B. N., Oct. 5, 1642.
[57] If the right date has been assigned to the first letter of King
Charles’, given above, he must have left the town the day before the
rebel forces entered it; and they could have remained here but a few
days, as he returned on the 12th.
[58] This probably was the ford near the “Shearing Bush,” and the
“champayn field” mentioned afterwards may very likely have been the
flat extensive pasture-field opposite St. James’s.
[59] Lord Paulet, though made prisoner on this occasion, regained his
liberty afterwards by some means, for he is mentioned as one of those
who were engaged in the siege of Lyme, in 1644.
We learn also from the following extract from a Puritan tract, entitled
“_The Burning Bush not consumed_,” that in the Autumn of the year 1645,
that is, about half-a-year before the capture of the town and castle,
a detachment from the garrison of Shrewsbury [at that time in the
hands of the rebels] made an attempt on Bridgnorth, which partially
succeeded:—“About the 12th. inst., (_i. e._ 12th. Sept., 1645) we
received certain intelligence by letters from _Shrewsbury_, that the
valiant and victorious forces of that brave and most active garrison,
having intelligence in what posture the enemy lay at _Bridgenorth_,
they suddenly and silently marched thither, and undiscovered fell upon
the sentinels, soone surprized them, carried the town itself, and then
fell upon the enemy, drove them into the Castle, slew some of them,
and tooke some prisoners that the enemy had of theirs, tooke about 180
horse, and some good pillage; all which they safely brought away, and
returned triumphantly to _Shrewsbury_ againe.” (_Part_ IV, _p. 268_.)
It is, however, the final siege and capture of Bridgnorth that is
the matter of chief interest to us, and fortunately we have a very
detailed account of what then took place.[60] The Parliamentary
Committee of Shrewsbury, after the surrender of the garrison of High
Ercall, despatched a party of horse and foot against Bridgnorth.
But these being delayed longer than was anticipated, on account of
the length of the march, and the fatigue which they had suffered in
consequence, the inhabitants received notice of their design, and had
time to make some preparations against the attack. Nevertheless the day
following, _i. e._ March 31, 1646, they were summoned to surrender.
Colonel Billingsley, who commanded the town, made no reply to the
summons, and Colonel Howard, who held the Castle, sent a peremptory
answer of defiance. On this the Parliamentary forces formed themselves
into three divisions, and determined to storm the town. The cavalry
approached the North Gate by the Broseley Road; that part of it, lying
between the present Turnpike Gate and the Innage Lane, being then a
very deep and narrow defile, in some places 80 feet deep. At this point
they suffered severely; for the King’s troops, taking advantage of
the nature of the ground, killed many of them, not only by shot, but
by rolling down large stones upon them from the summit of the rock. A
body of infantry, however, made their approach by a path considerably
to the left of this, most probably by the fields adjoining the old
Rope Walk, and from thence by Love Lane they advanced against Saint
Leonard’s Church Yard. Into this they easily forced an entrance, as it
was only slightly fenced by palisades. There a sharp encounter ensued
between them and a body of the King’s troops, and before the fight was
done many were left companions of the dead, on whose graves they had
so fiercely fought. Among these was the gallant Colonel Billingsley,
the leader of the Royalists. The sword which he used on the occasion,
is now in the possession of a descendant of the family, in the parish
of Astley Abbots, by whom it is preserved with all the reverent care,
which is due to so valuable an heirloom. It had often been drawn by
this brave cavalier in the cause of his rightful sovereign, and it did
its last service in one of the consecrated enclosures of that church,
which he, as well as other noble soldiers of his time, felt it both
his duty, and one of the privileges of his birthright, to defend. He
lies buried in the Church Yard of Astley Abbots, his native parish; but
the parish of Saint Leonard has reaped a benefit from its Church Yard
having been the scene of the last gallant action which he performed;
for it was partly at least on this account, that a connection of
Colonel Billingsley founded and endowed the Hospital for ten poor
widows, which stands on the south side of Saint Leonard’s Church. The
inscription over the gate bears witness to this. It is as follows.—
“Anno Domini, MDCLXXXVII.
These ALMES HOUSES, for ten poor Widdows of this upper Town, were Built
and Endowed by FRANCIS PALMER, late RECTOR of SANDY, in the County of
Bedford, who had an affection to this Place, his Mother being buried
in this Church, and was Sister to Colonel FRANCIS BILLINGSLEY, late
of Abbots Astley, slain in this Church Yard, in the Service of KING
CHARLES ye first.”
[60] These particulars I have collected partly from the Blakeway
Papers, and partly from the puritan tract of “The Burning Bush not
consumed.”
But it is time to return to the narrative of the siege. The infantry
of the Parliamentary forces having succeeded in the encounter with
the King’s troops in the Church Yard, immediately opened the North
Gate, and gave admittance to the cavalry; and before this combined
body of horse and foot, the Royalists were compelled to retreat into
the Castle. On their way they were annoyed by the inhabitants of the
town, who hurled stones and other missiles on them, from the stalls and
piazzas which lined the High Street. It is evident that a bad feeling
had sprung up between them, from what cause is not exactly known. I
have seen documents which clearly prove that some Roundheads had been
for a time in the town, secretly plotting against the cause of the
King; and these very likely stirred up ill will between the soldiers
and the inhabitants, which, as other documents clearly prove, was
aggravated by the rude license which soldiers under such circumstances
often give themselves.[61] Whitelock states (_p. 206_) that the town
had refused to bring in a month’s provisions for the troops, which
had been expected, and this was a wrong which no doubt deepened the
feeling of resentment already existing. To this, some suppose is to
be attributed the destruction of the town by fire, which the King’s
troops effected after getting into the Castle. This act on their part,
however, may have been, one, simply of self defence; for they very
probably thought, that if the enemy obtained possession of the town as
it stood, it would give them great advantage in carrying on the siege
of the Castle, and of this advantage they were determined to deprive
them. They therefore at once set fire to the town. The first house that
caught fire was one in Listley Street, which stood near the northern
postern of the Castle, and from this it spread till it reached the
middle of High Street; there it was extinguished by the exertions of
the Parliamentary troops. The garrison of the Castle made a second
attempt on Easter Tuesday, and completely succeeded. Unhappily for the
ancient Church of St. Leonard’s, the rebel army had converted it into
a powder magazine—for in the rude time of war but little respect is
paid to the consecrated houses of God, provided they can be turned to
any advantage; and they who scrupled not to make Worcester Cathedral a
stable for their cavalry horses, would not hesitate to turn the Parish
Church of St. Leonard’s into an ammunition store. But it proved fatal
to the building; for the Governor of the Castle, Sir Lewis Kirke,
hearing of the circumstance, caused a cannon to be mounted on a round
tower on the North East side of the Castle, and from thence bombarded
the Church, and set fire to it. The wind being high, the flames quickly
spread to the adjoining College and Almshouses, and at last consumed
all that remained of the High Town.[62] The soldiers belonging to the
army of the Parliament endeavoured to arrest the progress of the fire,
but they were so galled by shots fired from the walls of the Castle,
that they were obliged to give over the attempt; so that the flames
spread in every direction without resistance, and soon accomplished
the work of destruction. Thus was our ancient town laid in ruins:
scarcely anything belonging to it was spared. Private houses and
public offices—the receipt of custom and the hall of justice—the
mart of merchandise and the sanctuary of God—alike had become a prey
to the devouring element; and little or nothing was left but bare
walls, blackened and defaced by fire. The misery of the inhabitants
is described as having been most severe. Rich and poor alike (for it
was one of those visitations which levels all distinctions) were left
houseless, and sought shelter where they could, in the fields around
the town, in thickets, and under rocks: all their household property
destroyed, and their life itself in jeopardy. Many a wretched invalid,
wholly unfit to be moved, would be hurried from his bed to escape the
flames—those at least who had any to care for them; while some, no
doubt, in the confusion and alarm would be forgotten, and left to die a
more awful death than they had looked for—their own bed becoming their
funeral pile. He surely brings on himself a fearful responsibility
who heedlessly evokes the spirit of war, and without an imperative
necessity draws the sword to do its dreadful work.
[61] Appendix H.
[62] Appendix I.
[Illustration: _Saint Leonard’s Church._]
The Parliamentary army were not deterred from the purpose on which they
were sent, by the horrors that surrounded them (for they were dauntless
men); but laid close siege to the Castle. They directed their attack
against the Close, which was a place within the inner Castle adjoining
the Great Tower, and containing within it the Governor’s house. They
chose Pam-pudding Hill as the best platform on which to erect their
battery, and from thence they bombarded the Castle for three weeks; but
to no purpose. No breach was effected. The garrison, from the great
eminence on which they stood, quite overlooked the besieging party;
and their cannonade from the tower was so effective as to overpower
that of the enemy. A singular incident is related as having taken
place while this cannonade was going on. “The battery on Pam-pudding
Hill played very furiously on the besieged: the cannoneer, answering
them very smartly from the town, sent his ball in the clear, or bore,
of one of the great guns, burst it, and killed the engineer and many
others.” It is curious that an exactly similar circumstance is said to
have occurred in an early stage of the siege of Sebastopol. A Russian
artilleryman, making answer to one of ours, sent a ball directly into
the mouth of the English gun, and a splinter from the gun struck our
poor artilleryman dead.
The leader of the Parliamentary army, seeing how fruitless the
operations were which he had hitherto engaged in, devised another mode
of assault. He determined to sap the Castle; and for this purpose
employed a party, under Colonel Lavingstone, to make a large opening on
the South side of the hill, intending to lay a Mine immediately under
Saint Mary’s Church, where the garrison had stored their ammunition.
They commenced their excavations, and the opening which they made is
still visible. It may be seen in the face of the rock which stands to
the right of the New Road, before you ascend the hill, and it still
bears the name of “Lavingstone’s Hole.” The enemy had no occasion
to proceed far with this mine; for the Governor, Colonel Howard,
perceiving what inevitable destruction it would cause to the Castle and
the garrison, if the mine were sprung, surrendered to the enemy, to
prevent an unnecessary waste of human life.
The terms of Capitulation have been preserved.[63] They were honourable
to the brave men, who had with such valour, and with such true fidelity
to the king, maintained this post so long in his name, and adhered to
his cause so firmly amidst the disheartening events which were daily
taking place. The Castle on its surrender came into the possession of
the Parliamentary party, who, a few months after the seizure, entirely
demolished it, and gradually removed all its ruins, except that one
lonely fragment of it, which stands on the south east side of the
Castle Hill.
[63] Appendix K.
Such was the end of this famous fortress—a stronghold indeed, made so
by nature, as well as by engineering skill, around whose walls the
storm of war had so often and so fiercely raged—a royal castle also,
over which the banner of the Kings of England had floated for more
than five hundred years, and which now sank into rain cotemporaneously
with the overthrow of the monarchy.
[Illustration: _The Remains of the Castle._]
It may perhaps be a matter of surprise that in the account which has
been given of Bridgnorth during the civil wars, and of the town and
fortress, no mention has been made of the name of “Whitmore,” although
Sir William Whitmore at this time was the owner of the Castle; but the
fact is, that he had business enough on his hands in endeavouring to
defend his own residence at Apley from the attacks of the insurgents,
so that he had no time to devote to other interests. He maintained
possession of Apley till the spring of 1644, when it was taken by a
party of Roundheads, under the command of Sir John Price,[64] and Sir
William himself made prisoner. An attempt was made to recover it in the
month of June, of the following year, by some of the King’s forces from
Worcester, Lichfield, and other garrisons; but they were encountered by
a detachment of the opposite party from Shrewsbury, and four hundred of
them taken prisoners; and Sir William Crofts, of Hereford, was among
the slain. (_History of Shrewsbury, Vol. 1, p. 460, note 2._)
[64] “A party of Sir William Brereton’s, under Sir John Price, a
Member of Parliament, took Apseley House in Shropshire, and in it Sir
William Whitmore, Sir Francis Oatley, Mr. Owen, and other Commissioners
of Array there sitting, and about 60 common soldiers.” _Whitelock’s
Memorials, p. 134._
The property of Sir William Whitmore, like that of other Royalists,
was forfeited, and became the spoil of the Parliamentary party: all
his personal goods and chattels were sequestrated, and sold for
the benefit of the State, for the sum of £583 3s. 2d. His estates
were siezed, and he was afterwards allowed to compound for them by
paying the sum of £5,000.[65] This was the common lot of such, as in
those troubled times stood for the defence of their King, and were
loyal to the last. Their personal property was put into the hands of
Parliamentary sequestrators, and sold as forfeit to the State; and
their landed estates were bought back by their rightful owners at a
considerable sacrifice. A register was kept, and afterwards published,
of the names of those who thus suffered in the cause of loyalty, with
the sum, for which they compounded, affixed to each. It is entitled, “A
Catalogue of the Lords, Knights, and Gentlemen, that have compounded
for their Estates. _London, printed 1655._”[66] In it are to be found
the familiar Shropshire names of Whitmore, Wolwryche, Acton, Corbett,
Ottley, Billingsley, Littleton, Eyton, Newport, Weld, Pigot, &c.;
and certainly it detracts nothing from the honour which belongs to
these ancient families, that their names are inscribed in this “black
legend,” as it was very fitly termed. On the blank leaf of the copy
which I have seen is the following entry in manuscript:—
[65] Appendix L.
[66] A copy of this very scarce and curious book is in the possession
of Mr. S. Sydney Smith, who very kindly permitted me to make the above
extract from it. Perhaps I may be allowed to express the satisfaction
which I felt, on finding in this list of loyal sufferers the names of
two of my own kindred, belonging to a branch of our family who had
early settled in the county of Chester. “Bellett, John, Senior, and
John his son, of Morton, Com. Chest., Esq., 1005. 05: 00.”
“Total Fines £1,275,667
Value of Annuities, at 10 years 90,000
___________
Amount of Money at the period
of exaction 1,365,667
Equal in money of the present
period, 1842, to four times
the amount £5,462,668
But under the government of Cromwell, not only laymen who drew the
sword in defence of the crown, but clergymen who maintained and taught
the principles of loyalty, and who were too honest to abandon them when
they became unpopular, were deprived of their revenues. It is computed
that the number of ministers in the Church, who were ejected from
their livings on this account, were above 9000; and the sufferings
which many of them underwent, in consequence, form materials for the
most deeply affecting narratives.[67] I am sorry to say that the
minister of Saint Leonard’s was not found among those who were faithful
to their principles. While Shiffnal, and Wellington, and Chetton, and
Sidbury, and Kemberton, and Cleobury, and Highley, and others could
boast of pastors, who willingly endured persecution for conscience
sake, _Gilbert Walden_, Minister of Saint Leonard’s, Bridgnorth, was
found unfaithful in the day of trial, and seems to have sacrificed his
principles to his interest. His name is found in the Parish Register
as minister, within a year of the date of the siege, when the town was
in the hands of the Royalists; then it disappears from it, when it
was evident that the fortunes of that party were declining; and then
appears again, when the town was in possession of the Parliamentary
party. So that it is to be feared that he professed allegiance to the
King and Church when he thought their cause likely to prosper, but when
it declined he attached himself to the Roundheads.
[67] Appendix M.
Indeed this is scarcely a mere matter of inference, as the reader may
judge for himself from an entry, still remaining in the books of the
Corporation. It is as follows:—Bridgnorth. Aᵒ Dⁿⁱ 1644. “At the Court
Leete held in the said Town of Bridgnorth, the VIIᵗʰ day of May. Aᵒ
Caroli Augᵗ XXº Richard Synge and Willᵐ Bradley, gent, being Bayliffs.
At this Leete it was moted by the Bayliffs and others, That forsomuch
as Mr. Gilbert Walden, the late publiq Preacher of the said Town, is
recesste and gon out of the said Town, and hath deserted his place
ever sithence aboute a moneth before Easter last. That one Mr. Thomas
Laughton, Master of Artes, a Preacher (who is recommended to the place
by Sʳ Lewis Kirke, Knight, Governoʳ of the said Towne, and whoe hath
supplyed the place since Mr. Walden’s goeing away) shold be accepted
by the Town in the said Mr. Walden’s place, to be publiq Preacher of
the said Town, wᵗʰ the profitte and allowance thereunto belonginge;
unto wh. all that were here present at this Leete agree, and nominate
him, the said Mr. Laughton, publiq Preacher of the said Town, with
all such proffits and allowance as the said Mr. Walden had of the
Town’s allowance in that behalfe, Soe as he preach two Sundayes at the
High Church, and the third at the Low Church, as Mr. Walden did. And
this to be further confirmed at a Common Hall, yf it be desired.” The
Parliament were not unmindful of Gilbert Walden, but in reward for his
desertion of the Royalists, placed him again in his office as Minister
of Saint Leonard’s, and restored to him all its emoluments. But far
happier were they who stood firm in the evil day, and had the Christian
courage to brave the consequences—and with such sainted men as Hall,
and Usher, and Hammond, and Jeremy Taylor, submitted to the penalties
of sequestration, poverty, imprisonment, and exile, rather than desert
what they believed the cause of God and of His Truth.
But it must not be supposed, from anything that I have said on this
subject, that I regard as evil-minded, and unprincipled men, all
the Ministers of religion, who in those difficult and trying times
sided with Cromwell and the Parliamentary party. This would not only
be a most uncharitable opinion, but one formed in direct opposition
to the plainest historical evidence. There were men of deep piety
and extensive learning, who unhappily lent their countenance to
the usurpation of Cromwell—men who afterwards suffered persecution
themselves for conscience sake, and whose Christian worth was such,
that we may safely say of them, what Dr. Johnson says of Watts—that
they were to be imitated in everything except in their nonconformity.
Nothing indeed can be said in justification of the line of conduct
which they pursued, but they were prompted to it by pure and not by
corrupt motives, and so far they are to be respected. Among the great
and good men who were allied to the Parliamentary party, I should
especially name one, on account of his connection with Bridgnorth,
namely, _Richard Baxter_. It appears that he began his ministry in
this town, in the Church of St. Leonard’s; but left it after some
time, with, I am sorry to say, a very unfavourable impression as to
the character of our townsmen of that day. It is said that on leaving
them he shook off the dust of his feet against them, and declared
that their hearts were harder than the rock on which their town was
built. But his disappointment at the want of success in his ministry
here did not estrange his mind from the inhabitants of a place, where
he had commenced his course; but he felt, after years of absence, the
strongest desires for their welfare. A very pleasing proof we have of
this, in an old edition of his work, entitled “The Saint’s Rest” (A.
D. 1654); for there we find the following dedication to the people of
Bridgnorth:—
TO MY DEARLY BELOVED FRIENDS
THE INHABITANTS OF
BRIDGNORTH,
BOTH MAGISTRATES AND PEOPLE,