LOYAL MEN WITH THE KING AT BOSWORTH ILLEGAL ATTAINDERS BY ORDER OF HENRY TUDOR PASSED IN THE SO-CALLED PARLIAMENT OF 1485 Richard III., King of England, K.G. } John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, K.G. } _Slain at Bosworth_. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, K.G. _Prisoner at Bosworth_. Francis Viscount Lovell, K.G. _Slain at Stoke_. Walter Lord Ferrers, K.G. } John Lord Zouch. } _Slain at Bosworth_. Sir James Harington. (Clerk of the Council.) _At Bosworth_. Sir Robert Harington. _At Bosworth_. Sir Richard Charlton. _At Bosworth_. Sir Richard Ratcliffe, K.G. _Slain at Bosworth_. Sir William Berkeley, K.B. (Knight of the Bath at the Coronation.) Sir Robert Brackenbury. (Constable of the Tower.) _Slain at Bosworth_. Sir Thomas Pilkington. (Brother-in-law of the Haringtons.) _Slain at Stoke_. Sir Robert Middleton. Walter Hopton, Esq. (Treasurer of the Household.) William Catesby, Esq. (Chancellor of the Exchequer.) _Murdered at Leicester_. Roger Wake, Esq. William Sapcote, Esq., of Huntingdonshire. Humphrey Stafford, Esq. _Put to death by Henry VII_. William Clarke, Esq., of Wenlock. Walter St. Germain, Esq. Walter Watkin, Esq. (Herald.) Richard Revell, Esq., of Derbyshire. Thomas Pulter, Esq., of Kent. John Welch, Esq., _otherwise_ Hastings. John Kendall, Esq. (Secretary of State.) _Slain at Bosworth_. John Buck, Esq. (Comptroller of the Household.) _Murdered at Leicester_. John Batte, Esq. William Brampton, Esq., of Burford. (From the _Plumpton Correspondence_, p. 48.) ====================================================================== This odious measure outraged the feelings of all parties in the country. 'There was many gentlemen against it, but it would not be for it was the king's pleasure,' wrote Sir Robert Plumpton's correspondent from London.[7] The monk of Croyland wrote against the outrage, exclaiming 'O God! what security are our kings to have henceforth that in the day of battle they {253} may not be deserted by their subjects who, acting on the awful summons of a king may, on the decline of that king's party, as is frequently the case, be bereft of life and fortune and all their inheritance.'[8] Nor was this insult to King Richard's memory, and the lawless robbery of his loyal subjects, forgotten by the people of England. They were resolved to secure themselves against a repetition of such proceedings. Ten years afterwards the tyrant had the mortification of being obliged to give his assent to an Act formally condemning the attainder of King Richard's officers.[9]