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 carriedtheir 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 inthe 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 andliving 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 anddispassionately 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 lastWill 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.”

W. J. ROWLEY, PRINTER, BRIDGNORTH.

Footnotes:[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.[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 hisSalopia 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.)[4]Vide Appendix A.[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.[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.[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.[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.[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.)[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.[11]Appendix B.[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.[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.[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.)[16]Appendix C.[17]Appendix D.[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.[19]The above sketch of the old Church of Saint Mary Magdalene is taken from a print in the Taylor’s Buildings, Oxford.[20]This account of Peter de Rivallis, given by Mr. Eyton (in hisAntiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 1, pp. 330, 334), is collected from the historian, Matthew Paris.[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.[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.[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.[25]Symonds’s Diary, a M.S. in the British Museum, p. 45.[26]See the subject discussed by Mr. Eyton, inVol. 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 highFor sinful man beneath the sky.The trivial round, the common task,Would furnish all we ought to ask:Room to deny ourselves; a roadTo bring us, daily, nearer God.”[28]Tanner’s Notitia Monastica, p.xxviii, note.[29]Tanner’s Notitia Monastica, p. 451.[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.[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 inTanner’s Notitia Monastica,p.xl,notes.[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.[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.[35]Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, Vol. I, pp. 69, 70.[36]Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, Appendixxxxvi.[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.[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.[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.[41]Appendix E.[42]Dukes’ Antiquities, Appendix IX.[43]Appendix F.[44]The late Mr. Hardwick.[45]Apley MSS.[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.)[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.[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.[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.[52]This tract is printed in Gutch’s Collectanea Coriosa, Oxford 1781. The Author, John Thomas Manby.[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.”[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.”[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.[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.[60]These particulars I have collected partly from the Blakeway apers, and partly from the puritan tract of “The Burning Bush not onsumed.”[61]Appendix H.[62]Appendix I.[63]Appendix K.[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.[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.”[67]Appendix M.[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.[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.”[71]Appendix O.[72]Appendix P.[73]Appendix Q.[74]Appendix R.[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.”[79]The writer evidently means the party favourable to the Reformation, in the sense in which the word is generally used.[80]The letter is given inpp. 162-5of Tytler’s “Trials of Charles I.”[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.[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.[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.”[84]Heglin’s History of the Presbyterians, p. 459.[85]Carwithen’s History of the Church of England, Vol. 3, p. 512.[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.

Footnotes:

[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.

[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.

“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 hisSalopia 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.)

[4]Vide Appendix A.

[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.

[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.

[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.

“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.

[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.

[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.)

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.)

[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.

[11]Appendix B.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[16]Appendix C.

[17]Appendix D.

[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.

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[26]See the subject discussed by Mr. Eyton, inVol. 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 highFor sinful man beneath the sky.The trivial round, the common task,Would furnish all we ought to ask:Room to deny ourselves; a roadTo bring us, daily, nearer God.”

[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 highFor sinful man beneath the sky.The trivial round, the common task,Would furnish all we ought to ask:Room to deny ourselves; a roadTo bring us, daily, nearer God.”

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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 inTanner’s Notitia Monastica,p.xl,notes.

[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.

[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.

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

[36]Dukes’ Antiquities of Shropshire, Appendixxxxvi.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[41]Appendix E.

[42]Dukes’ Antiquities, Appendix IX.

[43]Appendix F.

[44]The late Mr. Hardwick.

[45]Apley MSS.

[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.)

(See Vide Appendix G.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

[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.

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

[61]Appendix H.

[62]Appendix I.

[63]Appendix K.

[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.

[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.”

[67]Appendix M.

[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.

“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.

[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.”

[71]Appendix O.

[72]Appendix P.

[73]Appendix Q.

[74]Appendix R.

[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.”

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

[80]The letter is given inpp. 162-5of Tytler’s “Trials of Charles I.”

[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.

[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.

[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.”

“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.”

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

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

[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.

Back to Index Next