Chapter VI: Part II: THE ANTIQUITIES, &c (2)

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.