The reign of Henry IV. is distinguished by the “Battle of Shrewsbury,”
one of the most terrible battles recorded in the History of England.
Henry was surrounded on all sides by difficulties and dangers. His
nobles were animated by mutual hostilities. His subjects in Wales seized
the opportunity which the discontent among the aristocracy of England
gave them, and broke out in insurrection. Inspired and guided by Owen
Glendower, the indomitable Welsh fought a long and tedious battle, in
which the royal representative, Sir Edmund Mortimer, was taken prisoner.
Mortimer’s nephew, the Earl of March, was also carried into Wales. Henry
could not be persuaded to offer a ransom for the liberty of Mortimer.
His refusal embittered the Percies, to whose assistance he owed his
crown. During this unsettled state of affairs the Scots made incursions
into England. The peers consented to attend the king in an expedition
against Scotland. The expedition proved abortive. Henry found that
Richard III. would not obey his mandate to do homage to him for his
crown; he found that the Scots would not submit; he found that they would
not give him battle. He therefore withdrew and disbanded his army. The
Scots, resolved to punish Henry for this miserable attempt at
subjugation, marched into the northern counties of England at the head of
Earl Douglas. They were totally routed in the battle which ensued at
Holmedon; and Douglas, with a number of nobles, was taken prisoner.
Henry ordered the Earl of Northumberland not to ransom the prisoners.
Northumberland had a right to ransom or return them. A dispute was the
result. The relations between the sovereign and the Percies were more
deeply embittered, and Northumberland was forbidden by Henry to enter the
court.
_Get thee gone_, _for I do see_
_Danger and disobedience in thine eye_.
_O_, _Sir_, _your presence is too bold and peremptory_,
_And Majesty may never yet endure_
_The moody frontier of a servant brow_.
_You have good leave to leave us_: _when we need_
_Your use and counsel_, _we shall send for you_.
The Earl was disgusted and indignant at the ingratitude of Henry. It was
by his aid that Henry had advanced to the throne. Henry had conferred
upon him some gifts in return, but Northumberland was not easily
satisfied. Henry, on the one hand, was jealous of the power which had
seated him on the throne; and the earl, on the other, was discontented
with the compensation which Henry had made. The interference of the king
with the right of Northumberland to dispose of his prisoners according to
his own wish was deemed a fresh insult and injury. Northumberland
determined upon revenge by overturning the throne which had been
established principally by him. To this end he and his adherents
proclaimed that Richard was alive, but that having been satisfactorily
disproved, he planned a scheme for defending the claim of Mortimer to the
crown. It was laid that the armies of Wales and Scotland should be
united. Mortimer entered into covenant with Northumberland to bring an
army into the Marches, which the Welsh, commanded by Glendower, were to
join. The Earl of Worcester, brother of Northumberland, joined the
forces, and in order to win over the Scots to the compact, Douglas and
the other prisoners were set at liberty. At the moment when everything
was ready for an engagement Northumberland was suddenly seized with a
dangerous malady at Berwick. The conduct of the army was taken by his
son Percy, surnamed Hotspur, this “Mars in swaddling clothes,” “this
infant warrior,” who
_Doth fill fields with harness in the realm_
_Turns head against the lion’s armed jaws_,
_Leads ancient lords and reverend bishops on_
_To bloody battles and to bruising arms_.
Hotspur, along with the magnanimous and martial Douglas, marched the
troops towards Shrewsbury, where it was intended to join the forces of
the Welsh under Glendower. The king, aware of the importance of
celerity, hurried down to Shrewsbury before the arrival of Hotspur, whose
design was to reach here first. Glendower had not brought his army up,
but Hotspur nevertheless resolved to make a stand. He had a force of
14,000 carefully selected soldiers. He had, too, the advantage of choice
of ground. The animosity had reached its height on both sides. A
general engagement was inevitable. It was brought to a head by the
impatience of Percy on the one side, and by the policy of the king on the
other, the king believing that without the aid of Glendower the defeat of
Percy was secure. On the evening previous to battle Percy sent to Henry
a manifesto in which he renounced his allegiance, set the sovereign at
defiance, enumerated the grievances of which the nation had abundant
reason to complain. He upbraided him with perjury, with infidelity to
the late monarch, with aiding the murder of that prince, with usurping
the title of the house of Mortimer, with adopting the most crooked and
cruel policy, with burdening the nation with unrighteous taxes, and with
corrupting the Parliamentary elections. This added fuel to the flame.
This intensified the quarrel between them.
_These things indeed you have articulated_,
_Proclaimed at market-crosses_, _read in churches_,
_To face the garment of rebellion_
_With some fine colour that may please the eye_
_Of fickle changelings and poor discontents_,
_Which gape and rub the elbow at the news_
_Of hurly-burly innovations_.
When the morning of the 21st of July, 1403, dawned, the two armies were
drawn up in array at a place then called Oldfield, Bullfield, and
Haitefield, subsequently Battlefield, near Shrewsbury. Percy held the
most advantageous ground, but the king, to balance the loss of superior
position, made a most skilful disposition of his men. Hotspur addressed
his men, telling them that they must either conquer or die an ignominious
death. They replied with shouts of applause. The king sent the Abbot of
Shrewsbury to offer pardon, but it was useless: Hotspur would not lay
down arms. He was asked why he appeared to oppose his king? In reply he
repeated the accusations of the manifesto. Henry counselled him to
confide in his royal clemency. Percy peremptorily declared that he would
not, and thereupon the standard bearer of the king’s army marched
forward, and the battle commenced. Terrible was the shock of opposing
forces. It was one of the most fearful actions in all our history. It
began with a shower of arrows on both sides. The Scots followed with a
rush of tremendous fury upon the front of the royal line, and put them
into temporary confusion. The king, however, was in the thickest of the
fight, and was known to his soldiers, although arrayed in a manner which
effectually prevented his being recognised by his enemies. His presence
lent new courage to his partially disorganised forces. Though foremost
among the foremost Hotspur and Douglas tried in vain to discover him. A
device of concealment had been adopted. Several were armed like the
king, and thus it was impossible to distinguish the royal warrior. But
at every one that was conspicuous Hotspur and Douglas furiously charged
with swords and lances. The gap in the royal line had nearly decided the
victory by disordering the king’s army. It was a daring and dashing
move, and spread dismay among the disconcerted, but it evinced more
impetuosity than judgment. It was one road to victory to force a way
into the centre of the king’s forces, but it opened up a path into which
Hotspur’s men were unable to follow. Seeing this, the king ordered his
reserve to be brought up. The promise of triumph was lost to Hotspur.
The reinforcements turned the scale. Hotspur’s army was defeated, and
fled in great confusion, after a severe contest of three hours duration.
Douglas performed feats of incredible valour. Hotspur sustained his fame
for supernatural courage; but the moment he observed the certainty of
defeat, he rushed into the hottest part of the battle, and was killed,
some say by Prince Henry.
_Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere_,
_Nor can one England brook a double reign_
_Of Harry Percy and the Prince of Wales_.
The loss of life was fearful. The dead lay in heaps all around. There
were slain no less than 2,300 gentlemen, and about 6,000 private men, of
whom two-thirds belonged to Hotspur’s army. On the side of the king, who
fought desperately, and was throughout the engagement in the very middle
of the fight, slaying, it is said, thirty-six persons with his own hand,
there were 1,600 killed and about 3,000 wounded. Among the killed were
the Earl of Stafford, and ten new knights who had been knighted on the
same morning, only a few hours previously. Douglas and Worcester were
taken prisoners. Worcester on the following Monday was beheaded at
Shrewsbury, at the High Cross, that is, at the top of Pride Hill. Sir
Theobald Trussel, Baron of Kinderton, and Sir Richard Vernon, met the
same fate at the same time. Douglas, who had fallen from a crag of a
rock on Haughmond Hill before being taken prisoner, was treated with the
courtesy due to his rank and noble qualities, and afterwards liberated.
The body of Hotspur having been found was beheaded and quartered in
Shrewsbury, and the quarters fixed upon the gates of the town. Many of
the dead were buried upon the field of slaughter; while some of the most
notable were interred in the Black Friars and St. Austin’s Friars,
Shrewsbury. Subsequently the king built Battlefield Church in honour of
his victory, and settled upon it a certain sum to pay two priests for
praying for the souls of the slain.
—:o:—
In the middle of the 15th century the Duke of York raised an army at
Shrewsbury, really for the purpose of dethroning Henry VI., whose
feebleness in conducting the Government was beyond dispute, but
ostensibly only for the purpose of removing the Duke of Somerset from the
councils of the King. The Duke of York was subsequently killed in a
battle near Wakefield, whereupon his son, Edward, Earl of March,
afterwards King of England, to revenge the death of his father and the
cruelties inflicted on his most attached friends, came to Shrewsbury,
where 23,000 men flocked to his assistance. With these, principally
Welsh borderers, he wholly defeated and dispersed the King’s forces at
Mortimer’s Cross, near Hereford.
When Henry, Earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. arrived in England,
and marched against Richard III. he was joined at Shrewsbury, by Sir
Gilbert Talbot, High Sheriff of the county, who added 4,000 men to his
small army. Henry, sensible of the material aid that was thus rendered
him, paid Shrewsbury the compliment of visiting it shortly after he
reached the throne; again in 1488 when he remained several days; a third
time in 1490 when the King, Queen, and Prince Arthur were present at St.
George’s Feast, which, strangely enough, was held in St. Chad’s Church,
Princess Street; and a fourth time in 1495 when he was sumptuously
entertained by the corporation—public men who, like Falstaff, had a
hearty and deep affection for sack. Some of the charges for this banquet
are most curious and amusing. There was bread which cost £2; there was
bread for the Queen 2s. 8d.; there were four oxen, £3 6s. 8d!—there could
have been no controversy about the high price of butcher’s meat; there
were twenty-four wethers £1 12s.—talk of the “good old times,” what
farmer, badly off as he is in these days, would wish them back
again?—there were twenty-four bottles of wine for “the King and the Lords
in the Castle,” 16s., eightpence a bottle!—there was wine to make
Hipocrass for the Queen, 4s.; there was a tun of wine £8, and six
hogsheads of ale £2 6s. The bread, oxen, and wethers cost £7 1s. 4d.,
the ale and wine for the King, the Queen, the guard, the King’s
gentlemen, and the minstrels cost £13 15s.! That was a truly English
entertainment! The Prince had 10s. spent on bread for his wants, and £4
on “half-a-tun of wine” for his refreshment and enlivenment. Rewards
were given to children, footmen, players, and serjeants-at-arms. The
total charge was £39 17s. 6d. Do hotel keepers sigh for the return of
the ancient days?
For upwards of three-quarters of a century after the last visit of Henry
VII. Shrewsbury received no royal attentions. After the lapse of
eighty-five years, however, a representative of royalty in the person of
Sir Henry Sidney favoured the town with a visit. Sir Henry Sydney, who
had been educated at Shrewsbury School, was Lord President of the Welsh
Marches; and in that character he kept St. George’s feast in Shrewsbury,
on the 24th of April, 1581. Dr. Taylor’s account of his reception, and
of the manner of the feast, is most amusing. Sir Henry “most honourably
came from the Counsell House there, in hys knightly robes, most valiant,
wyth hys gentilmen before hym, and hys knights followyng hym, in brave
order.” In the rear of the knights were the bailiffs, aldermen, and
“companyes of all occupations in the sayde towne, evrie company
followinge in good and seemely order, towards St. Chadd’s Churche,” in
Princess Street. At the church Sir Henry was seated, or “stallid,” as
the manuscript reads, in the chancel, where the knights of the garter
passed and repassed, “dyng as much honour as thoughe the Queen’s Majestic
had been present.” By command of the Lord President, divine service was
performed “to the gloryfying of God.” Connected with “the gloryfying of
God,” at least in the narrative of Dr. Taylor, was the feast, which Dr.
Taylor records supplemented the religious gloryfying. The procession was
so long that when Sir Henry entered the church, “the last end of the
trayne was at my Lord’s place, the Councill House.” A week later there
was more feasting. The masters of the Grammar School, “the free scoole,”
Dr. Taylor significantly calls the institution, provided it. Their names
were Thomas Lorrance, John Barker, Richard Atkys, and Roger Kent. They
were feeders unquestionably, for they made “a brave and costly bancket
after supper, on the first daye of Maye.” The “dyshes” numbered forty,
and “every scoole presented ten dyshes, with a shewer before every
scoole.” The following day, in a spirit of elation, the scholars of the
school, who numbered 360, “marched braveley in battell order” to the Gey
in the Abbey Foregate, where they met the Lord President. The general
and captains renewed their allegiance to the sovereign and valiantly
declared that they “would feight and defend the countrey.” Sir Henry
paid them the necessary compliment for their eloquence. He appears to
have won the affection of the students. His departure was mourned as if
it were an irreparable loss. He left the town on the 13th of May in a
barge, and at a certain point along the shore of the river were stationed
a number of melancholy scholars “apparelyd in greene, and greene wyllows
upon theire heads,” for the purpose of making lachrymose appeals to him
to remain, of reciting doleful ditties upon his departure, of lamenting
the end of the halcyon days of “brave and costly bankets” and of
delivering eloquent orations on their eternal fidelity to the
constitution. One elegist pitifully affirmed that his “woe was greate,”
that out of the intensity of his grief he was compelled to rend his
garment. The same inconsolable spirit ventured to implore the Severn to
“turn its stream quite backe.” Another burst out wailingly—“O woeful
wretched time, O doleful day and houre;” another declared that the sight
of Sir Henry’s leaving gave him “a pinching payne that griped his hart;”
while another uttered the sensible wish that “we could like fishes swyme
that we myght wyth thee goe.” It can readily be believed, as Dr. Taylor
says, that all this lugubration caused “my Lord hymself to change
countenance!” The bailiffs and aldermen, however, preserved a different
spirit—a spirit which may be readily appreciated from the fact that after
the scholars had done their lamentations they “dyned altogether in the
bardge uppon the water when they came to Atcham!” Aldermen without a
doubt and of a truth.
Nothing of moment occurs in the history of Shrewsbury after this until we
come to the reign of Charles I. Charles had to remove his standard from
Nottingham. On the 19th of September, 1642, he mustered his forces at
Wellington. He placed himself in the centre, and addressed the soldiers
in a vigorous tone. The next day he reached Shrewsbury. One of his
first acts was to borrow £600 out of the Grammar School Treasury. His
next was to re-establish the mint for the coining of the sinews of war.
His next was to raise an army. He was joined by Prince Rupert, Prince
Charles, and the Duke of York who, with several Shropshire noblemen and
gentlemen, quickly formed a force for the defence of his cause. Those
who could not obtain horse or foot contributed plate to be coined at the
mint. The universities of Oxford and Cambridge presented him with a
quantity of plate. Thomas Lyster, Esq., of Rowton, gave the king a purse
of gold, which the sovereign acknowledged by elevating him to the rank of
knighthood. Sir Richard Newport, in return for his services, was
advanced to the honour of a Baron of England by the title of Lord
Newport. Sir Richard, fully appreciating the King’s wants, presented him
with £600. The people, it is said, were enamoured of Charles. Large
numbers of them enlisted as volunteers, and some were rewarded with
knighthood for their loyalty.
Charles made Shrewsbury a garrison town. Under his direction Lord Capel
built a strong fort on the Mount to prevent any enemy from planting
cannon there. It was called Cadogan’s Fort. Two years after, in 1644,
Colonel Mytton, a valorous officer who governed a small garrison at Wem,
and was general of the Parliamentary forces in Shropshire, made two
unsuccessful attempts to reduce Shrewsbury. The first occurred on a
Saturday, when he attacked the fort at the Mount, but was repulsed. The
second effort was made on the following Saturday, about midnight. Mytton
brought his forces to the Old Heath, but the darkness was against them.
They mistook their way, and marched in the direction of Pimley and
Atcham. On the succeeding Saturday the third attempt took place.
General Mytton’s forces consisted of 250 foot and 250 horse drawn out of
the garrisons of Wem and Moreton Corbet. To these were added the same
number of foot and horse of the Staffordshire army, under the command of
Colonel Bowyer. Sir William Brereton gave valuable assistance. They
arrived at Shrewsbury on Saturday morning, February 22nd, 1644. They
landed under the Castle Hill, on the east side. Half a hundred troopers
dismounted, and, led by the Rev. Mr. Huson, Captain Villiers, and
Lieutenant Benbow, stormed the town with pistols. Musqueteers followed
along the Severn side, under the Castle Hill, near the Council House, and
entered the town at the gate of the Water Lane, which now runs into Raven
Street. The musqueteers were succeeded by about 350 foot. These marched
to the Market Square; and meanwhile the remainder of the Parliamentary
army reached the Gates, which then stood on Castle Gates. The royal
guard had fled, and the horse under General Mytton and Colonel Bowyer
entered the town unresisted. Dreadful consternation spread among the
inhabitants. Mytton’s men came down “like wolves on the fold.” They
plundered goods; they pilfered plate; they stole whatsoever they could.
Distress immediately prevailed. Shrieks and lamentations were heard far
above the din of the contending parties. The people were devoutly loyal
to their monarch. Their sufferings were painfully grievous. The Castle
and the fort at the Mount held out for some time with great bravery, but
at twelve o’clock at noon the Castle was delivered up upon condition that
the English march to Ludlow, but the Irish remain as the conquerors’
prisoners of war. About midnight the fort could no longer be defended,
and was handed over to the Parliamentarians. The whole of the garrison
surrendered upon bare quarter. It is remarkable that the loss of life on
both sides amounted to only two: one Parliamentarian, Richard Wycherley,
of the Clive, Grinshill, and one royalist, the captain of the main guard,
who was killed at the Market Square. Among the prisoners taken were
eight Knights and Baronets, forty Colonels, Majors, Captains, and other
officers, with a large quantity of ordnance. Colonel John Benbow, who
had joined the king in Shrewsbury in September, 1642, was in 1651
condemned by Court Martial at Chester for corresponding with the king.
He was sentenced to death, and the sentence was carried out on the 15th
of October, 1651, in the Cabbage Garden, afterwards the Bowling Green,
near the Castle, Shrewsbury. On the 16th the body was buried in St.
Chad’s churchyard (old St. Chad’s). The stone which marked his grave was
re-cut in the year 1740 at the expense of Mr. Scott, of Betton, “to
perpetuate his memory.”
Charles II., visited Shrewsbury. Struck with surprise at the width and
cleanliness of the streets, he expressed, a wish to elevate it into a
city. The burgesses, who appear to have left their first love, and to
have degenerated in their affections for kings, refused his offer in such
an independent spirit that they obtained for themselves the designation
of “Proud Salopians”—a designation which is often applied to us as a term
indicating that we are haughty, stiff, conceited. Is there not something
honourable in it? The title means that once upon a time we performed the
courageous feat of declining the wish of a king—we said “no” to a
sovereign—we rejected the proffered compliment of being exalted by a
monarch. Strange but re-assuring phenomenon from the descendants of the
zealots of Richard II., and from the devotees of Charles I.!
The last royal visit to Shrewsbury—and, as we have seen, there was a
number of them, chiefly of either a disturbing or a worthless sort—was
made by James II. in August, 1687. Of course, the indispensable
feasting, which is a fundamental element in our glorious British
Constitution, was held in great style. A magnificent court was kept in
the Council House on August 25th; and the next day the King left this
town for Whitchurch. With his departure end our stories of the calls of
kings on their subjects at Shrewsbury.