תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

“The constable of Ruthlan kept two of the king's soldiers in prison, for that they took an Englishman who had wounded a man."

When the Archbishop could not conclude peace he denounced the Prince and his accomplices accursed, and the King sent his army by sea to the Isle of Man or Anglesey, and Llewellyn and his brother David, with a great army, suddenly on Palm Sunday, 10 Edward I, A.D. 1282, in the night came and besieged Ruthlan Castle, wasted the country round about it with fire and sword, taking Robert Clifford, the King's Chief Justice of Wales, prisoner, and sending him to Snowdon Hills; whereupon King Edward sent all his militia then ready to Ruthlan Castle, and summoned all who held of him by knights' service to meet him there; from whence he marched with his army through Anglesey towards Snowdon against the Welsh ; and soon after Prince Llewellyn was slain with most of his army. The Prince's head was cut off, and taken by Lord Edmund Mortimer to Ruthlan, where the King then was, and he sent it to London.

Shortly after the fall of Llewellyn the Welshmen gave up David, the Prince's brother, to the King, whom he kept in Ruthlan Castle, and afterwards put him to death at Shrewsbury. Then the King built two strongholds in North Wales, one at Conway and the other at Carnar

When Rees Vachan heard how all things went, he yielded himself to the Earl of Hereford, who, at the King's commandment, sent him to the Tower of London to be imprisoned. And so the King passed through all Wales, and brought all the country into subjection to the Crown of England.

But Edward was a statesman as well as a warrior, and in the following year he appointed certain Commissioners, with the Bishop of St. David's for their President, in order to make new regulations for the government of the conquered country upon the best consideration of the different laws of the two countries. Upon the report of these Commissioners, the Statute of Wales, or, as it is sometimes called, the Statute of Snowdon, was framed and signed at Rhuddlan, on the Sunday in Mid-Lent,

von.

1897

19

23rd day of March 1284, in the 12th year of the King's reign.

This statute was an ordinance or treaty between the King and the Welsh people independently of the Parliament of England, and is not, therefore, properly a statute. It is not included among the statutes at large, which comprise the authorized Acts of the English Parliament, but it is included in the Volume of the Statutes of the Realm, printed in 1810 by command of George III. It has been confounded with a statute of Rutland, or Rothland, consisting of provisions made relating to the Exchequer applicable to England and not to Wales, which is given in most printed copies as of the 10th year of Edward I (1282). In a paper on the Ancient Laws and Statutes of Wales, read at our Congress at Llangollen in 1877, and printed in our Journal, the distinction between those two statutes is noticed at some length, and it is shown conclusively that the Statute of Wales was made at Rhuddlan in 1284 (12th Edw. I), and the provisions of the statute are fully referred to.

In 1399, Percy, Earl of Northumberland, having previously seized the castle, laid an ambush there when he went to meet King Richard II, who was then at Conway on his return from Ireland. The King accompanied the Earl, and they dined at Rhuddlan Castle on their way

to Flint, where the King met the Duke of Lancaster, and proceeded with him to London and the Tower.

In the Civil War of Charles I, the castle was garrisoned for the King, but was taken by Mytton in 1645, and dismantled by order of Parliament. It now belongs to the Crown.

i Vol. xxxiv, p. 436.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

id of te of Cade

BY THOMAS BLASHILL, ESQ., V.P.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

(Read March 3rd, 1897.)
HROUGHOUT the reign of Elizabeth, and

until the reign of William and Mary, the
offence of recusancy, which was the re-
fusing or neglecting to attend the worship
of the Established Church, much engaged
the attention of successive Governments

and of the local officers whose duty it was
to expose

and punish the offenders. There were recusants from negligence, or probably from a dislike of church, not unknown in more recent times, and “recusants-convict” who persisted in the offence after they had been convicted and punished. But the serious attention of the authorities was directed to Popish recusants and Popish recusants-convict. With these people the offence was likely to be continuous, and, by an Act of 7 James I, those who had the means might be fined twenty pounds a month, or the King might take two-thirds of their lands. Their wives, being recusants, might lie in prison unless the same fine was paid. Hallam says the penalties were particularly hard upon the women, who adhered longer to the old religion.

There were not very many Popish recusants in Holderness, and they would doubtless be cut off from the company and from the sympathy of their neighbours, so that it would be surprising to find a family either of the gentry or the farming or labouring class who could long endure such a position.

The documents which I am able to exhibit throw much light on the operation of the law in the centre of Holder

[graphic]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

ness, which was then by its remoteness, and by the absence of good roads, more than usually secluded from the outside world. Services in the churches seem to have been held morning and afternoon, and everyone was expected to be present at both or to give a good excuse. Old age, sickness, the charge of sick persons or children, and absence from home, were good excuses. Failing these, the absence from church of any person was certified by the church wardens to the Justices of the Peace. These certificates relate chiefly to the last Sunday in May and the first and second Sundays in June 1616, that year being given upon one of them only, but all seem to have been written out for the church wardens on the same system. Some of these could only sign with a mark. Some of them are marked “ Jur” for Juratus, in token of their having been sworn to by the signatories. The certificates in respect of the parish of Burton Pidsey are as follows:

Burton Pydsey.
To his matios justices of peace or to ther Deputye or Deputyes

to whom it doth appteyne. These are to cerfye you that our church wardens have hitherto bene verye vigilent in ther office and have taken notice of such offenders as have bene absent any saboath daye either morge or eveninge prayer since your last syttinge but I am to certifye you (that God be thanked for it) we have as many everye saboath daye both mor’ge and eveninge prayer as in any towne in Holderness for the people therin conteyned and as few absent but for every house, one or such aged of sicke persons as are not able to come. These are the offenders since the last your syttings.

John Martyne & his men receyved the comion upon the feast of penticoast last, since w’h tyme they have bene in labour as farr as Etton upon the Wolds and therfore canott com upon the saboath daye. but I

certify you that neither he nor his servants absents excused.

themselves any saboath daye being at home.

Elizabeth Richison was absent the xxvjth of maie but she was very sick that daye and not able to come.

Margaret Ingram the wife of Thomas Ingram was absent the xxvit of May but the cause of her absence was that she hath not a mayd servant and was to kepe her house having a very innocent child in her house.

Excused. forenoone Thomas Richardson was absent the xxvi of maie

and refuseth to paye xiid, for his absence. forenoone Ioan Ayre was absent from church the xxvi of maie.

Elizabeth Martyne was absent from church the xxvil of May but her mother sayth she was about an earnest busines that she sent her.

William Wilson, clerk. Anthony Richardson

Z mark
Robt. Wright Willm Churchwardens.
+ mark

Robinsonne
Robart Rannisonne

This must have been a model parish. The next certificate probably refers especially to the two following Sundays.

Burton Pydsey.
To his maties Justices of peace to whome it doth appteyne.

273

The answer of the Churchwardens touching Recusants and

those that are negligent in coming to the church. ffirst they say they have no Recusants within ther p'ishe nor any favourers of popishe religion.

It. they say they have not any man or woman within ther p'ishe that are negligent in coming to the church but all the Inhabitants doe verye diligentlye resort to the church everye saboath daye.

Robart Rannisonne
Anthony Richardson
mark

Churchwardens.
Robert Wright

+ mark

Willm. Robinsonne nil.

Tunstall is a very secluded parish on the sea clift. Here also the people were excellent churchgoers. Tunstall.

268 Jtm we p’sent no thinge for our parishioners comes to church orderly; and God be thanked we have no recusants wth us.

Willm: Wynde } Church wardens.

nil

« הקודםהמשך »