Page:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu/247

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

of a ditch at Pooley Park in Warwickshire, and asked him to fetch it away. Littleton, according to Harrison's evidence, found most of the hidden money, and brought £80, part of it, to procure the prisoner's release. Some of this money was distributed among various agents, and the rest was paid over, directly or indirectly, to Lord Stafford — how much, Bradshaw said he did not know. Lord Stafford thereupon bailed out the prisoner, who took refuge for a time at Bowdisworth Park, in Staffordshire, the residence of Humphrey Chatterton, whose wife, as Harrison attested, "laboured the Lord Stafford for Bradshaw's bail, and had money for her pains." But the Leicestershire magistrates got wind of this shameful transaction, and on February 17th, 1604-05, they despatched an urgent letter to the Lord Chief Justice of England, informing him that Lord Stafford had gone up to London to procure Bradshaw's pardon, and asking him that a warrant might be issued for the apprehension of Bradshaw, "because it is thought he will come to London to the Lord Stafford's lodgings"; and they prayed that, as soon as Bradshaw was arrested, he should be committed to the gaol at Leicester. The arrest was made, and the case was tried at the Spring Assizes which began at Leicester on March 25th, 1605.[1] Bradshaw was examined on March 26th, and was subsequently condemned to be executed for the murder of Mrs. Clarke, while the unfortunate servant, Alice Grimbold, was actually sentenced to be burned at the stake.

The original depositions of the witnesses in this case are still in existence, although partly defective, and they have been transcribed in the Appendix to Kelly's "Royal Progresses." The crime itself is a very sordid one, and would have been forgotten long ago but for its legendary association with the last of the Plantagenets. Nevertheless, the case is interesting, not only as an example of the harsh and unsatisfactory character of the administration of justice three hundred years ago, but also because it illustrates the danger to which justice was then sometimes exposed, owing to the corrupt dealings of powerful men.


  1. The date given by Thompson and Kelly, March 25th, 1606, must be erroneous. The witnesses were bound over in February, 1604-5, to give evidence at the next assizes.

199