Transcribed from the 1857 John Russell Smith edition by David Price,
email ccx074@pglaf.org Many thanks to the Bodleian / British Library for
the scans of the book.
[Picture: Battlefield Church]
VISITS
TO
FIELDS OF BATTLE,
IN
ENGLAND,
OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY;
TO WHICH ARE ADDED,
SOME MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS AND PAPERS UPON
ARCHÆOLOGICAL SUBJECTS.
BY
RICHARD BROOKE, ESQ., F.S.A.
* * * * *
LONDON:
JOHN RUSSELL SMITH,
36, SOHO SQUARE.
LIVERPOOL:
J. MAWDSLEY AND SON, CASTLE STREET.
M DCCC LVII.
* * * * *
* * * * *
LONDON; F. PICKTON, Printer, Perry’s Place, 29, Oxford Street
PREFACE.
IN the course of the fifteenth century, England experienced, in a
lamentable degree, the sad effects of internal discord, and the miseries
caused by the conflicts of adverse factions.
It is scarcely possible, for historians to point out, in the annals of
any country in Europe, in the feudal ages, deeds of violence and
bloodshed, of a more appalling nature, than those which the chroniclers
have recorded, as having occurred in England, during the period which
intervened between the years 1400 and 1500—a period memorable for the
sanguinary wars of York and Lancaster. During the continuance of those
disastrous conflicts, thousands of brave men perished in arms, the axe of
the executioner was seldom idle, great numbers of the nobility and gentry
lost their lives in the field or upon the scaffold, property was usurped
in consequence of wholesale confiscations, numberless innocent lives were
sacrificed, and many happy homes were outraged.
This misery was the result of contests for a crown, which perhaps neither
of the claimants merited, nor does it appear, that it was of great
importance to the nation, which of the rival competitors wore it.
Of those destructive wars, the battle of Shrewsbury in the reign of Henry
IV., in 1403, may be considered in some degree as the first; because it
was the earliest attempt by an appeal to arms, to remove from the throne
a monarch of the House of Lancaster; {v} and the last was the battle of
Stoke, fought in 1487, in the reign of Henry VII.; that of Bosworth, in
which, by the death of Richard III., the Plantagenet dynasty terminated,
being often erroneously called the last; but, although the latter
certainly placed the House of Tudor upon the throne, the crown was
secured to it by the battle of Stoke, when the partisans of the House of
York, under John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, made their final but
unsuccessful appeal to arms, in hopes of regaining the ascendency, which
that party had formerly enjoyed.
These sanguinary conflicts are usually called the Wars of the Roses, from
the circumstance, that the supporters of the House of York assumed the
badge or device of the White Rose, and those of Lancaster the Red Rose.
It has been remarked with great truth, by Sir John Fenn, the antiquary,
{vi1} in adverting to that disastrous period, “That our own kingdom has
fewer authentic records of the transactions, during the reigns of Henry
VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., than of any other later period of our
history, is a truth known to and lamented by every man of historical
knowledge.”
He ascribes the deficiency of information, amongst other causes, to the
invention of printing; which at first sight appears to be a paradox,
because such an invention seems to be calculated to favour universal
knowledge:—“At the beginning of the art of printing, those who practised
it, were solicitous to perpetuate things already committed to writing,
relative to past times, and past occurrences, not regarding recent
transactions as of equal consequence. This art likewise probably
prevented the writers of manuscripts from multiplying their copies; they
foreseeing that the new invention would in time, supply a sufficient
number, at a much less price, by which means, the value of their manual
labour would be greatly diminished.” {vi2}
Notwithstanding, however, the scanty nature of the historical accounts
handed down to us, some information of value has reached us; and the
fields of battle, and the positions of the hostile armies, may in several
instances, be clearly identified, after a perusal of the statements of
the old chroniclers, and a comparison of their descriptions with the
present aspect of the localities where the battles were fought.
Having felt a considerable degree of interest in the occurrences of those
stirring and extraordinary times, I have repeatedly visited the scenes of
action; and, by carefully comparing the statements of the old writers,
the actual appearance of the fields, and the traditions of the
neighbourhood, I have obtained strong confirmation, in several instances,
of the accuracy of the accounts which have been handed down to us; and
have derived great pleasure from visiting and exploring the various
localities, and obtaining information from persons in the vicinity.
The results of my visits were committed to writing, in a series of
papers, {vii} of which copies, or the principal parts, will be found in
the following pages. Some historical matters will also be introduced, in
such instances as tend to elucidate any important event, which
immediately preceded or had a direct relation to any of the battles.
It is much to be regretted, that in the majority of historical works,
describing the events of this country in the fifteenth century, whenever
the exploits of any noblemen or warriors, or the talents or skill of any
men of eminence, are mentioned, the authors, from some cause or other,
very rarely give any information of much value relative to the
individuals whose actions they are describing; but as few readers can
reflect upon the surprising events of that period without feeling a
considerable degree of interest in the warlike and distinguished
personages, who were the principal actors in those stirring and eventful
times, there will be found in the notes to this work, some explanatory
and biographical particulars {viii} of the princes, nobles, and eminent
persons, whose actions and conduct are noticed in it.
In the following publication will also be found some other papers and
tracts, principally of an archæological nature, written at various times,
as the subjects came under my notice; and as they may possibly interest,
in some degree, the class of readers who take pleasure in pursuits of
that description, I have been induced to add them to the present
collection.
In committing this work to the press, it will be a source of
gratification to the Author, if his humble exertions shall be, in some
degree, instrumental in elucidating any events hitherto imperfectly
known, in solving any difficulties which may have suggested themselves,
or in confirming the statements of the old historical writers of this
country.
RICHARD BROOKE.
12_th_ _March_, 1857.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAP. I. The Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury 1
II. ,, ,, ,, Blore Heath 21
III. ,, ,, ,, Northampton 39
IV. ,, ,, ,, Wakefield 53
V. ,, ,, ,, Mortimer’s 67
Cross
VI. ,, ,, ,, Towton 81
VII. ,, ,, ,, Tewkesbury 131
VIII. ,, ,, ,, Bosworth 157
IX. ,, ,, ,, Stoke 177
,, ,, ,, Evesham 203
,, ,, ,, Barnet 205
X. The General Use of Firearms by the 213
English, in the Fifteenth Century
XI. The ancient Family of Wyche, or De la 245
Wyche, of Cheshire
XII. Wilmslow Church, in Cheshire 253
XIII. Handford Hall and Cheadle Church, in 267
Cheshire
XIV. Part 1. The Office of Keeper of the 283
Royal Menagerie in the reign of Edward
IV.
Part 2. The probable period of the 287
Extinction of Wolves in England
APPENDIX NO. I. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 301
1st Edward IV., passed in 1461
II. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 308
14th Edward IV., passed in 1475
III. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 309
1st Henry VII., passed in 1485
IV. Proclamation for enforcing Order and 310
Discipline, and Extract from a Journal
of the March and Proceedings of Henry
VII., previously to the Battle of
Stoke
V. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 315
3rd Henry VII., passed in 1487
VI. Extract from the Act of Attainder of 317
11th Henry VII., passed against Lord
Lovel in 1495
VII. Letter from William Cooper, Esq., 318
Clerk of the Parliament of 9th August,
1737
ILLUSTRATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
THE
FIELD OF THE BATTLE
OF
SHREWSBURY. {1a}
“After him came spurring hard
A gentleman almost forspent with speed,
That stopp’d by me to breathe his bloodied horse:
He ask’d the way to Chester; and of him
I did demand, what news from Shrewsbury.
He told me, that rebellion had ill luck,
And that you Harry Percy’s spur was cold.”
Shakespeare’s _Henry IV._ part ii. act 1, scene 1.
Twice in the year 1851, and once in each of the five succeeding years,
{1b} I visited the field of the celebrated Battle of Shrewsbury, and also
the church erected there by King Henry the Fourth. It is called
Battlefield Church, and owes its erection to Henry’s gratitude for, and
desire to commemorate, the victory which he obtained in 1403, over the
insurgent forces commanded by Henry Percy, usually called Hotspur, the
son of Henry Percy, the first Earl of Northumberland {1c} of that
surname, and by the earl’s brother, Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester. {2a}
The field of battle has also occasionally been called the Battle of
Berwick Field, of Bull Field, and of Hussee Field: the two former
appellations being taken from the names of neighbouring places, at or
near which, Percy’s army is said to have been, prior to the battle; and
the latter from an ancient family owning the lands where the battle took
place, {2b} and it is now called Battlefield.
It lies about three miles and a quarter, in a north-westwardly direction,
from Shrewsbury, contiguous to the turnpike road, of which one fork or
continuation leads in one direction by Prees and Whitchurch, towards
Cheshire, and another towards Hodnet, and Market Drayton. From that
road there is also another road which turns off to the eastward, towards
Staffordshire. Those circumstances may be material, with reference to
endeavouring to ascertain the line of march of the insurgent forces when
they advanced towards Shrewsbury.
In 1403, a confederacy was entered into between the Earl of
Northumberland, the Earl of Worcester, Henry Percy (called Hotspur), Owen
Glendowr, and others, for an insurrection {3a} against Henry IV. In
order to prevent its being interfered with by incursions from the Scotch,
and probably also in order to have a valiant and useful confederate,
Archibald Earl Douglas, who had been taken prisoner at the battle of
Hallidown Hill in 1402, was liberated by Percy on condition of his
engaging to join in the enterprise, and was allowed to go home, from
whence he returned with a select party of his own men. The Earl of
Northumberland was unwell, and remained at Berwick; but his son Henry
Percy commenced his march towards Cheshire, where he expected to be
reinforced by the gentlemen of that county, who had always been attached
to the memory of Richard II., and he was not disappointed in that
respect. Percy, with Earl Douglas and a great army, departed out of the
northern parts, leaving his (Percy’s) father sick, and came to Stafford,
where his uncle the Earl of Worcester and he met, {3b} and increased
their forces by all the means they could devise; from thence they
proceeded towards Wales, expecting there additional aid and
reinforcements. {3b}
Not any of the old annalists or chroniclers give us information as to the
exact line of march, which Percy and his forces pursued from the north
into Shropshire. From the circumstance of the confederates being stated
to have issued a proclamation, in which they asserted that Richard II.
was alive at Chester, {4a} and invited his partisans to meet in arms in
that city; {4a} and from the reinforcements which the confederates
obtained from Cheshire, it might perhaps be inferred that they entered
Staffordshire from Cheshire, by the Whitchurch and Prees road; but on the
other hand, if Percy marched, as we are told he did, with his army to
Stafford, and was there joined by the Earl of Worcester {4b} and his
forces, it is tolerably clear that the insurgent army must have entered
Shropshire on its eastward side, in marching towards Shrewsbury; and it
has been suggested, with much appearance of probability, that they
entered the county through Newport, by High Ercall and Haghmond Hill.
{4c} In either case, it is certain that they advanced to Shrewsbury, and
arrived there some time on the 19th of July, but too late to get
possession of the town; and in marching from the north (as the river
encompasses the town nearly on three sides), it is tolerably certain,
that they advanced in order to attack it at the north or Castle Gate.
Henry IV. had assembled an army against the Welsh, and was with it at
Burton-upon-Trent, when he heard of the confederates’ hostile movements;
and by the Earl of Dunbar’s advice, immediately marched towards
Shrewsbury. He was at Burton-upon-Trent on the 16th of July, {4d} and on
the 17th at Lichfield, {4e} from whence he would probably take the
Watling Street Road, and after arriving at Shrewsbury, he would naturally
enter it over the Abbey Bridge. {4f} He succeeded in getting possession
of the town a few hours before Percy’s arrival, who is said to have
reached the Castle Foregate on the evening of July 19th. This judicious
course was of the utmost importance to the success of Henry’s cause, as
by it he secured the passage of the Severn, and prevented Owen Glendowr,
who had advanced with his forces to Oswestry, from crossing the river and
effecting a junction with Percy. Henry had scarcely entered Shrewsbury,
when he was apprized by his scouts that the confederate forces, with
banners displayed, were advancing towards him, and were so courageous and
bold, that their light cavalry had begun to skirmish with his troops;
upon which he marched out, and encamped without the east gate of the
town, {5a} and offered battle to his enemies. {5b}
Percy, who had prepared to have assaulted the town, being baffled in his
design by the King’s movements, and probably reluctant that the
engagement should take place in the absence of the Welsh forces, and
whilst his enemies had superior numbers, retired from before Shrewsbury
as soon as he saw the royal standard flying there. {5c} As Henry had
much to hazard and nothing to gain by delay, it was clearly his interest
to fight; yet, being aware of the risk and chances of a battle, he
appears to have been desirous to avoid it, by negotiations for peace.
The Abbot of Shrewsbury went more than once to the insurgents, in the
hope of effecting a pacific accommodation between the hostile parties.
The habits and usages of that age justified the mediation of a dignitary
of the Romish Church of so elevated a degree as the Abbot of Shrewsbury;
besides which, he had the King’s sanction for interfering as a mediator.
But in a few years hence, it will scarcely be credited, although it is
now a notorious fact, that three elderly persons from England,
unauthorised by the British Government, and belonging to a respectable
body of men, of which the members are not usually wanting in shrewdness
and intelligence, were actually so absurd as to go out to St. Petersburg,
in the depth of winter (and let it not be forgotten, that it was a
Russian winter into the bargain), in January 1854, to try to talk over
the Emperor Nicholas, and to coax him from going to war with the Turks
and their allies. It is pretty certain, that posterity will either not
credit the fact of so ridiculous an attempt having been made, by those
three persons, or will believe, that whether they were deficient in
common sense or not, at least they must have possessed a considerable
degree of self-estimation or presumption.
The negotiations and pacific exertions of the Abbot of Shrewsbury,
however, not terminating in a satisfactory result, both parties prepared
for a mortal conflict. Some small reinforcements of Welsh forces, but
probably not in considerable numbers, contrived to effect a junction with
the confederates; and although now, when we are all happily united as one
nation, it may seem unnatural and strange to us, the presence of
Scotchmen and Welshmen fighting on Percy’s side would in that age
necessarily kindle amongst the forces of Henry, feelings of national
antipathy, in addition to other feelings of hostility towards the
opposite army.
It is not an easy matter to understand, why it happened, that the hostile
armies came in collision, at such a spot as Battlefield. The field did
not offer any natural advantage of position of moment, to Percy’s army;
whilst, if he had retired a few miles further on the same line of road,
he would have come to some much stronger positions. But, as Battlefield
is on the road, through Hodnet and Market Drayton, towards the North, it
seems most probable, that, when he was disappointed in his attempt upon
Shrewsbury, he at first prepared to retreat back to Northumberland, but
found that after getting so near to Henry, it was no longer practicable
to effect a retreat with safety in the face of a superior force. It was
too late, and no other course remained for him, but to turn at bay and
fight.
The battle was accordingly fought on the eve or vigil of St. Mary
Magdalen, Saturday, the 21st of July, 1403; {7} and the place where it
was fought has ever since been called Battlefield.
The two armies seem not to have been quite equal in numbers. In
consequence of Glendowr’s forces not joining Percy, the army of Henry is
said to have been more numerous than that of his enemies.
The battle commenced with a fierce discharge of arrows on each side.
Both armies behaved with great valour; and Percy, Douglas, and others, in
the heat of the battle, hoping to effect the destruction of the King,
valiantly forced their way into the centre of his forces, but were
baffled in their attempt by the King’s having withdrawn from his original
position. At one period, Henry’s van was broken, his standard
overthrown; his son Henry Prince of Wales was wounded in the face by an
arrow, but continued fighting; Sir Walter Blount and three other persons,
armed in all respects like the King, were slain; and the fortune of the
day appeared to incline against the King. Percy, who had charged
furiously into the centre of Henry’s ranks, seemed in a fair way of
gaining the victory. Henry, however, who displayed the utmost valour,
and is said to have slain some of his enemies with his own hand, and had
been unhorsed at one period of the battle, brought up his reserve at an
important moment, which appears to have turned the scale; and Percy was
killed, according to one account, by a spear, and according to another,
by an arrow which pierced his brain. His death seems to have had a
material effect in deciding the victory in Henry’s favour; the insurgent
forces, disheartened by that fatal event, gave way, and fled in great
disorder. {8a} The battle lasted three hours. On Henry’s side, besides
3000 wounded, Edmund Earl of Stafford, {8b} who commanded the van, and
the following knights, Sir Hugh Shirley, Sir John Clifton, Sir John
Cockaine, Sir Nicholas Gausel, Sir Walter Blount, Sir John Calverley, Sir
John Massey of Pudington, Sir Hugh Mortimer, and Sir Robert Gausel, all
of whom had received the honour of knighthood that morning, and about
1600 men, are said to have fallen in the field of battle. On Percy’s
side, the loss of those slain in fight or in pursuit is estimated at
5000; and amongst the slain were 200 knights and gentlemen of Cheshire,
who had joined Percy. As for the Scotch, few or none escaped alive. Sir
Richard Venables (Baron of Kinderton), and Sir Richard Vernon (Baron of
Shipbrook), both of Cheshire, and the Earl of Worcester, were taken
prisoners, and beheaded two days afterwards (on Monday) at the High Cross
at Shrewsbury; and the head of Worcester was set up over London Bridge.
Henry appears to have discouraged a very vindictive or eager pursuit
after the fugitives; and of those who escaped, many got back to
Northumberland, and shut themselves up in castles there: not liking to
trust the King’s good faith. {8c} Earl Douglas was taken, but was
sometime afterwards liberated.
In a close or meadow on the right or north side of the present lane,
leading towards the church from the turnpike road, there is the
appearance of a slight bank and trench running parallel with that lane,
which possibly may have been part of an intrenchment made in front of
Percy’s line. The close on the south side of the lane is called the
King’s Croft, and it is traditionally said that a portion of Henry’s army
was posted there; the probability is, that its name at that period, and
before the present fences and enclosures were made, had a much wider
application, and that King’s Croft extended on both sides of the present
lane.
In gratitude for, and in commemoration of, this victory, Henry the Fourth
erected on the spot, Battlefield Church; and from the circumstance of the
battle having been fought on St. Mary Magdalen’s eve, he, in compliance
with the prevalent opinions of the age, and probably also from his
considering himself in some degree indebted to her for the victory,
caused the church to be dedicated to St. Mary Magdalen. The church is of
the Gothic style, part Decorated, and part Perpendicular. It is not of a
large size, {9} but is handsome; and the edifice, with its battlemented
tower, forms an interesting object on the westward side of the turnpike
road, from which it is distant two or three fields’ breadth. We cannot
doubt that there must have been some strong motive, for selecting for its
erection the spot where the church stands, for it is at an inconvenient
distance from the highway, in a peculiar and, at that time, a lonely
place, where there was not even a village near it, or a carriage road
running immediately past it. May we not conclude, that the motive was,
either that it was the spot where the brunt of the battle took place;
where the King escaped some imminent danger; or where Percy was slain?
The country, though not quite flat, has merely a gentle ascent from
Shrewsbury to Battlefield, and also to the northward of the church, and
along the turnpike road. Here, in a line almost east and west, Percy’s
army was drawn up very near the place where the church now stands, and in
what are now the fields to the northward of it; and the left wing of his
army probably also extended across the spot where the present turnpike
road runs. The army of Henry IV., after advancing from Shrewsbury, took
up its position opposite that of Percy. Percy’s forces, being posted as
before mentioned, had the advantage of ground, if there were any
advantage in the very slight ascent, which has been already noticed.
Leland, in adverting to the position selected by Percy, says, that he
“having got the advantage of the ground,” &c. {10a} I could not
ascertain, after making some inquiries in that neighbourhood, that any
relics indicative of the battle had very recently been dug up. I however
was informed, that human bones, fragments of armour, spurs, and similar
relics, had formerly been discovered there; and Grose, the author of the
_Military Antiquities_, particularly mentions the discovery of a weapon
there, which he considered to be a bill, and of which he has given an
engraving, but which Meyrick, in his work on Ancient Armour (which is a
work of high authority in such matters), states to be a gisarme; {10b}
and one man informed me that in his time, human bones had been found
there in ploughing. I am indebted to the politeness of the incumbent of
the church, the late Rev. J. O. Hopkins, rector of Uffington, for the
information, that in the field near the church, spurs, fragments of
armour, of weapons, &c., have been dug up, but in small quantities; and
it seems remarkable, that the relics discovered there have been
comparatively few; although, as the battle was fought in the heat of
summer, the slain must necessarily have been promptly interred, and the
opportunity for carefully stripping them, and carrying off various
articles from the field, must have been diminished. {11a} Many of the
slain were interred on the spot upon which the church was afterwards
erected; {11b} and the Rev. J. O. Hopkins informed me, that some years
ago, a drain was dug to carry off the wet from the Corbet vault, which is
enclosed with iron railing, as shown in the engraving, {11c} in the small
close or field lying on the north side of the chancel; and in digging
deep, the workmen cut through large masses of human bones. There cannot
be any doubt, from the description of the spot, that vast numbers of the
slain were interred there, in a large trench or pit. {11d}
[Picture: The Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury and the country in its
vicinity]
It is exceedingly probable, that if a search were made by digging in
other fields and meadows in the neighbourhood of Battlefield Church, it
would be ascertained that numbers of the slain were buried in them. {11e}
Many persons of note who perished in the battle, were interred at the
Augustine Friars and Black Friars in Shrewsbury. {11f}
The church is a handsome ecclesiastical edifice. The nave or body is now
roofless and dilapidated; and, from its moss-grown and impaired
appearance, must have been a ruin for a long period. It is said that the
nave of the church suffered during the rule of the Parliament or of
Cromwell. Its exterior walls, the mullions, and most of the tracery work
(which is undoubtedly handsome) of its windows, are, however, still
existing. The nave is entered by a door in the original pointed arched
doorway, on the north side; and its floor has long been used as a
graveyard, or place of interment. {12}
A corresponding doorway is on its south side, the door of which is now
seldom used, except on the occasion of funerals. There are on each side
of the nave, three large handsome windows; and there has been a fourth
window, now built up on each side of the nave, between the doorway and
the tower; and, although seemingly made at the same period, some of them
are of the Decorated and some of the Perpendicular style; and the two
windows which immediately adjoin the chancel on the north and south
sides, differ in some respects from the others, as some of the windows
have the dripstones terminating at the bottom with plain returns, whilst
others have them terminating in representations of human heads. There
are some indications of a porch having been at the south door. Several
grotesque corbel-heads are carved in stone in the chancel, in the places
from which the arches of the roof have originally sprung; and the remains
of some strange figures or monsters appear carved on the outsides, at the
places on the wall, where the spouts of the roof seem to have formerly
protruded, similar to those called gurgoyles, which may be seen on many
other ancient churches.
The exterior of the church between the windows is supported by handsome
stone buttresses, and from the indisputable marks of the ancient roof,
which are visible on the east side of the tower, where the roof has
joined up to it, and from there not being any traces of columns
supporting any interior arches, it seems clear that it has never had any
clerestory.
Exterior buttresses are built at the corners of the tower, and a square
projection on its south-east corner admits of a staircase. The tower is
said to have been erected in 1504; and its walls, and most of its
pinnacles, are still perfect. It had originally eight pinnacles, but one
on the east side fell down about 1851. {13a} The tower can be ascended by
a spiral staircase {13b} to the top; but its roof is in a decayed
condition, its floors are quite gone; and on the basement floor are
placed various mutilated stone fragments, apparently of mullions,
transoms, finials, and other parts of stonework, which have fallen or
have been deposited there, besides part of the ancient font. It still
has, however, a bell, which is yet used. Each side of the tower is
surmounted by an embattled parapet of equal intervals, with plain
cappings, and which, though not possessing the lightness of one with
pierced battlements, is nevertheless handsome. The tower at the highest
part, and just below the battlements, has a handsome carved Gothic
border, enriched (as far as my eyesight enabled me to form a judgment)
with diamond-shaped ornaments and quatrefoils. On the west it has two
windows; and over the highest, in the middle of the border, is a small
escutcheon bearing an animal, seemingly a lion rampant passant, probably
intended for the arms of the Hussee family, and which also appears in a
corresponding place on the south side, and there are also some
indications of it on the north side. On the east, in the centre of the
border, is a small escutcheon, containing some appearances of an
inscription.
In order to preserve the tower from falling, of which it exhibited
symptoms, iron bars, with nuts and screws, have been fixed across it, so
as to hold its walls together; two of the nuts are on its east side, as
shown in the engraving. {14a}
The tower has one window on the east, one on the north, and one on the
south side; and it has had a door with a pointed arch on the west, which
is now built up. The second floor is singularly furnished with a
fireplace, having a chimney formed within the thickness of the wall, and
opening outside of the western window of the bell-chamber.
The chancel is used for divine service on the Lord’s day. It is
separated from the ruinous nave by a comparatively modern wall. In a
vault on the north side of the chancel, is the place of interment of the
family of Andrew William Corbet, Esq., of Pimley and Sundorne. A
handsome monument to the memory of John Corbet, Esq., is erected in the
chancel on its north side, behind which is the arch of a doorway visible
from the exterior, now built up, but which has evidently been formerly an
entrance into the chancel. A railed enclosure adjoining it, shown in the
engraving, {14a} contains the entrance to the vault of the Corbets. On
its south side, not far from the altar, are three sedilia, with plain
Gothic arches; and the one furthest from the altar is in a great degree
filled with a much mutilated and whitewashed oaken image of the Virgin
Mary {14b} with a figure in her lap, representing the dead Christ, which
seems as if it had been brought there from some other part of the church.
Mutilated as the figure of the Virgin now is, there still remains an
expression of sorrow in the face.
A large plain piscina is in the wall between the sedilia and the altar,
but partly concealed by the wooden back of a seat.
The east or altar window is handsome, and of the Perpendicular Gothic
style, and is of five lights below, with a transom; and the handsome
tracery of the upper part, will be best understood by a reference to the
engraving, which gives a correct view of the east end, and part of the
north side of the church. The window has some stained glass, much
injured and dilapidated, which contains, amongst other designs, two
crowned heads, a male and a female, seemingly of considerable antiquity,
but well executed by the artist; and close to them, a human head in a
dish, near to which the point of the blade of a scimitar appears, and
which are said, and as I believe with truth, to represent the head of
John the Baptist brought to Herod and Herodias. Some imperfect
escutcheons of arms, with various quarterings, are also there. The
stained glass also contains representations of the patera, cup, and
wafer; and underneath is a faint representation of the crucifixion; and
in another place in the window, a hammer and a nail are exhibited,
apparently in allusion to the crucifixion. Underneath is part of a
mutilated inscription in old English characters, commencing with the
words, “Orate pro animabus Rogeri.” It also contains a monogram, which
seems to be a combination of the letters in the name “Maria.”
In the stonework on the outside, immediately before the east or altar
window, is a niche surmounted by a Gothic canopy, in which still stands,
although a good deal impaired by time or violence, the statue of Henry
IV., about half the size of life, in armour, with the remains of a crown
on his head, and a dagger hanging on his right side; his right hand once
sustained a sword, but it is now gone.
There are two windows on each side of the chancel, of which the mullions
and general appearance bear a resemblance, though not quite the same, to
those of the nave, and might be thought to be of a more modern date, if
the whole of the fabric and the appearance of the stonework did not
strongly convey the impression of all having been erected at the same
date; in fact the style and appearance of the church, are just what might
be expected in one erected early in the fifteenth century.
In the chancel is a handsome large modern stone font, with ornaments in
the Gothic style, which supplies the place of the ancient one, of which
some stonework lying within the tower, formed part. There is a small
cemetery still in use for interments on the south side of the church.
On each side of the exterior of the chancel, and nearest the east end,
are dripstones, as if intended for the arch of a window, carried up
nearly but not quite to a point, and with the stones ready jointed, as if
for the purpose of breaking out an additional window on each side of the
chancel, without disturbing the walls; but I think it is quite evident,
from the appearance of the stonework, and from the dripstones for the
contemplated windows or arches not having been carried up to meet at the
top, that no window ever existed in either of those places; and that the
intention of so singular a preparation by the architect, may have been,
to add at some future time, side chapels, such as are often seen in
ancient churches, and are known to have been added subsequently to the
erection of the churches.
The ceiling of the chancel is modern, and is plastered and whitewashed,
and supported by modern incongruous-looking pillars.
The church is approached by a narrow carriage way, which leads from the
westward side of the turnpike road; but it stops at a gate opening into a
field, in which the church stands, and a short path leads to it from the
gate.
There is one remarkable singularity connected with the church, which is,
that there is every appearance of the church, and the college after
mentioned, having stood in a square space enclosed by a moat. A moat
regularly formed, and as straight as a canal, exists at a short distance
from the east end of the church, except at one small spot near the
centre, which appears to have been filled up, in order to admit of the
path to the church; and it turns with an abrupt angle at each end, and
extends a considerable distance on the north and south sides of the
church. I was unable, however, to trace its existence on the west side,
or to discover whether it had ever completely encompassed the church.
Besides the erection of the church, there was erected there by Henry IV.,
or by Roger Ive, clerk, by virtue of a charter or license from Henry, a
small college, consisting of a principal or master, and five secular
chaplains, together with a hospital for several poor persons, of which
Henry IV. was a benefactor. {17a}
The charter or license was of the eleventh year of the reign of Henry
IV., and the first principal or master was the said Roger Ive. {17a}
A copy of an impression of the seal of the college, is given in Dukes’
_Antiquities of Shropshire_, {17b} which exhibits on it, not as might be
expected, the effigy of St. Mary Magdalen, but that of the Virgin Mary
crowned, bearing the infant Jesus on her right arm, and a palm branch in
her left hand.
At the time of the dissolution, the yearly revenues amounted to £54.
1_s._ 10_d._ net. Not a vestige now remains of the college.
There are several shallow holes or pits in the meadow on the south side
of the church, which have been dug into, in hopes of discovering
something of interest; but nothing remarkable was discovered. It has
been conjectured that they are the sites of small fishponds, which may
have existed before the college was destroyed; but they appeared to me
more like the excavations, where the foundations or cellars of the old
college buildings may have been. Besides the indications of a moat,
which present themselves to the eye, the charter or license of Henry,
given at length by Dugdale, strongly corroborates the opinion before
expressed, with respect to the moat. That document, as set out by
Dugdale, grants to Roger Ive, of Seaton, rector of the chapel of St. John
Baptist, at Adbrighton Hussee, in the county of Salop, a piece of ground,
with all the edifices and erections on it, within the lordship of
Adbrighton Hussee, near Shrewsbury, situate in the field called
Battlefield, in which a battle had been lately fought between the King
and Henry Percy deceased and other rebels; and by the grace of God, the
King had obtained victory and triumph, which piece of ground is enclosed
with a ditch, and contains in length and breadth two acres of land,
together with two inlets and outlets, one extending along the lands of
Richard Hussee twenty feet, and the other containing in breadth fifteen
feet. {18a} The piece of land appears to have been before conveyed by
feoffment to the said Roger Ive, by virtue of the royal license, by
Richard Hussee, {18b} who seems from that circumstance to have held the
same from the King. The charter or license of 11th of Henry IV., states
the land to have been granted to Roger Ive, for the purpose of a chapel
being built on it, in honour of St. Mary Magdalen, {19a} in order that
prayers might be said for evermore, for the souls of the King, &c. &c.,
and for the souls of those who were slain in the battle, and were buried
there. {19b}
Battlefield is a distinct parish, and was, prior to its becoming so, in
Henry IV.’s reign, attached to the then existing rectory of St. John the
Baptist at Adbright Hussee. {19c} St. Alkmond’s and St. Mary’s parishes,
of Shrewsbury, adjoin it. The living is a perpetual curacy, of which the
Rev. J. O. Hopkins was the late incumbent; and it is in the patronage of
Andrew William Corbet, Esq., of Sundorne Castle, Shropshire.
The present dilapidated state of the nave of Battlefield Church is
generally ascribed to the Puritans of the time of the Commonwealth; and a
note in the church register, above one hundred years ago (1749), states,
that it was then in its present ruinous condition. {19c} The conduct of
those who committed the injury in this instance, brings to recollection
the passage from the Holy Scriptures:—“But now they break down the carved
work thereof, at once, with axes and hammers. They have cast fire into
thy sanctuary; they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of
thy name to the ground.” {19d}
On viewing this ancient church, I could not, either as a Christian or as
an antiquary, see this handsome edifice, which had been erected by a King
of England, in commemoration of an important historical event, and
dedicated to the worship of the Most High, so injured by violence or
neglect, without experiencing feelings of regret. Still its walls and
remains, in their present state, are truthful records of the past, and
furnish an authentic and valuable example of church architecture, of the
time of Henry IV. The mere preservation of them from further injury, by
time or negligence, would be laudable; but if the tasteless and ignorant
scheme, which has been suggested, of renovating the church, should ever
unfortunately be carried into effect, great mischief will be done; the
original will be falsified; in its renovated state it will be a mere
imitation; and it will no longer be an interesting and authentic example
of the architectural science of the period to which it belonged.