Transcriber’s Notes:

  Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
    in the original text.
  Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold=
    in the original text.
  Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
  Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs.
  Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.
  Typographical errors have been silently corrected.
  The TOC entry “The Acquittal of the Seven Bishops celebrated in
    Bridgnorth” was changed from 186 to 199.
  On page 156 there is small text above numbers. These have been
   represented here as: {xxxx/999}, eg. {either/224}.




[Illustration: BRIDGNORTH.]




                          THE
                      ANTIQUITIES
                          OF
                      BRIDGNORTH;


                         WITH
   _Some Historical Notices of the Town and Castle._

                          BY
               THE REV. G. BELLETT, A.M.
              INCUMBENT OF ST. LEONARD’S.

                      Bridgnorth:
        W. J. ROWLEY, BOOKSELLER, HIGH STREET.
     LONDON: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS.
                       MDCCCLVI.

                     BRIDGENORTH:
          W. J. ROWLEY, PRINTER, HIGH STREET.

         TO THE MAYOR, AND CORPORATION,
                AND INHABITANTS,
                     OF THE
             BOROUGH OF BRIDGNORTH,
                       THE
    FOLLOWING WORK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,
           BY THEIR FAITHFUL SERVANT,

                   G. BELLETT.




ADVERTISEMENT.


The Substance of the following pages was given in two lectures, which
I delivered last year to the Members of “The Society for Promoting
Religious and Useful Knowledge.” Since then I have collected a few more
facts relating to the early history of Bridgnorth, which I have here
given to the reader, and I have also added an Appendix, containing
some matter not altogether, I hope, undeserving of attention, although
some of it is only remotely connected with my subject. The public
documents relating to the town, such as the Terms of Capitulation,
and the Proclamation of Charles II., it has been thought desirable to
give entire, as but few copies of them, especially of the latter, are
extant.

It would seem superfluous for me, after the many quotations which I
have taken from his learned work on “The Antiquities of Shropshire,” to
make any acknowledgement of my obligations to the Rev. Robert Eyton.
But I owe him much more than is indicated by these quotations. He very
kindly directed my attention to sources of information respecting
Bridgnorth, which have been of the greatest service to me, particularly
the Blakeway Papers, in the Bodleian Library, besides allowing me to
refer to his better judgment and more extensive information, on any
difficulty that occurred to me.

I am very much indebted also to Mr. Whitmore, of Apley, for his
kindness in giving me the free use of his own collection of historical
notices of our town and neighbourhood, from the MSS. in his possession.
I would gladly avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my thanks
likewise to the Town Clerk, for allowing me to consult the Common Hall
Order Books, and other documents belonging to the Corporation; and to
Mr. Hubert Smith for giving me his valuable assistance in decyphering
them. Nor should I omit to offer my thanks to the Rev. G. L. Wasey, for
some interesting particulars which he communicated to me, respecting
the early history of Quatford; and to Mr. S. Sidney Smith, from whose
antiquarian lore I have, on several points, derived much valuable
information.




CONTENTS.


                                                              PAGE.
    The Foundation of Bridgnorth                                 3
    The site of Ethelfleda’s Castle                              9
    The Castle and Church of Quatford                           11
    Bridgnorth Castle built by Robert de Belesme                22
    The First Siege, by Henry I.                                27
    The Second Siege, by Henry II.                              32
    Wooden Fortifications of the Town in the time of King John  42
    Charter for St. Luke’s Fair                                 44
    Charter of the Borough                                      45
    The Visit of Prince Edward to Bridgnorth Castle,
          after the Battle of Evesham                           48
    The Siege of Bridgnorth by Edward II.                       50
    His taking refuge in it when pursued by the Rebels          53
    The Church of St. Mary Magdalene                            55
    Notice of William of Wykeham                                63
    The Church of St. Leonard                                   68
    The Hermitage of Athelardestan                              78
    The Hospital of St. John                                    80
    The Leper Hospital of St. James                             83
    The Friars                                                  87
    Bridgnorth Hobelers in the Army of Edward III.             105
    Henry IV. at Bridgnorth, before the Battle of Shrewsbury   110
    Thomas Hoord, Member for Bridgnorth, and the Duke of York  113
    Suppression of the Religious Houses                        120
    The Cappers of Bridgnorth                                  126
    The Transfer of the Castle of Bridgnorth to
          Sir W. Whitmore                                      127
    The Great Rebellion                                        128
    Charles I. Visits to Bridgnorth                            135
    Narrow escape of Oliver Cromwell at Bridgnorth             149
    Two Letters of King Charles’s written from Bridgnorth      155
    Encounter between the King’s Troops and the Roundheads     158
    The Final Siege of Bridgnorth                              163
    The Skirmish in St. Leonard’s Church Yard                  164
    The Destruction of the Town by Fire                        167
    The Surrender of the Castle                                173
    Richard Baxter                                             182
    Collection made to Rebuild the Town                        188
    The Town Hall                                              190
    Proclamation of Charles II.                                194
    The Acquittal of the Seven Bishops celebrated
          in Bridgnorth                                        199
    Conclusion                                                 202




ILLUSTRATIONS.


    VIEW OF BRIDGNORTH (_Frontispiece_)                       PAGE
    DANISH BURIAL GROUND                                         5
    ANCIENT OAK, SUPPOSED TO BELONG TO THE FOREST OF MORFE      18
    THE POSTERN GATE                                            25
    THE OLD CHURCH OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE                        55
    THE FIGURE OF A KNIGHT IN ARMOUR, ON A PAINTED WINDOW,
          IN SAINT LEONARD’S CHURCH                             71
    THE HERMITAGE                                               77
    THE SEAL OF THE FRIARS                                      90
    VIEW OF QUATFORD                                           103
    THE WEST (OR HUNGRY) GATE                                  145
    SAINT LEONARD’S CHURCH                                     168
    THE REMAINS OF THE CASTLE                                  174
    OLD TIMBER HOUSE IN THE CARTWAY                            185
    THE TOWN HALL                                              192
    COPY OF AN OLD MAP OF THE BOROUGH                          206




THE ANTIQUITIES OF BRIDGNORTH.




PART I.




THE ANTIQUITIES &c.


The first thing which naturally engages our attention, in considering
the Antiquities of Bridgnorth, is the origin of its name. This, as
well as other names just as simple and intelligible, has afforded
matter for the ingenious speculations of etymologists, who, by a sort
of alchemy, of which they only are the masters, have transmuted it
into a form totally different from its own. For instance, some have
made it out that the name signifies the tower or castle on Morfe,
and that it was originally _Burgmorfe_, the first syllable of which,
“Burg,” being derived from the Greek word πυργος, ‘a tower’, the other
being the Saxon name of the neighbouring forest, which extended over
the large district still so called. But it is not easy to conceive,
how “Burg” should have been transmuted into “Bridge,” and still less
so, how “Morfe” should have been corrupted into “North.” The name is
a very plain one, and just as plain is its etymology; _Bridgnorth i.
e._ the north Bridge, or the bridge lying to the north of some other
bridge. In every ancient record it is called “_Brugge_” or “_Brug_,”
the Saxon form of the word “Bridge,” and there is no instance, I am
informed, of the syllable “North” being added to it, at least in any
public document, earlier than the reign of Edward I. Bridges in early
times were not so common as they are now, and therefore a place, which
had a bridge or bridges of any size, often took its name from this
circumstance. Thus Bruges, a town in Flanders, was so named, from the
numerous bridges over the canals, which intersect it; and Bridgetown,
near which the famous battle of the Boyne was fought, was so called
on account of the bridge, which there crosses the river. So our town
received its first name of “_Brug_” from the bridge, which here spanned
the Severn; and was afterwards called “_Bridgnorth_,” to distinguish it
from a bridge lower down the Severn, at Quatford.[1]

[1] There can be no doubt that there was in ancient times a bridge at
Quatford, for it is called in old writers, “Cwatbridge.” It was very
likely a wooden bridge, one pier of which stood on an islet in the
stream. In the very ancient map of Bridgnorth, and of its immediate
neighbourhood, which is in possession of the Corporation, (a copy of
which will be found in the present volume) this islet is marked out,
and called “Brugg Bylett,” or Island Bridge. The present Ferryman,
Richard Turley, very well recollects this bylet, and his having played
on it when a boy: it was nearly a quarter of an acre in size, and
covered with alders and willows. An old villager told the late Mr.
Smallman that he remembered beams of wood being raised from that part
of the river.

After the origin of the name, the next thing to consider is the
first foundation of Bridgnorth. There is no doubt that this is very
ancient, probably as ancient as the age of Alfred the Great. The
Saxon chroniclers inform us that Ethelfleda, the daughter of Alfred,
who inherited the magnanimity which has made her father’s name so
illustrious in the page of history, aided her brother Edward in
resisting the incursions of the Danes; and for this purpose erected
several forts and castles in different parts of the country, and among
these one at Bridgnorth.

It appears that the Danes, in A.D. 896, having been driven from their
settlements on the banks of the Thames, and their fleet having been
destroyed, retreated northward, and at last made their way to the
Forest of Morfe, adjacent to Quatford, where, as some writers record,
they entrenched themselves in a strong fortification.[2] We have proof
of their having been in this neighbourhood, from the fact that a place
between Bridgnorth and Quatford still bears the name of _Danesford_,
marking the spot, where no doubt these wild marauders found a passage
across the Severn, which passage they no doubt used in carrying on
their depredations on the east side of the stream. There is supposed
to be other local evidence of the Danes having settled for a time in
this neighbourhood, which is not without its interest. I refer to the
discovery, made by Mr. Stackhouse, formerly Incumbent of St. Mary’s,
of an ancient burial ground upon Morfe, which from its character he
supposed to be Danish.[3] The following account of it, together with
the subjoined sketch, is given in the 460th Number of the Philosophical
Transactions.

[2] “Aliâ excursione celeriter factâ in occiduas Angliæ partes
in oppido ad Sabrinam, nomine Quatbrigia (forte Quatfordia prope
Bridgnortham) quantâ poterant celeritate maximâ vallum sibi
conficiunt.”—_Spelman’s Life of Alfred the Great, B._ 1, 94.

“In great haste they departed their fortress, leaving their wives and
children to the mercy of the English, neither stayed they till they
came into the borders of Wales, where at Quatbridge upon Severn, they
built another castle.”—_Speed, B. VII., c._ 34.

[3] Mr. Hartshorne, in his _Salopia Antiqua_, (_pp. 91 and 101_)
expresses the opinion, that these tumuli were the work of the ancient
Britons, and not of the Danes. However, the same writer considers Burf
Castle, an earthwork situated on the summit of a hill, about a mile and
half east of Quatford, to be certainly Danish. (_pp. 210-12._)

[Illustration]

“In July, 1740, I observed upon Morfe the tumuli as above represented,
where the soil is a strong gravel. Mountfaucon tells us that the old
Cimbri, [the Danes,] were wont to throw up gravel on their graves, and
the more remarkable the persons were, the larger the tumuli over them.
I therefore imagined that this might possibly be the burying place of
the Danes. For satisfaction, I caused the middle and largest of these
tumuli to be dug from north to south, (a.a.) supposing that by that
method I might cross the site of the body that may have been laid
there. We dug about seven feet deep, even to the solid rock, without
meeting anything remarkable but an iron shell, in the shape of an
egg, with a round hole at one end; but so cankered and decayed, that
it easily broke into small pieces. This we judged to be the boss of a
sword. However, on viewing the trench that we had dug, we perceived on
the west side of it a hollow in the gravel, which upon trial extended
horizontally four or five feet; and under this hollow (b.b.) we found
one of the large vertebræ of the loins, with its processes pretty
perfect, but thoroughly petrified; and upon further search, several
portions of bones, all alike petrified, but so disguised that we could
not discover to what part of the body they belonged. We afterwards
opened one of the lesser tumuli, (c.c.) and found what is thought to
be the os sacrum, and many other small pieces of bone, in a petrified
state. It was great odds that we found nothing at all, but nature
favoured us by preserving some few tokens of antiquity.” Mr. Stackhouse
seems to have been disturbed in his archeological researches; for he
mentions that the people of Bridgnorth flocked in great numbers to the
spot, expecting to see great wonders, and to prevent further concourse,
he was glad to fill up the trenches, and to leave the other tumuli
unexamined.

From local and historical evidence then, it would appear that the Danes
took refuge amidst the forests[4] which then covered that extensive
district, and continued to hold possession of them for some time. But
this was the last scene of their struggle against the Saxons, during
the reign of Alfred. They were compelled after a while to leave these
fastnesses upon Morfe; and Shropshire, and soon after the whole of
England, was delivered from their rule. Then it was that Ethelfleda,
in concert with her brother Edward, in order to guard against any
attempts the Danes might make to regain their footing in the country,
built castles in those places which were most liable to be attacked.
One of these, as has been already mentioned, was erected at Bridgnorth,
or, as it was then called, “Brugge.” This establishes the fact, that
our town, whatever may have been its exact size and situation, existed
long before the Norman conquest, and that its foundation reaches back
more than nine hundred years. But it is a higher honor to the town
of Bridgnorth than even the great antiquity of its foundation, that
it is thus associated in its early history with the name of this
great princess—a name which poets and historians have justly made
illustrious—and that amid the dangers which threatened the nation, she
took such special means to provide for its defence.

[4] Vide Appendix A.

But what was the site of the castle which she erected at Bridgnorth?
This is a question of very great interest. Most of those who have
enquired into the subject have supposed it to be the eminence now
known by the name of _The Castle Hill_; but Mr. Eyton, (_Antiquities
of Shropshire, Vol. 1, part 4, pp. 131, 132_) whose sagacity equals
his learning on antiquarian subjects, has assigned to it a different
site, and has most probably discovered its true locality. Every one
has noticed, on looking westward from the Castle Walk, a very singular
mound of earth, about two hundred yards distant, the regular shape
of which plainly proves it to be artificial. It is now known by the
name of “Pam-pudding Hill.” This Mr. Eyton considers to be the site
of Ethelfleda’s castle, and supports his assertion on the following
grounds. A document is extant, of the date of Edward I., in which the
road beneath this hill is called the road underneath “the Old Castle.”
Now the castle on what is at present called the Castle Hill, was in
the time of Edward I. the existent and garrisoned castle of the town:
so that the “Old Castle” must have been a term denoting some fortress
of a more ancient date; and as we have no record of any earlier castle
but that built by Ethelfleda, this, which bore in the reign of Edward
I. the title of the “Old Castle,” must have been hers. It is to be
observed also, that the hill, called “Pam-pudding Hill,” is situate in
the parish of Oldbury, a word which plainly signifies “_Old Borough_;”
and as Ethelfleda attached a borough to the castles which she built,
there can be no doubt that the neighbouring village of Oldbury, however
small its circumference at present, has the honor of being the original
borough, having the site of the ancient castle erected by this Saxon
princess within its borders; and that Bridgnorth at the time was little
better than an appendage to it.[5]

[5] That Oldbury is more ancient than Bridgnorth appears from the fact,
that the former is mentioned in Domesday Book, and the latter is not
noticed.

But in less than two centuries after the erection of this fortress,
Bridgnorth became a place of consequence; the commanding position on
which it stood, and the strong natural defences of the place, marking
it out to the eye of a very bold and ambitious nobleman of the day, as
a situation eminently fitted for a fortified castle. This nobleman was
Robert de Belesme, the son and eventual successor to the English titles
and estates of Roger de Montgomery, first Earl of Shrewsbury. Roger was
a kinsman of William the Conqueror, as well as a very faithful vassal;
and when William became possessed by conquest of this fair realm of
England, he liberally rewarded his services by the grant of a very
large share of territory in the conquered kingdom. He conferred on him
the Earldom of Shrewsbury, with a feoff of four hundred and six manors,
in which Quatford is included.—(_Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, Vol.
1, p. 37, note 3._) This he appears to have chosen as his favourite
place of residence, perhaps on account of the opportunity it afforded
him of indulging his Norman propensity for hunting; for the forest of
Morfe was close adjacent to it. Here he not only built a castle,[6]
but also built and endowed a Collegiate Church, and founded a borough.
All these however, the privileges of the borough, the garrison of
the castle, and the chief endowments of the church, his son Robert
de Belesme transferred to Bridgnorth. But the foundation of Quatford
Church is an historical event of so much interest, and is so intimately
connected with the early history of Bridgnorth, that it deserves more
than a passing reference.

[6] The remains of this castle were still standing when Leland visited
Shropshire, in the time of Henry VIII.—“Quatford is by S. E. from
Bridgnorth on Severne, where as yett appeare great Tokens of a Pyle
or Manour Place, longing that tyme to Robert de Belesme.”—_Leland’s
Itinerary, Vol. IV., pp. 103, 104._

The following is the substance of the narrative of the event given
by John Brompton, an ancient chronicler, who lived in the reign of
King John:—In the year 1082 Roger de Montgomery married his second
wife, Adelissa, daughter of Ebrard de Pusey, one of the chief nobles
of France. As she was sailing into England to join her husband, she
was overtaken by a dreadful tempest, from which the mariners thought
there could be no escape. In the midst of this furious storm one of
the ecclesiastics, who accompanied her, wearied with watching, fell
asleep; and in his sleep he dreamed that a female appeared to him, and
thus addressed him:—“If thy lady would wish to save herself, and her
attendants from the present danger of the sea, let her make a vow to
God, and faithfully promise to build a church in honour of the blessed
Mary Magdalene, on the spot where she may first happen to meet her
husband, the Earl, in England; especially where groweth a hollow oak,
and the wild swine have shelter.” The story goes on to state, that,
when he awoke from sleep, he communicated to his lady the particulars
of this singular dream, and that she at once made the prescribed vow.
The tempest soon calmed, and she and her attendants landed safely in
some port in England, from whence she immediately made her journey to
her husband’s estates in Shropshire; and just on the top of Quatford
hill, which was at that time in the outskirts of the Earl’s hunting
ground, and near a spot where an oak tree was growing, she met him,
engaged in his favorite pastime: and there at her request, in
fulfilment of her vow, he built a church and richly endowed it.[7]

[7] This narrative may possibly be somewhat tinctured with the
superstition which prevailed at the time; but there is no reason to
doubt the general truth of it. Mr. Eyton, to whom I am indebted for
my acquaintance with it, after giving the whole of the narrative in
detail, in Vol. 1, part 2, p. 107, of his Antiquities of Shropshire,
makes this comment on it:—“The whole of this narrative is credible in
itself, and minutely consistent with other ascertained facts; nor need
we take exception even to the Priest’s dream, for who knows not that
the feverish sleep of over fatigue will invest our hopes and anxieties
with some garb of life-like reality. Moreover this priest lived at a
time when priests were taught to believe in and to expect such special
revelations of the divine will.”

“Parts of this story nevertheless, require explanation; and the whole
of it must be tested by other facts and dates before we admit it to
that credence, which the details of a legend most seldom deserve.”

He has applied such tests, and has been fully satisfied with the result.

There are now on the high ground just above the church at Quatford,
several oaks whose gnarled and knotted trunks seem to have borne the
brunt of many centuries. They are evidently of a very ancient date. No
one can attentively observe them, without seeing that they must have
outlived several generations of men; and there can be but little doubt
that they are right in their conjecture, who suppose them to belong
to the original forest of Morfe. The supposition, that trees which
flourished in the time of William Rufus may be still standing, need not
be considered extravagant; for the history of the oak and yew tree[8]
in England furnishes many instances of equal longevity. “Among the
most remarkable of such trees,” says Mr. Wright, in his _History of
Ludlow_, p. 181, “in the neighbourhood of Ludlow, may be mentioned the
aged oak on the brow of the hill of Nonupton, or Nuns’ Upton, near the
village of Little Hereford, which was probably standing there previous
to the Conquest.... The tree is hollowed by decay, and its branches
mutilated by the effects of time.” An oak is at present growing in
Chepstowe Park, called the Parliamentary Oak, from the fact that Edward
I. convened his Parliament under it in 1290. Mr. Gilpin mentions a more
remarkable instance: “Close by the gate of the water walk at Magdalene
College, in Oxford, grew an oak, which perhaps stood a sapling when
Alfred founded the University. That period only includes nine hundred
years, no great age,” writes Mr. Gilpin, “for an oak. This oak could
almost produce historical evidence for its age. About five hundred
years after Alfred’s time, William of Wainfleet expressly ordered his
College to be founded near _the great oak_; and an oak could not well
be less than five hundred years old, to merit that title. In the summer
of 1788 it fell.” (_Gilpin’s Forest Scenery, Vol. 1, p. 141._) But a
much more ancient oak than even this a short time since was standing in
Stirling, one which there is reason to believe existed in the time of
the Druids, and which was so much decayed in the thirteenth century,
that William Wallace and several of his officers used to take shelter
at night in its hollow trunk. (_Forest Trees of Britain, by Rev. C.A.
Johns, pp. 80, 81._)

[8] There is a yew tree known to the writer, at present growing in the
church yard of Sampford Arundel, in the county of Somerset, but now
hollowed by age, respecting which there is certain evidence, that more
than a century has passed over it, without producing seemingly any
change whatever in its state of decay; it is now, to all appearance, as
it was more than a hundred years ago.

These facts are sufficient to show that it is by no means improbable,
that the oaks now standing in Quatford were originally trees in the
Forest of Morfe; if so, one of them may be the very tree which marked
out to the Countess Adelissa the spot, adjacent to which she was to
build the Church. Now among these oaks, one is of a very remarkable
character. Time has so completely decayed the middle part of the tree,
that the two portions of the trunk which remain have fallen asunder
one from the other, and thus appear at first sight as two separate and
distinct trees[9]—indeed, they are generally supposed to be so—but a
closer examination will disprove this. It will be noticed that the
bark is very much curled up, and if this could be unrolled, it would
be found to belong to a trunk, the circumference of which would include
the two parts now remaining.

[9] That a single tree may be so decayed by time as to be divided into
parts, and that these living parts may have the appearance of separate
trees, we have a remarkable proof in the famous chestnut on Mount Etna,
which was alive in the close of the last century.

Gilpin in his “Forest Scenery” has the following description of
it:—“It is still alive (1791), but it has lost much of its original
dignity. Many travellers take notice of it. Brydone was the last who
saw it. His account is dated about sixteen or seventeen years ago. It
hath the appearance of five distinct trees. The space within them, he
was assured, had been filled up with solid timber, where the whole
formed only one tree. The possibility of this he could not at first
conceive, for the five trees together contained a space of 204 feet in
diameter. At length he was convinced, not only by the testimony of the
country and the accurate examination of the Canon Recufero, a learned
naturalist in those parts, but by the appearance of the trees, none
of which had any bark on the inside. This chestnut is of such renown,
that Brydone tells us he had seen it marked in an old map of Sicily,
published an hundred years ago.”—(_B. 1., p. 135._)

[Illustration]

The above is a sketch of the tree in its present condition. Of course
it would be very absurd, as well as unwarrantable, to assert that
this is the hollow oak referred to in the narrative; but it is very
likely, from its appearance, that the tree has been hollow for very
many centuries; and this gives a degree of shadowy probability to
the conjecture, enough to invest the speculation with some amount of
interest.

The church which now tops the neighbouring hill is an object that
strikes every visitor of this district; and among the churches of
our native land there are few that rival it in beauty of situation.
But it is an object of great interest, not only on this account, but
also because it is, in some parts of the structure at least, the very
church which was built very nearly eight hundred years ago by Roger
de Montgomery, in ratification of his wife’s vow; and stands at this
distant day, a monument of the faithfulness of her promise. Those who
are skilled in archeological researches entertain no doubt, both from
its form and from the nature of the material used in its construction,
that a part of the chancel belongs to the ancient church of Quatford,
of the eleventh century.

It was a wild and unfrequented spot on which it stood when first
erected; but on the day of its consecration, this sequestered scene
was thronged with a vast concourse of people, and must have exhibited
a most imposing spectacle: for we learn from an ancient document,
that there assisted at the ceremony three Bishops, Woolstan, Bishop
of Worcester, then above eighty years of age; the Bishop of Hereford,
and the Bishop of Chester; six Archdeacons from neighbouring dioceses,
and other ecclesiastics; besides several nobles of high degree, each
with their accustomed attendants; and many officials and retainers of
the Earl of Shrewsbury. And when we remember the gorgeous manner in
which ceremonials of this kind were got up in the middle ages: when
knights and ecclesiastics, barons and prelates, each in his appropriate
costume, walked in solemn procession; when the pomp of heraldry and the
sacred insignia of the Church were united to do honor to the occasion,
we may judge what a striking and impressive scene was witnessed on the
day of the dedication of this church on the hill of Quatford. The Earl
richly endowed this church, constituted it a collegiate establishment,
built a castle[10] somewhere contiguous to it, and made a borough of
the surrounding district; but the borough, castle, and collegiate
establishment were soon after his death transferred to Bridgnorth; and
in this way the history of Quatford is connected with the early history
of our town.

[10] There is little doubt that this castle stood on the picturesque
rock which overhangs the Severn, near the Ferry. A few years since,
the late Mr. Smallman opened the trench which partly surrounds it, and
removed from it three hundred cart loads of rubbish; the whole of which
had evidently been thrown in from the inside, the strata lying in that
slanting direction; and underneath he found several Norman relics, and
fragments of the same stone of which the church was built; and as this
stone was brought from Gloucestershire, it affords a pretty plain proof
that the building of the church and castle were cotemporaneous.

We now come to consider more particularly the cause of this transfer,
and the building, fortifying, and garrisoning the Castle of Bridgnorth,
in the year A.D. 1102, by Robert de Belesme, the successor of Roger
first Earl of Shrewsbury. This nobleman was of a most restless and
ambitious spirit, and immediately after the death of William II.
entered into a confederacy with other Normans to dethrone Henry I,
and to set up his brother Robert Duke of Normandy in his stead, who
landed in England in order to further their undertaking. The scheme
was defeated by the promptitude and sagacity of the king, who came
to an accommodation with his brother, and induced him to return to
Normandy; and then he turned his hand against the chief conspirators.
After citing Robert de Belesme to appear before him, he publicly
proclaimed him an outlaw, and proceeded against him as such; first
laying siege to his castle at Arundel in Sussex. Meanwhile Belesme
had not been idle, but had set about building and fortifying a castle
in Bridgnorth.[11] He considered our hill rising in the midst of the
valley of the Severn, and strongly fortified on most sides by natural
defences, and commanding the adjacent country, as a fine military
position, entrenched within which, he might for a long time, at least
till succour was sent him by the confederates, hold out against the
royal forces. He therefore engaged in this work with great vigour, and
accomplished it with incredible speed. He had indeed no time to lose;
but he completed the work in less than a year, before the king could
disengage himself from his other enterprises, so as to allow of his
following him to Bridgnorth. Florence of Worcester, in his Chronicle,
states that he hastened the completion of this work, carrying it on
night and day, and that he excited the Welshmen, who were in subjection
to him, to the more faithful and speedy performance of his wishes, by
awarding to them with a liberal hand, honours, lands, horses, asses,
and all sorts of gifts. (_p. 324_, A. D. 1803, _English Translation_.)
When we consider the strength of the Castle, and the solidity of its
structure, it is quite marvellous that it could have been raised and
fortified within so short a space of time. We may judge of the solid
character of the building, by the only fragment which now remains of
it, which is of the most massive kind of masonry.

[11] Appendix B.

It is difficult at this time to ascertain the exact dimensions of the
castle; but this description of it by Leland, an antiquary of the time
of Henry VIII, may give us some conception of what it was originally.
“The Castle standeth on the south part of the town, and is fortified
by east with the profound valley instead of a ditch. The walls of
it be of great height. There were two or three stronge wardes in the
castle, that now goe totally to ruine. I count the castle to be more in
compasse than a third part of the town. There is one mighty gate by the
north of it, now stopped up; and a little postern made by force thereby
through the wall, to enter into the castle. The castle ground, and
especially the base court, hath many dwelling houses of timber in it,
newly erected.” It occupied, no doubt, a large portion of what is now
called the Castle Hill; but its outworks and walls must have extended
much farther. It is very likely that the gully, which now forms the
passage of the Stony Way, was originally an artificial fosse or ditch,
made for its defence in that direction. It is also in the memory of
many, that there stood, on or near the site of the new Town Hall, a
part of an ancient arch, which was evidently connected with the old
castle, and perhaps formed its northern gateway, or the smaller postern
which Leland mentions: so that its extent must have been considerable,
and its different appendages have occupied a large space of ground.

[Illustration]

The above is a representation of the arch referred to, as it stood some
years ago, and I believe very faithfully portrays it.

But nothing perhaps can give us a truer notion of the extent of the
Castle of Bridgnorth, and of the magnitude of the building, than the
great sums of money which were from time to time expended on its
repair. We may thus judge of the cost of its first erection. There are
existing documents, which shew that from the reign of Henry II. to
that of Henry III., there was a sum of money laid out in additions and
repairs, amounting to more than £14,000 of modern currency.

It must indeed have been a most noble structure; and standing on such
a commanding eminence, overlooking the course of the Severn in both
directions, must have been almost without its equal. The traveller,
as he came suddenly on the view of it from the Hermitage Hill, must
have been struck with the beauty of the scene, in which it formed so
prominent an object; and an enemy approaching it, from almost any
quarter, might well be daunted by the remarkable strength of its
position. One cannot but deeply regret the unnecessary and wanton
demolition of it by the Parliamentary forces, in the Civil Wars. Had
the ruthless soldiers of Cromwell been contented with dismantling it
and taking away its defences, and reducing it as a fortress, it would
still, crowning the hill, have formed, in its dismantled condition,
one of the most picturesque ruins in England, and made our town a
centre of attraction to the lovers of antiquity. The sole remaining
fragment of this noble castle is indeed one of the curiosities of
Bridgnorth, for, like the leaning tower of Pisa, it is considerably
out of the perpendicular; but the chief interest belonging to it, is
its being the last relic of the famous feudal fortress of Robert de
Belesme, and its having been not only a military garrison, but also a
royal residence at several eventful periods of English history.

After Belesme had with such astonishing dispatch built and fortified
this castle, he garrisoned it with stipendiary soldiers, and placed
it under the command of Roger, son of Corbat; but he himself, on the
approach of the King, retired to Shrewsbury, where he prepared to
make a vigorous resistance. The King advanced on Bridgnorth, and laid
siege to the castle. It is plain, from the numerous forces which he
collected on the occasion, that he considered this enterprise one of
some difficulty. The Saxon chronicle states that “he went _with all
his army_ to Bridgnorth, and resided there till he had the Castle.”
(_English Translation, p. 146._) And Florence, of Worcester, records
the same event in these words: “he himself besieged Bridgnorth, with
_the army of nearly all England_.” Even if we take these words in
a qualified sense, they shew what vast preparations the King made
for this siege, and what a large military array the fields around
Bridgnorth must have exhibited on this occasion: nearly all the
forces which the sovereign could assemble—legions of Norman and Saxon
soldiers—hosts of infantry, horsemen, spearmen, and archers—accompanied
by siege trains, such as were then in use—led on also by gallant
knights, the flower of England’s chivalry—and animated by the presence
of the King himself. The little garrison within the Castle, when they
looked down from their walls on this formidable host, as they were
crossing the Severn, or winding their way beneath the base of the hill,
must have felt great confidence in the strength of their position,
not to have been ready to surrender on the first summons. But they
held out for three weeks, when an incident occurred which for a while
interrupted the siege.

The nobles who followed the King were unwilling that he should crush
so powerful a feudal Lord as Belesme, lest the regal power over the
vassal nobility might become excessive. On a day, therefore, when the
siege had made some progress, they held a meeting, in a field where
the royal army was encamped, and advancing to the King, proposed
that he should offer terms of accommodation to the Earl. But their
purpose had transpired, and the country gentlemen of Shropshire,
manifesting a spirit of loyalty, which happily has been transmitted
to their descendants, assembled on one of the hills which surrounded
the King’s camp, to the number of three thousand, and lifting up their
voice, as the old chronicler relates, exclaimed, “Sir King, regard not
what these traitors say: remember the repeated treason of this your
enemy—how often he has conspired against your life—and lay not aside
your purpose: storm the town. We will support you, and never leave
you till your foe is brought alive or dead to your feet.” Encouraged
by their loyalty, the King at once adopted vigorous measures, which
succeeded. He summoned Corbat and the other governors before him, and
swore, in the presence of his court, that if within three days they
did not surrender the castle, he would hang the whole of the garrison.
These threats had the desired effect. The garrison agreed to surrender:
they shut up the stipendiaries in one part of the castle, and opened
their gates to the King, who entered amid the acclamations of the
townspeople. Soon after the capture of the castle, the King set out for
Shrewsbury, in pursuit of Robert de Belesme; and having surmounted the
dangerous pass, as it was then considered, of Wenlock Edge, and cut his
way through the entangling forest which lay at its base, he laid siege
to Shrewsbury. But Belesme, alarmed at the bold and energetic movements
of the King, surrendered himself to his mercy.[12] His life was spared;
but he was banished to Normandy, and all his English estates became
forfeit to the crown. His history was afterwards marked by many
disasters, and at length he died in a prison at Warham Castle, where he
had languished some years in miserable captivity. Such was the wretched
issue of treachery and rebellion—such the bitter fruits of “vaulting
ambition”—such the consequence of setting aside that divine principle,
which is alike the safeguard of personal peace, as well as of public
tranquillity, “Fear God, honor the King.”

[12] “However odious Robert had now become; though his turbulent
and vindictive character had left him but few friends, the scene
which followed must have been affecting to those who could reflect,
if such there were, on the instability of human grandeur. On the
King’s approach to Shrewsbury, the Earl quitted the town, perhaps
for the last time; bearing himself the keys of the gates, he threw
himself at the Victor’s feet, acknowledging his treason, and sued for
mercy.”—_Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, Vol. 1, pp. 58-9._

The castle of Bridgnorth, after its surrender, became one of the
Royal Castles of England, and was occasionally made the residence of
Henry I. This is ascertained from the fact of some charters, granted
by him, being dated at “Brug”—Bridgnorth—and also from the Sheriff
of the County, by the King’s order, sending a quantity of wine into
the castle—a circumstance which was anticipatory of a royal visit.
(_Eyton’s Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1., pp. 246-7._)

But after an interval of about sixty years, Bridgnorth Castle sustained
a second siege, in the reign of Henry II, conducted by the King in
person. It was at this time in the possession of Hugh de Mortimer, one
of the adherents of the late usurper, King Stephen. On the accession
of the new monarch, he caballed against him, and having fortified his
three Castles of Wigmore, Cleobury, and Bridgnorth, prepared to bid
defiance to the royal arms. The Castle of Cleobury was soon taken
and destroyed, but the Castle of Bridgnorth held out for more than
two months, when it was compelled to surrender to the besiegers. Two
circumstances are connected with the narrative of this siege, which are
not without interest. Some charters were granted by the King while the
siege was carrying on, the subscribing names of the witnesses to which
shew that Henry on this occasion was attended by many persons of high
rank, both civil and ecclesiastical. Among these appears the name of
one, who is as conspicuous in the annals of English history as perhaps
any other individual, and who by his ambitious pretensions, seconded
by abilities of a very high order, and a dauntless spirit, disturbed
the reign of Henry II. more than all his foreign enemies, and for the
murder of whom the King was obliged to perform the most humiliating
penance at his tomb—the famous Thomas á Becket. A charter granted to
Stoneleigh Abbey, and dated, “Apud Brugiam in obsidione”—at Bridgnorth
during the siege—is signed by Thomas á Becket, as one of the witnesses;
(_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, pp. 249-50_) so that if any of
our townsmen should make a pilgrimage of curiosity to his shrine at
Canterbury, it may add somewhat to its interest to know, that this
renowned ecclesiastic was present with the royal forces at Bridgnorth,
during the second investment of the Castle.

The other circumstance to which I refer is an act of devoted loyalty
on the part of one of King Henry’s attendants, which is said to have
taken place at this siege. While the King was directing the operations
of the assault, one of the garrison from the walls of the castle
aimed an arrow at him. The shaft sprung from the bow, and was so well
directed, that it would have pierced the breast of the King, had not a
Knight,[13] observing the danger, and seeing no other mode of averting
it, immediately stepped before the King, and received the arrow in his
own body, and died at the feet of his sovereign:[14] an instance of
generous valour, which is not without its parallel in modern history. I
refer to an incident which took place at the battle of Ferozeshaw, in
India, about ten years since. The Commander-in-chief, the noble hearted
Lord Gough, seeing a part of his line stagger under the fire of the
enemy, bethought him if he could direct even a portion of the cannonade
for a few moments to another point, the crisis of the battle would be
passed. He forthwith rode forward, attended by a single aid-de-camp,
and making himself prominently conspicuous to the Sikh gunners,
moved slowly to one side, as if for the purpose of reconnoitering the
entrenchments close at hand. In an instant almost every gun in the
battery was turned upon him. The shot ploughed up the dust about him,
so as well nigh to hide both himself and his horse from the enemy’s
view, yet not one took effect; and so complete was the diversion, that
the line of infantry felt as if relieved, and with a shout sprang
forward. The next moment saw the redoubt, with all the artillery which
it contained, in their possession. (_Quarterly Review, No._ CLV, _p.
205_) The heart of this British General at the battle of Ferozeshaw,
and of the Norman Knight at the siege of Bridgnorth, were animated with
the same spirit of dauntless gallantry. They were both cast in the same
mould of ancient chivalry.

[13] It is generally supposed that this Knight was Hugh de St. Clare;
but Mr. Eyton proves that it could not have been he, if the transaction
took place at the second siege of Bridgnorth Castle, as his death did
not occur till after that date.—_Vol 1, p. 248, note 19._

[14] It is very remarkable that King Henry II. was saved from death
on another occasion by a singular accident, as he was entering the
town of Limeoges, in Normandy. “From the Castle,” Daniel narrates, “is
shot a barbed arrow, which had tooke him directly in the brest, had
not his horse, by the sudden lifting up his head, received it in his
forehead.”—_Collection of the Historie of England, p. 91._

There are no public documents, I believe, of much interest, which
refer to Bridgnorth during the reign of Richard I; but there are very
frequent notices of it in the reign of his successor King John. He
visited the town on several occasions. It has been observed respecting
this king, that nothing could show more plainly the unsettled state
of the realm of England during his reign than his moving about so
continually, as he did, from one part of the kingdom to another; for
during the whole of the eighteen years of his reign he scarcely ever
remained more than a few days in one place. (_Wyld’s History of Ludlow,
p. 134._)

The frequent disturbances which occurred on the Welsh borders drew
him into Shropshire, and it was on these occasions that he visited
Bridgnorth. He was here, for instance, in the year 1200; and again
four years afterwards. On the latter occasion he was attended by a
splendid retinue. There were in his train the Bishops of Lincoln and
of Hereford—the Earls of Essex, Pembroke, Chester, Salisbury, Warren,
Lancaster, Warwick, and Hereford: also the Provost of Beverley, and
Hugh de Nevil, and William Briwere; and it may give us some idea of
the extent of Bridgnorth Castle in those days, that it could afford
accommodation not only to the King and his immediate attendants, but to
so large a train of noblemen and knights, and lodge within its walls
the retainers of so numerous a Court. King John had not at this,
or at any other period of his reign, much occasion for holding high
festivities, yet it appears that he indulged in them at this visit to
Bridgnorth Castle; for although the visit lasted but three days it cost
the King, what in our currency would amount to £2000. There is a writ
extant, dated 1204, by which the King orders his treasurer to pay back
that sum to the Sheriff of the County, for expenses incurred during his
visit at Bridgnorth.—(_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 265._)

He was again at Bridgnorth in the month of August, 1212—a very
calamitous period of his reign—when the kingdom was placed under
the Papal Interdict, and his subjects absolved from their oath of
allegiance; and the extraordinary rapidity of his movements in
various directions at this time—almost incredible if it were not
fully authenticated—shews the restless anxiety of his mind under the
embarrassing circumstances in which he was placed. For instance, in the
month of May he was in Hampshire; two months later, we find him at
Bristol, July 26th; on the 27th, at Devizes, in Wiltshire; on the 29th,
at Winchester; at Marlborough on the same day; at Tewkesbury on the
day following; the next day at Worcester; the next day at Bridgnorth;
in the heart of Powis land on the 2nd, where he stormed and levelled
to the ground the famous Castle of Mathraval; and then back again to
Bridgnorth. These expeditious movements and energetic exploits of King
John shewed that he inherited some of the vigour which characterized
the noble race of the Plantagenets, to which he belonged, though
usually this native energy was kept in abeyance, probably by an almost
unceasing consciousness of crime. (_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1,
pp. 268-9._)

In this hurried journey of the King from Worcester to the Welch
borders, through Bridgnorth, it is curious to notice the variety of
things which he thought it necessary to have conveyed with him, most
of which, however, he was obliged to leave behind him in Bridgnorth
Castle. First it is mentioned, that the sumpter horse, which carried
the King’s bed on this occasion, failed, and not being able to
proceed further, was left here. Also there were in his train two
valets—grooms of his bed chamber, with their horses and attendants—the
King’s falconer, with his hawks—and two carters and four sumpterers,
who carried the King’s wardrobe. All these accompanied his march no
further. It also appears that some coffers, containing certain sacred
relics, which accompanied the Court on all ordinary journeys, were left
at Bridgnorth on this occasion. One certainly would not have thought
it at all likely, that the King on this important expedition—pursuing
his Welch enemies in such eager chase—would have provided himself
before setting out with means for engaging in the less warlike sport of
hawking; or that he would have thought of any kind of pastime, when he
had such weighty business on hand. And when his sumpter men and horses,
so well laden, halted at Bridgnorth, it must have somewhat astonished
the loyal people of the town, to see such large appliances and means
for the King’s amusement, under the perilous circumstances of the
times.

It was more however in character with this King, that he should
have brought along with him in his march the religious relics above
referred to; and that he should have given directions for them to be
treated with superstitious reverence. A document is extant, which
shews that over these, during the three days that they remained at
Bridgnorth, wax candles were burnt at the King’s expense.—(_Antiquities
of Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 269._) In King John, as in the case of many
others, there was a strange combination of the most immoral principles,
nay, of the most criminal passions, with the strictest regard to
superstitious observances. At the very time that he was pursuing a
course of wickedness, which made his name hateful to his subjects, he
was practising severe austerities on himself, which he would not allow
himself to omit, without making atonement for the neglect,[15] and
going through a round of rites and ceremonies, with all the zeal of an
earnest devotee. It was but a short time after his visit to Bridgnorth,
where he had observed this childish ceremony of illuminating these
relics with wax candles—supposing he was thereby offering to God
acceptable service—that he committed that merciless act of cruelty in
the town of Nottingham, of sentencing to death thirty-two of the Welch
hostages, which had been delivered him at the late peace; and such an
eager desire for vengeance did he manifest on the occasion, that he
would not taste of food till he was assured that the bloody deed was
done.

[15] One of the days on which King John was at Bridgnorth happened
to be a fast day, notwithstanding which, he, being wearied most
probably with his incessant marches, ate twice; for which supposed
offence he atoned by feeding a hundred paupers with bread, fish,
and beer.—(_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 269._) His
scrupulosity in this matter is the more remarkable from the fact,
that however important the scriptural exercise of fasting may be on
certain occasions, yet it has always been dispensed with under the
circumstances in which John was then placed—viz: taking a fatiguing
journey.—(_Bishop Taylor’s Works, Vol. 3, p. 170._)

King John was again at Bridgnorth, two months after the memorable event
of his signing _Magna Charta_. This great constitutional charter of
England’s liberties the Barons had compelled the King to grant; but the
faithless monarch no sooner thought that he could do so with impunity,
than he revoked it; the Pope acting as an accomplice of his perfidy,
by absolving him from his oath. This threw the kingdom into a state
of universal confusion, and civil war raged from one end of it to the
other. It was about this time that the Burgesses of Bridgnorth began to
fortify their town with a wooden rampart, (a caution suggested no doubt
by the troubles of the time) and a large allowance of timber from the
Forest of Morfe was made to them for that purpose.[16] Historians give
a dreadful picture of the state of the nation at this period. The King
having levied a band of mercenaries, commenced hostilities against his
own subjects, and marching through the whole extent of his kingdom laid
waste the provinces on each side of him, and by fire and sword made as
wide a devastation in England as if it had been an enemy’s country.
It was towards the close of this destructive progress, and about two
months before his death, that King John visited Bridgnorth for the last
time. During his short stay of two days he issued several charters,
and then proceeded to Worcester, afterwards to Gloucester, and from
thence to Newark; where—either from the pressure of extreme fatigue, or
great anxiety of mind, or as some naturally enough suppose, from the
effects of poison—this unhappy monarch died, and “freed his kingdom,”
as the historian well observes, “from the dangers to which it was
equally exposed, by his success, or by his misfortune.” [_Hume, Vol. 2,
p. 92._]

[16] Appendix C.

In the reign of his son and successor Henry III., Bridgnorth was as
frequently honored by a royal visit, as it had been in the previous
reign. Henry III. had frequent occasion to come into Shropshire, on
account of the dispute which had arisen between him and Llewelyn,
Prince of Wales: sometimes for the purpose of entering into negotiations
with him, and sometimes for the purpose of repelling his incursions
by force of arms. It was on one of these occasions, September 1st,
1226, that the King, who had just left Bridgnorth, issued a royal
edict at Kidderminster—one not of any historic interest, but of great
local value; and one which the people of Bridgnorth, and of the
neighbourhood, are glad at this day to take advantage of—viz: an edict
which established St. Luke’s Fair in this borough. It ran in these
words, “The King grants, till he come of age, that the men of Bruges
may have an annual fair, to last for three days—viz: the vigil, the
day, and the morrow of St. Luke the Evangelist.”—[_Antiquities of
Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 302._] So that those who assemble at this annual
mart of butter and cheese, to make their purchases for the winter, may
bear in mind that they do so in virtue of a royal edict passed in the
thirteenth century, and that the fair which they keep is consequently
of more than six hundred years standing.

In the month of April of the following year, 1227, King Henry renewed
to the Burgesses of Bridgnorth the Charter[17] which had passed
the Great Seal in the previous reign; but on the 20th of June in
the same year, he granted them a totally new one, which differed
from the original charter principally in this, that it conferred
on the Corporation the fee-farm of Pendlestone Mills, or, as they
are now called, “The Town’s Mills.” The clause in the charter
which made over this property to the Corporation of Bridgnorth, is
as follows:—“Moreover we have granted to our aforesaid Burgesses,
that they and their heirs may hold in fee-farm for ever our Mill at
Pendlestone, without the town of Bruges, upon the river Wurgh, with
suit of the town of Bruges, and all other its appurtenances; rendering
therefore to us and to our heirs yearly, by their own hand, at our
Exchequer £10—viz: at the feast of St. Michael, one hundred shillings,
and at Easter, one hundred shillings.”—[_Antiquities of Shropshire,
Vol. 1, p. 303._] In virtue of this clause in the ancient charter
of Henry III, the Town’s Mills are the property of the Borough, the
Corporation being the Landlords of them, and the custom of paying a
yearly rent to the Crown is still continued.

[17] Appendix D.

In the year 1265 Bridgnorth was visited by King Henry, and his
gallant son Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I, on a very memorable
occasion, and one connected with events of such historic interest that
it deserves particular notice. The reign of Henry III was greatly
disturbed by the rebellious proceedings of Simon de Montfort, son of a
well known Italian nobleman of that name, who had rendered himself so
famous by his cruel crusades against the Albigenses. Simon de Montfort,
the younger, came into England to take possession of the estates, which
his father had left him, about the middle of Henry’s reign, and he
was graciously received by the King; but although the King shewed him
many favors, and united him in marriage to one of the royal family,
he soon raised a rebellion against him, and threw the kingdom into
the same state of miserable confusion, which prevailed during the
previous reign. In a successful battle, which he fought at Lewes, he
got possession of the persons of the King and Prince Edward, and in
consequence became virtually master of the whole realm. But during
this eclipse of the King’s fortunes Shropshire faithfully adhered to
the royal cause, and maintained throughout this disastrous period its
character for loyalty.

Among the Barons, who proved their fidelity to the King’s declining
cause, the Constable of Bridgnorth, Hamo de Strange, was pre-eminent.
He held the Castle in spite of de Montfort’s imperious summons to
surrender; and though repeatedly commanded by the usurper in the
King’s name to yield, and to leave the kingdom, he bade defiance to
the mandate, and bravely maintained his post, till the great victory
at Evesham over the rebels restored the monarchy.—[_Antiquities of
Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 285._] In this famous battle Prince Edward, who
had a short time before escaped from the hands of de Montfort, led the
army of the Royalists, and by his consummate military skill, as well
as by his signal valour, completely routed the rebels. De Montfort,
their leader, observing the skilful disposition of the Prince’s forces,
is reported to have exclaimed, in utter despair of the fortunes of
the day, “The Lord have mercy on our souls, for I see our bodies
are the Prince’s.” These gloomy forebodings were fully verified. In
the fierce encounter, which ensued, De Montfort was slain with his
eldest son, and about a hundred and sixty knights, and many other
gentlemen of his party, and his army put completely to the rout, so
that the Prince was left undisputed master of the field. It was not
long after this memorable action, that the people of Bridgnorth, and
their loyal constable, had the high honor of receiving into their town
the King, the Queen, the gallant Prince, and other members of the
royal household. It appears from some ancient documents, that great
preparations were made for their reception on this occasion; and that
the grand victory of Evesham, which brought about the restoration
of the Monarchy, and the overthrow of a tyrannical usurpation, was
celebrated within our Castle walls with festive rejoicings.—[_p. 258._]
It also appears that the loyalty of the Burgesses during the season
of the adverse fortunes of the King, and the losses which they had
incurred in consequence, did not pass unnoticed. The King liberally
rewarded them. The official papers which attest this, allege as the
reason for the royal bounty “the losses which they [the Burgesses of
Bridgnorth] had sustained in the time when the kingdom was disturbed,
and because they faithfully adhered to the King, and to Edward, his
son, in the time aforesaid.”—[_p. 309._]

The wise and energetic measures, which Edward adopted, when he
succeeded to the throne, put an end to the civil dissensions by which
the kingdom had been so long distracted; and this circumstance, as well
as his having finally annexed the Principality of Wales to the British
crown, prevented the necessity of his making those military expeditions
into the border counties, which had been so customary in the reigns of
his predecessors. But Edward II. proved as feeble as his father had
been vigorous in his government of the kingdom, and the consequence
was, that in a short time after his accession the realm was disturbed
by a renewal of intestine feuds, and rebellion soon raged from one end
of the kingdom to the other. A second confederacy of the Barons against
the king, which was formed for the purpose of enforcing on him the
banishment of his favorites, the Despencers, took place in the year
1321, and this brought about another siege of Bridgnorth Castle.

The circumstances which led to it were these:—The Earl of Baddlesmere,
who owed all his honors, and the largest part of his ample estates
to the bounty of the king, joined the factious Barons in their
rebellion, and, adding insolence to ingratitude, proceeded so far as to
countenance a great affront offered to the queen. She having occasion
to pass his Castle of Leeds, in Kent, desired a night’s lodgings within
its walls, and was refused admittance, and some of her attendants
were wantonly killed before the gate. Edward shewed more promptitude
and energy in revenging this wrong, than in any other action of his
reign. He marched immediately with some forces to Leeds Castle, which
he took, and executed the governor, and having secured Baddlesmere’s
treasures, pursued him to his estates in Wiltshire, and from thence,
after a while, to his estates near Shiffnal. The confederate Barons,
taking alarm at the victorious progress of the King, assembled their
forces to besiege Bridgnorth. They burnt part of the town and took the
Castle, in the hope, that being masters of this important post, they
would be able to check the further advance of the royal army. But they
did not long keep possession of it. The King came here in person at the
head of his army, and after a brief siege retook the fortress from the
rebels, and from thence marched in triumph to Shrewsbury, where the
Burgesses, to grace the triumph of their sovereign, came forth to meet
him, clad in armour, and where the chiefs of the insurgent Barons, the
two Mortimers, were obliged, as humble supplicants at his feet, to sue
for mercy.

Five years after the date of this triumph the King was here again, but
under very different circumstances. The aspect of his fortunes had
become completely clouded, and the hopes, that had flushed his breast
as he crossed the Severn in pursuit of his discomfited enemies, were
exchanged for bitter disappointment and anxious forebodings; and he
entered our Castle on this occasion, not as a victorious general, or an
acknowledged king, but as a fugitive and an outlaw, on whose devoted
head a price was set. His faithless Queen, who added political treason
to private criminality, had joined in a conspiracy with Mortimer and
other disaffected Barons, and had summoned a parliament for the purpose
of deposing her husband. The act of deposition was easily passed. The
king was virtually dethroned, and feeling, as well he might, that his
life was in jeopardy, he anxiously looked out for some place of refuge,
where he might remain in safety till his friends brought him succour;
and judging from its position and its strong natural defences, that
Bridgnorth Castle would afford him a secure retreat, he took refuge
in it. This circumstance is recorded by an ancient historian,[18]
who mentions that in this dangerous crisis of his affairs, when he
had reason to dread personal violence from his enemies, the unhappy
monarch resolved to betake himself to some well fortified place, where
he might be safe till his friends should send him succour; and that
he chose Bridgnorth as admirably adapted to the purpose. Therefore,
after nightfall, he left his place of concealment, wherever that may
have been, and entered into a small boat with a few of his attendants,
and having crossed the Severn took refuge in our Castle. How long
our loyal fortress shielded him from the conspirators is not known;
but, after a time, they discovered his retreat, and dragged him from
it—took him prisoner first to Kenilworth, thence to Berkley Castle, in
Gloucestershire. The sequel is well known to every reader of English
history. After suffering from those, in whose custody he was placed,
every kind of indignity and insult which their malice could heap on
him, he died under the hands of merciless assassins, whom they hired to
despatch him, a death of extreme torture.

[18] Cum ad extremum omnia timeret, nec quicquam tam calamitosum
putaret quod non in suam fortunam cadere posse videretur, statuit in
locum aliquem munitum se abdere, ibidemque expectare, dum amici opera
et armis juvarent: itaque noctu cum paucis suorum per Sabrinam noviculo
vectus ad oppidum Brygnorthum in arcem, quæ ibidem egregie posita est,
clam recepit. _Polydore Virgil._ _Lib._ XVIII, _p. 357_.

Such was the catastrophe which closed the reign of Edward II.—a
reign so signalized by troubles, and so saddened by the personal
sorrows of the sovereign, as well as by public calamities, that the
affecting words, which Shakspeare has put into the mouth of one who
after a short time was the successor both of his honors and of his
misfortunes, might well have been adopted by Edward as his own:—

    “In Winter’s tedious nights sit by the fire
     With good old folks, and let them tell thee tales
     Of woeful ages long ago betid;
     And ere thou bid good night to quit their grief,
     Tell thou the lamentable fall of me,
     And send the hearers weeping to their beds.”
              _Richard II._, _Act_ V., _Scene 1_.

It must add to the interest with which we regard the remaining ruin of
our Castle, to reflect that when its walls and battlements were still
standing, it afforded shelter to the unhappy Edward in his hour of
need; and that Bridgnorth was the last place in his realm, where he
received the homage due to royalty, even in ruins.




ANCIENT ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.


It is now time to turn the attention of the reader to the Churches,
and other ecclesiastical establishments, which existed in former times
in the Borough of Bridgnorth. They were of great antiquity. The most
ancient of them was

[Illustration: The Church of Saint Mary Magdalene.[19]]

[19] The above sketch of the old Church of Saint Mary Magdalene is
taken from a print in the Taylor’s Buildings, Oxford.

This Church originally stood within the walls of the Castle, and was
a Collegiate Church, the members of which were five Prebendaries and
a Dean. “The which Deanery and Prebends,” to quote the words of John
Brompton, “the King indeed conferreth of his own right and custom;
although in nearly all other Collegiate Chapels the Deans, being
installed by the Sheriff at the King’s collation, and inducted into
corporal possession of the Deaneries, confer all Prebends in the same
Chapels, and install, induct, and visit the Prebendaries. But in the
aforesaid Chapel of Saint Mary Magdalene, the Dean confers no Prebend,
nor visits Prebend or Prebendary; but each in the corps of his own
Prebend, hath and exerciseth plenary jurisdiction, as well in things
spiritual, as in things temporal;” so that it was in an especial sense
a Royal Chapel; and the whole ecclesiastical district connected with
it, and subject to its Prebendaries, bore the title, which it still
retains, of _The Royal Peculiar and Exempt Jurisdiction of the Deanery
of Bridgnorth_. It was first founded, as has been already noticed,
at Quatford, and from thence transferred, with all its rights and
privileges, and the chief part of its endowments, to Bridgnorth, in the
latter part of the reign of William Rufus, or early in the reign of
his successor; so that it is a very ancient foundation—nearly seven
hundred and fifty years old.

The privileges connected with it were considered very important, and
were guarded with the strictest jealousy from all encroachments, not
only by the members of the chapter, but by the Crown. So much was
this the case, that in the year 1241, when some delegates of the Pope
attempted to levy contributions in the Deanery of Bridgnorth, as well
as elsewhere, for the See of Rome, they were opposed, as interfering
with the prerogatives of the Royal Peculiar; and this opposition the
Pope himself was obliged to sanction and ratify; for on the complaint
of the King, he issued two Bulls at Lyons, in which he recognises
the rights of the King’s free Chapel at Bridgnorth, and forbids all
attempts made to levy procurations from it.

The Deanery of Bridgnorth at this time was held by Peter de Rivallis,
of whom (although his course reflected no honor on his sacred calling)
it may be well to take a passing notice, inasmuch as his name stands
connected, not only with the early history of Bridgnorth, as being
Dean of the Peculiar, but with some of the important events in the
reign of Henry III. Peter de Rivallis was born at Poictou, and through
the influence of his uncle, the Bishop of Winchester, was introduced
into the English court, and was made Treasurer of the Chamber in the
King’s Household. He soon became a great favorite with his master, who
invested him, notwithstanding his clerical calling, with all the Royal
Castles in Shropshire. The confidence placed in him was unbounded, and
the favors heaped upon him almost without a parallel; for while he was
Dean of Bridgnorth and Constable of the Castle, a grant was made to
him of the Shrievalties of Shropshire and Staffordshire for life; also
of the counties of York, Berks, Gloucester, Somerset, Dorset, Devon,
Lancaster, Northumberland, Essex, Hants, Lincoln, Norfolk, Suffolk, and
Kent. These, and such like favors, profusely heaped upon his foreign
courtiers, tended to alienate the minds of his English subjects from
the King, and were specially resisted by Richard Marshall, Earl of
Pembroke. He and other English nobles entered into a confederacy with
Llewelin, Prince of Wales, and laid waste the county of Salop to a
considerable extent; and carrying their forage as far as the gates
of Shrewsbury, pillaged and burnt part of the town. This illustrious
nobleman who is called by ancient historians “the flower of chivalry,”
and who was more than a match for his enemies in the field, was at last
cut off by a base act of treachery, in which the Dean of Bridgnorth
bore the chief part. He, with others, forged a letter, as if sanctioned
by the King, and sent it to Ireland, announcing the forfeiture of the
Earl’s Irish estates, and promising a partition of them amongst those
who would arrest his person. This document however was not sufficient
to satisfy the Irish nobles, and they dispatched messengers, requiring
the King’s sealed charter on the subject. Peter de Rivallis forged the
required document, and attached the great seal to it; and the plan
completely succeeded. The Earl’s Irish possessions were invaded; in
consequence of which he crossed the Channel in order to protect them,
but in a skirmish, after having manfully maintained his ground against
fearful odds, he fell mortally wounded; and died in the hands of his
enemies, subjected in his last moments to every species of cruelty and
insult.

For this murder of the noble Earl of Pembroke (for it was nothing
less) the Dean of Bridgnorth was arraigned before the King and his
Justiciaries. He appeared on this occasion strangely habited for an
ecclesiastical dignitary; for he wore a corslet underneath his clerical
garment, and had a dagger suspended from his girdle, and appeared half
soldier, half priest. The King, assuming an appearance of anger which
he did not feel, for he secretly rejoiced at the death of the Earl,
accosted the Dean in very furious language, calling him a traitor, and
accusing him of having entered into plots which had brought damage and
disgrace on his kingdom. The Dean was sentenced to be committed to the
Tower; and when he pleaded his clerical orders, as a reason why he
should not be given up to the custody of a layman, the King answered,
reasonably enough, that he had always demeaned himself as a layman, and
as a layman he was now required to give an account of his stewardship:
and forthwith gave orders that all his lay possessions should be
confiscated.[20] His name certainly confers no honor on the Royal
Peculiar of Bridgnorth, of which he was Dean; but I thought it well to
give this brief sketch of his history, as reflecting the manners of
the age in which he lived, and as shewing in a very striking way the
miserable condition in which the Church was sunk at that period. It was
not then as it was afterwards, in Puritan times, when, according to the
lively author of _Hudibras_,

[20] This account of Peter de Rivallis, given by Mr. Eyton (in his
_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, pp. 330, 334_), is collected from
the historian, Matthew Paris.

    “The pulpit, drum ecclesiastic,
     Was beat with fist, instead of a stick.”

Sharper and more formidable weapons were wielded in those days by men
in holy orders, and wielded at times to some purpose. It was doubtless
a sad perversion of the right order of things, when soldiers in
Cromwell’s army took upon them the office of divines; but it was a far
worse perversion, when divines became soldiers—when the tonsure was
covered with a plumed helm—when Bishops and Deans, like this famed Dean
of Bridgnorth, hid a coat of mail underneath their cassock, and wore
a dagger at their girdle—when Dignitaries of the highest rank, as was
not seldom the case, led out armies to the field, and, sword in hand,
mingled in the thickest of the fight.

But the case above referred to, of Peter de Rivallis, is not the only
one, which affords evidence of the existence of such a state of things,
in early times, in the Deanery of Bridgnorth. In the reign of Edward
III, one Henry De Harley, upon a false report of the death of the Dean,
Thomas de Eyton, obtained a grant of the Deanery from the king. Thomas
de Eyton however making his appearance some time afterwards in the
King’s presence, the grant to De Harley was of course withdrawn, and a
special mandate given for restoring the rightful Dean. But the ejected
Dignitary, not willing to resign the benefice so easily, flew to arms,
resolved to support his claim at any cost. His opponent was equally
vigorous in the measures which he adopted for the establishment of his
rights. They both raised a body of armed men, in order to decide the
matter in dispute by the sword; nor was the unseemly strife put an end
to, but by the interposition of the sovereign. (_Dukes’ Antiquities of
Shropshire, p. 49._)

But about this time there was one connected with the Collegiate Church
of Saint Mary Magdalene of Bridgnorth, whose name would cast a lustre
on any church in any age; and it is pleasant to turn from these
indecent scenes of ambitious strife among ecclesiastics, to contemplate
a character so truly exalted as his. The individual, to whom I refer,
was one whose influence on the Church and State was very considerable
in his day, having been twice entrusted with the Great Seal of England,
both in the reign of Edward III. and Richard II; and Bishop of one
of the most extensive dioceses in the kingdom—yet one, whose virtues
were more eminent than his rank or talents, and to whom, it should be
added, the Church of England owes more, perhaps, than to any other
individual, for the sound and learned education of her clergy—the
memorable William of Wykeham. He was Prebendary of Saint Mary’s[21]
in the year 1360; and it is no little honor to our town, that the
name of this great and good man is thus connected with it. This may
justify my introducing here a few particulars respecting him; for it
seems desirable that none of the readers, for whom these pages are
chiefly intended, should be unacquainted with one who was by far the
most illustrious person ever connected with the Collegiate Church of
Bridgnorth.

[21] In the certificate, made to the Archbishop of Canterbury, of
the benefices of William of Wykeham, is the following entry:—“Item
the aforesaid Sir William of Wykeham, at the time of the date of the
aforesaid monition, by collation of our Lord, the illustrious King of
England, the canonry and Prebend of Alnthle, (Alveley) in the aforesaid
our Lord the King’s free Chapel of Bruggenorth.”—_Lowth’s Life of
Wykeham, p. 34._

Wykeham, early in life, before taking orders, was introduced into
the Court of Edward III., and recommended himself to the King by his
great skill in architecture. He was made surveyor of his works; and
to him it is chiefly that the Royal Family of England are indebted
for by far the noblest of their palaces—Windsor Castle. He grew into
such favour with his sovereign, that he heaped preferments upon him,
both civil and ecclesiastical, till at length he advanced him to the
important See of Winchester. In the government of his Diocese he
was a great reformer, and most zealously set himself to correct the
ecclesiastical abuses which he discovered; and by the purity of his
own life, as well as by the strict and vigilant discipline which he
exercised, brought about a great improvement in the condition of the
clergy. Through the royal bounty, wealth flowed in on him in great
abundance; but he was only intent on finding channels for the useful
distribution of it. His munificence was unbounded, so that it is
doubtful whether any sovereign Prince ever expended so large a revenue
on others, as he did in his public and private charities.[22] Among
other works, which attest the largeness of his heart in this respect,
may be mentioned his maintaining twenty-four poor persons in his own
family—his building and restoring churches, and erecting residences
for his clergy, at his own expense—and his rebuilding at an immense
cost the nave of his own Cathedral Church at Winchester, which stands
at this day a noble monument, not only of his princely munificence,
but of his architectural taste; for there are few ecclesiastical
buildings in England that equal it in dignity and grandeur. But the
chief works which have rendered his name illustrious as a benefactor,
are the building and endowing two noble Colleges, one at Winchester,
and the other in Oxford; the former of which he designed as a nursery
for the latter. These he enriched by very large and liberal endowments,
and enriched them still more by the treasures of wise counsels and
wholesome laws which he introduced into the statutes, which are so
admirable—“drawn up with such judgment and reach of thought,” as
Collier observes, “that they have been transcribed for the benefit
of other houses; and served as it were as a pattern to the principal
Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge;” (_Ecclesiastical History_, _Book_
VII, _p. 270_) so that it is no hazardous assertion to make, that
no one person in modern or ancient times has done more—perhaps none
so much—for the sound education of the clergy of England as William
of Wykeham, some time Prebendary of St. Mary’s, Bridgnorth. At this
very time, after the lapse of nearly five hundred years, Bridgnorth
is receiving the benefit of his noble institutions; for the present
Head Master[23] of Bridgnorth Grammar School is a Wykehamite, taught,
and trained, and nurtured in Winchester and New College. His fitness
for the important post he at present occupies, he owes, in part at
least, to William of Wykeham: so that whatever Wykeham in ancient times
received as Prebendary in the Deanery of Bridgnorth, he is now paying
back to its inhabitants, in the good instruction which is given to
their children in Bridgnorth Grammar School.

[22] “Whosoever considers the vast buildings and rich endowments made
by this prelate, beside his expense in repairing the Cathedral at
Winchester, will conclude such achievements impossible for a subject,
until he reflect on his vast offices of preferments.”—_Fuller’s Church
History_, _B._ IV., _Cent._ XIV.

[23] The Rev. H.G. Merriman, M.A.


_The Church of Saint Leonard._

The other Church of Bridgnorth, Saint Leonard’s, is, in all
probability, nearly as ancient in its foundation as Saint Mary’s.
No document exists which gives us the exact date of its foundation,
but there is reason to believe it is coeval, or nearly so, with the
foundation of the Borough; for Leland, who visited Bridgnorth in the
reign of Henry VIII., states that Saint Leonard’s was the sole Parish
Church of the town; and as it is not to be supposed that so important a
Borough would have been without a Parochial Church even in its infancy,
a very early date must be assigned to it. Mr. Eyton, who suggests this
strong argument for the antiquity of its foundation, subjoins to it
however the remark, that “as yet no architectural evidence occurs to
strengthen this assertion.” But he was not aware, when he made this
observation, of the fact, that in making some repairs in the chancel, a
few years since, the workmen came upon a stone carved with a moulding
which is supposed to be of Norman character; affording very probable
evidence that the building, of which it was a part, belonged to the
early period to which Mr. Eyton refers.

The earliest written notice which can be referred to respecting St.
Leonard’s, though it implies the pre-existence of the Church, cannot
itself be ascribed to an older period than the middle of the thirteenth
century. It occurs in a legal document, and is as follows:—“Roger,
son of Richard Irish, (Hybernensis) sells to Walter Palmer, for 6s.,
a rent of 6d., issuing from certain field-land without the cemetery
of Saint Leonard, which land William Sholton held of the Vendor, by
the same rent.” (_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 341._) It is
also ascertained from existing documents, that two chantries, or side
chapels, were set up in Saint Leonard’s; the one in the time of Edward
II, the other in the time of Edward III. This latter was founded by
William de la Hulle, who “assigns his messuage in Bridgnorth, (lying
between the conduit and a tenement belonging to Richard Brown) also
thirty acres of land, and sixty shillings there, to three chaplains,
who were to pray daily in the Church of Saint Leonard’s, for the souls
of his father and mother, and for his own soul, and those of his two
wives and children.“ (_Dukes’ Antiquities_, XXXVII.) I cannot but
think that there still exists in Saint Leonard’s Church some remains
of one of these ancient chapels. In the south wall of the nave there
may be seen a Piscina, about six feet above the level of the present
floor: the height of it proves that the wall, in which it is placed,
formed part of a former structure, the floor of which must have stood
a good deal higher than the present one, for the usual height of a
Piscina from the ground was about two or three feet. A Piscina also,
it is to be noticed, was an appendage to an altar, and was never built
but in connection with one; so that there must have been an altar,
and consequently a chapel, in this part of Saint Leonard’s Church, of
which the present south wall formed a part; and we have no reason for
supposing this to be any other than that attached to the parish Church,
in the reign of Edward II, or Edward III.

[Illustration]

John Leland represents Saint Leonard’s Church in his time (A.D. 1536)
as one of great beauty, and there can be no doubt that originally it
was a large and magnificent building; for as late as the year 1645,
when Symonds, an officer in Charles’s army, visited Bridgnorth, it was
still “a noble structure,” ornamented with painted windows. He has
given a sketch of the figures on several of these. One of them, here
given, was that of an ancient Knight in armour, with his sword girded
on his right thigh, and his cross-shield painted beside him. It is
supposed to be Adam de Molineux,[24] who lived in the reign of King
Henry III.

[24] “Grandson of Robert de Villiers, Lord of Little Crossby. This is
supposed to be the knight, who was pourtrayed in the glass of three
windows, in the upper part of Bridgnorth Church, in Com, Salop, in
antique mail, cloathed with a surcoat, and girt with his sword and
spurs: over which is an equilateral triangular shield, in which the
arms of Molineux are depicted.”—_Baronetage_, 1741, _in voce_.

Symonds also gives a description of some Altar Tombs, situate in the
north aisle (an aisle unhappily no longer in existence), on one of
which “lay a man in armour and a woman, with many painted escutcheons,
belonging to the Hoord family, of Hoord’s Park. Another in the same
aisle, the statue of a woman, fayrlie gilt, in alabaster, with this
inscription circumscribed, and coats of arms.”

        “HERE LYETH THE BODY OF
    =_FFrancis FFermer_,=
    DAUGHTER OF THOMAS HOORD, ESQ.,
                  AND
     WIFE OF THOMAS FERMER, ESQ.,
               WHO DYED
        10 DAY OF JULY, 1570.”[25]

[25] Symonds’s Diary, a M.S. in the British Museum, p. 45.

The present Church of Saint Leonard’s, parts of which belonged no doubt
to the original building, forms, in the condition in which it now
stands, a sad contrast to the “fayre church” of John Leland’s time.
Perhaps the future inhabitants of the town and of the surrounding
district, all of whom have more or less an interest in it, may feel an
earnest zeal for this house of God, and may possess the means as well
as the desire, of compleating the restoration of it, which was begun
a few years since, but was discontinued for want of funds. It is a
pity, even in an architectural point of view, to see it in its present
decayed condition; for it stands on as fine a platform, perhaps, as
any ecclesiastical building in England, and might be made, without any
considerable cost, both externally and within, a noble temple. Its
ancient Church Yard too, the burying place of so many generations,
will, it is to be hoped, ere long, be rescued from the dishonoured
state in which it lies. There sleep the dead of many centuries. A
few feet below the level of the present graves lie the remains of
those, who died in the period of the great Rebellion—some of them
slain, perhaps, fighting for what they deemed the cause of God, and
of their country. A few feet deeper rest the ashes of men, who were
co-temporary with Cranmer and Ridley, and who witnessed the progress
of the glorious Reformation. Deeper still lie those who died in the
stormy times of York and Lancaster. Lower still would be found the dust
of those, who belonged to the age of the great Plantagenets; and on a
still lower bed sleep those who lived when the sceptre of England was
swayed by Kings of Norman blood. Reverence then for the dead, who were
buried there ages long since, as well as reverence for those who have
been laid there in our own time, should make us anxious to see restored
to a higher degree of decency and order than at present marks its
condition, the ancient Cemetery of Saint Leonard’s Church.

I greatly regret that the historical notices of Saint Leonard’s Church
are so very scanty; for loving as I do, the very stones of the old
building, I should have been glad to associate it with any interesting
traditions of an early date. But these are wanting. However, in the
_Blakeway Papers_, in the Bodleian Library, there is preserved the
narrative of one incident that occurred in Saint Leonard’s Church,
which is indeed worthy of a memorial. It is of too private a nature to
find its way into the page of history; yet, by those who are familiar
with the locality where it took place, and who find pleasure in the
manifestation of nobleness of disposition and magnanimity, even in the
youngest, it will not be read without interest.

The manuscript from which I copied it is as follows:—“Mr. Leighton told
me a story connected with this church, which is worth relating, though
I can assign no date or name to it. Two boys were at play in the upper
part of Saint Leonard’s Church, when some of the beams or joists, on
which they were standing, gave way. One of the boys had just time to
catch hold of the beams with his arms, and the other boy slipping over
his body caught hold of the other boys legs. There they hung for some
time calling for help: but no one heard them. At length the upper boy
said he could hold no longer. The lower boy said, “Do you think you
could save yourself if I were to loose you.” “Yes,” said the other,
“I think I could.” “Well then,” said he, “God bless you,” and loosing
his hold was instantly dashed to pieces. The upper boy got up upon the
beams, and either climbed to a place of safety, or remained till some
one came to his assistance.” This was heroism of the noblest type; nor
did the knight in Roman story, who is described as leaping into the
gulph in the Forum, evince more true intrepidity of mind, or a more
generous spirit of self-sacrifice, than did this poor youth, when he
thus quietly loosened his only hold on life, to secure his companion’s
safety, and calmly wished him well in the name of God, as he was about
to make that fearful fall, which would indeed be life to his friend,
but inevitable death to himself. If his name were known, and the exact
spot where this affecting incident occurred, they would have been well
worthy of being put on record on a mural tablet, in Saint Leonard’s
Church.

       *       *       *       *       *

Besides the Collegiate Church of Saint Mary Magdalene, and the
Parochial Church of Saint Leonard, there were several other religious
establishments in Bridgnorth, previous to the Reformation. But before I
enter on any account of these, it is right that I should take a passing
notice of something far more ancient than any of them; which, though
standing within the parish of Worfield, is locally connected with our
town, and associated with its religious history—namely,

[Illustration: _The Hermitage_.]

On ascending the very steep hill, which leads out of the town towards
Wolverhampton, every one has observed, on the right hand side of the
road, a cave hollowed out of the sand-stone rock, which on examination
is found more extensive than might at first be supposed. This, there
is reason to believe, was in old time the solitary dwelling place of
one of the Saxon Princes, a brother of King Athelstan; and hither it
is believed he had fled, both that he might enjoy religious solitude,
and also screen himself from the violence and treachery to which his
Brother Edwin had fallen a prey. Documents are extant, which shew that
there was a Hermitage here in the reign of Edward III., under the
patronage of the Crown, and that it bore the name of Athelardestan—a
Saxon word, which signifies “the rock” or “stone of Ethelward.”[26]
Thus documentary testimony supports the ancient tradition, that this
cave, amidst the seclusion of Morfe Forest, was the cell of a royal
anchorite—one who turned his back on the intrigues and fascinations
of a court, and sought in this deep retirement a course of life more
congenial to his feelings. No doubt it was a mistaken sense of duty,
which made such men bury themselves in these dark solitudes; for it is
far nobler to encounter the world, and to overcome it, than to retire
from the conflict—better amidst its corruptions and cares, its trials
and temptations, to keep ourselves unspotted by it, than to seek an
escape from its evils by deserting the sphere of our appointed duties.
It is difficult for us, perhaps, to realize the position of serious
and peaceful minds in times of lawlessness and violence, yet at all
times the best exercise of self denial and mortification[27] is to be
found in the common path of daily life—in intercourse with our fellow
men—not in seclusion from them; and that must be a mistaken piety,
which seeks to please God by forsaking the responsibilities of our
station, and cutting ourselves off from the sympathies and charities
of life; still we must not scorn such piety, even though we detect its
errors, and lament its weakness; but willingly cherish the hope, that
its mistakes and deficiencies were pardoned by Him who is not extreme
to mark what is done amiss, and that many an occupant of a solitary
hermitage, like this of Ethelward, in the secret preference of his
heart, chose the good part which shall not be taken from him.

[26] See the subject discussed by Mr. Eyton, in _Vol. 1, p. 353,
Antiquities of Shropshire_.

[27] There is a store of practical wisdom on this subject in these two
verses of the Morning Hymn in the “Christian Year,”

    “We need not bid for cloister’d cell,
     Our neighbour, and our work farewell;
     Nor strive to wind ourselves too high
     For sinful man beneath the sky.

     The trivial round, the common task,
     Would furnish all we ought to ask:
     Room to deny ourselves; a road
     To bring us, daily, nearer God.”


_Hospital of Saint John._

We now come to consider the Ecclesiastical Establishments before
referred to, and first that which is usually called the Hospital of
Saint John, though it was also dedicated to the Holy Trinity and the
Virgin Mary. It was founded by Ralph de Strange, Lord of Alveley,
in the reign of Richard I. Such hospitals, though they became after
a while a refuge for the poor and destitute generally, yet were
originally designed for the entertainment of travellers, and especially
of pilgrims, and therefore were built by the way side, that so they
might be as accessible as possible, and that the tired traveller might
not have far to go for rest and refreshment.[28] Saint John’s hospital
was well situated for this purpose. Standing within the angle formed
by Mill Street and Saint John’s Street, it commanded every highway
by which travellers entered the town from places lying eastward of
the Severn. The roads from Quatford and Claverley, and Worfield, and
Shiffnal, all converging to a point on that side of the Bridge, passed
close to its gate; and no doubt many a wayfaring man, wearied with
threading his way through the mazes of Morfe Forest was glad, when he
had descended the hill, to rest under its friendly roof.

[28] Tanner’s Notitia Monastica, p. XXVIII, note.

The earliest royal recognition of this Hospital bears date March 9th,
1223. It is a mandate of Henry III., by which he directs Hugh Fitz
Robert, Forester of Shropshire, to give the Brethren of the Hospital
of St. John twelve cart loads of dry wood in Morf Forest. There is
another, about two years later, by which King Henry III., being then
at Bridgnorth, commands the same Hugh Fitz Robert to allow the Master
and Brethren of the Hospital of the Holy Trinity of Bruges to have
three oak trees in Morf Forest for their fire, of the King’s gift.
There is also a record of a trial, which took place at the Assizes in
Shrewsbury, in the close of the same century, between the Crown and the
Prior of this Hospital, respecting some land in the parish of Alveley,
claimed by the Prior as part of the endowment of the establishment
by Ralph Le Strange. The claim was disputed by the King’s Attorney,
who set forth the royal title as by descent from Henry II. The Jurors
however found upon their oath, that “the Master had greater right to
hold the land as he held it, than the King to have it as he claimed
it.” The members of this Religious House were a Prior, or Master, and
several Lay Brethren; and the Mastership of it was in the reign of
Edward IV. annexed to the Abbey of Lilleshall.[29]

[29] Tanner’s Notitia Monastica, p. 451.


_The Hospital of Saint James._

This was an establishment of a very different kind. It was designed
only as a place of refuge for persons afflicted with severe or
contagious diseases, and was termed in legal documents _Domus
Leprosorum Jacobi_, or as _Maladria Sancti Jacobi_.[30] It stood
outside the town, east of the road which led from Saint John’s Hospital
to Quatford. Its founders were, probably, the community of the Borough
of Bridgnorth, and such an establishment may be considered as one of
the sanitary measures which they adopted for the benefit of the town.
Many of the large towns in England had establishments of this nature in
the thirteenth century; and there is evidence to prove, that the Leper
House of Saint James, in Bridgnorth, was founded previously to 1224;
for on the 22nd of September of that year, Henry III., who was then at
Bridgnorth Castle, issued the following mandate to Hugh Fitz Robert,
“Know that for the reverence of God, and for the health of our soul,
and the soul of the Lord King John our Father, we have granted to the
Leprous Brethren of the Hospital of Saint James, at Bruges, that they
may have one horse, daily plying in our Forest of Morf, to collect dry
stumps and dead wood for their fires, until we come of age.” There
is also a very early charter of the thirteenth century, now in the
possession of T. C. Whitmore, Esq., of Apley, bearing the Seal of the
Hospital of Saint James, by which it would appear that this society was
constituted without any superior of its own body, and that it acted
under the guidance, and with the consent of the good men of the town,
and that its members were of both sexes. (_Antiquities of Shropshire,
Vol. 1, p. 349._)

[30] Mr. Eyton mentions that there was a Maladrerie near Bridgnorth of
older date than this, being described in deeds as “Vetus Maladria.”
It was situated on the Oldbury side of the town, and abutted on two
water-courses, called “Reymund’s Ditch,” and the “Ditch towards
Aldebur.”—_Charter at Apley Park._

These two establishments, the Hospital of Saint John and that of Saint
James, the one for the relief of the indigent, and the refreshment of
travellers, the other for the relief of diseased persons, were swept
away by the Act for the dissolution of Monasteries and Religious
Houses, which passed in the reign of Henry VIII. What now answers to
these two in our town, are the Union Poor House and the Infirmary. I am
not about to institute a comparison between the modern institutions,
and those of olden times; and I most willingly bear testimony, that
the indigent and invalids, who are admitted into the Poor House and
Infirmary of Bridgnorth, receive the kindest and tenderest treatment;
at the same time we ought to be aware, that the ancient Religious
Houses of this Country, two of which were connected with our Borough,
afforded to the sick and needy substantial relief, and that, whatever
defects might belong to the system on which they were carried on,
they were for a time of essential service. Abuses did creep into them
no doubt—abuses of so flagrant a character, as called loudly for
reform—nevertheless, they afforded a shelter for houseless poverty,
a retreat for old age, and a refuge for disease, not to be found
elsewhere; and when a rapacious and mercenary law[31] decreed their
dissolution, confiscated their property, uprooted their establishments,
and swept them from the land, it left the poor unbefriended, and
subjected them to the severest sufferings, by casting them for relief
on the precarious supply that private charity afforded. The late
Professor Blunt, of Cambridge, in his valuable work on the Reformation,
gives the following description of the ancient Religious Houses, which
is as true as it is graphic. “They had been the Almshouses, where
the aged dependants of more opulent families, the decrepit servant,
the decayed artificer, retired as to a home, neither uncomfortable
nor humiliating. They had been the County Dispensaries, a knowledge
of medicines, and of the virtues of herbs, being a part of Monkish
learning. They had been foundling asylums, relieving the state of many
orphan and outcast children, and ministering to their necessities,
God’s ravens in the wilderness, bread and flesh in the morning, and
bread and flesh in the evening. They had been Inns to the wayfaring
man, who heard from afar the sound of the vesper bell, at once inviting
him to repose and devotion, and who might sing his matins with the
morning star, and go on his way rejoicing.” (_p. 141._)

[31] It is a very common opinion, that the suppression of the Religious
Houses in the reign of Henry VIII. was universally countenanced and
encouraged by the Reformers; and Roman Catholic writers are very
anxious to give this opinion currency; but it is wholly groundless.
Almost all the Bishops of the new learning, as the Reformers were
called, were against the misapplication of the Abbey lands; and Queen
Anne Boleyn, though so strong a favourer of the Reformation, is said
to have been so averse to the measure, that she put up Bishop Latimer
upon preaching against it before the King. On the other hand, the
measure found very strong advocates among the Roman Catholics, Laity
and Clergy; and of these one of the most conspicuous was the famous
Bishop Gardener, who is said to have been as busy as any in declaiming
against the Religious Houses, and to have commended the King in many of
his sermons for suppressing them.—See some curious statements on the
subject in _Tanner’s Notitia Monastica_, _p._ XL, _notes_.


_The Friars._

This was a House of Franciscan or Grey Friars,[32] an order that
was founded by Francis of Assisi, early in the thirteenth century,
and introduced into this country in the reign of Henry III. About
the middle of that reign, a branch of this fraternity settled in
Bridgnorth, and fixed their residence by the Severn side, on a site
now occupied by Messrs. Southwell’s Carpet Manufactory. There they
built both a Friary and a Church. The great Hall, or Refectory, which
belonged to this establishment is still standing, and its oak-pannelled
ceiling and stone fire-place have not yielded to the wear of time, but,
after the lapse of six hundred years, are still in good preservation.
Some years ago, a few skeletons were dug up near this spot, and very
lately several others have been found; the place where they lay marking
out, no doubt, the situation of the Cemetery, which belonged to the
Church of the Friars.

[32] They were called Grey Friars from their habit, which was a loose
garment of a grey colour, reaching down to their ankles.—_Notitia
Monastica_, _p._ XXI.

There is a record of a curious trial at Shrewsbury Assizes, bearing
date 1272, which brings the Friars of Bridgnorth under notice. They
were charged with having enclosed the King’s highway on the bank of
the Severn, thereby damaging the King’s revenue. It was stated on this
trial, that “they take stones and rubbish from the bank of the Severn,
and throw them into the river, whereby they have realised to themselves
a piece of ground, one hundred and fifty feet long, and fifty feet
wide, and this they have enclosed. By which process the bank causes
the water to pound upon the King’s Mills, the damage whereunto is
five merks per annum, and this was done sixteen years back.” I must
leave it to engineers to determine, whether or not there is any trace
of this artificial bank still remaining, and whether it is owing to
the construction of it, that the Eastern side of the river, near
Bridgnorth, is now so much more easily flooded than the Western: if so
the inhabitants of the Low Town owe a grudge to the Grey Friars of the
thirteenth century.

But some of the brethren of this community were, I doubt not, often
employed in much more important work than in banking up the Severn, and
gaining ground by encroaching on its channel. By the ancient seal of
their foundation, an engraving of which is given on the following page,
it may be seen that they were “_prædicatores_”—preachers. It was a dark
age in which they discharged this office, and some blessed truths,
which hold a prominent place in the system of the Gospel of Christ,
were unknown to them, or known very indistinctly. Nevertheless, many
a hooded Friar, in those days of darkness, did the best he could, with
the little light he had, to enlighten the ignorant around him; and He
who does “not despise the day of small things,” would not suffer his
labour to be altogether in vain.

[Illustration]

The Monks and Friars of former times have so bad a name among
Protestants, (and indeed there is too much reason for it) that it may
seem strange that I should express a hope, that the establishment of
this Friary of Franciscans in Bridgnorth, should have answered any good
purpose; yet I venture to do so. No doubt such establishments became
in later years exceedingly corrupt—almost as corrupt as those who
profited by their dissolution wished to make out. Often they harboured
evils within them of an enormous magnitude. Nevertheless, they at times
numbered among their members some most earnest and devoted servants of
our Lord, who, in the retirement of their closets, meditated devoutly
on His Word, and went forth from thence with a burning zeal to preach
it to others. In expressing an opinion, that piety of the highest order
might be found among the inhabitants of a cloister, however corrupt
the system may have been with which they were outwardly connected, I
am glad to be able to fortify myself by so great an authority, and so
unsuspected a witness, as Archbishop Leighton. His biographer states,
that although he was no friend to monastic seclusion, and regarded
the greater number of the regular Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church
as “_ignavi fures_,” yet at the same time “he recognized among them a
few specimens of extraordinary growth in religion; and thought he had
discovered in the piety of some conventual recluses a peculiar and
celestial flavour, which could hardly be met with elsewhere. Of their
sublime devotion he often spake with an admiration approaching to
rapture.”[33] On such a topic I cannot refrain from quoting also the
following striking passage from Dr. Maitland, whose acute and learned
researches into the state of religion in the middle ages, entitle his
opinion to the greatest weight. “I feel no doubt, that, in the darkest
age, there were many true and accepted worshippers of God. Not formed
into churches, and eminently bearing their testimony in corporate
capacities _as_ churches, against the See of Rome (for then I think
we should have heard more about them); but as the sheep of Christ,
dispersed abroad in the midst of this naughty world—known, perhaps, by
this or that name of reproach—or, perhaps, the obscure and unknown,
whose names were never written anywhere but in Heaven. I doubt not that
there were such, living a life of faith and prayer and communion with
God; overlooked in the bustle of cities, and the solitude of cottages,
and even shut up in what some modern systems require us to consider as
the strongholds of Antichrist—the cell and the cloister. I will not
shrink from avowing my belief, that many a tonsured head now rests in
Abraham’s bosom; and that many a frail body, bowed down with voluntary
humility, and wasted with unprofitable will-worship—clothed in rags,
and girt with a bell-rope—was a temple of the Holy Ghost; and that one
day—a day when the follies of system, and the sins of party, and man’s
judgment of his fellows, will have come to an end—these, her unknown
children, will be revealed to the astonishment of a church, accustomed
to look back with a mixture of pride and shame to the days of her
barrenness. She may ask, ‘Who hath brought up these? Behold I was left
alone; these, where have they been?’—but she will have learned to know
the seal of the living God, she will embrace them as her sons, and
will find better matter of discourse, than their superstition and her
illumination. In the mean time, however, they are hidden—perhaps more
completely hidden than they need be, if due pains were taken to look
after them, and gather what might be known.”[34]

[33] Pearson’s Life of Archbishop Leighton, prefixed to his works, pp.
CXVII, CXVIII.

[34] Facts and documents, illustrative, &c. of the Albigenses and
Waldenses, 1832, p. 45.

We have happily an instance, to which, without going out of our way, we
can refer, in proof that the spirit of sincere and devoted piety may be
found in a monk or friar of ancient days. It is that of a Shropshire
monk of the twelfth century—Ordericus, the original historian of
our county, to whose records we are indebted for some of the facts
connected with the early history of Bridgnorth, related in the
foregoing pages. In the close of his history he subjoins an account of
himself, which breathes throughout a deep-seated humility, and ardent
gratitude, which it would be well indeed if we, with our clearer views
and larger knowledge, could catch the spirit of. The whole of it is
well worthy a perusal, but I can only find room for the concluding
passage.

“Thus, thus, O Lord God, Thou who didst fashion me, and didst breathe
into my nostrils the breath of life, hast Thou, through these various
gradations, imparted to me Thy gifts, and formed my years to Thy
service. In all the places to which Thou hast led me, Thou hast caused
me to be beloved, by Thy bounty, not by my own deserving. For all Thy
benefits, O merciful Father, I thank Thee. I laud and bless Thee: for
my numberless offences, with tears I implore Thy mercy. For the praise
of Thy unwearied goodness look upon Thy creature, and blot out all
my sins. Grant me the will to persist in Thy service, and strength
to withstand the attacks of Satan, till I attain, by Thy grace, the
inheritance of everlasting life. And what I have prayed for myself, I
pray, O God, for my friends, and well-wishers. The same also I pray
for all the faithful: and forasmuch as the efficacy of our own merits
cannot suffice to obtain those eternal gifts, after which the desires
of the perfect aspire,—

“O Lord God, Almighty Father, Creator and Ruler of the Angels, Thou
true hope, and eternal blessedness of the righteous, may the glorious
intercession of the Holy Virgin and Mother Mary, and all Saints, aid us
in Thy sight, with the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, Redeemer of all
men, who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost,
world without end.”[35]

[35] Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, Vol. I, pp. 69, 70.

The concluding passage of this prayer is slightly tinged with that
superstition, which afterwards appeared in a still more objectionable
form, and now so deeply stains the worship of the Church of Rome
with the foul blot of idolatry; but with Ordericus the evil was but
superficial, and though it does sully the beauty of his devotion,
yet it is not deep enough to hide its intrinsic piety. His godly
sincerity is still conspicuous, notwithstanding the error with which
it was connected; for, as Milner well observes in his Church History,
a measure of superstition is compatible with real godliness. We may
hope that there were men of like spirit with Ordericus in the ancient
Friary of Bridgnorth, and if so, Christ was not without a witness here,
even in the darkness of the middle ages; and His holy name, though
pronounced by faltering lips, and a stammering tongue, would bring
salvation; and His truth, though taught obscurely and defectively,
would be sufficient to guide the feet of wandering sinners into the way
of peace, and to conduct the weary and heavy laden to their rest.

       *       *       *       *       *

The historical notices of Bridgnorth which I have thus brought before
the reader, will not, I hope, be considered wholly devoid of interest,
at least not by those who are locally connected with the place. They
are scanty indeed, but sufficient to shew them that the town, in which
it is their lot to live, not only is one whose foundation is of very
ancient date, and the Borough belonging to it one of the earliest
in the kingdom, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, but that it has
been at times the theatre of events of some importance in history;
that the scenes with which they are daily familiar, and which are
now comparatively so quiet and peaceful, have again and again been
scenes of active warfare, where the besiegers and the besieged have
confronted each other in deadly combat, and where, on more than one
occasion, the Monarchs of England have appeared in person to vindicate
the prerogatives of their crown, and loyalty and rebellion have striven
valiantly and fiercely for the mastery. The rude hand of time has
indeed swept away almost every memorial of these things, and scarcely a
monument is left standing to mark the spot where they occurred; so that
they who take their customary walk around the Castle Hill, or stroll
along the towing path by the Severn side, see little or nothing to
remind them of the furious combats which once signalized these scenes.
The hill rises so peacefully in the midst of the valley, that it does
not look as if it had ever been the object of a military assault, nor
is it easy to imagine, when we look on the gentle flow of the river,
that its waters were ever reddened by human blood. The contrast between
what now is, and what has been in other days, is so great, that the
beautiful lines which Sir Walter Scott has addressed to the Teviot,
might, with little alteration, be accommodated to the Severn:

    “Sweet Teviot, on thy silver tide
      The glaring bale-fires blaze no more:
    No longer steel-clad warriors ride
      Along thy wild and willow’d shore:
    Where’er thou wind’st, by dale or hill,
    All, all is peaceful, all is still,
      As if thy waves, since time was born,
    Since first they roll’d upon the Tweed,
    Had only heard the shepherd’s reed,
      Nor started at the bugle horn.”

                 _Introduction to Canto IV of the_
                        _Lay of the Last Minstrel._




THE ANTIQUITIES OF BRIDGNORTH.

PART II.


[Illustration: QUATFORD.]




THE ANTIQUITIES, &c.


In the foregoing pages I have brought before the reader many historical
notices of Bridgnorth from a very early period down to the reign of
Edward III; but I regret that I have been able to collect only a very
few from the commencement of that reign to the era of the Reformation,
and still fewer between that period and the time of the Civil Wars; but
the few which I have been able to collect respecting these intervals,
though of minor importance, may not be without their interest, inasmuch
as they serve to connect our town, however slightly, with some of the
memorable events in English history.

The reign of Edward III. is one of the most brilliant in the annals of
England. The military prowess of the nation, directed by the genius
and intrepidity of the King himself, and by the youthful heroism of
his son Edward, the Black Prince, acquired a fame which has never
since been eclipsed. This enterprising monarch had not been many years
on the throne before he invaded the territories of France, and there
obtained triumphs, so marvellous, when the superiority of the enemy’s
forces is considered, that the names of his victories, _Cressy and
Poictiers_, are “household words” with Englishmen, even in this day.
It is very possible that some of the men of Bridgnorth may have taken
part in these famous battles; for it appears from a public document,
that just before the invasion of France by King Edward, a writ was sent
to Bridgnorth, as well as to other towns in Shropshire, for raising a
small contingent to the war. In this document it is stated that “Sir
Roger de Strange of Knockin, John Aston and others, as chief persons
within the County of Salop, were summoned to raise 40 men at arms,
within the said County, and 30 Hobelers within the town of Salop; 10
Hobelers in Ludlow; 6 in Wenlock; 10 in Bridgnorth; 4 in Newport;
and 40 in the rest of the County.”—(_History of Shrewsbury, p. 163,
note 1._) The _men at arms_ were horsemen who wore a complete suit
of armour, and were mounted on strong war horses, answering to our
heavy dragoons; the _hobelers_ were light-armed horsemen, who rode on
“hobbies,” or small fleet horses, and were in the armies of the ancient
English what the troops of light cavalry are in ours. They served the
same purpose for Edward in his French campaign that our light brigade
did for us in the famous charge at Balaklava. I do not know whether any
man from Bridgnorth was among those gallant 600; but I know that some
of our townsmen were exposed to other perils in the Crimean campaign,
and met them with a fortitude that did no dishonour to their ancestors,
who were enrolled under the banner of the Black Prince.

I have not been able to find out any other fact of any particular
interest respecting Bridgnorth, during the reign of Edward III, except
that the Burgesses of the town petitioned him, that they might have
the use of his chapel, within the Castle, as a parish church. Hitherto
this chapel of Saint Mary Magdalene had been exclusively allotted to
the Castle, and perhaps was used solely by the garrison, and Saint
Leonard’s was the only parochial church belonging to the town; but
now, the Burgesses wishing for larger church accommodation, on account
perhaps of the increase of population, or for some other cause which
made it desirable, laid their petition before the King, that he would
grant them the use of his royal chapel. Whether or not they succeeded
in their object does not appear.[36]

[36] Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, Appendix XXXVI.

About twenty years after this, in the same reign, the population was
fearfully diminished by a pestilence, which twice swept over England,
as well as the rest of Europe, and which was so destructive in its
ravages, that it is computed that a third part of the inhabitants of
every county was taken off by it. Shropshire suffered very severely.
We have no record of its progress in Bridgnorth; if we had, it would
doubtless afford us as many narratives of an interesting, though
painful, character, as the visitation of the cholera did a few years
since. This fact the historian Walsingham relates, that eighteen
out of every twenty in the Friaries and Abbeys fell victims to the
disease.[37] This may be in part accounted for by so many living
together in the same house, among whom a contagious disease would be
likely to spread with fatal rapidity. Others attribute the remarkable
amount of mortality among the ecclesiastics at this time[38] to their
frequent visitations of the sick—their constant intercourse with the
diseased and dying. If this be a true account of the matter we may
infer that the members of the religious houses in Bridgnorth—who, like
their brethren elsewhere, perished in numbers—were thus charitably
employed during this visitation, and sacrificed their lives to this
ministry of mercy, imparting as far as they were able to do so, the
consolations of the Gospel of Christ to the sufferers around them.

[37] Hume, Vol. 2, p. 423

[38] The Diocesan Registers of Lichfield and Hereford shew a very high
average of mortality among the Clergy of Shropshire at this period, and
these were not exposed to the danger of contagion from the circumstance
above referred to.

On the death of Edward III., the reins of government were committed
into the feeble hands of Richard II., who, after a disastrous reign
of twenty-two years, (during which I find no historical notice of our
town worth mentioning) was deposed by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke,
Duke of Lancaster. Henry, who assumed the sovereignty, under the
title of Henry IV, was frequently in Shropshire, on account of the
insurrectionary movements which took place among the Welsh, during the
early part of his reign. Under the leadership of the hot-headed and
enterprising _Owen Glendwyr_, they ravaged the border counties to a
considerable extent; and, in consequence of this, the Council issued an
order, that all the Castles on the borders—and Bridgnorth Castle was
one of them—should be strengthened and put in a state of defence, to
resist the incursions of the rebels. But previously to this, an act of
Parliament had been passed, which had special reference to Bridgnorth,
with other towns in our County, forbidding them to allow any one
born in Wales, and descended from Welsh parents, to become a member
of their corporations, or even to purchase land within the Borough.
These restrictions, however severe they may appear, were considered
necessary, on account of the spirit of disaffection, which so generally
prevailed in the Principality.

But, notwithstanding these civil enactments and military preparations,
the cause of the Welsh chieftain continued to gain ground, till it
suddenly received unexpected support, from the accession to his party
of the Duke of Northumberland, and his valiant son Harry Hotspur,
who at the head of a formidable army of English and Scotch, marched
towards the borders. He, as quickly as possible, united his forces to
those of Glendwyr, and the combined rebel army encountering the royal
forces, led on by the King in person, and Henry Prince of Wales, fought
a great battle, well known to the readers of English History as the
famous _Battle of Shrewsbury_; for it was fought under the walls of
our county town. If we may rely on Shakespeare in this matter, who
indeed is often, even in minute circumstances, an excellent historical
authority, we may conclude that Bridgnorth was the place appointed
by King Henry for the rendezvous of his army on the eve of this
great battle. In the first part of the Play of Henry IV, the king is
represented as addressing the chief leaders of his army, and giving
instructions as to the mustering of his forces, in these words:—

    “The Earl of Westmorland set forth to-day;
     With him, my son, lord John of Lancaster;
     On Wednesday next, Harry, thou shalt set forward;
     On Thursday, we ourselves will march:
     Our meeting is Bridgnorth: and, Harry, you
     Shall march through Glostershire; by which account
     Our business valued, some twelve days hence
     Our general forces at Bridgnorth shall meet.”

If our dramatist had any warrant for this representation, of which
I have no doubt, the town of Bridgnorth must have witnessed on this
occasion a fine military muster, and have had the privilege of
receiving into its Castle one who has been ranked among the greatest
of England’s heroes—Henry, Prince of Wales. He was just at that time
beginning to emerge from the state of wild and thoughtless profligacy
in which he had wasted his early years, and was about to exhibit those
qualities, which have since made his name so illustrious in English
History. The battle of Shrewsbury, at which he did some service, was
very decisive; and the confederate army of the rebels, under Glendwyr,
Hotspur, and Douglas, was completely routed. Nevertheless our county
continued for years after to be ravaged by the Welsh insurgents, nor
was it till the reign of Henry V., when the death of Glendwyr took
place, that there was any security for life and property in the Borders.

In the succeeding reign of Henry VI. commenced that most destructive
series of Civil Wars, known by the name of the Wars of the Roses,
between the rival houses of York and Lancaster, which laid waste for
many years the fairest provinces of the land. “It was not finished in
less than a course of thirty years: was signalized by twelve pitched
battles: opened a scene of extraordinary violence: is computed to have
cost the lives of eighty Princes of the blood, and to have almost
entirely annihilated the ancient nobility of England.”—_History of
Shrewsbury, Vol. 1, p. 166._

Shropshire was necessarily embroiled in these contests, and I have
lighted upon one fact, which shows, I think, that Bridgnorth, as well
as the neighbouring town of Shrewsbury, assumed the badge of the _White
Rose_, espousing the cause of the house of York. The fact referred to,
though a trifling one in itself, seems to me to connect Bridgnorth with
the great leader of that party—Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. This
nobleman, who had doubtless a clearer title to the crown of England
than the reigning monarch, held the Castle of Ludlow, and was naturally
very anxious to associate the people of Shrewsbury with his party, and
to make them his adherents. He therefore entered into communication
with them; and on one occasion, when a matter of some consequence was
to be considered, the Bailiffs of Shrewsbury appointed a gentleman of
Bridgnorth, the representative of this Borough, in company with others,
to treat with the Duke at his castle of Ludlow. The following extract
from the accounts of the Bailiffs of Shrewsbury, A.D. 1457, refers to
this fact:—“Paid for a breakfast to Thomas Acton and Thomas Hoord, for
their good council, touching the return of a precept to the Duke of
York, directed to the Bailiffs for surety of the peace.” Again. “Money
paid for the expenses of Thomas Hoord, and William Lyster, riding to
the Lord Duke of York at Ludlow, to get the said precept dissolved.”
(_History of Shrewsbury, Vol. 1, p._ 224.) This Thomas Acton was of
Aldenham, and ancestor to the present baronet of that name; and Thomas
Hoord was of _Hoord Park_, now called Park Farm, adjacent to our town,
a gentleman of ancient lineage. He was member of Parliament for our
Borough, and therefore it is not likely that he would have engaged
himself to treat with the Duke of York, if he had not been aware that
his constituents at Bridgnorth were well affected to his party, which
was now growing formidable.

I have not had access to any records which shew whether our town took
any very active part, or in what measure they suffered in consequence,
in this fatal and disastrous strife; but it is scarcely possible that
such great battles should have been fought in this and the adjoining
counties, as _Mortimer’s Cross_, _Tewksbury_, and _Ludlow_, without
Bridgnorth being more or less affected by them. I have little doubt
that the state of decay and ruin, in which parts of the town were found
some years afterwards, is to be traced to these civil contests. This is
noticed in an Act of Parliament, passed in the year 1535. It recites
that “many houses, messuages, and tenements of habitation, in the town
of Bridgnorth, now are, and have of a long time been, in great ruin and
decay, and specially in the principal and chief streets there being;
in the which chief streets in time passed have been beautiful dwelling
houses there, well inhabited, which at this day much part thereof is
desolate and void grounds, with pits, cellars, and vaults lying open
and uncovered, very perilous for people to go by in the night, without
jeopardy of life, which things are to the great impoverishing and
hindrance of the said town.” (_History of Shrewsbury, Vol. 1, p. 318._)

These wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, which spread such
ruin over the land, did not cease till after the battle of Bosworth
Field, and the accession of the house of Tudor to the throne, in the
person of Henry VII; and with this latter event, a very important one
in English history, Bridgnorth was accidentally connected.

The Duke of Buckingham was the chief instrument of raising the Earl of
Richmond, afterwards Henry VII, to the throne of England, and this was
occasioned, the historian Hall relates,[39] by a casual circumstance
which occurred in the neighbourhood of our town. This Duke had large
estates in Shropshire, in consequence of his being the representative
of the ancient family of Corbet, and among these he had certain
tenements in Bridgnorth. (_Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, p. 31._)
His possession of this property was perhaps the cause of his visiting
our town, in the summer of 1483. It was just at this time that he was
plotting the overthrow of the government of Richard III, but feeling
uncertain as to the person whom he should endeavour to make sovereign
in his stead, when riding one day between Bridgnorth and Kidderminster,
he accidentally met the Countess of Richmond, better known by the
name of _the Lady Margaret_. This casual interview suggested to his
mind the young and enterprising Earl of Richmond, as the fittest heir
to the English throne; and he immediately set himself to raise an
insurrection in these, and other parts of the kingdom, in his favour.
The insurrection succeeded, though Buckingham himself perished in
the enterprise; and the Earl of Richmond, became Henry VII, king of
England. On so accidental a circumstance depended the accession of
the house of Tudor to the English throne, and the consequences, which
followed it, so important to the interests of this great empire.

[39] The Duke of Buckingham, in his communication with the Bishop of
Ely, is represented by Hall, (an historian of the 16th century) as
thus expressing himself in reference to this matter:—“But whether God
so ordeyned, or by fortune it so chanced, while I was in a mase, other
to conclude sodaynlye on thys litte, and to sette it open amongeste
the common people, or to kepe it secrete awhile, so the chaunce was I
rode between Worcester and Bridgenorth, I encountered wyth the Ladye
Margaret, Contesse of Richmond, now wyfe to the Lorde Stanley, whych
is the very daughter and sole heyre to Lorde John, Duke of Somersett,
my grandfather’s elder brother: whych was a cleare out of my mynde
as though I had never seen her; so that she and her sonne the Earle
of Richmonde be both bulwarke and portcolies, and the gate to enter
into the majestie royall, and gettynge the crowne. And when we had
commoned a little concernynge her sonne, as I shall shewe after,
and were departed, she to our Ladye of Worcester, and I towards
Shrewsburie, I then changed, and in a manner began to dispute wyth
myself.”—_Chronicle, 2nd yeare of Ric._ III, _fol._ xj.

It was during the sovereignty of the house of Tudor that one of the
most important events in the history of our country took place, viz.,
_the Reformation_, commencing in the reign of Henry VIII., and being
completed in that of Elizabeth. I greatly regret not having been able
to collect any information respecting our town during this eventful
and interesting period. One would like to know how it was affected
by the great movement which was then taking place, and whether
the pulpits of St. Mary’s and St. Leonard’s were late or early in
announcing those glorious truths, which at that time began to stir
the depths of people’s minds, and caused such a mighty revolution in
the land—whether here, as well as elsewhere, there were men who stood
up as fearless defenders of the truth, ready to seal their advocacy
of it with their blood. We have no details on the subject; but we
learn that the spirit of reformation was awakened in Shropshire as far
back as the fourteenth century. A very remarkable Poem of that date,
entitled “_The Visions of Piers the Ploughman_,” whose uncouth rhymes
seem to have produced a wonderful effect on the popular mind, was
written by an inhabitant of the neighbouring town of Cleobury Mortimer.
(_History of Salop, p. 202, note 1._) We also know that our county town
had a courageous advocate of the cause in the reign of Henry IV in
William Thorpe; who ascending the pulpit of Saint Chad’s, vehemently
denounced the errors of the Church of Rome, and in consequence suffered
imprisonment. It is not likely that such things should have gone on in
the neighbourhood of Bridgnorth without our townspeople being more or
less affected by them; but we have no particulars—none, I mean, that
my very limited search could discover—respecting the progress which the
Reformation made among them.

There is one document, however, which shews that the accession of
Queen Mary was received by the inhabitants of Bridgnorth and its
neighbourhood with great demonstrations of joy; but it is of course
doubtful whether this resulted from their loyalty to the person of
one whom they rightly regarded as the heir to the throne, or from
attachment to those religious opinions of which she was known to be a
patron. The document I refer to is an extract from the Register of Sir
Thomas Boteler, Vicar of Much Wenlock, beginning November 26th, 1538,
ending September 20th, 1562. “1553 Memorandum. That as some say King
Edward VI, by the grace of God, &c., died the 6th day of this instant
month of July, in the year of our Lord God as it is above written, and
as some say he died on the 4th of May last proceeding in the same year
of our Lord; and upon Mary Magdalene’s day, which is the 22nd day of
this instant month, at Bridgnorth in the fair there was proclaimed
Lady Mary, Queen of England, &c., after which proclamation finished,
the people made great joy, casting up their caps and hats, lauding,
thanking, and praising God Almighty, with ringing of bells, and making
of bonfires in every street. And so was she proclaimed Queen on the
same day, and at the Battle field in the same evening, with the like
joy of the people, and triumphal solemnity made in Shrewsbury, and also
in this Borough of Much Wenlock.”

The Act for the dissolution of Monasteries and other Religious Houses
took effect here of course, and consequently the _Friary_ and the
Hospitals of _St. John_ and _St. James_ were all suppressed, and their
property confiscated. The Brethren of Grey Friars seem at that time to
have been in very reduced circumstances, so that the spoils obtained
from them were hardly worth the seizure. The King’s Commissioners came
here on the 5th of August, 1538, and the following note, which was
signed by the Bailiffs of the town, shows the indigent condition in
which this religious establishment was found—a plain proof of what
little hold at that time the orders of monks and friars had upon the
affections of the people. “Memorandum. This V daye of Auguste, in ye
XXX yeare of Kynge Henry the VIIJth, that Rycharde bysehope of Dovor,
and vesytor under the Lorde Prevy Seale for ye Kynge’s grace, was in
Bryggenorthe, wher that the warden and heys Bredren in the presens
of Master Thomas Hall, and Master Randolphe Rodes, Balys of the sayd
towne gave the howse, with all the purtenans into the vesytores handdes
to the Kynge’s use; for sayd warden and brethren sayd that they war
not abull to live, for the charyte off the pepulle was so small, that
in IIJ yeares they had not receyvyd in almes in redy mony to the sum
of Xs. by yere, but only leve by a serves that they had in the town
in a chapell[40] on the bryge. Thus the sayd vesytor receyveyd the
sayd howse, with the purtenans to the kynge’s use, and by indentures
delyveryd yt to us the sayd Balys to kepe to the kynge’s use, till the
kynges plesur was further known. Thys wyttenes we the sayd balys with
other.

                  per me Thomam Halle.
                  per me Randull Rowdes.”
    (_Wright’s History of Ludlow, p. 342._)

[40] This was a Chapel, built on the piers of the Bridge, dedicated
to St Osyth, wife of the king of East Anglia, afterwards Abbess of
a Monastic Church in Essex. According to tradition she suffered
martyrdom, A.D. 870.—_See Butler, Vol. 2, p. 661._

An incidental proof of the state of penury to which these poor Friars
of Bridgnorth were reduced, may be gathered from a note kept among the
records of the town of Shrewsbury, of the expenses which were incurred
by Roger Thomas, their senior Bailiff, and Thomas Bromley, afterwards
Lord Chancellor, in a journey which they made from Shrewsbury to
Bewdley on important business. On their return they stopped at
Bridgnorth, and had their dinner at the principal inn, and this is the
note of their expenses:—“Dener at Bruggenorth 3s. 4d.; to Shepay the
frere 1d.” This Shepay was no doubt a member of the Grey Friars, who
waited upon the travellers at their inn, to beg alms for his house.
(_History of Shrewsbury, p. 302._)

It might have been expected that when Queen Mary came to the throne
she would have restored all the religious houses in England to their
original use; but on the contrary, pressed by strong political motives,
she confirmed by her own acts the confiscation, which had been made in
the reign of Henry VIII., of the property belonging to them; and thus
under a Popish sovereign it became irrecoverably alienated from the
Church.[41]

[41] Appendix E.

The Hospital of St. James, Bridgnorth, affords a striking example of
this. In the year 1566, the Queen, in conjunction with her husband
Philip, made over to Sir J. Parrott, in consideration of £184 15s.,
and for his faithful services, all the property belonging to this
Hospital.[42] In the year following, Sir J. Parrott transferred the
same to Mr. R. Smith of Morville. In the following reign of Elizabeth,
it was transferred to William Tupper and Robert Dawes; and the
property, after passing through the various families of Smith, Dovy,
Kinnersly, Nevitt, Tyner, and Bach, came into the family of _Stanier_,
and now, by another turn in the wheel of time, the name of _Smith_ is
again connected with the property. There was an order in Council at one
time, that this estate should pay to Bridgnorth Church a yearly sum of
twenty nobles—equal to £6 13s. 4d. This order was lost out of the town
chest, and afterwards recovered; but in one of the wars it was burnt,
after which the property rendered nothing but a pound of frankincense
every Easter, to be burnt in the Church of the High Town: but this last
customary payment has long been discontinued.

[42] Dukes’ Antiquities, Appendix IX.

What may have been the value of this pound of frankincense I do not
know, but whatever it may have been, it is certain that the Incumbents
of Bridgnorth receive from the present owners of St. James’s, in their
liberal support of the religious institutions of the town, something
far more valuable than this former impost upon their property.

We now enter on the era of Elizabeth. There is perhaps no period in
the history of our country to which Englishmen are accustomed to look
back with more satisfaction. Whatever may have been her faults and
foibles as a woman, she was undoubtedly a great Queen, and swayed the
sceptre of this realm with such a steady and vigorous hand, as made her
revered by her subjects, and dreaded by her enemies. She contributed
more perhaps than any sovereign that preceded her, to raise the
character of our country, and place it high in the scale of European
nations. Besides, she was under God, the great means of strengthening
the cause of the reformed faith, and resisting the colossal power of
the Church of Rome.

It would have been very gratifying to find any record which would have
connected the history of our town with the public events which took
place in the reign of this great princess; but I have not been able to
find any, none at least but what are of a very trivial nature. I find,
for instance, that in the singular proclamation which she issued, for
the purpose of compelling every one in her realm to wear _woollen
caps_, except the nobility, she mentions Bridgnorth, as a place where
the company of cappers used to flourish;[43] which seems to indicate
that the people now enjoyed a considerable share of quietness, and
were acquiring wealth by their trade and industry. Again I find that
when her great favorite, the Earl of Leicester, visited Shrewsbury,
and where preparations were made to receive him with an honour, little
short of that which would have been offered to the Queen herself, one
of the three who were appointed to address him on the occasion, was
a Bridgnorth youth, Richard Hoord, son of John Hoord, of Hoord Park;
no slight distinction, considering the almost royal dignity which was
attached to the person of the Earl of Leicester. But it is only in
circumstances of this nature, and not in matters of weightier import,
that I can find any reference to Bridgnorth in this reign. I ought
not however to be disappointed at this, for one who had far better
opportunity for making researches of this kind, than I have, and far
greater aptitude for the task, has stated that “from the 27th year of
Henry VIII till the year 1629, he could discover no historical notice
of the Town or Castle of Bridgnorth.”[44]

[43] Appendix F.

[44] The late Mr. Hardwick.

This latter date brings us to a very remarkable period in the history
of our town. In that year, viz, the 4th of King Charles I., and on the
2nd day of October, the King made a grant of the Castle, to Gilbert
North, Esq., one of the Gentlemen of the Privy Bed Chamber. It had been
a royal castle from the time that it was taken by Henry I. from Robert
de Belesme—a period of more than five hundred years. But now, perhaps
on account of the cost of keeping it in repair, it was transferred to
the possession of a gentleman belonging to the King’s household, who
by a subsequent deed of the same year, transferred it to Sir William
Whitmore, Knight, in whose family it has continued ever since.[45] It
is indeed greatly to be regretted that its present possessor should
have so small a remnant of it to call his own, and that the leaning
tower on Castle Hill, as it is popularly called, should be all that is
left of this once noble fortress of the middle ages. But how it came
to be thus reduced to utter ruin, is the subject which must now occupy
our attention; and it is one which is intimately connected with the
stirring events of that period.

[45] Apley MSS.

At the time in which Bridgnorth Castle was transferred to the Whitmore
family, the nation was in a great state of political disquietude. The
King was disposed to carry his royal prerogative beyond the limit
which the law had assigned to it; and many members of the Houses of
Parliament in resisting the encroachment, were tempted to invade the
rights of legitimate authority, and became in the struggle fierce and
unrelenting enemies to the Crown. This contest of prerogative on the
one hand, and the spirit of liberty on the other, brought about the
Great Rebellion; and this fair land was once more destined to be the
scene of civil strife, in which was shed the best and noblest blood
of England. Of the two parties into which our countrymen were then
divided, the Royalists and Roundheads, it is not my province to say
much; I know to which of the two, had I lived at the time, my feelings
and principles would have attached me; yet I feel bound to acknowledge,
that while I regard some of the opinions and some of the acts of the
insurgent party with a feeling nothing short of abhorrence, there were
among them, both among their soldiers and their divines, men of the
highest character, and whose minds were cast in the finest mould; nor
am I unwilling to allow that England is in a great measure indebted to
this party for the present freedom of her institutions.[46] Respecting,
however, the great leader of the party, Oliver Cromwell, I cannot agree
with some late writers, who have endeavoured to canonize his memory,
and who try to represent him as a pure and unselfish patriot. He was
indeed a man of great qualities, of fearless fortitude, and untiring
energy; and perhaps at the commencement of his public course he was
upright and single hearted in his intentions: but there can be no
question of it, that he became ambitious of earthly power; and the
religious phraseology, which was once perhaps the sincere expression of
his feelings, he afterwards employed as a crafty instrument to further
his designs, and to conceal their evil character.[47] Nor must we, if
we would form a just estimate of him, lose sight of the fact that while
he was a subject he was an enthusiast on the side of liberty, but when
he himself was placed on the seat of power, no Stuart or Plantagenet
was ever more despotic in his rule.

[46] See the whole subject treated very ably by Professor Smyth, of
Cambridge, in his Lectures on Modern History, Vol. 1, Lect. XIV.

[47] The Cambridge Professor of History, though a strong advocate
of the cause of liberty in opposition to prerogative, thus writes
of Cromwell:—“Cromwell had to subdue not only the Royalists, but
the Presbyterians; and this not merely by force, but by the most
extraordinary performance of cant and hypocrisy that human nature ever
exhibited.”—_Vol. 1, Lect._ XVII.

(See Vide Appendix G.)

In this great intestine struggle, the inhabitants of Bridgnorth, as
was natural from their hereditary loyalty, espoused heartily the cause
of Charles I., as that of their legitimate sovereign; and suffered
severely for their allegiance. In the year 1642, preparations were
made throughout the country for the commencement of hostilities; and
in consequence, the authorities here thought it necessary to put the
town, as far as possible, in a state of defence: and the Corporation
have still in their possession some interesting records, containing the
Common Hall orders which were made on this occasion. The first is as
follows:—Bridgnorth. At a Comon Hall in the said towne, the XXVI day of
August, Aᵒ. R. Caroli Angl, &c., XVIIIº Aᵒ Dⁿⁱ 1642, John Harryson and
Robert Richards, Gents, being Bailiffs.

    “_Concerninge the makinge of a draw Bridge upon the
     Bridg over Severn in Bridgnorth aforesaid, and other
     things for the defence of the said towne, upon a
     warrant from John Weld, Esq., High Sheriff of this
     county of Salop, in respect of the extreame danger
     which is now come neare unto us._

     It is agreed, That the makinge of a draw Bridge shall
     be respited untill further consideration; and that for
     the present necessity, Posts and Chaines shall be made
     at the two ends of the Low Towne, viz., At the farther
     end of the Mill Strette, and at the farther end of St.
     John’s Streete, and at other needfule places in the
     said Towne; and also that the Gates of the said Towne
     shall be repayred, and made stronge with chaynes and
     otherwise, as shall be convenient for strength and
     defence of the said Towne.”

But very early in the year, the Bailiffs had projected another means of
defence. They had petitioned Thomas Corbett, Esq., of Longnor, in this
county, to exercise the young men of the town, and of the immediate
neighbourhood, in the practice of arms and military tactics, that so
they might be ready to repel any attack which might be suddenly made
by the rebel forces. The following is the letter which Mr. Corbett
addressed to Sir Francis Ottley, Governor of Shrewsbury, on this
occasion:—

    “1642. Noble Sir,
        The Bayliffs of Bridgnorth, in behalf of the town,
      having been importunate with me to take upon me the
      exercising of the young men in this town, and others
      in the country neare adjoining, for the defence of the
      towne upon any needfull design, I have been persuaded
      by them to take the same upon me; and they having shewn
      me a letter which they intend to present unto the high
      Sheriff, for a warrant unto me in that behalf, I pray
      be pleased to consider thereto, and impart your advice
      unto me, and further Mr. Sheriff’s directions therein,
      as you in your wisdom shall think most convenient, and
      you will oblige
             Your respective kinsman,
                     and friend who truly
                                Honoureth you,
                                   THOS. CORBETT.
      Bridgnorth, 5 Feb., 1642.

      To my noble friend and kinsman Sir Francis Ottly,
      Knight, at Shrewsbury House.”
      (_Blakeway Papers, Bodleian Lib._)

No time indeed was to be lost, for four days before the date of
the order above referred to, the King had set up his standard at
Nottingham, and the parliamentary forces were in the field, under the
command of the Earl of Essex. On the 20th of the following month, the
King removed into this county, and Clarendon states, that “a more
general and passionate expression of affection cannot be imagined,
than he received by the people of Shropshire, or a better reception
than he met at Shrewsbury.” (_History of the Rebellion, Vol. 2, p.
18._) But on his march thither he heard of the rebel army advancing
towards Worcester, and in order to watch their motions, and if possible
to check their progress, he dispatched his nephew Prince Rupert with
all his horse across the Severn; and it was most likely on his return
from this expedition, that the Prince passed through our town, and
took up his residence for the night at _Cann Hall_. He had conducted
the expedition with that intrepid gallantry which characterized all
his military movements; he had with a handful of men attacked a large
body of the enemy as they were defiling out of a narrow lane near the
city of Worcester, and completely routed them in the first onset,
slaying several of their number, and taking the commanding officer
prisoner; (_History of the Rebellion, Vol. 2, p. 25_) so that he came
to Bridgnorth, flushed with the first victory which was gained in
these civil wars. While he was here he addressed a letter to the Jury
appointed to choose a Bailiff, dated September, 21st, 1642. It is as
follows:—

    You Gentlemen of the Jury, who are to have voices in
    this election, these are to entreat you, out of a tender
    care both of his Majesty’s service and your own happiness
    and welfare, that in the present election you make choice
    of such men for your Bailiffs as you are sure are well
    affected for his Majesty’s service. By which you will
    oblige me to remain,

                              Your Loving Friend,
                                        RUPERT.

The Bailiffs chosen were Thomas Dudley and John Farr, ancestors most
likely of some of our townsmen who now bear these names; and there is
no doubt, from the choice made of them at this critical time, that
they possessed those qualifications for being Chief Magistrates of the
Borough which Prince Rupert described.

On the 12th of October the King left Shrewsbury, and quartered for
the night at Bridgnorth, where, Clarendon observes, “there was a
rendezvous of the whole army, which appeared very cheerful.” [_Vol. 2,
p. 42._] Here the king stayed three days; and I am one of those who
feel, that our town and Castle were never so honoured by a royal visit
as on this occasion. Many of the Monarchs of England have been here;
many crowned heads have entered the portals of our Castle, and rested
within its walls—Normans, Plantagenets, and Lancastrians—but to none
of them, in my mind, attaches the same deep interest, and to none is
due the same tribute of veneration, as to this unhappy monarch of the
House of Stuart. Not only was he by far the most accomplished Prince
that ever sat on the English throne, and endowed with considerable
intellectual powers,[48] as his successful controversy with Henderson,
the Presbyterian Minister, clearly proved; but he was distinguished
in all the relations of private life by the highest moral principle:
by a purity, fidelity, and love, which are rarely seen in king’s
courts, and have seldom been equalled in retired domestic circles; and
these virtues in him were combined with a deep-seated reverence for
religion. He was not blameless in his public conduct; far from it.
There was a weakness and want of stability in him, which justly exposed
him to the charge of inconstancy, if not of insincerity. He was subtle
and evasive, and it may be at times, under the pressure of very trying
circumstances, disingenuous in his transactions with his opponents, so
that they complained that they could not depend upon him. But he was
refined in the furnace of affliction. “Sweet” to him, as they have been
to others, were “the uses of adversity”; so that when his end drew
nigh,[49] there appeared in him, as his enemies allow, a calm heroic
fortitude—saintly magnanimity—a firmness, combined with a gentleness
and forgiving love—which we do not often find surpassed even in the
early Martyrologies. No memorial then connected with our Castle, is to
me of equal interest to that of its having been occasionally, during
his declining fortunes, the residence of Charles I.

[48] In proof of the intellectual power of Charles, additional to
that of his successful controversy with Henderson, the following
statement may be given in the words of Mr Tytler:—“In the two months’
negotiations which followed, Charles, unassisted, carried on a contest
of argument on arduous political topics with these fifteen of the
ablest senators of the day; and the commissioners were not more
struck with the ravages which persecution and suffering had wrought
in his appearance, (his hair had become entirely grey) than with the
clearness of intellect, the readiness of elocution, and the dignity of
deportment, which he displayed at these important conferences.”—_Trials
of Charles I., p. 8._

[49] The conduct and demeanour of Charles, at his trial, and on the
scaffold, have drawn even from the pen of Mr. Macaulay a passage
expressive of his admiration, and a passage so eloquent as to shine
even in his brilliant pages. But it is not more just, perhaps not more
eloquent, than the following description which is given of Charles in
the hour of adversity, by Professor Smyth:—“With what sentiment do we
now behold him?... it is the monarch unsubdued by adversity—it is the
hero unappalled by death—it is the Christian sublimed by piety and
hope—it is these that occupy our imagination and our memory. It is the
tribunal of violence—it is the scaffold of blood—that banish from our
minds all indignation but against his destroyers—all terrors but of
the licentiousness of the people: that render all regular estimation
of his character odious and impossible; and that leave nothing in the
heart of the generous and humane, but compassion for his misfortunes,
and reverence for his virtues.”—_Lectures on Modern History, Vol. 1, p.
441._

It was on one of these visits that he passed that eulogium, so well
known, and, in the opinion of many, so well deserved, on our Castle
Walk; namely, that it was the finest walk in his dominions. We can
easily picture him to our minds, (for there is no King with whose
lineaments we seem to be so familiar, in consequence of the many
inimitable paintings of him by Vandyke) we can easily picture him, with
measured step and pensive aspect, taking his walk along this terrace,
and his face for a moment lighted up with pleasure at the fair scene
which burst upon him; each step as he advanced bringing into view some
new and striking object—the bold front of the High Rock—the wooded
declivities of Apley—the graceful winding of the Severn, with its
“margent green,” and the sloping uplands on either side of it. But
he could not give free indulgence to such pleasurable emotions, for
a heavy burden of care lay upon his mind, which did not admit of his
thoughts being long diverted to anything else.

He left Bridgnorth on the 15th of October, and eight days after was
fought the famous Battle of Edge Hill,[50] in Warwickshire, where, if
it had not been for the fiery impetuosity of Prince Rupert, such a
signal victory might have been gained by the King over the forces of
the rebels, as to decide the fate of the campaign in his favour. Then
followed the taking of Banbury Castle, the march of the King’s army
to Oxford and Reading, and the capture of the town of Marlborough.
These military operations in different parts of the country convinced
the authorities of Bridgnorth of the necessity of making further
preparations for the defence of the town, and we find a Common Hall
order was passed for this purpose, dated November 29th, 1642:—“Watch
and ward shall be duly set day and night in all convenient places of
the towne where the Bayliffs shall think fit, and the open places
within the said towne to be made up as the Bailiffs shall find
expedient; and such as are minded for their own safety, and the safety
of the towne, to bear arms, they are desired with all convenient
expedition to provide arms at the general charge of the towne.”

[50] It appears that the King was exposed to great personal hazard
in this battle, and owed his deliverance to the prompt and intrepid
conduct of Adam Hill, Esq., of Spaldwick. When Prince Rupert, by his
rash pursuit of the enemy’s cavalry, had thrown the royal army into a
state of disorder, the King was at one time in danger of being taken
prisoner, when this brave officer, by rallying a troop of horse, of
which he was in command, checked the advance of the enemy, and thus
averted the King’s danger. Charles shewed his sense of this gallant
feat of arms, and his gratitude for this service, by investing him on
the field of battle with his own royal scarf. This gorgeous scarf,
the material and workmanship of which is peculiarly beautiful, having
descended as an heirloom to Peter Denny, a grandson of Adam Hill’s by
his daughter Cordelia, is now in the possession of Sir Edward Denny,
Bart, of Tralee.—_“Royal Presents to the Denny’s” by Rev. A. B. Rowan,
p. 3._

But in the beginning of the next year they deemed it necessary to
introduce a few horse soldiers into the town, as appears from a Common
Hall order, dated January 25th, 1643; by which it was agreed that nine
dragoons should be maintained at the general charge of the said town.
Towards the charge of the said nine dragoons, it is stated that Mr.
Thomas Corbett undertook to lend a horse and provide a rider, so that
the town should bear the charge of the horse and rider. Thomas Glover
undertook to provide two horses, saddles, and bridles, at 1s. per day
for the hire of each horse. Several other persons furnished a horse
and sword, and a bandolier each. Captains of the watch and ward were
appointed, with orders that the said watch and ward be from Six o’clock
in the morning until Six o’clock in the evening, and from Six o’clock
in the evening until Six o’clock in the morning; and it was appointed
that eight men should watch in the night, and six men in the day.

In the beginning of this year, the King had made Lord Capel, Lieutenant
Governour of our county, than whom there is not one in either
party during those troubled times that bore a more honoured name—a
loyal-hearted servant of the crown—a dutiful and devout member of the
Church of England—one of the firmest, as well as noblest, champions
that the royal cause could boast of.[51] While exercising his function
as Lieutenant Governor of Shropshire, he was not unmindful of so
important a post as Bridgnorth, but adopted means for its security,
as we find by an order of the Common Hall, of May 23rd, 1643:—“The
Right Honorable the Lord Capel, Lieutenant General to the Prince
his Highness, of his Majesty’s forces in the countyes of Worcester,
Salop, and Chester, and the six northern countyes of Wales, hath
appointed Sir Thomas Wolrich, Knight and Bart., to draw his forces of
the trayned band of this county which are under his command, to this
towne and neighbourhood hereabouts of Bridgnorth; it is agreed that
fortifications be made in all fords and places about this towne, and
the liberties thereof, where the said Thomas Wolrich shall think good
to appoint, and that all the men of this towne shall come themselves,
or send labourers to this work, with all speed; unto which work Edward
Cressett, Esq., and Edward Acton, Esq., justices of peace of the said
county, being present, do promise to send labourers and workmen out of
the country. Secondly, whosoever has volunteered will bear arms for
the defence of this towne, and the neighbourhood hereabouts, shall
be listed, and attend the service of training weekly, upon every
Tuesday, to be exercised therein, whose teaching and training for that
service Lieutenant Billingsley (at the towne’s entreaty) is pleased to
undertake.”

[51] Clarendon, who has given a sketch of the character of this
cavalier, and an affecting account of his execution, and of the
christian courage with which he submitted to it, thus sums up his
description of him:—“In a word, he was a man, that whoever shall after
him deserve best of the English nation, he can never think himself
undervalued when he shall hear that his courage, virtue, and fidelity
is laid in the balance with, and compared to that of Lord Capel.” ...
_Vol._ III, _p. 273_.

The year 1644 was a disastrous one to the royal cause, in consequence
of the signal victory, which Cromwell gained over Prince Rupert at
Marston Moor, July 2nd; and the following year opened very gloomily on
the fortunes of the king; but the people of Bridgnorth did not desert
the cause of their sovereign, though recent events had proved it to be
a failing one, but they made further preparations for resisting the
insurgents, and for holding out against them.

It appears that a Committee had been formed for the purpose of
hastening forward the works, and for putting the town in as good a
posture of defence as the circumstances would allow. The following is a
copy of another order made by them, dated May 21st, 1645:—

    “Commissioners present,
        Sir Lewis Kirke, Governor.
        Sir Edward Acton, Bart.
        Edward Cressett, Esq.
        Francis Billingsley, Lieutenant Colonel.
        Thomas Wynde, Lieutenant Colonel.
        John Bromley, Esq.
        Arthur Weaver.
        Edward Latham.

It is ordered that with all convenient speed Colonel Billingsley shall
place soldiers and arms in the North Gate, in Whitburn and in the
Hungry Gates, and that the barns without the works be pulled down,
and that the prisoners who are there be taken thence and disposed of
elsewhere, by Mr. Bailiffs, and that the Towne Walls on both sides
North Gate, and the works about the towne, be presently made up, and
the Towne Hall and New House pulled down, and for the making of the
said wall the treasurer to lay out money not exceeding £10 for workmen,
to be repaid out of the first money raised out of the delinquents’
Estates. _Copia vera._”

[Illustration: _The West (or Hungry) Gate._

From a Sketch in the Bodleian Library.]

On the 10th of June there was a farther order on the subject. “At a
Comon Hall it was agreed that the Chamberlain of the towne should cause
the Towne Hall to be taken down with all convenient speed according
to the foregoing order from Sir Lewis Kirke, governor of the said
towne, and other above-named Commissioners, and that the Chamberlain
shall make sale thereof for the most benefit of the towne, and what
they cannot sell thereof, to cause the timber which shall remain to be
carried into the church, there to remain until further use shall be
for the same for the towne. And the New House is in the like manner
to be taken down if needs require. And it is further also agreed that
the Towne’s Bonds and writings concerning the towne, which are in the
New House, shall be left with the Towne Clerk, or in any other place
which the Bailiffs and he shall think fit. And if they shall happen
to be taken from them the towne is to bear the loss of them, and not
they, because they are not able to warrant them, nor anything else that
they have of their own, as it is very well known both to the towne and
country, whereof they are all very sensible, this towne being every day
in danger of being taken.” The Town Hall, which, as it appears by a
deed, dated Oct. 20th, 1645, stood upon the site of the old Poor House,
of St. Leonard’s Parish, outside the North Gate, was accordingly pulled
down forthwith, and in the month following, July, 1645, the New House
was also pulled down. [_Apley Papers._]

Four days after the date of this order, was fought another great
battle, at Naseby in Northamptonshire—fatal to the fortunes of the
King; for here again, through the impetuous and fiery temper of Prince
Rupert, who could brook no delay when an enemy was in sight, and listen
to no counsel that was not prompted by a spirit as daring as his own,
the King’s troops were hurried on prematurely to the attack, and though
they displayed a courage worthy of the Cavalier who led them, they
were eventually routed, and suffered a signal defeat. All the cannon,
ammunition, and baggage, were taken, and the whole of the infantry
made prisoners. The King in person had the command of the main body,
and, as Whitelock observes, “displayed in this action all the conduct
of a prudent general, and all the valour of a stout soldier;” [_Hume,
Vol._ VII, _p. 54_.] but he was forced at last by the solicitations of
his friends to retire, leaving the insurgents masters of the field.
He retreated to Lichfield, thence to Bewdley, thence to Raglan and
Chepstow Castles, and afterwards to Wales, uncertain as to the best
place for collecting the remnant of his army, and for providing for his
own personal safety.

But an incident took place at Bridgnorth, about a month after the
Battle of Naseby, which might have changed the whole aspect of the
affairs of the kingdom, and restored Charles to the throne; but
Providence designed it otherwise. Cromwell was near meeting his death
beneath the walls of our town; and if the Bridgnorth soldier had been a
little better marksman, we should never have heard of the Protectorate
of Oliver Cromwell, or possibly of the Commonwealth of England.

The account of this incident may be found among the _Blakeway Papers_,
in the Bodleian Library, and is as follows:—“1645. Weekly Account.
Tuesday, July 15th. Lieutenant General Cromwell riding within twice
pistole shot of the town of Bridgnorth, on Friday last, to view it,
making some stand to speak with his officers that were with him, a
brace of musquet bulletts, shot from the enemies works, hit a Cornet
of his regiment with whom the Lieutenant General was then talking, but
blessed be God the person aimed at escaped without any hurt.”

Amidst the disaffection which prevailed at this time in so many parts
of the kingdom, Shropshire still continued firm in its allegiance
to the King; and therefore it was thought advisable, when he was
about to take up his winter quarters at Worcester, that he should
pass through our county, as affording him the safest line of march;
and this route brought him again to Bridgnorth. It is thus noticed
by Clarendon:—“Prince Maurice waited on his Majesty, [at Denbigh]
with 800 horse. And now being thus strengthened, they less apprehend
the enemy; yet continued their march without resting, till fording
the Severn, they came to Bridgnorth, the place designed.” (_Vol. 2,
p. 714._) There are also several entries in a Diary, called “_Iter
Carolinum_,” which state that Charles was here occasionally about the
same time; but it is not easy to make out an exact correspondence
between the dates which it gives, and those referred to by Clarendon.
The Diary, which is one of much interest, bears the following
title:—“Iter Carolinum: being a succint relation of the necessitated
marches, retreats, and sufferings of his Majesty Charles the First,
from Jan. 1641, till the time of his death in 1648. Collected by a
daily attendant upon his sacred Majesty during all the said time.”[52]
From this Diary I have copied the following entries:—

[52] This tract is printed in Gutch’s Collectanea Coriosa, Oxford 1781.
The Author, John Thomas Manby.

    “_October 12, 1642._ To Bridgnorth.
              August, 1645.
    _Wednesday, the 6th._ To Gurnevil. Sir
        Henry Williams’. Dinner.
        Supper, Yeoman’s House. 18 miles.
        The Court dispersed.”

    “_Thursday, the 7th._ To Ludlow Castle to dinner.
        Colonel Woodhouse. 14 miles.”

    “_Friday, the Great Fast, the 8th._ To Bridgnorth,
        Sir Lewis Kirke, Governor. 14 miles.”
    “_Sunday, the 10th._ Dinner near Wolverhampton,
        in campis. At Litchfield supper, the Governor’s
        in the Close. 22 miles.”

    “September, 1645.”

    “_Monday, the 29th._ Dinner at Chirk Castle.
        Supper at Halton, in Montgomeryshire.
        Mr. Lloyd’s. 26 miles.”

    “_Tuesday, the last._ in camp.
        Supper at Bridgnorth, the Governor’s. 30 miles.”

The King on, this occasion staid here two nights, and on Thursday, the
2nd. of October, moved to Lichfield, stopping for dinner on the way at
Rudge Heath.

In the Diary[53] kept by Captain Symmonds, which has already been
referred to, there are entries which afford additional proof of King
Charles being at Bridgnorth, at different intervals during this
critical juncture, and of our town being a scene of much military
bustle at the time.

[53] This MS. Diary, which is in the British Museum, is entitled
“A Continuation of the Marches and Actions of the Royall Army, His
Majestie being personally present. From the 17 of August, 1645. Liber
Ricardi Symonds.”

    “_Sunday, September 28th._ About One of the Clock,
      Afternoon, ye King marched through Ruthvyn, where there
      is a large castle, and fortified, to Chirk Castle,
      County of Denbigh. Here Prince Maurice mett us with his
      troupe, and those of Prince Rupert’s horse that came
      from Bristoll. His horse in tᵒ 6 or 700.”

    “_Munday, 29th. September._ To Llandicilio and
      Llandernes, Co. Montgommery.”

    “_Tuesday_. From thence early at day breake marched,
      leaving Shrewsbury [at this time in the hands of the
      rebels] 3 myle on the left hand: that night, late and
      tediously, to Bridgnorth; ye rear guard gott to Wenlock
      Magna, Com, Salop. In this march, 3 or 4 alarmes by
      Shrewsbury horse, and 5 or 6 of them crosst the way,
      and killed and tooke some.” (_p. 59._)

    “_Thursday, October 2nd_. Ye King marched to Lichfield.
      This day Generall Goard’s Regiment returned from the
      Rendevous, quite tired, to have some refreshments under
      Bridgnorth garrison. Ego etiam.” (_p. 60._)

    “_20th. October._ Sevrall Colonels with their Regiments
      were in Bridgnorth:

                 FOOT.
      Sir Lewis Kirke’s Governor.
      Col. Jo. Corbett’s.
      Col. Billingsley’s, ye trayned band and his Regiment in the town.
      Col. Sir Mich. Earnley’s one company of ym.
      Sir Cha. Lloyd’s, come here from ye Devises.
            Foot, about in all, of all sorts, 260.

                 HORSE.
      Sir Fra. Ottley, ye High Sheriff.
      Sir Edw. Acton. 10.
      Governor’s troope. 60.

                 Horse not 100.”
    “_Wednesday, October 22nd._ Lieut. Col. Slaugher
      marched out of Bridgnorth about 2 of ye Clock,
      afternoon. Governor’s troop, commanded by Cap. Singe,
      40. That night by 8 to High Arcall. Thence marched, 30
      horse and 20 drag. with us, about 12 of ye Clock that
      night. By 9 next day to Chirk.”

    “_Thursday, December 18th._ Sir W. V. drew out the
      horse he had with him afore, and some from Dudley
      and Ludlow. 6 or 700 horse, commanded by Col. Smyth.
      Horse 5 or 600. Marched from Bridgnorth, and had a
      Rendevous towards S. Friday morning came intelligence
      to Bridgnorth that Hereford was lost.”[54]

[54] In this Diary there are two or three curious entries, which,
though not referring to any matter of public importance, it may be as
well to transcribe: one, detailing a singular occurrence, is connected
with a name well known in Bridgnorth. “Monday, Oct. 13. Captn.
_Gatacre_, of this County, (Salop) killed in Bridgnorth by a Quarter
Master, and the Quarter Master killed too by him.” “Friday, Oct. 17. A
Scott was tryed at Bridgenorth, at a Council of Warre, that he put on
his hatt before his Majestie, and being reprehend for it by the Govr.,
he told them he was equal to all but the Govr., and they committed him
for it.”

There are extant two letters[55] of King Charles’s, written to his
Secretary Nicholas, from Bridgnorth. They contain nothing of any great
moment; but the fact of their being written from our town, under the
peculiar circumstances in which he was then placed, invests them with a
certain degree of interest. The first is dated October 1st.: the year
is not given, but it was most probably 1642,[56] as we find from the
“_Iter Carolinum_” that he was here in the October of that year.

[55] I am indebted to Mrs. Stackhouse Acton for the copy of these two
letters of King Charles’s. They are found in an 8vo. Vol. of King
Charles’s letters to his Secretary Nicholas, in which the ciphers are
explained as above. I owe to her kindness also my acquaintance with the
“Iter Carolinum” and “Symmonds’ Diary.”

[56] The only difficulty that there is in assigning to this letter the
date of October, 1642, is that the king speaks in it of Lord Goring
being in command of his horse; whereas, we learn from Whitelock, that
Lord Goring, in the Autumn of that year, took ship from Portsmouth,
where he was closely besieged by the Parliamentary army, and fled to
Holland. (_Memorials, p. 62._) But Whitelock does not give the exact
date of the siege of Portsmouth, so that the King may have written this
letter to his Secretary Nicholas from Bridgnorth, before it took place,
or at least before he had received any tidings of it.

                                    “Bridgenorthe, 1st. Oct.
    Nicholas,
          None of the letters have hitherto miscarried,
    this day having receaved ye 12th. by Pyteford, and
    shall at the tyme more insist upon letting you know of
    my desynes, and giving you directions, than in answers,
    having commanded your fellow Secretary to supply that.
    First then, (that you may know whether to send to me)
    I intend my course towards Newarke, where I shall
    take further resolutions, according to occasions.
    Understanding that my horse, under Goring, is likely to
    be {either/224} {beaten/173} or {starved/36} : 3 : 380.
    where they are: I have comand him to breake through
    to me. Now they must passe by or near Oxen, when my
    pleasure is {that/288} : {you/110} . 232 . {take/226} :
    {that/443} opportunity {to/290} : {send/264} {Duke/125}
    : {of/231} : {Yorke/541} : {to/290} : {me/213} : for
    since it is the fashion to {yielde/314} : {townes/54}
    : basely, none can blame me for venturing my children
    in an army, rather than to be besieged. I have no more
    to say, but that I approve of all ye advyse in your
    last, and meanes to follow them. One of the enclosed is
    for {Queen/247} : {of/231} : {England/360}. The other
    speakes itself; so I rest,
                                               C. R.”

The other letter was written three years later by the King to his
Secretary, the day after his arrival at Bridgnorth, on his march from
Ludlow to Lichfield.

                            “Bridgenorth, 9th. August, 1645.
    Nicholas,
          This morning I receaved yrs of the 30th. of July,
    which requyres no answer, but thankes for yr often
    advertisements: and particularly for those which are of
    moste freedome. In answer to which, I shall desyre you
    (with ye lyke freeness) to take heede that {Digby’s/358}
    : {friends/376} make not much of suspicion * * * * * for
    {I/174} : 111 : {cannot/29} : {con/18} : 115 ceale {from/148}
    {you/316} : {that/276} : 358. [erased] perfectly—and
    all that are believed to be his particular friends;
    and I assure you that there is no dispatch yet come to
    me from —— For newes I refer you to your friendes,
    only I must tell you that tomorrow I intend to march
    to Lichfield, and so to Newarke ye next day; but if ye
    Irish be come, then I turne to Chester. My laste was
    from Cardiffe, which was written in such haste, that I
    forgot to bid you sende me worde (which now I earnestly
    desyre you not to forget to doe) how my printed
    letters, &c., have been receaved at Oxfd. by the
    severall sorts of people, according to their dyverse
    humours. This is all at this tyme from yrs
                                               C. R.”

Soon after the date of this letter, the King set out for Newark, from
whence, after a while, he retreated towards Oxford, where he arrived on
the 7th. of November, “having finished,” as Clarendon writes, “the most
tedious and grievous march that ever King was exercised in: having been
almost in perpetual motion from the loss of the Battle of Naseby to
this hour, with such a variety of dismal accidents, as must have broken
the spirits of any man who was not truly magnanimous.” (_Vol. 2, p.
713._)

While the King was being exposed to these personal hazards and
distresses, many towns and cities in his interest, in different parts
of the country, had been obliged to submit to the parliament, and among
these Bridgnorth; which, after a vigorous resistance, and holding out
boldly for three weeks, was compelled at length to surrender.

It appears, however, that long previous to the final siege and capture
of Bridgnorth, the rebels had on one occasion got possession of it
for a short time. The following letter, which refers to this fact,
and which describes a sharp encounter between the rebel and royalist
forces, will be read with some interest; though it is probable that the
facts are somewhat distorted by the strong party feeling of the writer.

           1642, Oct. 5. Letter from Bridgnorth to
                         Dudley Norton.
        Exceeding joyful news from his Ex. Earl of E.
    Sir,
         Having received so many favors from you in this
    kinde, I have thought it requisite to inform you what hath
    happened here at Bridgnorth since my last letter. His
    E. his Qr. Master General came hither on Sunday, the 2
    of Octr.[57] and by virtue of a Commission from his Ex.
    provided billeting for 10 regiments of horse, and near
    6000 foot, with us and in our neighbour villages. Now,
    by the way, I must inform you that a great many having
    been lately oppressed by his Majesty’s forces, seemed
    somewhat unwilling to give entertainment to any more
    souldiers, but to be short they must do it, or else
    deservedly suffer under the censure of a malignant
    party, and so be in danger of having their houses
    plundered by souldiers, who take upon them to execute
    justice without or feare or law, or religion, esteeming
    all those papists, or favourers of papists that doe not
    desist from countenancing such uncivil actions, but
    deny to be assistant in the performance; wherefore,
    after the necessity was well examined, they were
    resolved rather to put all into the hands of Almighty
    God, then any way to seem averse, which would not only
    bring ruine to the estate, but presents. [_sic._]

    On Thursday, at night, we expected his Ex. would have
    made Bridgnorth his quarters, but before noone we heard
    the echoing notes of the shrill trumpet, which caused
    to think his Ex. had been neare, but having sent out
    scouts to descry the truth, and give us notice, they
    brought us word that Duke Maurice, the Lord Strange,
    Marquisse Hartford, the Lord Paulet, M. Hastings, of
    Leicestershire, S. John Biron, with a very considerable
    army, were upon a march to our town, which news began
    to startle us: instantly an alarm was given, every man
    from 16 to 50, and upwards, got himself into such arms
    as they could presently attaine, or could imagine be
    conduceable, for the defence of the towne.

    Likewise we had 5 field pieces and 3 troups of horse,
    which came to guard them from Worcester, in our town,
    being come the night before; those we mounted upon the
    church, and the rest in the best places where we could
    conceive we might prejudice the enemy. Our troups of
    horse made good a passage where they were to pass over
    before they could attaine to the towne. Our foote made
    good severall other marches and entrances, according
    to our utmost skill and best endeavours. The Lord
    Strange feeling himself thus defeated, and having been
    gauled twice or thrice with our pieces from the top of
    the church, made a stand and drew up some companies
    of foote under the covert of a grove of willows, who,
    with their muskets, played upon our troups of horse
    and beat them from their passage, wounding neare 20,
    inasmuch that they began to wade the foard,[58] which
    being descried, we, with our bowes and arrowes, sent to
    them, which did so gaul them, being unarmed men, (only
    offensive armies) that with their utmost speed they did
    retreat, striving to renew the shelter of the grove to
    hide them from us.

    During this conflict, his Ex. with severall regiments
    of horse drewe neare the towne; which caused the Lord
    Strange to draw into a champayn field between our towne
    and him, endeavouring to intercept his passage, having
    got intelligence that his grosse body was about 3 hours
    march behind. Notwithstanding the Lord Strange his
    armie was very considerable both of horse and foote,
    yet the forces under the command of the Earle of Essex
    were so eager to fall on, that maugre all perswasions
    they would not stay till that the foote marcht up to
    second them; but having received directions from the
    Earle, they charged them boldly with their carbine
    shot, deviding so their troups, that at one onset both
    van and reare were charged so fiercely that, spight of
    all the cavalier’s discretion, they lost their order,
    and in a confused manner retreated basely.

    In this confusion many men were lost and hurt on both
    sides, but which side most, is not yet apparently
    knowne; and amongst them my Lord Paulet[59] was noosed,
    who, as it was reported, made a wise speach at the head
    of the armie before the skirmish, animating them on to
    bloody crueltie, and we doubt not but that he shall in
    some measure taste of the same dish he hath provided
    for others.

    The next day a messenger was sent to Shrewsbury, to
    desire that Captain Winget, who was taken prisoner
    before Worcester, might be exchanged for one of the
    others; but what return wee shall have is not yet
    knowne.

    It is conceived there was about 80 killed and 45
    wounded on both sides, but which side lost most I
    cannot say; onely we ought to give God thanks that
    during the space of five hours bickering, no more blood
    should be shed. This is the truth of our proceedings.
    At my next opportunity I shall send to you. Fare well.

                                   JOHN NORCROFT.

    B. N., Oct. 5, 1642.

[57] If the right date has been assigned to the first letter of King
Charles’, given above, he must have left the town the day before the
rebel forces entered it; and they could have remained here but a few
days, as he returned on the 12th.

[58] This probably was the ford near the “Shearing Bush,” and the
“champayn field” mentioned afterwards may very likely have been the
flat extensive pasture-field opposite St. James’s.

[59] Lord Paulet, though made prisoner on this occasion, regained his
liberty afterwards by some means, for he is mentioned as one of those
who were engaged in the siege of Lyme, in 1644.

We learn also from the following extract from a Puritan tract, entitled
“_The Burning Bush not consumed_,” that in the Autumn of the year 1645,
that is, about half-a-year before the capture of the town and castle,
a detachment from the garrison of Shrewsbury [at that time in the
hands of the rebels] made an attempt on Bridgnorth, which partially
succeeded:—“About the 12th. inst., (_i. e._ 12th. Sept., 1645) we
received certain intelligence by letters from _Shrewsbury_, that the
valiant and victorious forces of that brave and most active garrison,
having intelligence in what posture the enemy lay at _Bridgenorth_,
they suddenly and silently marched thither, and undiscovered fell upon
the sentinels, soone surprized them, carried the town itself, and then
fell upon the enemy, drove them into the Castle, slew some of them,
and tooke some prisoners that the enemy had of theirs, tooke about 180
horse, and some good pillage; all which they safely brought away, and
returned triumphantly to _Shrewsbury_ againe.” (_Part_ IV, _p. 268_.)

It is, however, the final siege and capture of Bridgnorth that is
the matter of chief interest to us, and fortunately we have a very
detailed account of what then took place.[60] The Parliamentary
Committee of Shrewsbury, after the surrender of the garrison of High
Ercall, despatched a party of horse and foot against Bridgnorth.
But these being delayed longer than was anticipated, on account of
the length of the march, and the fatigue which they had suffered in
consequence, the inhabitants received notice of their design, and had
time to make some preparations against the attack. Nevertheless the day
following, _i. e._ March 31, 1646, they were summoned to surrender.
Colonel Billingsley, who commanded the town, made no reply to the
summons, and Colonel Howard, who held the Castle, sent a peremptory
answer of defiance. On this the Parliamentary forces formed themselves
into three divisions, and determined to storm the town. The cavalry
approached the North Gate by the Broseley Road; that part of it, lying
between the present Turnpike Gate and the Innage Lane, being then a
very deep and narrow defile, in some places 80 feet deep. At this point
they suffered severely; for the King’s troops, taking advantage of
the nature of the ground, killed many of them, not only by shot, but
by rolling down large stones upon them from the summit of the rock. A
body of infantry, however, made their approach by a path considerably
to the left of this, most probably by the fields adjoining the old
Rope Walk, and from thence by Love Lane they advanced against Saint
Leonard’s Church Yard. Into this they easily forced an entrance, as it
was only slightly fenced by palisades. There a sharp encounter ensued
between them and a body of the King’s troops, and before the fight was
done many were left companions of the dead, on whose graves they had
so fiercely fought. Among these was the gallant Colonel Billingsley,
the leader of the Royalists. The sword which he used on the occasion,
is now in the possession of a descendant of the family, in the parish
of Astley Abbots, by whom it is preserved with all the reverent care,
which is due to so valuable an heirloom. It had often been drawn by
this brave cavalier in the cause of his rightful sovereign, and it did
its last service in one of the consecrated enclosures of that church,
which he, as well as other noble soldiers of his time, felt it both
his duty, and one of the privileges of his birthright, to defend. He
lies buried in the Church Yard of Astley Abbots, his native parish; but
the parish of Saint Leonard has reaped a benefit from its Church Yard
having been the scene of the last gallant action which he performed;
for it was partly at least on this account, that a connection of
Colonel Billingsley founded and endowed the Hospital for ten poor
widows, which stands on the south side of Saint Leonard’s Church. The
inscription over the gate bears witness to this. It is as follows.—

“Anno Domini, MDCLXXXVII.

These ALMES HOUSES, for ten poor Widdows of this upper Town, were Built
and Endowed by FRANCIS PALMER, late RECTOR of SANDY, in the County of
Bedford, who had an affection to this Place, his Mother being buried
in this Church, and was Sister to Colonel FRANCIS BILLINGSLEY, late
of Abbots Astley, slain in this Church Yard, in the Service of KING
CHARLES ye first.”

[60] These particulars I have collected partly from the Blakeway
Papers, and partly from the puritan tract of “The Burning Bush not
consumed.”

But it is time to return to the narrative of the siege. The infantry
of the Parliamentary forces having succeeded in the encounter with
the King’s troops in the Church Yard, immediately opened the North
Gate, and gave admittance to the cavalry; and before this combined
body of horse and foot, the Royalists were compelled to retreat into
the Castle. On their way they were annoyed by the inhabitants of the
town, who hurled stones and other missiles on them, from the stalls and
piazzas which lined the High Street. It is evident that a bad feeling
had sprung up between them, from what cause is not exactly known. I
have seen documents which clearly prove that some Roundheads had been
for a time in the town, secretly plotting against the cause of the
King; and these very likely stirred up ill will between the soldiers
and the inhabitants, which, as other documents clearly prove, was
aggravated by the rude license which soldiers under such circumstances
often give themselves.[61] Whitelock states (_p. 206_) that the town
had refused to bring in a month’s provisions for the troops, which
had been expected, and this was a wrong which no doubt deepened the
feeling of resentment already existing. To this, some suppose is to
be attributed the destruction of the town by fire, which the King’s
troops effected after getting into the Castle. This act on their part,
however, may have been, one, simply of self defence; for they very
probably thought, that if the enemy obtained possession of the town as
it stood, it would give them great advantage in carrying on the siege
of the Castle, and of this advantage they were determined to deprive
them. They therefore at once set fire to the town. The first house that
caught fire was one in Listley Street, which stood near the northern
postern of the Castle, and from this it spread till it reached the
middle of High Street; there it was extinguished by the exertions of
the Parliamentary troops. The garrison of the Castle made a second
attempt on Easter Tuesday, and completely succeeded. Unhappily for the
ancient Church of St. Leonard’s, the rebel army had converted it into
a powder magazine—for in the rude time of war but little respect is
paid to the consecrated houses of God, provided they can be turned to
any advantage; and they who scrupled not to make Worcester Cathedral a
stable for their cavalry horses, would not hesitate to turn the Parish
Church of St. Leonard’s into an ammunition store. But it proved fatal
to the building; for the Governor of the Castle, Sir Lewis Kirke,
hearing of the circumstance, caused a cannon to be mounted on a round
tower on the North East side of the Castle, and from thence bombarded
the Church, and set fire to it. The wind being high, the flames quickly
spread to the adjoining College and Almshouses, and at last consumed
all that remained of the High Town.[62] The soldiers belonging to the
army of the Parliament endeavoured to arrest the progress of the fire,
but they were so galled by shots fired from the walls of the Castle,
that they were obliged to give over the attempt; so that the flames
spread in every direction without resistance, and soon accomplished
the work of destruction. Thus was our ancient town laid in ruins:
scarcely anything belonging to it was spared. Private houses and
public offices—the receipt of custom and the hall of justice—the
mart of merchandise and the sanctuary of God—alike had become a prey
to the devouring element; and little or nothing was left but bare
walls, blackened and defaced by fire. The misery of the inhabitants
is described as having been most severe. Rich and poor alike (for it
was one of those visitations which levels all distinctions) were left
houseless, and sought shelter where they could, in the fields around
the town, in thickets, and under rocks: all their household property
destroyed, and their life itself in jeopardy. Many a wretched invalid,
wholly unfit to be moved, would be hurried from his bed to escape the
flames—those at least who had any to care for them; while some, no
doubt, in the confusion and alarm would be forgotten, and left to die a
more awful death than they had looked for—their own bed becoming their
funeral pile. He surely brings on himself a fearful responsibility
who heedlessly evokes the spirit of war, and without an imperative
necessity draws the sword to do its dreadful work.

[61] Appendix H.

[62] Appendix I.

[Illustration: _Saint Leonard’s Church._]

The Parliamentary army were not deterred from the purpose on which they
were sent, by the horrors that surrounded them (for they were dauntless
men); but laid close siege to the Castle. They directed their attack
against the Close, which was a place within the inner Castle adjoining
the Great Tower, and containing within it the Governor’s house. They
chose Pam-pudding Hill as the best platform on which to erect their
battery, and from thence they bombarded the Castle for three weeks; but
to no purpose. No breach was effected. The garrison, from the great
eminence on which they stood, quite overlooked the besieging party;
and their cannonade from the tower was so effective as to overpower
that of the enemy. A singular incident is related as having taken
place while this cannonade was going on. “The battery on Pam-pudding
Hill played very furiously on the besieged: the cannoneer, answering
them very smartly from the town, sent his ball in the clear, or bore,
of one of the great guns, burst it, and killed the engineer and many
others.” It is curious that an exactly similar circumstance is said to
have occurred in an early stage of the siege of Sebastopol. A Russian
artilleryman, making answer to one of ours, sent a ball directly into
the mouth of the English gun, and a splinter from the gun struck our
poor artilleryman dead.

The leader of the Parliamentary army, seeing how fruitless the
operations were which he had hitherto engaged in, devised another mode
of assault. He determined to sap the Castle; and for this purpose
employed a party, under Colonel Lavingstone, to make a large opening on
the South side of the hill, intending to lay a Mine immediately under
Saint Mary’s Church, where the garrison had stored their ammunition.
They commenced their excavations, and the opening which they made is
still visible. It may be seen in the face of the rock which stands to
the right of the New Road, before you ascend the hill, and it still
bears the name of “Lavingstone’s Hole.” The enemy had no occasion
to proceed far with this mine; for the Governor, Colonel Howard,
perceiving what inevitable destruction it would cause to the Castle and
the garrison, if the mine were sprung, surrendered to the enemy, to
prevent an unnecessary waste of human life.

The terms of Capitulation have been preserved.[63] They were honourable
to the brave men, who had with such valour, and with such true fidelity
to the king, maintained this post so long in his name, and adhered to
his cause so firmly amidst the disheartening events which were daily
taking place. The Castle on its surrender came into the possession of
the Parliamentary party, who, a few months after the seizure, entirely
demolished it, and gradually removed all its ruins, except that one
lonely fragment of it, which stands on the south east side of the
Castle Hill.

[63] Appendix K.

Such was the end of this famous fortress—a stronghold indeed, made so
by nature, as well as by engineering skill, around whose walls the
storm of war had so often and so fiercely raged—a royal castle also,
over which the banner of the Kings of England had floated for more
than five hundred years, and which now sank into rain cotemporaneously
with the overthrow of the monarchy.

[Illustration: _The Remains of the Castle._]

It may perhaps be a matter of surprise that in the account which has
been given of Bridgnorth during the civil wars, and of the town and
fortress, no mention has been made of the name of “Whitmore,” although
Sir William Whitmore at this time was the owner of the Castle; but the
fact is, that he had business enough on his hands in endeavouring to
defend his own residence at Apley from the attacks of the insurgents,
so that he had no time to devote to other interests. He maintained
possession of Apley till the spring of 1644, when it was taken by a
party of Roundheads, under the command of Sir John Price,[64] and Sir
William himself made prisoner. An attempt was made to recover it in the
month of June, of the following year, by some of the King’s forces from
Worcester, Lichfield, and other garrisons; but they were encountered by
a detachment of the opposite party from Shrewsbury, and four hundred of
them taken prisoners; and Sir William Crofts, of Hereford, was among
the slain. (_History of Shrewsbury, Vol. 1, p. 460, note 2._)

[64] “A party of Sir William Brereton’s, under Sir John Price, a
Member of Parliament, took Apseley House in Shropshire, and in it Sir
William Whitmore, Sir Francis Oatley, Mr. Owen, and other Commissioners
of Array there sitting, and about 60 common soldiers.” _Whitelock’s
Memorials, p. 134._

The property of Sir William Whitmore, like that of other Royalists,
was forfeited, and became the spoil of the Parliamentary party: all
his personal goods and chattels were sequestrated, and sold for
the benefit of the State, for the sum of £583 3s. 2d. His estates
were siezed, and he was afterwards allowed to compound for them by
paying the sum of £5,000.[65] This was the common lot of such, as in
those troubled times stood for the defence of their King, and were
loyal to the last. Their personal property was put into the hands of
Parliamentary sequestrators, and sold as forfeit to the State; and
their landed estates were bought back by their rightful owners at a
considerable sacrifice. A register was kept, and afterwards published,
of the names of those who thus suffered in the cause of loyalty, with
the sum, for which they compounded, affixed to each. It is entitled, “A
Catalogue of the Lords, Knights, and Gentlemen, that have compounded
for their Estates. _London, printed 1655._”[66] In it are to be found
the familiar Shropshire names of Whitmore, Wolwryche, Acton, Corbett,
Ottley, Billingsley, Littleton, Eyton, Newport, Weld, Pigot, &c.;
and certainly it detracts nothing from the honour which belongs to
these ancient families, that their names are inscribed in this “black
legend,” as it was very fitly termed. On the blank leaf of the copy
which I have seen is the following entry in manuscript:—

[65] Appendix L.

[66] A copy of this very scarce and curious book is in the possession
of Mr. S. Sydney Smith, who very kindly permitted me to make the above
extract from it. Perhaps I may be allowed to express the satisfaction
which I felt, on finding in this list of loyal sufferers the names of
two of my own kindred, belonging to a branch of our family who had
early settled in the county of Chester. “Bellett, John, Senior, and
John his son, of Morton, Com. Chest., Esq., 1005. 05: 00.”

    “Total Fines                      £1,275,667
     Value of Annuities, at 10 years      90,000
                                     ___________
     Amount of Money at the period
         of exaction                   1,365,667
     Equal in money of the present
         period, 1842, to four times
         the amount                   £5,462,668

But under the government of Cromwell, not only laymen who drew the
sword in defence of the crown, but clergymen who maintained and taught
the principles of loyalty, and who were too honest to abandon them when
they became unpopular, were deprived of their revenues. It is computed
that the number of ministers in the Church, who were ejected from
their livings on this account, were above 9000; and the sufferings
which many of them underwent, in consequence, form materials for the
most deeply affecting narratives.[67] I am sorry to say that the
minister of Saint Leonard’s was not found among those who were faithful
to their principles. While Shiffnal, and Wellington, and Chetton, and
Sidbury, and Kemberton, and Cleobury, and Highley, and others could
boast of pastors, who willingly endured persecution for conscience
sake, _Gilbert Walden_, Minister of Saint Leonard’s, Bridgnorth, was
found unfaithful in the day of trial, and seems to have sacrificed his
principles to his interest. His name is found in the Parish Register
as minister, within a year of the date of the siege, when the town was
in the hands of the Royalists; then it disappears from it, when it
was evident that the fortunes of that party were declining; and then
appears again, when the town was in possession of the Parliamentary
party. So that it is to be feared that he professed allegiance to the
King and Church when he thought their cause likely to prosper, but when
it declined he attached himself to the Roundheads.

[67] Appendix M.

Indeed this is scarcely a mere matter of inference, as the reader may
judge for himself from an entry, still remaining in the books of the
Corporation. It is as follows:—Bridgnorth. Aᵒ Dⁿⁱ 1644. “At the Court
Leete held in the said Town of Bridgnorth, the VIIᵗʰ day of May. Aᵒ
Caroli Augᵗ XXº Richard Synge and Willᵐ Bradley, gent, being Bayliffs.
At this Leete it was moted by the Bayliffs and others, That forsomuch
as Mr. Gilbert Walden, the late publiq Preacher of the said Town, is
recesste and gon out of the said Town, and hath deserted his place
ever sithence aboute a moneth before Easter last. That one Mr. Thomas
Laughton, Master of Artes, a Preacher (who is recommended to the place
by Sʳ Lewis Kirke, Knight, Governoʳ of the said Towne, and whoe hath
supplyed the place since Mr. Walden’s goeing away) shold be accepted
by the Town in the said Mr. Walden’s place, to be publiq Preacher of
the said Town, wᵗʰ the profitte and allowance thereunto belonginge;
unto wh. all that were here present at this Leete agree, and nominate
him, the said Mr. Laughton, publiq Preacher of the said Town, with
all such proffits and allowance as the said Mr. Walden had of the
Town’s allowance in that behalfe, Soe as he preach two Sundayes at the
High Church, and the third at the Low Church, as Mr. Walden did. And
this to be further confirmed at a Common Hall, yf it be desired.” The
Parliament were not unmindful of Gilbert Walden, but in reward for his
desertion of the Royalists, placed him again in his office as Minister
of Saint Leonard’s, and restored to him all its emoluments. But far
happier were they who stood firm in the evil day, and had the Christian
courage to brave the consequences—and with such sainted men as Hall,
and Usher, and Hammond, and Jeremy Taylor, submitted to the penalties
of sequestration, poverty, imprisonment, and exile, rather than desert
what they believed the cause of God and of His Truth.

But it must not be supposed, from anything that I have said on this
subject, that I regard as evil-minded, and unprincipled men, all
the Ministers of religion, who in those difficult and trying times
sided with Cromwell and the Parliamentary party. This would not only
be a most uncharitable opinion, but one formed in direct opposition
to the plainest historical evidence. There were men of deep piety
and extensive learning, who unhappily lent their countenance to
the usurpation of Cromwell—men who afterwards suffered persecution
themselves for conscience sake, and whose Christian worth was such,
that we may safely say of them, what Dr. Johnson says of Watts—that
they were to be imitated in everything except in their nonconformity.
Nothing indeed can be said in justification of the line of conduct
which they pursued, but they were prompted to it by pure and not by
corrupt motives, and so far they are to be respected. Among the great
and good men who were allied to the Parliamentary party, I should
especially name one, on account of his connection with Bridgnorth,
namely, _Richard Baxter_. It appears that he began his ministry in
this town, in the Church of St. Leonard’s; but left it after some
time, with, I am sorry to say, a very unfavourable impression as to
the character of our townsmen of that day. It is said that on leaving
them he shook off the dust of his feet against them, and declared
that their hearts were harder than the rock on which their town was
built. But his disappointment at the want of success in his ministry
here did not estrange his mind from the inhabitants of a place, where
he had commenced his course; but he felt, after years of absence, the
strongest desires for their welfare. A very pleasing proof we have of
this, in an old edition of his work, entitled “The Saint’s Rest” (A.
D. 1654); for there we find the following dedication to the people of
Bridgnorth:—

        TO MY DEARLY BELOVED FRIENDS
             THE INHABITANTS OF
                 BRIDGNORTH,
        BOTH MAGISTRATES AND PEOPLE,

               RICHARD BAXTER

    DEVOTETH THIS PART OF THIS TREATISE,
    IN TESTIMONY OF HIS UNFEIGNED LOVE TO
    THEM, WHO WERE THE FIRST TO WHOM HE
    WAS SENT (AS FIXED) TO PUBLISH THE
    GOSPEL; AND IN THANKFULNESS TO THE
    DIVINE MAJESTY, WHO THERE PRIVILEGED
    AND PROTECTED HIM.

It has been already stated that the fire, which took place during
the siege of the Castle, entirely destroyed the High Town, and
left it a heap of ruins. A few houses indeed survived the general
destruction.[68] One of these, which is still standing, deserves
a passing notice, as being the birthplace of Dr. Percy, Bishop of
Dromore, the well known author of “The Reliques of Ancient English
Poetry.”[69] It stands at the bottom of the Cartway, adjoining
Underhill Street, and is conspicuous among the dwellings which surround
it, not only from its size, but from its picturesque appearance, being
ornamented with several pointed gables, and being constructed partly
of solid beams of oak, in some places curiously carved, and partly of
masonry. It was built in the latter end of the sixteenth century, as
the following embossed inscription in the entrance hall informs us:—

[68] One could wish, as a mere matter of curiosity, that a remarkable
building, called “Forester’s Folly,” had been amongst those which
escaped the fire; for it was built by Richard Forester, the private
secretary of no less famous a person than Bishop Bonner, and bore the
above appellation most likely on account of the cost of its erection.
William Baxter, the Antiquary, who was a descendant of Forester, has
the following passage in his life referring to the circumstance:—

“Proavus meus Richardus de isto matrimonio susceptus uxorem habuit
Annam Richardi dicti Forestarii filiam: qui quidem Richardus filius
erat natu minor prænobilis familiæ Forestariorum. (olim Regiorum
Vigorniensis saltûs custodum) & famoso Episcopo Bonnero a-Secretis Hic
Suttanum Madoci incolebat, & egregias ædes posuit in urbicula dicta
Brugge, sive ad Pontem vel hodie dictas Forestarii Dementiam.”—_Autoris
Vita._

[69] Appendix N.

“EXCEPT THE LORD BViLD THE OWSE, THE LABOURERS THEREOF EVAIL NOTHING.
ERECTED BY R. FOR [Qy Foster] 1580.”

It was a large and stately mansion, and when the Cartway was the
principal entrance to the town it was well situated, and must have been
regarded as a dwelling of some importance. It is now in a neglected
condition, a large part of the building is untenanted, a part of the
premises is used for an iron foundry, and another part for a huckster’s
shop. But even in its present rude and decayed condition, a certain
degree of interest attaches to it, as being one of the few surviving
relics of our old town; which interest is further enhanced, from its
having been, about an hundred years ago, the birth place of one, whose
literary attainments may be supposed to reflect no little honor on
Bridgnorth.

[Illustration]

It remains for us to consider how the town recovered from the state of
almost total ruin in which it had been left, and was made habitable
again. It appears that in the same year in which it was destroyed,
the Bailiffs and others forwarded a Petition to the House of Commons,
setting forth in strong terms the miserable condition to which the
inhabitants had been reduced, and praying for relief. They state
that the loss sustained by them amounted to £90,000, or thereabouts;
that upwards of three hundred poor families had been “inforced” by
the loss of their goods, their trade, and habitations, “to disperse
into severall parts of the country, for harbour and for subsistence,
many among them crying aloud for bread”: and they humbly beseech the
Parliament to authorize a general collection to be made for them
throughout the country, or in some other way, to afford relief to
their necessities. The Rev. Gilbert Walden, who has been referred to
before, took this petition to London, and by his zeal and diligence
obtained a favorable answer to it; as appears from the following
extract in the Common Hall Order Book:—“Bridgnorth. At a Comon hall
of the said Town of Bridgnorth, the 27th. of January, Aᵒ Dⁿⁱ 1647.
Francis Burne and Richard Synge, Gent., being Bailiffs, &c. * * * * At
this Comon hall, Mr. Gilbert Walden, Minister of this Town, and Publiq
Preacher, returning to the Town from London, 25th. of this January
Instant, came into this comon hall in his own pson, & acquainted the
Town with his great care & paynes in solliciting the Parliament with
a peticion from the Town, for some repaire of their great loss by the
late burning of the High Town of Bridgnorth, when the Church, Colledg,
and Almshouses were burnt with the said Town. All the losses thereby
sustynedd amounting to 90,000£, as by the said Peticion was set forth
and certified: and the said Mr. Walden pducing lres pattents, under
the great seale of England, for a general collecion thorough out all
England, for rebuilding of the said Town, and repayringe the said
losses, and moving for some course to be taken for distributing the
Briefs, and setting them on work in all shires of England and Wales,
with all ye convenient expidicion that might be, and advising a way to
that behalf; and shewing the Town withall that it had cost him in the
acquiring & getting of these Lres pattentes and Briefs, besides the
great troubling of his friends to ayde & assist him therein.”

But these letters patent, under the Great Seal, granted by the
Parliament, seem to have yielded but little fruit to the impoverished
inhabitants of Bridgnorth; and the collections made under its sanction
were so inadequate to their wants, that they were obliged to resort to
other means for obtaining relief. They addressed a circular letter,
(to some merchants in London, as I conclude from the contents of it)
complaining bitterly of the very little sympathy which had been shewn
to them throughout the country, and of the very scant measure of
assistance which they had received, and very earnestly soliciting their
aid. It also appears that another circular was drawn up, to be sent for
the same purpose to persons whom they supposed to be well affected to
Bridgnorth, in the counties of Derby, Worcester, and Gloucester. The
first is as follows:—

    “Gentlemen,
          In the behalfe of our poore Towne, whereof wee are
     now the representative Body, wee heartiely thanke you for
     that you have ben pleased to put your helping hands to
     raise us up againe out of the Ashes. Our greatest hopes
     is in the charity of yourselves and your friends in the
     citie. Wee have had sad experience of the countries
     chariety, yet what the further result wil be wee daylie
     must expect; howsoever, wee shall acknowledge our
     engagements unto you above all other, be it less or
     more. Wee beseach you continew your care and paynes
     for us: and your reward shall be implored from God by
     us, and ourselves, both for our minister and our whole
     Towne, shall acknowledge your goodness with hartie
     thankes and praiere, and wee be unto you
                                  Your ready servants,
                                        & friends to cerve you.

     Bridgnorth, 10 may,
             1647.”

The state of destitution, in which the inhabitants of this ruined town
were placed, was such, that it is no wonder that they looked in every
direction for relief, from whence they thought it at all likely to
come, and that they were thus urgent in their appeal for it. In one
case they were not disappointed, as appears from the following letter,
addressed, about the same date I suppose, to Mr. Pully, of Essex: a
name well known, and gratefully remembered by the people of Bridgnorth,
for other benefits besides those referred to here.[70]

[70] This Mr. Pulley, of Hassington, in the county of Essex, gave to
will “to his Wife Wynnefred for her natural life, all this his house
and land, lying in Beauchamp Roothing, in the county of Essex, and
after her dicease, to the inhabitants of the Towne of Bridgnorth, in
the county of Salop, for ever; conditionally, that they should every
year and yearly, for ever, give £16 of the rent of the said land unto
two young men or women, of the said Towne, who should stand in need of
it, whose Tordlinesse might make it likely to do them good, viz, £8
apiece.”

    “To Mr. Pully, of Essex.
             Wee have cause to blesse God that our miserable
     towne affords a native friend so far to besteed us as by
     yourself. Wee will studdy some requitall, as God shall
     please, to raise us out of our ashes.

     Wee entreat you to go on in helping us, as Mr. Bushopp
     hath told us you have begun. The Lord reward you,
     wee and all ours shall pray for you; and if ever wee
     shall be happy to see you, wee shall give some further
     testimony of our thankfullness.

     Who speake in the behalf of ourselves, our minister,
     and whole towne.”

The want of a Town Hall seems to have been much felt by the Burgesses
of Bridgnorth—the former one, which stood outside the North Gate,
having been pulled down during the Civil Wars; but the erection of
a new one, with new materials, was more than they could possibly
accomplish, in the impoverished state in which they had been left. They
therefore applied to Lady Bartue of Wenlock, and petitioned that she
would grant them the materials of an old barn which were about to be
sold, for the sum of £40 or £50; by means of which they might be able
to rebuild the Hall.[71] The petition was granted; but whether the old
materials were bestowed as a free gift, or sold for the sum specified,
does not appear. The building was in consequence erected; and partly,
at least, through the earnest advice of Mr. Gilbert Walden, in a letter
addressed by him to the Bailiffs, was placed, not in the situation
of the former Hall, but in the middle of the High Street. It was not
completed, however, till four years after the date of his letter (April
24th., 1648); as appears from the following entry in the Common Hall
Order Book:—

[71] Appendix O.

“The New Hall set up in the Market Place of the High Street of
Bridgnorth was begun, and the stone arches thereof made, when Mr.
Francis Preen and Mr. Symon Beauchamp were Bayliffs in summer, 1650.
And the Timber work, and building upon the same stone arches, was set
up when Mr. Thomas Burne and Mr. Roger Taylor were Bayliffs of the said
Town of Bridgnorth, in July and August, 1652.”

[Illustration: _The Town Hall._]

But notwithstanding these applications for assistance from
various quarters, and the earnest efforts made by the inhabitants
themselves, the town appears to have continued during the period of
the Commonwealth, almost in the same state of ruin in which it was
left after the siege—the Church, College, and Almshouses,[72] still
roofless and dilapidated—and nothing effectual was done for their
restoration, and the rebuilding of the town, till the reign of Charles
II. Shortly after he was restored to the throne, a very earnest
Petition was forwarded to him from the Bailiffs and Burgesses of
the Borough, and other inhabitants of the town, praying for relief;
and this Petition was accompanied by a certificate, under the hands
and seals of Sir William Whitmore, Sir Thomas Wolrich, Sir Walter
Acton, Sir John Weld, Sir Richard Ottley, and others, attesting the
damage which had been done to the town, and the amount of the loss of
property sustained by the inhabitants in consequence. This petition,
backed by this certificate, drew from the King a proclamation,[73]
addressed to all his subjects in behalf of Bridgnorth. It is very
long and elaborate—very carefully worded—and not only sets forth
very fully the wants of the petitioners, but pleads their cause with
a warmth and earnestness which one would not expect to find in an
official document. It authorizes a general collection to be made
throughout the kingdom; “in all and every the Cities, Towns Corporate,
Priviledged Places, Parishes, Hamlets, Villages, and all other places
whatsoever,” in order to assist the destitute people of Bridgnorth
in rebuilding their shattered town; and it directs both Ministers
and Churchwardens to do what in them lies to further this object in
their different localities. It would be interesting to know the exact
amount which this royal proclamation, and another which followed it
in about ten years, produced. There is no doubt that it was something
considerable—sufficient to give an impulse to the industry of the
inhabitants—to enable them to restore their ruined Church, College, and
Almshouses—to efface in a great measure the damages of war, and to make
Bridgnorth again a habitable town.

[72] Appendix P.

[73] Appendix Q.

Thus, from the happy restoration of the monarchy in England, and the
re-establishment of its church, we may date the restoration of our town
from the state of ruin, in which it had been left; and its restoration
being coeval with these important and felicitous events, many would
be disposed to regard as no bad omen of its welfare. The motto in the
arms of a neighbouring city may well express our wish for its future
prosperity; for though the terms are hardly suitable to a town of so
small a circumference as ours, yet it merits well the character it has
maintained, in almost every era of its history—_Floreat semper fidelis
civitas_.

       *       *       *       *       *

My subject was “The Antiquities of Bridgnorth.” I have already
far passed the boundaries which confined me to such a subject, by
referring to matters which occurred so late as the reign of Charles
II. I would, however, venture one step farther, and refer to an event
which took place in the reign of his successor, James II, for I find
that it was taken particular notice of in Bridgnorth at the time of
its occurrence; and it is one which, from the great interest and
importance that attaches to it, seems to claim attention from us
whenever it happens to be brought before us.

The event referred to occurred in the memorable year of 1688. In the
“Blakeway Papers,” in the Bodleian Library, which contain matters
concerning Bridgnorth, the following entry is made respecting it:—“When
the Bishops were quit, there were 16 bonefires in this town, and the
ringing of bells night and day. Mr. Cornes and Mr. Bailey, the two
Ministers, refused to sign the Declaration.” This notice alludes to the
well known Declaration issued by King James, and the acquittal of the
seven Bishops who had been imprisoned for venturing to oppose it. James
the Second was as zealous a member of the Church of Rome, perhaps,
as any of his subjects, lay or ecclesiastical; and the great object
of his life seemed to be, to regain for his Church the same usurped
authority over the civil and religious liberties of our country, which
she possessed before the Reformation. Among other means for furthering
this object, he published this famous “Declaration.” It was a very
singular document. On the plea of establishing liberty of conscience,
it abrogated, on the King’s sole authority, all the penal laws which
were in force on the subject of religion, the King thus assuming to
himself, as one of his royal prerogatives, the power of dispensing with
exiting statutes, without the consent of Parliament. The real intention
of the King in all this was, to open the door to Roman Catholics to
places of power and authority, which the laws then in force strictly
forbade, as being incompatible with the freedom and safety of the
state. To give publicity, as well as sanction, to this Declaration,
the King issued a command that it should be read by the Clergy during
Divine Service, in every church in the kingdom. The whole proceeding
was perfectly arbitrary and despotic; and if it had been allowed to
go on unchecked, it would, as it has been well observed, have given a
death blow to the Constitution, and have laid the nation’s liberties at
the feet of the sovereign. Where then were the champions of freedom in
this great crisis of danger? Where were to be found the men, who had
courage enough to resist this portentous encroachment on the liberties
of England? Where the assertors of the nation’s rights against these
unlawful inroads of the royal prerogative? Not in a band of youthful
and ardent enthusiasts in the cause of freedom—not in a knot of
ruthless republicans, whose tempers were impatient of monarchial
rule, and who hated the very name of King—not in a set of restless
innovators, who loved innovation for the excitement it produced, or
for the spoil which it might yield to them—not in a rude soldiery,
who were ambitious of enterprise, and longed to signalize themselves
again by deeds of daring—but in the persons of seven aged Bishops of
the Church, some of whom were not only oppressed by the burden of age,
but weighed down by sickness and infirmity; and all of them, both from
temper and principle, averse to anything that seemed like resistance
to kingly authority. Yet it was these who stood forward at this time
of danger, as the defenders of the nation’s liberties. Their names
were well known to our townsmen at the time, for Bridgnorth, as well
as other places, rang with unusual joy at the news of their acquittal;
and it is well that their names should be known to our townspeople
now, as the names of men who have laid the nation under a deep debt of
gratitude. They were Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury; Lloyd, Bishop
of St. Asaph; White, Bishop of Peterborough; Turner, Bishop of Ely;
Lake, Bishop of Chichester; Trelawney, Bishop of Bristol; and Ken,
the pious Bishop of Bath and Wells,[74] a saint indeed, formed on the
primitive model, whose devout aspirations in his Morning and Evening
Hymn have served to kindle the devotion of the members of the English
Church for nearly two centuries. These seven Prelates met together at
Lambeth in this critical juncture, and drew up a petition to James, in
which they set forth in plain but respectful language the illegality
of his Declaration, and humbly prayed him not to insist on their
publishing it. In consequence of this they were committed to the Tower.
The King, notwithstanding their dutiful remonstrance, was resolved on
enforcing on the clergy throughout the kingdom the publication of this
unlawful document, and sent his commands to that effect: but of the
many thousands to whom this mandate was sent, not two hundred complied
with it; and among those who had the courage to refuse, we are glad to
find the names of the two Ministers of Bridgnorth, Mr. Cornes, and Mr.
Bailey.

[74] Appendix R.

The Bishops after a short term of imprisonment were admitted to bail,
and at the ensuing Sessions were impeached at Westminster Hall on a
charge of publishing a seditious libel. Every circumstance which took
place on this memorable occasion is full of interest, and historians
have thought the most minute details not unworthy of record. On their
way to the scene of trial, the Bishops, it is mentioned, received
every possible expression of reverence and sympathy from the populace,
who formed a lane for their passage, through which as they moved, many
kissed their hands and their garments, and many fell on their knees and
earnestly asked their blessing. Westminster Hall never witnessed such a
scene as their trial presented. As it proceeded, the interest felt by
the spectators was intense; and when at length the verdict was given
by the foreman of the Jury, “Not Guilty,” the profound silence which
had reigned throughout the court was broken by the most tumultuous
acclamations. The multitudes assembled there raised, in spite of the
menace of the Solicitor General, such a shout as shook the old fabric
of Westminster Hall, and conveyed, quicker than the speediest messenger
could do, the tidings to the city. The Bishops on leaving the court
immediately repaired to Whitehall Chapel, to return thanks to God for
their deliverance, and other churches were thronged by multitudes who
assembled in them for the same purpose. “The bells rung from every
tower, every house was illuminated, and bonfires were kindled in
every street.” The joy was not confined to London, it was propagated
throughout the kingdom, and felt in the remotest villages. Bridgnorth,
as we have seen, fully shared in it. Our streets on the occasion echoed
with loud shouts of triumph—the river Severn reflected on its stream
the blaze of many a bonfire—and the tuneful bells of St. Leonard’s and
St. Mary’s rang incessantly night and day to celebrate the event.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have thus brought before the reader the few historical notices which
I have been able to collect, respecting Bridgnorth, from the time of
Alfred the Great to the close of the reign of James II. I am aware how
much more interest would attach to these if they had been skilfully
handled, inasmuch as they touch on some very important events, and
memorable epochs of our national history. Those indeed who feel the
force of local attachment may read them with interest, whatever defects
may be apparent in the mode of bringing them together, and it is for
such readers that they have been collected. I am aware also, that I
have dwelt much longer on certain facts in our history than many would
think at all necessary, or than was exactly pertinent to my subject.
My reason is, that some would read these things here, who would not be
likely to read them elsewhere; and I thought it advisable, on account
of their importance, that they should be known in detail. Besides, I
was anxious to make this little work more useful in its character,
than it would have been if I had confined myself to a statement of the
facts relating to our town, without connecting them with the general
history of England. As it is, the review which we have taken, ought not
to be without its moral influence. Many generations of men have thus
passed rapidly before us: having acted their parts in quick succession,
they have disappeared from the stage of life. They had “their exits
and their entrances,” and now are seen no more. It is natural for
us to reflect, how utterly unimportant to them it now is in what
capacity they appeared—whether as kings or subjects—whether as masters
or as slaves—whether they were honoured or dishonoured—illustrious
or obscure—prosperous or unfortunate. It matters not to them now,
whether their projects succeeded or failed—whether the enterprises they
so keenly entered on issued in triumph or disaster. Their restless
activities have been put a stop to. The hand of death has arrested
them. The same destiny awaits ourselves. We too shall soon make our
exit; and the interests which now so deeply engage us—the circumstances
which now press on us in all their vivid reality—the scenes which are
now before our eyes, and the busy part we take in them—will ere long be
reckoned among the things that have been; and nothing will be left us,
but the character which we have acquired in passing through them—our
fitness or unfitness for a better state: and this reflection I desire
to leave on the mind of the reader.

It would seem, however, scarcely natural for me to close these pages,
without expressing a wish for the future welfare of a place, the
scattered notices of whose past history I have here collected. I have
been too long, and too intimately connected with it, not to feel the
wish. In Bridgnorth I have passed more than twenty years. I reckon them
the happiest of my life. I have good reason for doing so. Many domestic
blessings—many social pleasures—many natural enjoyments—have here been
allotted to me. Here “the lines have fallen to me in pleasant places,”
and in the fair scenes of nature which surround us, there has been open
to me a source of “unreproved pleasures,” of which it is my own fault
if I have not largely partaken. Here too I have formed acquaintances,
which have ripened into friendships—friendships which have yielded me
something more than mere enjoyment—and which I have reason to hope
will last as long as life itself. But still closer ties bind me to
this place. Here I have been entrusted with the care of souls, and
have been called to minister in the Church of God. This consideration
necessarily outweighs every other, and prompts me with the most earnest
wishes for the welfare of a place, between many of the inhabitants
of which and myself there is so strict and sacred a fellowship. And
not from these alone, but from those also with whom I am not thus
officially connected—from the inhabitants of St. Mary’s parish, as well
as from those of St. Leonard’s, I have received such proofs of kindness
and regard during my ministry here, as make me feel an interest in
everything that can concern their well-being. May they prosper in every
way—as a community, and as individuals—in their civil and commercial
interests—in their social, moral, and religious condition. May they
secure to themselves that which has “the promise of the life that now
is, and of that which is to come:” that when things temporal shall give
place to things eternal—when the changes and chances of this mortal
life shall cease—and all the vicissitudes which so painfully diversify
the history of this world have passed away—they may have their lot and
part in that kingdom which cannot be moved, and “of whose government
and peace there shall be no end.”

_Finis._

[Illustration: A COPY of an OLD MAP of the BOROUGH OF BRIDGENORTH IN
POSSESSION OF THE CORPORATION.]




APPENDIX.


A. (_Page 7._) MORF FOREST.

There are so many references to the Forest of Morf in the early history
of Bridgnorth, that it may be well, for the information of the reader,
to append the following interesting description of it, given by Mr.
Eyton, in the 3rd. Vol. of his _Antiquities_, p. 212.

“Where now the Counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire, and
Worcestershire converge, there was once a vast region of Forest, not
confined to one bank of a succession of lakes and marshes which we
now know as the Valley of the Severn, but stretching away for miles
eastward and westward. The Severn itself was in one place a land-locked
and sluggish stream; in another a series of rivulets struggling
on, with no concentrated force, amid the various impediments which
uncontrolled nature had crowded on its course. Its fits of wintry and
swollen fury, like human passions, re-acted upon themselves; for the
giant oak, which to-day was torn from its bank and plunged in the
torrent, lay on the morrow athwart the subsiding stream, an additional
element of its future bondage.

“The region, whose chief features I thus imagine, seems to have been
known to the Britons as _Coed_, or forest—the forest, that is, _par
excellence_ of this part of England.

“When we read of the Forests of Morf, Kinver, and Wyre, we get notions
of extent which must be added one to the other before we can realize
any idea of the more ancient _Coed_; for the _Coed_ was the parent of
the other three, and they perhaps not its only constituents.

“I am now to speak of Morf Forest more particularly, and, though I
cannot indicate the precise time at which it was separated from its
associates, we shall not err in ascribing the change to an increasing
population, and the Saxon devotion to agriculture.

“In the earliest stage of its self-existence, Morf Forest can be
ascertained to have been at least eight miles in length, while its
greatest width was more problematically about six. Its known, because
afterwards maintained, northern boundary rested upon the Worf, for
some miles before that stream falls into the Severn. Its south-eastern
extremity is determined by its name, taken from the Staffordshire
Village of Morf, where commenced that interval which gradual change had
interposed between the Forests of Morf and Kinver.

“By still further compression of its southern boundaries, and by large
clearances within its area, Morf Forest had, at the Norman Conquest,
been altered both in extent and character. But the Forest ground,
though alternated with cornfields and villages, was still very great,
and very great it remained for more than two centuries afterwards.”

       *       *       *       *       *

The final perambulation of this Forest was made in the reign of
Edward I, A.D., 1300; and it will be a matter of interest to those
who know the locality, to trace its ancient boundaries, as given in
the document, which was published after the survey was made. It is
furnished by Mr. Eyton in p. 219, and is as follows:—

“From Pendlestones Mulne (Pendleston Mill), going up by the Severn to
where Worgh (Worf) falls into Severn[75]: and so going up along the
bank of Worgh to Worth-brugg (Worf-bridge), and going up thence along
the said bank to Rindeleford-brugg (Rindleford-bridge): and so going
up along the bank to Chirle, and upwards still to Chirlefordes-brugg;
and so along the highway to the _vill_ of Hulton (Hilton), and thence
by a certain road to Woghbrokesheth, and so straight along the
Stoni-strete[76] to Apewardes Castle,[77] and so along the boundary
between the Counties of Salop and Stafford to the Chirlesok: and thence
direct between the King’s _demesne_ in his Manor of Claverley, and
the fields of Whittimere, Borhton (Broughton), Bebrugg (Beobridge),
and Gatacre, to the Cover of Morf. And so through the said Cover to
the Blackewalle at the Oldefield, and thence to the Shirevelydyat:
and thence by the Crosweyslone (Crossways-lane) to the hedge of the
Brodenewelonde: and thence straight to Fililode, and so between
the hedge and the Lythe to Trugge-put. And so going down by a
certain water-course to the Stonibrugge of Wodeton (Stone-bridge of
Wooton), and so along a water-course to Wynelesford; and thence by
the highway to Mose-lydyat, and thence to Halyweyes-lydyat; and so
by a certain path to the Hethenedich, going down by the Hethenedich
to the weir (gurgitem) of Quatford: and so going up by the Severn to
a certain ancient ditch, between the field of Brugge and the _vill_
of Quatford: and along the highway to the House of the Lepers of St.
James of Brugge: and thence right to a certain ancient ditch under
the Gyhet (Gibbet-Hill); and so straight to Baconescroft, going down
to Tissengecros; and so by the highway going up to Pendestanes Mulne,
where the first boundary of the said _bosc_ begins. The Perambulators
also declare that John de Hastinges holds Rughtone (Roughton),
Barndelegh (Bradney), Hocoumbe, Swanecot, Burcote, and Bromlegh; John
de Astlegh holds the Manor of Northlegh (Nordley); John Fitz Philip
holds the _vill_ of Mose; and the Dean of Brugge holds the _vill_ of
Quatford,—all within the bounds of the said Forest.”[78]

[75] “The original and natural confluence of the Worf with the Severn
was much higher than at Pendleston Mill.”

[76] “The Roman Road before alluded to.”

[77] “Now Abbot’s Castle Hill.”

[78] “Salop Chartulary. No. 279.”


B. (_Page 22._) BRIDGNORTH CASTLE.

The sole remaining fragment of this Castle was very carefully examined
and measured by King, the author of “_Munimenta Antiqua_”; in which
work he gives the following description of it. (pp. 346-7) He was of
opinion indeed that it was a Saxon fortress; but in this he must have
been mistaken, as the testimony of history is very clear as to the
fact, that it was erected by the Norman Earl, Robert de Belesme.

“The exceeding solidity of whose structure [the leaning Tower] has
defied the decay of ages, the blast of gunpowder, and the continually
active force of gravity, notwithstanding it is apparently in a
tottering state.... It evidently contained three apartments, one above
another, each of which were of small dimensions, being only 23 feet 10
inches in length, and 21 feet 2 inches in breadth, and the entrance was
manifestly by an arched doorway up a flight of steps on the outside,
The marks of the places for the timbers supporting every floor are
still visible.... The walls are between 8 and 9 feet thick, or rather
more, but not quite uniformly so on each side; for the external measure
of the Tower is nearly about 41½ feet square. The outside wall next the
town has not even a loophole in it. This side however is very oddly
covered with iron hooks, which are said by tradition to have been
placed there so late as in the time of Charles I., during the civil
wars, to hang wool packs upon, in order to protect the walls from the
effects of the cannon: but as this tale is not credible, and the hooks
themselves have the appearance of being much more ancient, they serve
rather to remind one of a savage custom which sometimes prevailed in
early ages, of fastening the bodies of enemies slain on the outside of
the walls of fortresses.”


C. (_Page 42._) WOODEN FORTIFICATIONS OF THE TOWN.

A further grant was made for the same purpose by Henry III. “On May
10, 1220, King Henry III., being at Worcester, orders the Sheriff of
Salop to aid the Burgesses of Bruges in the enclosure of their town,
allowing them out of the Royal Forest near Bruges, as much of old
stumps and dead timber as would suffice to make two stacks (rogos).
This was to be done with as little injury as possible to the Forest.”
(_Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, p. 299._) Notwithstanding this
caution, however, a good deal of damage was done, on account of the
large amount of timber which was required for this purpose; for in
the Sheriff’s report of the state of the Forest in 1235 there is the
following notice:—“Item. The _Bosc_ of Worfield was viewed—much wasted
by ancient waste, to wit, in the time of the great war [the Barons’
war], and also in the time of R., late Earl of Chester, who, whilst
he was sheriff, sold 1700 oak trees there, besides other wastes made
in his time for the Castle of Bruges, and besides delivery of timber
made for enclosing the _Vill_ of Bruges, before it was fortified with a
wall.” (_Ibid, Vol. 3, p. 215._)


D. (_Page 44._) THE CHARTER OF THE BOROUGH.

The earliest written Charter was granted to the Borough in the reign of
Henry II., A.D., 1157, and is as follows:—

“Henry, King of England, and Duke of Normandy, and Aquitaine, and Earl
of Anjou, to his Justiciars, and Sheriffs, and Barons, and Ministers,
and all his faithful of England, greeting. Know ye that I have
conceded to my Burgesses of Bruge all their franchises, and customs,
and rights, which they, or their ancestors, had in the time of King
Henry, my grandfather. Wherefore I will and strictly command that they
have them well, and in peace, and honourably, and fully; within the
Borough and without, in wood and in field, in meadows and pastures, and
in all things, with such comparative fulness and honour, as they held
them in the time of King Henry, my grandfather. And I forbid any one
to do them injury or insult in regard of their tenements. Witnesses—T.
Chancellor, and Henry de Essex Constable, and William Fitz Alan, at
Raddemore.”

In the reign of King John a second Charter was granted, January 10,
1215. A few years afterwards this was renewed by King Henry III., who,
in a short time, considerably enlarged the privileges of the Burgesses,
in the new Charter referred to. It has been generally supposed, that
this charter was destroyed along with other documents, in the fire
which took place in Bridgnorth during the siege of the Castle. Most of
the papers, belonging to the Corporation, were placed in St. Leonard’s
Church for safety; but, this having been set fire to, they were all
burnt, and this charter, as it was supposed, among them. But I conclude
from the following passage in the Blakeway Papers that this is a
mistake, and that this original charter, granted by King Henry, may
still be in existence. In M.S. Congreve are the following historical
particulars of the town, in the reign of James II.:—The following
Aldermen subscribed to the running away with the Charter.

“John Lewis and William Hammonds, Bailiffs; Humphrey Braine, George
Longnor, William Baker, Thomas Weal, and about forty others.

“Bickerton’s son subscribed for him while he was out of town.

“Silvanus read a recantation afterwards. Bailiff Hammonds took away the
Charter which the town had possessed for 450 years (the people of the
town pursuing him) contrary to the mind of the old sages of the town.’”


E. (_Page 123._) SUPPRESSION OF THE RELIGIOUS HOUSES.

Whatever may have been Queen Mary’s private feelings, it is plain that
she yielded to the pressure of political expediency in this matter.
In order to induce the Parliament to repeal all the statutes made
against the See of Rome in the two last reigns, she ratified in the
fullest manner the alienation of the property which had belonged to
Abbeys, Priories, Chantries, Colleges, &c., and strictly forbade any
suits against any one on that score, either by authority from the Pope,
or general council, or on pretence of any canon or ecclesiastical
constitution whatever. (_Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, Vol._ VI,
_Book_ V, _pp. 94-6._)

But there are some facts connected with the subject of the suppression
of the Monasteries, and the confiscation of their property, which
ought to be better known, in order to shew how little warrant Roman
Catholics have for representing the matter, as they commonly do, as
a piece of Protestant sacrilege. There is a valuable chapter in Mr.
Froude’s recent History of England on this subject, and much important
additional matter is brought forward in a review of his work, in the
_Christian Remembrancer_ of July last. From these two sources I have
drawn the following facts, which are well worthy of attention. The
state of the Monasteries and Religious Houses generally was such,
in the reign of Henry IV., as to call from the House of Commons an
indignant remonstrance, and a petition for their secularization; and
in the reign of his successor, Henry V., when Popery was wholly in the
ascendant in this country, one hundred Monasteries were suppressed
by order of the King. (_Froude, Vol. 2, p. 411._) But a still more
remarkable fact is the following: that a twelve month after the Act of
1536 for the suppression of smaller Monasteries in England, Pope Paul
III. appointed a committee of nine of the most eminent ecclesiastics,
to examine into the state of the Church. These persons recommended
changes far more extensive than any which the English Parliament had
contemplated. So hopeless did they consider the reformation of the
monastic bodies, that they united in recommending the total suppression
of every Monastery in Europe. One of these nine ecclesiastics was
Reginald, afterwards Cardinal Pole; and he, firmly as he was attached
to the Church of Rome, not only advised this universal sequestration
of all Convents, but did not refuse to share in the spoils of their
suppression in this country. On his arrival in England, he received
from Queen Mary a grant of lands belonging to the dissolved Priory of
Newburgh. (_Christian Remembrancer_, _Vol._ XXXII, _p. 92_) Bishop
Fisher also, one of the most zealous Prelates of the Romish party
in the Church, previous to the passing of the famous Act for the
suppression of Monasteries, seized on the Nunnery of Higham, after a
vain attempt at its reformation, and by his own act set the example
for subsequent confiscations. “In fact, while the reforming[79]
party in the Church were pleading for the preservation of some of
the Convents, the opposite party were contending for their utter
overthrow.” (_Ibid._) Yet notwithstanding these facts, which are
attested by existing documents, Roman Catholics still speak as if
the suppression of these establishments was exclusively the work of
Protestants, to be ascribed to a spirit of impiety and sacrilege which
the Reformation has let loose upon the Church. The truth is, that the
Monastic and Conventual Establishments had become so totally corrupt,
and the moral disorders by which they were affected had been proved
to be so incurable, that society could no longer endure them; and the
opinion prevalent among Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, was,
that the evil had arrived at such a height, that no remedy could be
effectual, short of the general suppression of the Religious Houses.
Both writers to whom I have referred are warm in their admiration of
the original members of the monastic bodies, and of the purposes which
such establishments answered at an earlier period of their history.
Mr. Froude says, “Originally, and for many hundred years after their
foundation, the regular clergy were the finest body of men of which
mankind in their chequered history can boast.” (_Vol. 2, p. 403_)
And his Reviewer thus speaks of the Monasteries and Convents: “Great
have been the advantages which not only devotion, but political
civilization, have received from monastic establishments. In times
of disturbance, they were the places of comparative peace—in days
of ignorance, retreats of learning—in periods of profligacy, abodes
of devotion.” Yet, from the evidence which authentic records supply,
the conviction has been forced upon both Mr. Froude and his Reviewer,
that scarcely anything could be worse than the moral condition of
the inmates of such establishments in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. It is natural to regret that remedial measures were not
resorted to. Possibly, however, if we possessed all the information
which was in the hands of the Government and Legislature of the day, we
might be convinced that the only safe and wise course was that which
they pursued. But at all events, we must bear in mind that this course
was advocated by the warmest friends of the Papacy; and that, although
the cupidity of courtiers and public men may have hastened forward the
confiscation of monastic property, yet that Roman Catholics, and even
dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, did not refuse a share of the
spoil.

I think it right, in laying before my readers the foregoing statements
of Mr. Froude and his Reviewer, to express my great regret that I
had not become earlier acquainted with them. Had I possessed the
information which I have derived from them somewhat sooner, the
language which I have used (p. 85) would have been considerably
modified.

A friend has kindly furnished me with the following passages, relating
to the Monastic orders, in the document which was presented to Paul
III., by Cardinal Pole and the other Divines. The document itself is
entitled, “Concilium delectorum Cardinalium, & aliorum Prælatorum, de
emendanda Ecclesia, S. D. N. D. Paulo III. ipso jubente conscriptum, et
exhibitum, Anno M.D. XXXVIII.”

The passages referred to are as follows:—

      “Alius abusus corrigendus est in ordinibus
    religiosorum, quod adeo multi deformati sunt, ut magno
    sint scandalo sæcularibus, exemploque plurimum noceant.
    Conventuales ordines abolendos esse putamus omnes, non
    tamen ut alicui fiat injuria, sed prohibendo ne novos
    possint admittere. Sic enim sine ullius injuria cito
    delerentur, & boni religiosi eis substitui possent.
    Nunc vero putamus optimum fore, si omnes pueri qui non
    sunt professi, ab eorum monasteriis repellerentur.”

      “Abusus alius turbat Christianum populum in Monialibus,
    quæ sub cura fratrum conventualium, ubi in plerisque
    monasteriis fiunt publica sacrilegia cum maximo civium
    scandalo. Auferat ergo Sanct. vestra omnem eam curam a
    conventualibus, eamque det aut Ordinariis aut aliis,
    prout melius videbitur.”

These passages are extracted from the “Historia Conciliorum
Generalium,” by Edmund Richer, Doctor and Fellow of the Sorbonne: Book
IV, Part II, pp. 78-9. Colon. 1681. See also Du Pin Cent. XVI, B. I.,
ch. 27.

[79] The writer evidently means the party favourable to the
Reformation, in the sense in which the word is generally used.


F. (_Page 126._) THE CAPPERS OF BRIDGNORTH.

An Act of Parliament was passed in 1571, to enforce the wearing of
Woollen Caps; but this failing to have the desired effect, and the
people still continuing to indulge their fancy in the choice of
covering for their heads, the Queen thought fit to exert her royal
prerogative in the matter, and issued a Proclamation for the purpose
of enforcing the statute. The Proclamation set forth “how that by
little and little the disobedience and wanton disorder of evil-disposed
and light persons, more regarding private fantasies and variety, than
public commodity or respect of duty, had increased by want of execution
of the said law.” It therefore commanded that Bailiffs, Constables,
Churchwardens, &c., every Sunday and Festival Pay, make diligent view
and search in all Churches and Chapels, and all other places within
the circuit and compasses of their offices, for all singular breakers
and offenders of the said Statute, and without delay cause the names
of such offenders, together with the day and place of the offence, to
be then written, and lawfully ordered and committed. It states that
the violation of this Act of Parliament tended “to the decay, ruin,
and desolation of divers antient Cities and Boroughs, which had been
the nourishers and bringers up, in that faculty, of great numbers of
people, as London, also Exeter, Bristowe, Monmouth, Hereford, Rosse
and Bridgnorth.” (_Strype’s Annals, Vol. 2, Book 1_, C. VIII, _pp.
109-110_.)


G. (_Page 130._) ON THE CHARACTER OF CROMWELL.

It is a curious fact, that two of our great poets, writing in prose,
have exerted their genius to paint, the one the character of Cromwell,
the other the character of Charles I, in the darkest possible
colours. Cowley, in his “Vision,” has heaped on the Protector as many
reproachful epithets, and as stern expressions of reprobation, as the
most unrelenting royalist could desire; but the bolder wing of the
Author of “Paradise Lost,” has soared far above him in the region of
invective. In his famous answer to the Icon Basilica, Milton has put
together for the purpose of defaming the memory of his Sovereign, a
piece of writing perhaps as vituperative and scornful as is to be found
in the English language. But it is not in brochures, such as these,
that we are to look for just delineations of character; and as I should
consider it very unwarrantable to bring an accusation against King
Charles on the authority of Milton, I should feel it to be equally so
to found a charge of hypocrisy against Cromwell, on statements made
in “The Vision” of Cowley, or in any writing of the kind. Unhappily
the charge of hypocrisy against Cromwell rests on less questionable
evidence. The following letter, written by him to Robert Hammond,
Governor of the Isle of Wight, plainly convicts him of it; and affords
melancholy proof of how unscrupulously he could adopt the most sacred
phraseology when he had a point to gain, and enter on the discussion
of the most deeply spiritual subjects, when his real purpose all the
while was to win over his correspondent to his party, and to secure
his co-operation in furthering his own schemes. The letter to Hammond
is so curious an illustration of this, that I think it right to lay
the whole of it before the reader. The occasion of his writing it was
this:—King Charles had been induced by Cromwell’s machinations to make
his escape from Hampton Court, and to fly to the Isle of Wight, and
there to entrust himself to Hammond, the Governor. This man, when he
was required by the Army to surrender the person of the King to them,
felt strong scruples of conscience against doing so, and for a while
refused. In order to remove his scruples, both Ireton and Cromwell
wrote to him. Cromwell’s letter[80] is written with consummate skill,
but no one surely can avoid seeing how deeply it is tainted with the
odious sin of hypocrisy—all the more odious for venturing so far on
holy ground, and soiling with its touch things so precious as the
things of the Spirit of God.

    “DEAR ROBIN,

      “No man rejoyceth more to see a line from thee
    than myself. I know thou hast long been under tryal.
    Thou shalt be no loser by it. All must work for the
    best. Thou desirest to hear of my experiences. I can
    tell thee I am such a one as thou didst formerly
    know, having a body of sin and death; but I thank God
    through Jesus Christ our Lord there is no condemnation,
    though much infirmity, and I wait for the redemption;
    and in this poor condition I obtain mercy and sweet
    consolation through the Spirit, and find abundant cause
    every day to exalt the Lord,—abase flesh. And herein I
    have some exercise.

      “As to outward dispensations, if we may so call them,
    we have not been without our share of beholding some
    remarkable providences and appearances of the Lord.
    His presence hath been amongst us, and by the light
    of His countenance we have prevailed. We are sure the
    good will of Him who dwelt in the bush has shined upon
    us; and we can humbly say, we know in whom we have
    believed, who is able, and will perfect what remaineth,
    and us also in doing what is well-pleasing in His
    eyesight.

      “Because I find some trouble in your spirit,
    occasioned first, not only by the continuance of your
    sad and heavy burthen, as you call it, upon you; but by
    the dissatisfaction you take at the ways of some good
    men, whom you love with your heart, who through this
    principle, that it is lawful for a lesser part (if in
    the right) to force, &c.

      “To the first: call not your burthen sad nor heavy.
    If your Father laid it upon you, he intended neither.
    He is the Father of lights, from whom cometh every good
    and perfect gift; who of His own will begot us, and bad
    us count it all joy when such things befall us; they
    bring forth the exercise of faith and patience, whereby
    in the end (James 1st.) we shall be made perfect.

      “Dear Robin, our fleshly reasonings ensnare us.
    These make us say, heavy, sad, pleasant, easy. Was not
    there a little of this, when Robert Hammond, through
    dissatisfaction too, desired retirement from the
    army, and thought of quiet in the Isle of Wight? Did
    not God find him out there? I believe he will never
    forget this. And now I perceive he is to seek again,
    partly through his sad and heavy burthen, and partly
    through dissatisfaction with friends’ actings. Dear
    Robin, thou and I were never worthy to be doorkeepers
    in this service. If thou wilt seek, seek to know the
    mind of God in all that chain of providence, whereby
    God brought thee thither, and that person to thee:
    how before and since God has ordered him, and affairs
    concerning him. And then tell me, whether there be not
    some glorious and high meaning in all this, above what
    thou hast yet attained. And laying aside thy fleshly
    reasoning, seek the Lord to teach thee what it is; and
    he will do it.

      “You say, ‘God hath appointed authorities among the
    nations, to which active or passive obedience is to be
    yielded. This resides in England in the parliament.
    Therefore active or passive,’ &c. Authorities and
    powers are the ordinance of God. This or that species
    is of human institution, and limited, some with
    larger, others with stricter bands, each one according
    to his constitution. I do not, therefore, think the
    authorities may do any thing, and yet such obedience
    due; but all agree there are cases in which it is
    lawful to resist. If so, your ground fails, and so
    likewise the inference. Indeed, dear Robin, not to
    multiply words, the query is, whether ours is such a
    case? This ingeniously is the true question. To this
    I shall say nothing, though I could say very much;
    but only desire thee to see what thou findest in thy
    own heart, as to two or three plain considerations.
    First, Whether _salus populi_ be a sound position?
    Secondly, Whether in the way in hand, really and before
    the Lord, before whom conscience must stand, this be
    provided for; or the whole fruit of the war like to be
    frustrated, and almost like to turn to what it was, and
    worse? And this contrary to engagements, declarations,
    implicit covenants with those who ventured their lives
    upon those covenants and engagements, without whom
    perhaps, in equity, relaxation ought not to be.
    Thirdly, Whether this army be not a lawful power called
    by God to oppose and fight against the King upon so
    stated grounds; and being in power to such ends, may
    not oppose one name of authority for those ends as well
    as another? the outward authority that called them,
    not by their power making the quarrel lawful; but it
    being so in itself. If so, it may be, acting will be
    justified _in foro humano_. But truly these kind of
    reasonings may be but fleshly, either with or against;
    only it is good to try what truth may be in them. And
    the Lord teach us.”

[80] The letter is given in _pp. 162-5_ of Tytler’s “_Trials of Charles
I_.”


H. (_Page 167._) DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KING’S TROOPS AND THE TOWN’S
PEOPLE.

The following letter,[81] written from Bridgnorth in the year 1642,
affords evidence of the fact, that there were partizans of the
Parliament in the town, who doubtless did their best to alienate the
minds of the people from the King’s cause; and also that the rude
conduct of the soldiers, in the royal army, greatly aggravated the
evil. The statements made on this latter subject must however be taken
with some allowance, as they are made under the influence of strong
party feeling.

                       “_Bridgenorth, Octob. 1. 1642._
      “Our Countrey is in a most miserable condition, there
    is nothing can be expected but a totall ruine thereof,
    except God do miraculously help us with assistance from
    the Parliament. The Kings Souldiers are altogether bent
    on mischief, taking, wasting, and spoyling those things
    we should live by: they do take our Corn unthresht
    to litter their horses, spoyling that which many a
    poor creature wants; if any one speak, be it man or
    woman, either a Pistoll or a Sword is straight set to
    the party, with many grievous oathes; They know what
    they do, they are the King’s servants, and will not
    be limitted of their will: you may judge by this what
    a case we are in; and for any thing we can perceive,
    like to be worse; for as long as these outrages are
    permitted, no question but the King’s Army will
    encrease: What with Papists, Atheists, and all
    desperate Ruffians, they have made _Shrewsbury_ strong,
    as it is reported to us; many Pieces of Ordnance,
    300 Carts laden with Ammunition; and our County of
    _Shropshire_ is very much awed, many wel-affected
    people withdraw themselves: The Sheriff here hath
    lately seized certain thousands of pounds at our Town
    of _Bridgenorth_, intended to be sent down Severn
    lately to _Bristoll_, by M. _Charlton_ of _Ayley_, M.
    _Baker_ of _Hamond_, and others: We have many brags
    here of the Cavaliers, what victories they have had
    at _Worcester_, though we know for certain they are
    notorious lyes; yet we dare not contradict them: it
    grieves the soul of every good Christian, to see how
    His Majestie is misled. We are glad to hear of your
    constancy to the King and Parliament; our affections
    are the same, though we dare not shew it: for all the
    reports you have heard, you may perhaps understand
    by the next, that _Shropshire_ is not altogether so
    malignant as it is reported; fear makes us yeild to
    many things. I am in haste.
                                   _Yours, T. C._”

There is a copy of a letter among the _Blakeway Papers_ from Prince
Maurice, addressed to His Majesty’s Commissioners for the county of
Salop, dated 1645, which also affords evidence of some disaffection
to the royal cause among the people of Bridgnorth, or, at least, some
slackening of zeal in the King’s service, produced most likely by the
causes above referred to.

    “GENTLEMEN,
        “This day I received a letter from Sir Lewis Kyrke,
      Governor of Bridgnorth, alleadging that his warrant
      for the advancement of the works at Bridgnorth were
      disobeyed, which I cannot avoyde to take notice of,
      being sent downe by His Majesty to advance the affayres
      of these parts, for the good of His Majesty’s service.
      To the intent that I may ease and cherish your county
      as much as may bee, therefore I desire to knowe what
      their grievances and dislikes are, and why and upon
      what ground the Governor’s warrants were neglected,
      that if reason be shewed, I may doe the country that
      right, which in justice they may expect, or however see
      those things perfected, which conduce to the security
      of those parts, and the better serving His Majesty,
      which is all att present I have to say, but that I am,

                     Gentlemen,
                           Your lv. ffriend,
                                     MAURICE,
                                        Comr. of Salop.”
      Worcester,
           19 of January, 1645.
      ffor his Majesty’s Commissioners of the County of Salop.

[81] This letter forms a part of a tract, entitled “A true and exact
Relation of the Proceedings of His Majesties Army in Cheshire,
Shropshire and Worstershire. Together with what hath happened to the
late Lord Strange, now Earl of Derby, before Manchester. With the
Resolution of the Town to oppose him; and the number of Men which were
slain.” It is bound up in a Volume of very valuable tracts, referring
to the events of this period, and was kindly lent to me by the Rev. T.
L. Claughton, of Kidderminster.


I. (_Page 169._) COLLEGE AND ALMSHOUSES.

The College, which stood in Saint Leonard’s Church Yard, had formerly,
it is supposed, been the residence of the Chauntry Priests belonging
to the Church, and after the Act for the Suppression of the Religious
Houses, it became the dwelling of the Master of the Grammar School.
The exact year of the foundation of this School cannot be ascertained;
but the Charity Commissioners, who visited Bridgnorth in 1815, fully
investigated the matter, and discovered that it was in existence in
the reign of Henry VIII. The following is an extract from their Report
on the subject:—“It appears from the return of the Commissioners under
a Commission of the 20th. July, in the second year of Edward VI.,
that a Grammar School, long before the said 20th. of July, had been
continually kept in the town of Bridgnorth, with the revenues of the
Chauntry of St. Leonard, in that town; and it appeared to the said
Commissioners, that the Schoolmaster then for the time being should
have for his wages, or salary, £8 a year, as before that time he was
allowed anciently out of the revenues of the said Chauntry.”

The Charity Commissioners of 1815 were equally unsuccessful in their
endeavours to ascertain the origin of the Almshouses which are situate
in the Church Lane; but they found, among the papers belonging to the
Corporation, the presentment and verdict of a Jury empannelled at
Bridgnorth, in the sixth year of Charles I., which proves that land was
granted to this Charity as early as the eighth year of Henry VIII. By a
Deed, however, which I copied from the Blakeway Papers in the Bodleian
Library, it is evident that the Almshouses of this locality were well
known in the parish of St. Leonard, in the earlier part of the reign
of Henry VII. The Deed is dated 1492, and is as follows: “Alice Wood,
prioress of ye house and ch. of St. Leonard, of ye White nuns of
Byrywood, and the convent of ye same place. Whereas John Bruyne, of
Bruggenᵗ, and his ancestors from time immemorial, have held of us, and
our predecessors, in ye High Street of Bruggenᵗ betw. ye land belongᵍ
to ye chantry of Sᵗ Tho. Martyr, in ye Ch. of St. Leonard, there on ye
North, and _the Almshouse on ye South_, we confirm his estate therein,
and grant it to Wm. Otteley, of Salop, and Margery his Wife.”[82]

[82] “William Otley, ancestor of the Otleys of Pitchford, married
Margery, daughter and sole heir of John Bruyn of Bridgnorth, and thus
obtained much property in this neighbourhood. Among other estates, that
of “The Hay,” thus acquired, has remained with the Owners of Pitchford
till the present generation.”—_Rev. R. Eyton._


K. (_Page 173._) SURRENDER OF THE CASTLE.

“Articles agreed upon for the Surrender of Bridgnorth Castle, the 26th.
day of April, 1646; between

    Sir Robert Howard, Knight of the Bath, Governor,
    Sir Vincent Corbet,
    Sir Edward Acton, and
    Sir Francis Ottley, Commissioners for the King;
                   and
    Colonel Andrew Lloyd,
    Colonel Robert Clive, and
    Robert Charlton, Esquire, Commissioners for the Parliament.

I. That all Commissioned Officers of Horse, and all Captains of Foot,
shall march away to any of His Majesty’s Garrisons or Armies within
forty miles, with their horses and arms for themselves, and each of
them to have a servant, with his horse and sword, and their wearing
apparel. Free quarter for thirty miles, and safe conduct, and not to
march less than eight miles a day. Any of the aforesaid Officers to
repair to any of their own habitations.

II. That all inferior Commissioned Officers shall have liberty to
march with their swords, and the common soldiers without arms, to any
of His Majesty’s Garrisons or Armies within forty miles, as before
stated, on laying down their arms; to live at their own habitations
for a fortnight, and afterwards to take the negative oath if they
live within the county, or letters from hence to the Committees of
the several counties where they intend to reside, and to have papers
granted them accordingly.

III. That all Clergymen, Townsmen, and Countrymen, within the Castle,
may have liberty to repair to their own habitations, provided they
lay down their arms, and a fortnight’s time allowed them for taking
the negative oath, and not to live within a mile of the Parliament
Garrisons; or otherwise, if they should desire it, to march to any of
the King’s Garrisons or Armies.

IV. That all wounded and sick persons within the Castle shall have
liberty to reside in the Low Town, or elsewhere, till they be fit to
travel; and then to have passes to go home, or to any of the King’s
Garrisons or Armies.

V. That Sir Robert Howard, Sir Vincent Corbet, Sir Edward Acton, and
Sir Francis Ottley, with each of them, their horses, arms, and two
men a piece, with their horses and swords, and their master’s wearing
apparel, shall have liberty to march to their several habitations, and
to continue there for the space of two months: to which time they are
to make their election, whether they will go to make their peace with
the Parliament, or go beyond Sea, or to any of the King’s Garrisons, or
Armies, and to have passes accordingly,—they engaging themselves to do
nothing prejudicial to the Parliament in the mean time.

VI. That Mr. Howard, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Grovenor, shall march away
with their horses and arms, and one man a piece, with their apparel and
swords, to any place within forty miles.

VII. That Lieutenant Col. Hosier and Doctor Dewen shall march away
without horse or arms, to any of the King’s Garrisons, or any other
place within thirty miles; provided it be not within this County.

VIII. That Mr. Milward, Captain of the Garrison, may have liberty to
go with a horse, to his house at Leighton, in this County, and to take
with him his manuscripts, and there to live, taking the negative oath
within one month’s time; or is to march away out of the County with the
rest.

IX. That the Clerks of the Commissioners may have liberty to march, as
the rest of the inferior Officers, and to have the same conditions; and
to take with them all papers concerning the Garrison, and their wearing
apparel.

X. That Lady Ottley, her children, and maid-servant have liberty, with
their wearing cloaths, to go to Pitchford, or the Hay, and there to
live unmolested.

XI. That all women and children within the Castle, may have liberty to
go to their own, or any of their friends’ houses, provided it be not
within one mile of this Garrison.

XII. That all Gentlemen, Officers, and Soldiers, within the Castle,
Strangers as well as others, desiring to go beyond the Sea, shall have
passes accordingly, and letters to the Committee of their several
Counties, to afford them the like conditions as to the Gentlemen of
this County, upon the surrender of this Castle here granted.

XIII. That the Surgeon belonging to this Garrison shall march away, and
to have the same conditions as the inferior Officers.

XIV. That the Gunners and Powdermen, with their mates, may march away
as the rest of the common Soldiers.

XV. That no violence, injury, or incivility, shall be offered to any
who shall march out of this Castle, but be protected in all things,
according to the tenor of these Articles; and that sufficient Hostage
on both sides be given for the performance of all and every the matters
here agreed upon.

XVI. That the Governor, and the rest of the Officers, shall do their
utmost endeavors to protect and preserve all the ordinances, arms,
ammunition, victuals, provisions, goods, bedding, and all other
accommodation necessary and belonging to the Castle, other than what
is allowed to be taken by the aforesaid Articles; and all these, safe
and unspoiled, to be delivered up, together with the Castle, unto the
Committee whom they shall appoint; and these Articles to be confirmed
by the Governor.

XVII. That if these Articles be consented to, the Castle to be
surrendered by seven of the clock to morrow morning; and those who
intend to march to Worcester, to quarter in the Low Town, or any
other Town within five miles of the Garrison, upon the return of the
Trumpeter and Officer sent to Worcester; provided they come within two
days.

XVIII. That if any Officer, or Soldier, shall in any way maliciously
spoil his horse or arms, or misdemean himself in his march, such
misdemeanor shall not be extended further than upon the party
offending; and upon them Justice shall be done according to the
discipline of war.

XIX. That all Commissioned Officers be certified by the Governor of the
Castle, and upon his certificate be allowed to march accordingly; and
that all Troopes march away with their swords.

XX. That Mr. Edward Lathan[83] (Latham) be delivered to the mercy of
the Parliament.

    (Signed)
             ANDREW LLOYD,
             ROBERT CLIVE,
             ROBERT CHARLETON.”

[83] “I suppose the reason of Mr. Latham’s being excepted from the
terms of Capitulation was his not being in military service. I judge it
from the following reference to him in the Articles of the surrender of
the Town of Worcester:—

“In the surrender of Worcester, Sir Wm. Russell was excepted from the
terms of the Capitulation; and it was required that he should be given
up unconditionally to the Parliament. This was protested against by
the Royalists, who said that it would be as much as consenting to his
murder, and that no such exception had been made in any articles of
surrender, except in the case of Mr. Latham, which was not a similar
case, inasmuch as he, Mr. R., was one of the Prince’s Soldiers,—and
Commanders ought to have a soldier’s conditions.”


L. (_Page 176._) ASSIGNMENT OF GOODS AND CHATTELS AT APLEY.

The following is a copy of the assignment of the goods and chattels
of Apley, by the Parliamentary Sequestrators, to Roger Rowley, Esq.,
of Rowley, in the Parish of Worfield. The original document is in the
possession of T. C. Whitmore, Esq., of Apley, who kindly furnished me
with this transcript.

“Wee, John Broome, Solicitor for Sequestrators in the County of Salop,
John Llewellyn, Richard Hawkshead, and Thomas Achelley, Agents for
Sequestʳˢ, in the said County, According to an order of the Committee
of Parliamt. for the said County, requireing us, amongst others, to
sell and dispose of the personall estate of Sʳ William Whitmore of
Apley, in the said County, Knight, for and to the use of the state,
Have and in consyderacion of the some of five hundred eighty three
pounds 3ˢ & 2ᵈ, payed and secured to be payed unto us for the use of
the state, by Roger Rowley, of Rowley, in the said County, Esquire,
sould and

And by these presents doe sell and deliver unto the said Roger
Rowley, all the goods, chattels and personal estate of the said Sʳ
Willᵐ Whitmore in the severall Inventoryes hereunto annexed,—attested
under our hand To have and to hould to him the said Roger Rowley, his
executors, administrators & assigns for ever. In witnes whereof wee
have hereunto putt our hands and seales the XXIII day of February, Anno
Dmⁿⁱ 1647.

               JOHN BROME,
               JOHN LLEWELLEN,
               RICH. HAWKSHED,
               THO: ACHELLEY.

    Sealed & delivered in the presence of

    WALT: ACTON,
    GEORGE STRINGER,
    RICHARD EVANS,
    JEFFRY BLACKSHAW.”


M. (_Page 178._) THE SUFFERINGS OF THE CLERGY DURING THE COMMONWEALTH.

It is very important that the members of the Church of England, and
others, should receive some correct information on the subject of
religious persecution, or persecution for conscience sake; for a very
great mistake on the subject very commonly prevails—namely, that the
Dissenters have always been the suffering party, and the Church the
offending party, in this matter. At a time, indeed, when the duty of
toleration was little understood, some of the rulers of the Church of
England, as well as of the government of the day, did exercise the most
unjustifiable severity against those who ventured to separate from
the established religion. But the instances of this have been so much
insisted on, and have been so frequently made the subject of popular
declamation, that many have been led to imagine that the Church of
England has, again and again, been chargeable with the guilt of cruelly
persecuting her opponents, while the opponents have been guiltless of
any such wrong against her. But the impression is a most erroneous
one; for it may be asserted, without the fear of contradiction, that
the sufferings which the clergy endured in the short space of three
years during the Commonwealth, at the hands of those who had separated
from her, were in severity and extent greater than the whole amount
of suffering which she may have been the instrument of inflicting on
separatists for the hundred years previous.[84]

In proof of this, Gauden,[85] in the Petitionary Remonstrance which he
delivered to Cromwell, in behalf of the suffering Clergy of England,
stated that the number of Ministers ejected from the benefices amounted
to 8000. And Gauden would not, in a public address, and to such a man
as Cromwell, have ventured to make a false or careless statement.
But a much closer investigation of the subject was afterwards made,
and the result of it was published by Walker, in his well known work,
entitled—“The Sufferings of the Clergy,” from which it may be seen
that, if we include in the catalogue the Cathedral Clergy, and the
Clergy belonging to the Universities, and chaplains,—as well as the
parochial ministers and their curates,—the sufferers far exceeded the
number above stated. By a resolution passed in the House of Commons,
during the Protectorate of Cromwell, all ministers were to be deprived
of their benefices who refused to sign the League and Covenant; and,
consequently, numbers who were too loyal to subscribe a document
so hostile to the interests of the King and the Church, were at
once reduced to poverty, and had to bear the severest hardships and
privations. They and their families were driven from their houses, not
knowing where to look for food and shelter; exposed also to the brutal
insolence of the military, who found as much pleasure in plundering
a peaceful parsonage, as in defiling the sanctity of the house of
God. And these outrages appear to have been sanctioned by those in
authority, rather than repressed. Besides this, numbers were thrown
into prisons—the ancient palaces of the Bishops being turned into
jails for the purpose; and when these and the common prisons in London
were crowded with inmates, “many” as Clarendon states, “both of the
laity and clergy, were committed to prison on board the Ships in the
river Thames, where they were kept under decks, and no friend suffered
to come to them, by which many lost their lives.” Nor is this to be
omitted, in giving account of their sufferings, that while they were
enduring these wrongs, for conscience sake—nay, suffering the loss of
all things, rather than abandon their principles—they were vilified
in Parliament, and by the public press, as being little better than
criminals; and men, whose reputation had never been blemished by a
single stain,—whose deep learning, and still deeper piety, would have
reflected honor on any church of which they had been members;—men who
were saints indeed, in the true and ancient sense of the word—were held
up to public scorn, as if they were not fit to live, and branded by the
name of “malignant and scandalous ministers.”

The recollection of these persecutions, inflicted on the loyal body
of the clergy, sharpened the feelings of the Government, after the
Restoration, against Dissenters; and those who then came into power
were too ready to make reprievals for the injuries and wrongs committed
during the Commonwealth. The consequence was, that many excellent
men, whose devotedness to God and whose zeal in the pastoral office
was unquestioned—men of whom, indeed, “the world was not worthy,” and
whose only offence was want of conformity to the Church, suffered
very severely; but their sufferings were trifling, both in extent or
severity, compared to the previous sufferings of the Clergy: so much,
indeed, does the one exceed the other, that Archbishop Bramhall, who
certainly was one not accustomed to utter words at random, says, “Let
Mr. Baxter sum up into one catalogue all the nonconformists throughout
the kingdom of England, even since the beginning of the Reformation,
who have been cast aside, or driven away. I dare abate him all the rest
of the kingdom, and only exhibit the Martyrologies of London, and the
two Universities, or a list of those who in the late intestine wars
have been haled away to prisons, or chased away into banishment, by
his own party, in these three places alone; or left to the merciless
world to beg their bread, for no other crime than loyalty, and because
they stood affected to the ancient rites and ceremonies of the Church
of England, and they shall _double_ them for number.”—_Grot: Relig. p.
116._

It is very desirable that such facts as these should be known; not
that the knowledge of them may serve to ferment and keep alive any
feelings of hostility, or unkindness, towards those who still maintain
the principles of nonconformity—such a purpose cannot be too strongly
repudiated; but, that we may have an answer to give to such as charge
the Church with intolerance and persecution, and may be able to shew,
that in this respect she has been far more “sinned against than
sinning.” These facts also prove to us, and on this account they are
worthy of record, that the principles of the Church of England were
considered by our forefathers as worth suffering for; and that rather
than surrender the Articles of her Creed, or abrogate her regimen, they
willingly endured the severest penalties; took joyfully the spoiling
of their goods, and counted not their life dear unto them. Happily,
the day of persecution for conscience sake is past,—the spirit of the
age does not tolerate any thing like violence;—would that our “unhappy
divisions” were at an end also;—that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ
in sincerity were not only of one heart, but of one mind also—were
“perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement,”
“spoke the same things,” “walked by the same rule;” not only kept “the
unity of the Spirit,” but also unity of worship and of doctrine. This
is the fellowship which the Scripture teaches should subsist between
the members of Christ’s Church; and nothing short of this should be the
object of your hopes and prayers.

[84] Heglin’s History of the Presbyterians, p. 459.

[85] Carwithen’s History of the Church of England, Vol. 3, p. 512.


N. (_Page 183._) DR. PERCY.

The following particulars respecting Dr. Percy, have been very kindly
communicated to me by the Rev. H. E. Boyd, Rector of Dromara, in
the County of Down, who was for many years domestic Chaplain to the
Bishop:—“The Right Reverend Thomas Percy, D. D., Bishop of Dromore,
in Ireland, highly distinguished in the literary world, the son of
Arthur Lowe Percy, by his wife Jane Nott, was born at Bridgnorth,
and baptized the 29th of April, 1729; his grandfather, Arthur Percy,
having removed thither from the City of Worcester, where his family
had been settled for several generations. Arthur was grandson of
Thomas Percy, who was Mayor of Worcester, in 1662. The subject of this
note received the rudiments of his education at the Grammar School
of Bridgnorth, and graduated as A. M. from Christ’s Church College,
Oxford, in 1753: in November of that year, in the presentation of
his College, he was instituted to the Vicarage of Easton Manduit, in
Northamptonshire, which he retained until 1782. In 1756, he became
resident, and was presented to the Rectory of Willby, by the Earl of
Sussex, whose Mansion was close to the Parsonage. In 1759, he was
married to Ann Goderick, after an attachment of several years, to whom
he had addressed the pastoral ballad of “O Nancy, wilt thou go with
me;” which being transformed, by changing some words into the Scottish
dialect, “Nancy” into “Nannie,” “go” into “gang,” &c., has passed with
many persons as an original Scottish ballad, written by Burns, or Allan
Ramsay. During his residence at Bridgnorth, through the kindness of
Mr. Humphrey Pitt, of Prior’s Lee, he became possessed of the M. S.
folio of Ancient Poetry, which exercised a magnetic influence on his
literary taste, and led to the publication of the Reliques, in 1764.
Through the kindness of the Earl of Sussex, he was introduced to the
Duke and Duchess of Northumberland, who appointed him their domestic
Chaplain, and patronized him in his Antiquarian pursuits. In 1769, he
became Chaplain in Ordinary to King George III.; and having obtained
the degree of S. T. P., from Emmanuel College, Cambridge, he was
collated to the Deanery of Carlisle, 1778; and in 1782, elevated to the
see of Dromore, where he died 30th September, 1811, in the 84th year
of his age, revered by all sects and classes in his Diocese, to whom
the exercise of every virtue—piety, charity, and hospitality—especially
to his Clergy, had endeared him, during an episcopate of nearly thirty
years. There, his memory is still vividly preserved: and recollections
of his kindness are traditionally handed down from father to son by the
inhabitants of Dromore. He survived his excellent and amiable partner,
Mrs. Percy, about five years; they are both interred in a vault in the
north aisle of Dromore Cathedral, which was added in 1804, and erected
chiefly at the Bishop’s expense. The “Key to the New Testament,” a
most useful manual to the Divinity Student, and a translation of the
“Song of Solomon,” with some occasional Sermons, form the chief of
the Bishop’s theological labours. An allusion to his discursions in
the other various paths of literature, in which he was engaged, would
extend this notice to an inconvenient length. And as it is intended to
give a more detailed account of this eminent man, in case the copious
supply of materials, known to be in existence, be contributed and
placed in the hands of the writer, the brevity of this sketch will be
the less to be regretted.”


O. (_Page 191._) PETITION PRESENTED TO LADY BARTUE.

The following is a copy of the Petition, presented to Lady Bartue, the
draft of which is preserved among the papers of the Corporation:—

“We are bold (hearing of your noble and charitable disposition to
distressed people) to impart unto you, that in these miserable times
our Town is left a sad spectacle and pitiful object of the woeful
effects of war; for besides the firing of more than 300 families, we
had also burnt, a fair Church, College, Almshouse, and Market House;
whereby we are exposed to great misery and distress. The Parliament,
upon our humble address for some relief, hath vouchsafed us a Brief,
and we are upon that work, hopeing, by God’s blessing thereunto, we
shall live to see some of our public losses againe repaired. Now our
motion is humbly, that your Ladyship, having an old ruinous Barn, at
Wenlock, which would serve for the bonds of a new Market House, hearing
that it is to be sold, do address ourselves hereby to your Ladyship,
desirous that you would be pleased to sell us the same; and send us a
price in consideration of our poor condition. We are not willing to
meddle with the slate covering, only the wood and timber; entreating
that you will be pleased to favour us in the summer. We conceive it
worth £40 or £50 and great charge we shall be at to take it down. We
humbly beseech, that we shall have your Ladyship’s pleasure therein;
that we may know what to trust unto in that behalf. And you will oblige
unto yours—those by whom this Petition represent—the whole body of the
Town, and are

    Your humble Servants,
         HENRY BURNE,   }
         RICHARD SYNGE, } _Bailiffs_.

    Bridgnorth,
         26th. Feby, 1647.”

    “_To the Honourable the
                  LADY BARTUE_,
                           Present these.”


P. (_Page 193._) ALMS HOUSES.

The foundation of this Charity has already been referred to Appendix I,
and proofs given of its antiquity. An official report of it was drawn
up by the Rev. Wm. Corser, in 1792, and presented to the Corporation;
after a very careful investigation into its history. In this, he states
it as his opinion, that it was first established and supported by the
members of the Religious fraternity of the neighbouring College in St.
Leonard’s Church Yard; though the management of it, and the right of
appointment to it, was vested entirely in the Corporation. The objects
of the Charity were originally poor persons, of either sex,—“the Alms
Houses being open to poor Burgesses’ wives; but, for the last hundred
years, the Charity has been confined to poor women,” the widows, or
unmarried daughters of Burgesses, seven chosen from the parish of St.
Leonard’s, and five from the parish of St. Mary’s. The management of
the Charity is placed by a late Act of Parliament, in the hands of “the
Trustees of General Charity Trusts.”


Q. (_Page 193._) THE PROCLAMATION OF CHARLES II.

“Charles the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland,
France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all, and singular,
Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Deans, and their Officials, Parsons,
Ministers, Lecturers, Vicars and Curates, and all other Spiritual
Persons: And also to all Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Sheriffs,
Bailiffs, Constables, Churchwardens, Collectors for the Poor, and
Headboroughs: And to all Officers of Cities, Boroughs, and Towns,
Corporate; and to all other our Officers, Ministers, and Subjects,
whatsoever they be, as well within Liberties as without, to whom these
Presents shall come, Greeting.

“Whereas, We are credibly given to understand, as well by the humble
Supplication and Petition of the Bailiffs and Burgesses of Our Town of
Bridgnorth, in Our County of Salop, as also by a Certificate under the
hands and seals of our Trusty and well-beloved Subjects, Sir William
Whitmore, Baronet, Sir Thomas Wolrich, Knight and Baronet, Sir Walter
Acton, Baronet, Sir John Weld, the younger, Knight, Sir Richard Otley,
Knight, Richard Scriven, Thomas Whitmore, Robert Sandford, Robert
Leighton, and Thomas Holland, Esqs.; Justices of the Peace, at the
general Sessions of the Peace held for the said County, at Salop, on
Tuesday next after the Feast of the Epiphany, now last past, that in
the year of our Lord One Thousand, Six Hundred, Forty and Six, at which
time, our said Town being kept as a Garrison for Our dear Father, the
same was surprized by the contrary party then in Arms, and the upper
town thereof being set on fire, all the houses and the greatest part of
the goods and wares therein, and their Market House, the Colledge, Alms
Houses, and great Collegiate Church, were burned down and consumed, and
that at the said Sessions, it appeared to our said Justices, by the
Oaths of Edward Whitehead and Michaell Millington, able and sufficient
persons; that the losses sustained by the same fire, do amount in the
whole unto the value of Threescore Thousand Pounds at the least; which
being to the utter destruction and laying waste of Our said town,
and the great impoverishment and undoing of the Inhabitants thereof,
unless they shall be relieved by the love and charity of such whose
hearts the Lord (who is the great disposer of hearts) shall warm and
stir up to commiserate them in this their most deplorable condition,
Our said Justices did humbly certifie the same to Our Princely and
Christian consideration, to the end that our gracious Letters Patents
for a collection of the charitable benevolence of our well-disposed
subjects of Our Kingdome of England, might be granted unto Our said
Bailiffs, Burgesses, and other Inhabitants of our said town, for and
towards their relief and the re-edifying of the said Collegiate Church
and Colledge. We therefore, and upon the Petition of the said Bailiffs,
Burgesses, and Inhabitants have thereunto condescended, not doubting
but that all compassionate and tender-hearted Christians rightly and
duely considering the Premisses and the miserable and mutable state
of man through these inevitable and deplorable accidents, (none
knowing how soon they may fall into the like calamity) will be ready
and willing to extend their liberal contributions towards this so
charitable and pious a work, the same tending not only to the relief,
support, and refreshment of Our said distressed subjects in their
great necessity, but to the advancement of the Honour and Worship
of Almighty God. Know ye therefore, that of Our especial grace and
Christian compassion have given and granted, and by these Our Letters
Patents under Our great Seal of England, We do give and grant unto
Our said poor distressed subjects, the Bailiffs, Burgesses, and other
Inhabitants of Bridgnorth aforesaid, and to their Deputy and Deputies,
the Bearer and Bearers hereof, authorized and deputed in that behalf,
as hereafter in these presents is appointed, full power license and
authority, to ask, gather, receive and take the alms and charitable
benevolence of all of Our loving subjects whatsoever; inhabiting
within our Kingdome of England, and all and every the Cities, Towns
corporate, priviledged places, Parishes, Hamblets, Villages, and in
all other places whatsoever, within our said Kingdome, for and towards
the re-edifying, rebuilding, and repairing of the said Collegiate
Church, College, and Alms Houses, in the first place; and after for
and towards the reimbursements and recovery of the losses and for
the future support of Our said poor distressed subjects, and for the
relief of them and their desolate families, which being a work of so
Christian and charitable concernment, will doubtless be readily and
fervently promoted and performed by all well-disposed people, who
upon their serious and due consideration of the said great Losses,
will, with a fellow-feeling of the miseries and distresses of their
fellow Christians extend their free and cheerful contributions more
then ordinary in this pious and blessed work, for in so doing they do
lend unto the Lord, and hence it is that wisdom itself hath said and
testified, That it is more blessed to give than to receive. Wherefore,
We will and command you, and every of you, that at such time and
times, as the said Bailiffs, Burgesses, and Inhabitants of Bridgnorth
aforesaid, their Deputy or Deputies, the Bearer or Bearers hereof,
(authorized and deputed as hereafter in these presents is appointed,)
shall come and repair to any of your Churches, Chappels, or other
places, to ask and receive the gratuities and charitable benevolence
or Our said loving Subjects, quietly to permit and suffer them so to
do, without any manner of your lets, or contradictions. And you, the
said Parsons, Ministers, Lecturers, Vicars and Curates, for the better
stirring up of a charitable devotion, deliberately to publish according
to the tenor of these Our Letters Patents, or brief hereof unto the
people, upon the Lord’s Day next after the same shall be tendered
unto you,—exhorting, perswading, and stirring them up to extend their
liberal contributions towards this so pious and charitable a work.
And you, the said Churchwardens of every Parish, and Collectors for
the poor, where such Collection is to be made, as aforesaid, together
with such other honest active men there, as shall be nominated by the
minister and your selves, are hereby willed and required to collect and
gather the Alms and charitable benevolence of Our said loving subjects:
not only Householders, but also Servants, Strangers, and others: And
if you shall find it more expedient for an effectual performance of
this pious work, you are to go from house to house in your respective
parishes, upon the Week dayes, to gather the Alms of Our said loving
subjects. And what shall be by you so gathered by vertue of these
presents, in the said parishes and places, to be by the Ministers and
yourselves, endorsed on the back side of these our Letters Patents,
or the true copies or briefs hereof, in words at length and not in
figures; which endorsement is to be subscribed with the hands of you
the said Ministers, Churchwardens, and such in each Parish or Place,
as shall assist you in such Collection, and also to be registered in
the Books of your respective Parishes: And the sum and sums of money
so gathered and endorsed you are to deliver to the bearer or bearers
of these Our Letters Patents, so deputed and authorized as hereafter
in these presents is appointed, whensoever you shall be by him or
them required so to do: whose receiving thereof, with his or their
Acquitance or Acquitances shall be sufficient discharge for so doing;
which said bearer or bearers of these Our Letters Patents, are hereby
willed and required forthwith to pay and deliver all the moneys by them
so to be collected and received as aforesaid, unto John Bennett, George
Weld, and the said Thomas Holland Esquires, and to John Rogerson,
Robert Richards, and Thomas Fingmore, of the said town of Bridgnorth,
gent., aforesaid, or any two of them, whom We do by these presents
nominate, constitute and appoint the Treasurers of all such moneys,
as shall be collected and gathered by virtue of these Our Letters
Patents, who are from time to time to pay and dispose of the same
moneys, in such manner and order as the said Sir Thomas Wolrich, Sir
William Whitmore, Sir Walter Acton, Sir John Weld the younger, Thomas
Whitmore and Thomas Holland, Esquires, and Michael Thomas, Rector of
Stockton, in the said County of Salop, or any three or more of them,
shall by writing under their hands and seals direct and appoint the
same. And lastly, for the more assurance of faithful and equal dealing
in the receipt accompt, and distribution of the moneys hereby to be
collected as aforesaid, and that the said Bailiffs, Burgesses, and
Inhabitants of Bridgnorth aforesaid, may not be defeated of any part
thereof, but enjoy the full benefit of this Our Royal favour extended
to them, and that a true and honest accompt may be given and rendered
to them, Our will and pleasure is, that no man shall be employed to
collect any of the said moneys but such only as shall be appointed and
authorized thereunto, by Deputation or Deputations under the hands
and seals of the said Treasurers or any two of them, and that such
person or persons as shall be so deputed, to make the said collections
within our City of London, and the liberties and suburbs thereof, shall
beside the said Deputation procure a Testimonial in this behalf from
the Lord Mayor of Our said City of London for the time being, under
his hand and seal, whom we do by these presents desire to grant the
same accordingly, that so no scruple or impediment, may be raised to
prevent or hinder a ready, speedy, and effectual performance, in Our
said City of London, and the Liberties and Suburbs thereof, of Our
Royal will and pleasure herein before declared; and for the better and
more speedy collecting of the said charitable benevolence, Our further
will and pleasure is, that the said respective Deputies (if they shall
see cause) shall respectively deliver Briefs unto the chief Constables,
of every Hundred or Division, in every of the said Counties, who are
hereby required to distribute the same to the respective Churchwardens
of every Parish or Precinct, within their respective Constabularies,
and when such collection shall be made as aforesaid, the said several
Churchwardens are required to return to each respective Chief Constable
the Briefs received by them, together with the moneys collected by
the same, to be endorsed thereupon and subscribed in manner as is
hereby before directed and appointed, and the said chief Constables
to give discharges for the receipt thereof accordingly, which said
chief Constables are to deliver and pay the said moneys so by them to
be received, together with the said Brief or Briefs so endorsed as
aforesaid, unto the bearer or bearers of these our Letters Patents,
so to be deputed as aforesaid, at the Assizes next after such their
receipt thereof whensoever holden within the several and respective
Counties, or whensoever they shall be required thereunto, by the person
or persons so deputed as aforesaid, and the said Treasurers or any
two of them are hereby willed and required, from time to time to pay
and distribute the Moneys so to be by them received as aforesaid, in
and about the uses aforesaid, and the promoting and carrying on the
same by and according to such directions and appointments as they
shall from time to time receive from the persons for that purpose
herein above-named, or any three or more of them: Any Law, Statute,
Act, Ordinance, or Provision heretofore made to the contrary hereof
in any wise notwithstanding. In witness whereof, we have caused these
Our Letters to be made Patents for the spase of one whole year next
after the date hereof to endure, and no longer. Witnesse Our Self at
Westminster, the first day of June, in the Thirteenth year of our
Raign.”

God save the King.


R. (_Page 199._) NON-JURING BISHOPS.

What makes the resistance of these Prelates to the unconstitutional
proceedings of James the more remarkable is, that they afterwards
submitted to deprivation, rather than renounce their allegiance to him.
When he was deposed, or as others would represent it, when he abdicated
the throne, they could not be persuaded by any inducements to abjure
his sovereignty, and to take the oath of allegiance to William. They
regarded James as still their lawful King, and judged that it would
be a violation of the law of God for them to renounce his authority:
and, therefore, neither the remembrance of the wrongs which he had
done them, nor the prospect of what they might be called to suffer
for maintaining their allegiance to him, could shake their fidelity.
They refused, notwithstanding the many overtures which were made to
them, to take the customary oaths to the new King, hence the name of
“Non-Jurors.” They were perhaps extreme in their views, and carried
their principles of non-resistance and passive obedience so far, as
to involve them in great practical difficulties, which has afforded
to their opponents matter for much contemptuous ridicule. But those
who express this scorn for the principles of the Non-Jurors, should
remember that they were the principles maintained by every protestant
community before the revolution—maintained as strenuously by Burnet[86]
and Tillotson, during the reign of the Stuarts, as by the seven
Bishops. Here lay the difference, that on the accession of William, the
former renounced these doctrines, and, in consequence, were advanced
to high places of honour and emolument: the latter still adhered to
them, though their adherence cost them the loss of all things. This too
happened at a time when, according to the testimony of Mr. Macaulay,
principle was a very rare quality indeed in public men of any party;
so that the sacrifice which the non-juring Bishops and Clergy made for
conscience sake stands out in striking contrast to the selfishness and
corruption which every where surrounded them. This contrast is so ably
drawn by a writer in the Christian Remembrancer, of April last, that I
think it well to submit it to the Reader.

“To this scene of falsehood and perfidy and unbridled selfishness,—to
the duplicity of the great men, and the corruption of the little men
in the state,—there was at this time one striking contrast. There was
one body of men in England, who, in spite of the low tone of public
honesty, did through evil report, through scorn and ridicule, through
the loss of their daily bread, stick to their principles. There was
one body of men possessed of reputation and competence, and some of
them of high station and wealth, who might have kept all—have been
caressed and flattered, at least feared or treated with respect—might
at least have kept their freeholds and their influence, their peerages
and palaces, or their quiet country parsonages, merely by saying a few
words against their convictions, and who would not. It was nothing very
fearful or profligate that they were called to do. It was then, and
is still, even among those who sympathise with them, a great question
whether they ought not to have done it. It was something for which,
had they wanted a pretext, they could have found not pretexts but good
reasons, in the example, and opinion, and authority of numbers of their
brethren—good, and conscientious, and pure-minded men. It was something
which Beveridge and Bishop Wilson could do with a clear conscience. But
their consciences would not allow them to do it; and they did it not.
Call them over-scrupulous, call them narrow-minded, say that they were
entangled and misled by a false theory of government, still the fact
remains; their duty seemed to them clear and plain, and their duty they
followed at all costs. They lost everything by it; they were cast out
of the Church, they were cast out of the State; too few to have any
influence, too unpopular to hope for converts, they found themselves
cut off from the body of their countrymen, cut off from all the chief
walks of life, homeless and living on alms, pitied by friends,
suspected by all in power, ridiculed by the world, plunged into the
miseries and perplexities of a new and difficult course of action, and
of a small isolated clique, with small comfort for the present, and
small hope for the future. Granting all that their critics or their
enemies said of them—and they have had keen critics and rancorous
enemies,—that they were fretful and cross-grained, that they were
peevish and could not reason—that they were censorious and ill-natured
to their opponents—that their theories were absurd, their heads hot,
their intestine quarrels about small points very petty—granting that
Sancroft was sour and self-opiniated, Turner a busy plotter, Collier
indiscreet and a proud priest, that Dodwell had odd notions on the
immortality of the soul, and that Hickes was as tiresome as Mr.
Macaulay himself about the Theban legion—still there is no denying
the fact, that while the great men of the day, who were having their
will, and riding on the high places of the earth, were, most of them,
men whom we should shun as we do sharpers and swindlers—the mocked and
ruined Non-jurors were honest men.” (_Christian Remembrancer_, _vol._
XXXI, _pp. 412-413_).

One of these has left a name in the Church which will be honoured, as
long as simplicity and godly sincerity are held in estimation among
men. The life of Bishop Ken, both before and after his deprivation,
was one so blameless and harmless—one of such uniform gentleness and
charity, as to win almost universal reverence and regard; and the
record of it has extorted the admiration of those who are most opposed
to his principles. He refused to take the new oath of allegiance.
After giving the subject every possible consideration, and calmly and
dispassionately deliberating on it, he felt that he could not with
a clear conscience swear fidelity to William and Mary as his liege
sovereigns, and he submitted patiently to the penalties which his
refusal brought upon him. He felt it his duty to enter a public protest
against the act of the government, which deprived him of his Bishopric;
but he retired from it without a murmur, attended, however, by the
tears and lamentations of his flock, who had known him long enough to
form an estimate of his character, and to calculate their loss in being
deprived of his overseership and counsel. Like others of his Brethren,
he would have been reduced to great poverty, had not his attached
friend and College companion, Lord Weymouth, received him into his
house, at Longleat. There he lived for upwards of thirty years after
his deprivation, and there he died. He suffered during his latter years
an amount of bodily anguish, which few men are called on to endure,
and this he sought to alleviate, and not in vain, by the exercise of
prayer and contemplation, and by indulging in strains of sacred poetry,
for which he had a natural aptitude. These he called anodynes, and
“alleviations of Paine,” and such they proved to him. His Biographer
states that “writing, saying, and singing hymns, were his chief solace:
they turned his mournings into penitential sighs.” His death was
like his life, one of perfect peace. His burial was in harmony with
his character, free from ostentation and parade. His special request
was that he might be buried in the Church Yard of the nearest parish
without any manner of pomp or ceremony, and that he might be carried to
the grave by six of the poorest men in the parish. He left in his last
Will this declaration of his stedfast attachment to the Church, which
coming from one of his stamp is of no small importance in these days of
disloyalty and division:—

“As for my Religion, I die in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith,
professed by the whole Church, before the disunion of the East and
West: more particularly I die in the Communion of ye Church of England,
as it stands distinguished from all Papall and Puritan innovations, and
as it adheres to the doctrine of the Crosse.”

[86] “No doubt Ken had an eye to both these Prelates when he wrote thus
to Burnet, ‘many persons of our own coat for several years together
preached up Passive Obedience to a much greater height than ever I
did, and on a sudden without the least acknowledgement of their past
error, preach’d and acted quite the contrary.’”—_Life of Bishop Ken by
a Layman._

[Illustration]

W. J. ROWLEY, PRINTER, BRIDGNORTH.