[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 Archæologia (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 sources, is not altogether accurate. Yet one remarkable circumstance, told by Hall and other chroniclers, that the duke of York stood by the throne, as if to claim it, though omitted entirely in the roll, is confirmed by Whethamstede, abbot of St. Albans, who was probably then present. (p. 484, edit. Hearne.) This shows that we should only doubt, and not reject, unless upon real grounds of suspicion, the assertions of secondary writers.