of the Paston’s correspondents hinted: ‘what my seyd Lord Chamberleyn may do with the kyng and with all the Lordys of Inglond, I trowe it be not unknowyn to you.’20 Nevertheless, direct evidence that Hastings used his influence to sway appointments to Calais or to have his own men serve there is difficult to find. As we have seen, the grant made to Robert Allerton in 1477 may or may not have relied on Hastings’s intervention; Lord Mountjoy’s

265 service in Calais predated his indenture with the Chamberlain. Mountjoy’s younger brother, James Blount, became joint lieutenant of Hammes in May 1476. James had been retained by indenture by Hastings since December 1474, but we cannot tell what influence the chamberlain had in bringing the younger Blount to serve in Calais.21 Besides the Blounts, only one other of Hastings’s midland retinue definitely served in Calais on a regular basis: John Bonington, a retainer since April 1474, served at Guisnes castle, finally being made con- stable there by Richard III in January 1485.22 Although Hastings’s indentured retainers did not regularly serve in Calais he would have been attended by his household and many of his kinsmen and well-wishers, who formed the wider circle of a nobleman’s affinity. Most notable of these was Hastings’s brother, Ralph. Sir Ralph Hastings first appeared in Calais in October 1479 when he was named on the quorum of a commission to inquire into rents within the town. It may be that the lieutenant obtained the command of Guisnes castle for his brother on the death of Richard Whetehill the previous year.23 Again, Sir Ralph had been an esquire of the body since the mid-14605 so his loyalty was also pledged to the king.“ Hastings’s old friend and the surveyor of his will, John, Lord Dinham, served as his deputy in the early 14805; also present was another friend, William Catesby.25 The most well-documented of Hastings’s well-wishers who served in Calais were, of course, the Pastons. Sir John Paston had been, in his own words, ‘well acquainted with my Lord Hastings’ since the early 1460s. He and his younger brother, John, were constant companions of their patron in Calais during the 14705. Hastings’s assistance in the Pastons’ disputes with the Duke of Norfolk need not concern us here, but it is clear that his ‘good lordship’ also extended to finding advantageous employment for them and their servants. For example, Hastings arranged for the Pastons’ men in petty wages—that is, maintained and equipped for military service at the Pastons’own expense—to have regular salaried positions in the garrison.26 A clear example of the way in which Hastings was able to exploit his vari- ous networks of power and patronage on the mainland in his role as lieutenant of Calais was in the reinforcements he took to Calais between March 1477 and January 1480 in the wake of the death of Charles the Bold at the siege of Nancy. Three complete muster rolls for these forces have survived because of the disputes that arose when Hastings was called to account for their wages: one is preserved, along with the particulars of account, amongst the papers of Jean de Houppelines, French secretary at Calais during Henry VII’s reign, in the British Library; an account and muster book are preserved amongst the various accounts of the exchequer in the Public Record Office; and a copy is enrolled on the exchequer Memoranda Roll.” By attempting to reconstruct

266 something of the careers of those who accompanied Hastings in 1477 it is pos- sible to suggest how his position on the mainland, his influence in the North Midlands and his leadership of the royal household, contributed to his ability to defend Calais and, in turn, may have the provided the lieutenant with the means to pursue his own ends in the foreign and domestic politics of the period 1477 and 1483. The ‘crews’which accompanied Hastings to Calais in 1477—8 contained a total of twenty-six mounted men-at-arms, usually wealthy gentlemen or esquires, and forty-one mounted archers, a role usually filled by men of lesser gentry or wealthy yeoman status. The mounted men at arms included the indentured retainer, Humphrey Stanley, and such well-wishers as Sir John Paston and his associates, Tyrrey Robsert, John Nesfield and Thomas Oxenbrigge.“ Hastings’s associates from the North Midlands John Coke and Sir John Ferrets were present” as well as the professional soldier Robert Lovelace.” In total fifteen of the twenty-six men at arms had identifiable links to Hastings or came from areas in which he was the dominant magnate. An interesting name amongst the mounted men at arms is Sir Philip Chesnall. Chesnall does not seem to appear in English records until Easter term 1482 when, as master of the king’s henchmen, he was sent on embassy to Archduke Maximilian of Austria.3l Perhaps, like Sir Thomas Everingham who served in Hastings’s retinue from October 1478 until July the following year", Chesnall had spent the period prior to 1477 in Burgundian service. For twenty-three of the forty-one mounted archers the likely association with Hastings can be suggested. The largest identifiable group was the royal household. Ten can be identified from other sources as being of the king’s chamber or yeomen of the crown. Some were linked both to the household and personally to Hastings: for example, John Shirley, one of his indentured retain- ers since April 1474, received robes from the royal wardrobe in 1478—9.’3 The link with the household was also reinforced by the manner in which the expedi- tion’s wages were paid. Of the £3,600 charged to Hastings between February and July 1477 all but £409 was received directly from Peter Curteys, one of Edward’s most important servants in the financial system based in the king’s chamber, or one of Curteys’s servants." The importance of the duchy of Lancaster estates in the North Midlands is also evident. Three mounted archers, William Marshall, George Gage and Thomas Clerke, held minor office in those duchy lands under the stewardship of Hastings.” At least two men— both members of the Franke family"—-had existing links to both Calais and the North Midlands, while in another seven cases a geographical affinity to the lieutenant can be identified. Moreover, as Dunham pointed out, four indentured retainers served as foot archers, an odd role considering their social

267 rank, yet explicable by the particular terms of Hastings’s indenture to raise the force.” These attempts to examine the composition of Hastings’s retinue ignore two important factors. First, it must be remembered that Hastings had access to substantial military resources from his own estates besides those gained from crown office: in 1471 his word was sufficient to muster between two and three thousand men in support of Edward’s attempts to regain the throne." Second, Hastings had access to a considerable corpus of military manpower in Calais besides the regular garrison. This included the men in petty wages; in 1475 his contingent for the invasion of France was not mustered in England as was usual but in Calais, suggesting that it was recruited from men already in the Pale.” These two sources of military manpower were independent of Hastings’s royal offices and those professional soldiers who were retained, men like Everingham, Lovelace and Chesnall, may have been attracted by Hastings’s own standing as a military and chivalric figure. This standing was enhanced by the lieutenant’s evident rapport with the military establishment in Calais. In September 1473 he ended a letter to Sir John Middleton and Sir John Paston at Calais by asking that they pass on his regards to ‘my felaws the souldeours’."o Middleton would go on to lead English contingents in Burgundian service at the battles of Neuss and Nancy, returning to Calais with the survivors and no doubt lending support for English intervention on Margaret’s behalf."l Clearly, then, when the need arose Hastings could call upon considerable military experience in Calais as well as utilise his resources in England to assist in the defence of the town and marches. Dunham took it for granted, without expanding on the possible political consequences, that at Hastings’s command his retainers and affinity would attend him ‘defensibly arrayed . . . to fight for both lord and king.’42 During the lifetime of Edward IV, when the lieutenant’s loyalty to the crown was unquestionable, this did not pose a threat. In the aftermath of Edward’s unexpected demise, however, the potential for an ‘overmighty subject’ to threaten the crown with the resources in Calais arose again. Furthermore, Hastings’s handling of the crisis of 1477—8 appears to have strengthened his hold over the Calais Pale. In February 1479 Hastings entered into a new indenture with the king as lieutenant of Calais. It confirmed ‘alle and euerything to thoffice of capitaigne . . . apperteignyng or ought to apperteigne’ for a further ten years.“3 The events between Edward IV’s death and Hastings’s own demise at the hands of Gloucester on 13 June 1483 are sufficiently well-known not to need repeating here.“ What has perhaps not been appreciated is the strpngth of military resources available to Hastings in Calais and the potential threat these posed to Gloucester’s ambitions. Moreover, between July 1482 and early 1483,

268 in response to renewed tension between England and France, reinforcements had been again despatched to Calais. Hastings himself, as the Cely correspon- dence makes clear, was present in Calais between May and October 1482, attended by many members of his personal affinity.“ In July of that year the leading Kentish members of the royal affinity were commissioned to muster a ' force of 1,000 archers for the defence of Calais.“6 The financial memoranda, recently discovered by Rosemary Horrox, prepared during Edward V’s short reign,'make the extent of these reinforcements clear. By May 1483 there were - an extra 873 men in Calais, on top of the regular garrison of some five or six hundred.“7 Moreover, a chance reference in the Tellers’ Roll indicates that some of these reinforcements were mustered in Derbyshite, the heartland of the influence Hastings enjoyed as steward of the honours of Tutbury and High Peak.“ V In May 1483 Hastings threatened to withdraw to Calais over the Woodvilles’ insistence that the young prince was accompanied from Ludlow to London by a large band of retainers.“9 Given the composition and command of the reinforce- ments in Calais at this time, this threat took on a increased significance: the pres- ence of the North Midlands contingent, coupled with a large force from Kent commanded by his long-term colleague, Sir John Scott,gave Hastings the poten- tial re-enact Warwick’s exploits of the late 1450s. It is no surprise that faced with such a threat the Woodville faction backed down. Moreover, it may be that Hastings’s reputation when compared to that of his great rival, Anthony, Earl Rivers, was such that he could count on the support of the military establishment in Calais in any struggle with the Woodvilles. Hastings’s dispute with Rivers went back to 1471, when he had been appointed as lieutenant of Calais despite the grant made in June previous year of the office to Rivers}? Rivers, despite his own chivalric reputation, was an odd choice to replace Wamick at Calais; In January 1460 Rivers, then Sir Anthony Woodville, and his father had been cap- tured by the Yorkist lords at Sandwich and taken back to Calais and reviled before the garrison. A man so treated by Warwick could not be expected to have commanded the loyalty of the Calais garrison in 1470—1.5l In 1476 Rivers’s repu—' tation amongst the soldiers of Calais must have been further damaged by his actions at the Burgundian camp before the battle of Morat. According to the Milanese ambassador, having offered his services to Charles the Bold, when Rivers was told of the approach of the enemy he made his excuses and quickly left the camp. This was a serious breach of chivalric honour: as the duke told the ambassador, Rivers had left ‘because he is afraid’.52 Given the close links between the Calais garrison and the Burgundians, links that went back to the 14605 at least when thirty or forty of the Calais garrison had accompanied Anthony, Bastard of Burgundy, on his abortive crusade against the Turks”, there is little

269 doubt that these stories would filter back. These factors, when combined with Hastings’s and Gloucester’s opposition to the Woodvilles’ perceived pro-French policy, help to explain their co-operation to thwart the queen’s family on Edward’s death.54 Having supported Gloucester against the Woodvilles, however, the tables were soon turned on the lieutenant of Calais: he was arrested by his erstwhile ally and executed on Friday, 13 June 1483. On 28 June 1483 Richard III con- sidered it necessary to write to the Calais council outlining his claim to the throne. He also courted the soldiers’ favour by guaranteeing the monthly pay- ment of their wages. The only response was an inquiry by Lord Dinham as to how the officers were to square Richard’s accession with their previous oaths of loyalty to Edward V. There is no evidence that the garrison made any move to oppose his actions in England.55 There was no wholesale tum-over of office-holders: even the removal of Sir Ralph Hastings from Guisnes castle was later revoked and the replacement of the - treasurer, William Slyfield, by Thomas Thwaytes was part of a wider overhaul of administrative offices which revolved around his move to the chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster." Simon Stallworth famously reported the disintergration of Hastings’s main- land affinity: ‘All the Lord Chamberlayne men have become my lordys of Bokyngham mennc’.” We may suppose that a similar scramble for the new patrons occurred in Calais. As far as Calais is concerned, Hastings’s failure to mobilise personal sup- port may not only have been due to the swiftness of Richard’s actions. The sense of self-preservation that encouraged men to stand aloof from rebellion may have worked against the lieutenant. Personal ties were diluted by the fact that even close friends and family, such as Dinham, the Blounts and his brother, Ralph, had their loyalty to the crown reinforced by membership of the household. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly for the professional soldiers of the Calais garrison, as Michael Jones argues below, Richard, like Hastings, had a reputation as a military/chivalric figure. The reputations of both men were increased by the events of 1477-8 and their actions and support of the Burgundian cause would have enhanced their reputations in the eyes of the garrison. Hastings, in seeking to defend Margaret of Burgundy against the king of France, had the resources to follow a line of action independent of the official policy of Edward IV. Richard was fully aware of this as his swift action against Hastings in June 1483 and the later events of his reign demonstrate. By late 1484, however, the Calais garrison had withdrawn their support from Richard. Lord Dinham made little effort to defeat the rebellious garrison at Hammes castle, who had defected to Henry Tudor along with their lieutenant, James Blount, and his prisoner, the Earl of Oxford, and in the summer of 1485

270 apparently stalwart Ricardians, like Sir Thomas Everingham and Sir James Tyrell, stood aloof from the events at Bosworth, successfully transferring their service to Henry VII.“ Perhaps, in the events from June 1483, Richard had dis- appointed the Calais garrison by failing to fulfil their expectations of him as an honourable knight.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. This is a revised and updated version of a paper was first delivered at the Fifteenth Century Colloquium at the University of Huddersfield in September 1997. The conclusions are, however, very different from those reached in this paper’s first incarnation. I would like to thank Professor Michael Hicks and Dr. Malcolm Mercer for their comments on earlier drafts, and especially Dr. Michael K. Jones for his insights into the military and political culture of late-medieval England. For the indentures see W.H. Dunham, ‘Lord Hastings’ indentured retainers 1461—1483’,Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 39 (1955). 2. For Hastings’s political influence in the Noah Midlands see I. Rowney, ‘Rcsources and Retaining in Yorkist England: William, Lord Hastings and the honour of Tutbury’, Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History, ed. A.J. Pollard, Gloucester 1984, pp. 139—55; Rowney, ‘Thc Hastings affinity in Staffordshire and the honour of Tutbury’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. 57 (1984), pp. 35—45. The negative View of the political strength of Hastings’s mainland affinity is expressed in MA. Hicks, ‘Lord Hastings’ indentured retainers?’ in Richard III and his Rivals, London, 1991, pp. 229—46. 3. For the Calais garrison see David Grummitt, ‘Calais 1485—1547: a study in early Tudor government and politics’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of London 1997, ch. 4. 4. G.L. Harriss, ‘The Struggle for Calais, an aspect of the rivalry between Lancaster and York’, English Historical Review, vol. 75 (1960), pp. 44—48; Grummitt, ‘Calais 1485—1547’,pp. 44—45. 5. For Warwick in Calais see Michael Hicks, Warwick the Kingmaker, Oxford 1998, pp. 138—47, 239—40, 247—49; Colin F. Richmond, ‘The Earl of Warwick’s domination of the Channel and the naval dimension to the Wars of the Roses, 1456—1460’, Southern History, vol. 20-1 (1998—9), pp. l—l9. . PRO, C 76/155, m. 18; C 81/834/3232, 3240, 3248. . Howard had served as one of the king’s carvers since the beginning of the reign, was one of Edward’s most trusted military captains and had been treasurer of the royal house- hold between 1467 and 1471, C. Ross, Edward IV, London, 1974, pp. 324—5: PRO, E 403/824,m. 3. . PRO, E 405/53, rot. 3d; 54, rot. 7. . PRO, E 405/55, rot. 6d 10. PRO, C 76I155, m. 30. 11. PRO, C 76/155, m. 10; E 101/71/5/12. 12. Philippe de Commynes, Mémoires 1464—1498, ed. E. Dupont, 3 vols, Paris 1840—7, vol. 1, pp. 253—4. 13. Morgan, ‘The King’s Affinity’, p. 7. For Radcliffe as an esquire of the body see PRO, C 76l157, m. 16.

271 14. PRO, E 159/249, Brevia Directa Baronibus, Hilary 22 Edw IV, rots. 4—5. 15. Dunham, ‘Indentured retainers’, p. 120; PRO, C 76/157, m. 28. 16. This is a point I wish to expand upon in my forthcoming book on the Calais garrison. 17. PRO, C 81/1514/27; 1513/28. Allerton had been close to the king since the early-14605, progressing through service to the Earl of Worcester before joining the royal household: PRO, E 403/825, m. 10; 839, m. 12. Several other petitions concerning Hastings were presented at the same time as Allerton’s, see C 81/1514/31, 44, 49—50. 18. PRO, C 76/ 156, m. 19; J .C. Wedgwood and AD. Holt, History of Parliament 1439—1509, 2 vols, London, 1936-8, vol. 1, Biographies of the Members of the House of Commons, p. 855. 19. CL Scofield, The life and reign of Edward the Fourth, 2 vols, London 1923, vol. 2, p. 4. 20. The Paston Letters, ed. James Gairdner, 6 vols, London, 1904, reprinted Gloucester, 1986, vol. 5, p. 148. 21. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1467—1477, p. 591; Dunham, ‘Indentured retainers’, p. 119. 22. Ibid.; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476-1485, p. 534; PRO, PSO 2/2, unnumbered signed bill, 12 July 1486. 23. PRO, C 76/163, 111. 3. 0n Whetehifl’s death the nominal command of Guisnes reverted to Lord Hastings. Sir Ralph served as his deputy and it is unclear whether he was ever formally granted the office of lieutenant of Guisnes. He was styled lieutenant of Guisnes in the first month of Richard III’s reign when he was replaced by Lord Mountjoy. However, he probably remained in Calais as his possessions there were guaranteed and on 14 February 1484 he purchased the reversion of the lieutenancy of Guisnes on what, at the time, appeared to be the imminent death of Lord Mountjoy, British Library Harleian Manuscript 433, ed. R. Horrox and P.W. Hammond, 4 vols, Gloucester 1979—83, vol. 1, pp. 83—84,vol. 2, p. 106, vol. 3, p. 31. 24. PRO, E 403/837, m. 2. 25. Dinham, an associate of Hastings since at least the early 14605, probably came to Calais in 1481—2. He had, however, served with Warwick in Calais in the early 14605. It is again difficult to ascertain which association came first, PRO, C 76/165, mm. 12—13. For Dinham as surveyor of Hastings’s will see PRO, PROB 11/7, f. 79. I am grateful to Hannes Kleineke for his comments on Dinham’s early association with Hastings. For Catesby in Calais see C 76/166, mm. 14-15. 26. Dunham, ‘Indentured retainers’, pp. 41—4;Gairdner, Paston Letters, vol. 5, p. 215. 27. The fullest copy is that enrolled in PRO, E 159/255, Communia, Hilary term 18 Edw. IV, rots. 20—23d. The copy in the British Library is Add. MS. 46455, fos. 67—84. This is calendared in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Various Collections, 8 vols, London 1901—13, vol. 2, pp. 330—2. The muster roll for the small force retained between 8 September 1478 and 7 January 1480 is E 101/55/10. Dunham, mistaking the musters as relating to the regular Calais garrison, identified five indentured retainers amongst the foot-archers and a further three individuals who shared common surnames with in- dentured retainers. By mistaking the nature of the documents he missed their full signifi- cance. 28. The date of Stanley’s indenture is not known; his retention is only known from the seventeenth century list in BL, Add. MS. 5948, f0. 249v. For Paston see above. In March 1476 Nesfield was a ‘brother’ to John Paston; by 1484 he was an esquire of the body to Richard III, Gairdner, Paston Letters, vol. 5, p. 254; Calendar of Close Rolls 1476—1485, p. 374. The Pastons were associated with Robsart in Calais, where the latter served with Sir John Scott, Gairdner, Paston Letters, vol. 5, pp. 280, 298. Oxenbrigge was a Suffolk gentleman, with property in Norfolk, Calendar of Close Rolls 1461—1468,p. 243.

272 29. Ferrets was Hastings’s nephew and his representation of Staffordshire in the parliament of 1478 was engineered by his uncle. He was also in receipt of a £10 annuity from the issues of the honour of Tutbury, Rowney, ‘Resources and Retaining’, p. 144. John Coke was a Derbyshire gentleman in the service of Sir William Stanley, S.M. Wright, The Derbyshire gentry in the fifteenth century, Chesterfield 1983, pp. 215, 239; Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, p. 164. 30. P.W. Fleming, ‘The Lovelace dispute: concepts of property and inheritance in Fifteenth Century Kent', Southern History vol. 12 (1990), pp. 1—18. 31. PRO, E 405/70, rot. 8. Chesnall does not appear in the printed Patent or Close Rolls, nor was he amongst those retained to serve in Edward’s 1475 campaign. There is no record of payments to him by the exchequer before 1482 when he appears occupying an important position within the royal household as master of the king’s henchmen. 32. Everingham, was an experienced soldier who may have first served in Burgundy with a force of archers paid for by Edward IV in 1472. In 1474 he first appeared in the service of the duke of Burgundy, also leading an English contingent at the Battle of Nancy. Within days of leaving Calais in July 1479 Everingham was leading an English contingent for Archduke Maximilian at the battle of Guinegate. He would later rise to national promi- nence in England as a knight of the body of Richard III and lieutenant of Rysbank tower in 1484—5. For Everingham’s military career see E.L. Meek, ‘The career of Sir Thomas Everingham, ‘Knight of the North’ in the service of Maximilian, duke of Austria 1477—1481’,Historical Research, forthcoming. I am grateful to Mr. Meek for a copy of this article ahead of its publication. Albeit a Yorkshireman, his family also bad links with Hastings and the midlands, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Hastings MSS, 4 vols, London 1928—47, vol. 1, p. 1; Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, p. 126. 33. Hastings retained Shirley in 24 April 1474, Dunham, ‘Indentured retainers’, p. 119; PRO, E 101/412/10, f. 36v. 34. PRO, E 364/112, rot. E dorse. 35. William Marshall, of North Muskham, Nottinghamshire, with William Norton, was appointed feodary of Pontefract honour, under the stewardship of Sir James Harrington, 18 November 1477, R. Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 2 vols, London 1953—76, vol. 1, 1265—1603, p. 519; CCR 1461—1468, p. 311. Thomas Clerke succeeded Hastings as deputy feodary of Kenilworth castle and honour, 6 July 1475. In 1475 he was also deputy to Richard Hastings as constable, porter and collector of rents at Melbome in the honour of Tutbury, Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, vol. 1, p. 562; PRO, DL 29/372/6201. George Gage was receiver of Duchy lands in Northamptonshire, Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, vol. 1, p. 588. 36. John Franke was brother of Thomas, Guisnes pursuivant in 1484. He was presumably the John Franke, of Salisbury, merchant who received a protection to cross the channel in the Earl of Warwick’s retinue in 1465, PRO, C 76/149, m. 10. His other brother Geoffrey was an esquire of the body to Richard 111. William F ranke, presumably another brother, received a protection to cross to Calais in the retinue of the mayor of the Staple in 1481, Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 1, pp. 104, 278; vol. 2, pp. 11, 16, 164; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1477—1481, p. 272. 37. That is, William Palmer, Henry Columbell, Richard Eyre and Rauf Pole. To this Dunham added John Shirley, who was in fact a mounted archer, ‘Indentured retainers’, p. 40. The indenture for the raising of the reinforcements is BL, Additional Charter 19808. It stated that Hastings could ‘convert the saide men of annes vnto Archers on fotc or the saide Archers into men of Ames so that the wages excede not the wages and rewardes afore lymyted.’ 38. Scofield, Edward IV, vol. 1, p. 571; Dunham, ‘Indentured retainers’, p. 23.

273 39. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1467—1477, p. 551. 40. Gairdner, The Paston Letters, vol. 5, p. 194. The italics are my own. 41. R. Vaughan, Charles the Hold: the last Valois duke of Burgundy, London, 1973, p. 229. 42. Dunham, ‘Indentured retainers’, p. 45. 43. PRO, C 76/162, m. 3; E 159/249, Brevia Directa Baronibus, Hilary 22 Edw IV, rots. 4—5. This new indenture may have been occasioned by the death of Richard Whetehill, joint lieutenant of Guisnes. 44. See C. Ross, Richard 111, London 1981, pp. 62—86. 45. Hastings’s visits to Calais became more regular during the 14805. He personally super- vised the most pressing event in the regular administration: the negotiations with the Staplers over the payment of the garrison’s wages. In May 1481 he was attended by Sir Thomas Everingham and John Nesfield. When he left Calais in early October 1482 William Cely reported: ‘that my Lordd Chamberleyn gooyth over ynto Yngelond wythyn day or twayne wyth all hys howssold mayne’, The Cely Letters, 1472—1488, ed. Alison Hanham, Early English Text Society, Original Series, no. 273 (1975), nos. 114—5, 160, 171, 182, 196, 198, esp. pp. 105, 180. 46. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476—1485, p. 322. 47. ‘Financial memoranda of the reign of Edward V: Longlcat Miscellaneous Manuscript Book 11’ ed. R. Horrox, Camden Miscellany, Camden Society 4th Series vol. 34 (1987), pp. 223—25. 48. PRO, E 405/71, rot. 6. 49. Ross, Richard III, pp. 68—69; R. Horrox, Richard III: A study in service, Cambridge 1989, p. 96. 50. PRO, C 76/154, m. l. Rivers eventually agreed to the letters patent being cancelled in July 1474: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467—1477, p. 450. 51. The Woodvilles’ treatment at Calais was described in a létter by William Paston, Gairdner, Paston Letters, vol. 3, p. 204. For Rivers’s reputation see Ross, Edward IV, pp. 97—8. 52. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan, ed. Allen B. Hinds, vol. 1, 1385-1616, London 1912, p. 227. 53. Jehan de Waurin, Cronicques, ed. L.M.E. Dupont, 3 vols, Paris 1858—1863, vol. 3, p. 184. 54. See Michael Jones, ‘1477 — the Expedition that never was: chivalric expectation in late Yorkist England’ in this issue of The Ricardian. 55. Harleian Manuscript 433, vol. 3, pp. 28—31. 56. Horrox, Richard III, p. 140. 57. The Stonor Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed. C.L. Kingsford, Camden Society, 3rd series, vol. 30 (1919), p. 161. 58. For Henry VII’s policy towards Calais see David Grummitt, ‘For the surety of the towne and marches’: early Tudor policy towards Calais, 1485—1509’, Nottingham Medieval Studies vol. 44 (2000), pp. 183—209.

274