Chapter VIII: Appendix: A. (Page 7.) MORF FOREST (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

[77] “Now Abbot’s Castle Hill.”

[78] “Salop Chartulary. No. 279.”

B. (_Page 22._) BRIDGNORTH CASTLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The passages referred to are as follows:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“DEAR ROBIN,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sealed & delivered in the presence of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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