Chapter 12

The whole conduct of William seems to have carried the strongest marks of conquest. Many of the English lost their lives, some their liberty, and nearly all their estates. The whole land in the kingdom was insufficient to satisfy the hungry Normans.

Perhaps William took the wisest method to secure the conquered country that could be devised by human wisdom; he parcelled out the kingdom among his greater Barons; the whole county of Chester is said to have fallen to the share of Hugh Lupus: and these were subdivided into 62,000 Knight's-sees, which were held under the great Barons by military service. Thus the Sovereign by only signifying his pleasure to the Barons, could instantly raise an army for any purpose. We cannot produce a stronger indication of arbitrary government: But, it is happy for the world, that perfection is not found even in human wisdom; for this well laid scheme destroyed itself. Instead of making the crown absolute, as was intended, it threw the balance into the hands of the Barons, who became so many petty Sovereigns, and a scourge to the King in after ages, 'till Henry the Seventh sapped their power, and raised the third estate, the Commons, which quickly eclipsed the other two.

The English gentry suffered great distress: Their complaints rung loud in the royal ear, some of them therefore, who had been peaceable and never opposed the Normans, were suffered to enjoy their estates in dependance upon the great Barons.

This was the case with Richard, Lord of Birmingham, who held this manor by knight's-service of William Fitz-Ausculf, Lord of Dudley castle, and perhaps all the land between the two places.

Thus Birmingham, now rising towards the meridian of opulence, was a dependant upon Dudley castle, now in ruins; and thus an honourable family, who had enjoyed a valuable freehold, perhaps near 500 years, were obliged to pay rent, homage, suit and service, attend the Lord's court at Dudley every three weeks, be called into the field at pleasure, and after all, possess a precarious tenure in villainage.

The blood of the ancient English was not only tainted with the breath of that destructive age, but their lands also. The powerful blast destroyed their ancient freehold tenures, reducing them into wretched copyholds: and to the disgrace of succeeding ages, many of them retain this mark of Norman slavery to the present day. How defective are those laws, which give one man power over another in neutral cases? That tend to promote quarrels, prevent cultivation, and which cannot draw the line between property and property?

Though a spirit of bravery is certainly a part of the British character, yet there are two or three periods in English history, when this noble flame was totally extinguished. Every degree of resolution seems to have been cut off at the battle of Hastings. The English acted contrary to their usual manner:--Danger had often made them desperate, but now it made them humble. This conquest is one of the most extraordinary held forth in history; the flower of nobility was wholly nipped off; the spirit of the English depressed, and having no head to direct, or hand to cultivate the courage of the people and lead it into action, it dwindled at the root, was trampled under the foot of tyranny, and, according to _Smollet_, several generations elapsed before any one of the old English stock blossomed into peerage.

It is curious to contemplate the revolution of things--Though the conquering Romans flood first in the annals of same at the beginning of the Christian era, yet they were a whole century in carrying their illustrious arms over the island, occupied only by a despicable race of Britons. Though the Saxons were invited, by one false step in politics, to assist the Britons in expelling an enemy, which gave them an opportunity of becoming enemies themselves; yet it was 130 years before they could complete their conquest. And though the industrious Dane poured incessant numbers of people into Britain, yet it cost them 200 years, and 150,000 men before they reduced it. But William, at one blow, finished the dreadful work, shackled her sons to his throne, and governed them with a sceptre of iron. Normandy, a petty dukedom, very little larger than Yorkshire, conquered a mighty nation in one day. England seems to have been taken by storm, and her liberties put to the sword: Nor did the miseries of this ill-fated kingdom end here, for the continental dominions, which William annexed to the crown, proved a whirlpool for 400 years, which drew the blood and treasure of the nation into its vortex, 'till those dominions were fortunately lost in the reign of Mary the First.

Thus the Romans spent one century in acquiring a kingdom, which they governed for four. The Saxons spent 130 years, and ruled for 459. The Danes spent 200 and reigned for 25--But the Norman spent one day only, for a reign of 700 years: They continue to reign still.

It is easy to point out some families of Norman race, who yet enjoy the estates won by their ancestors at the battle of Hastings.

WILLIAM,

1130,

Like his unfortunate father, was in a state of vassalage. The male line of the Fitz-Ausculfs soon became extinct, and Gervase Paganell marrying the heiress, became Baron of Dudley-castle.

PETER DE BIRMINGHAM,

1154.

It is common in every class of life, for the inferior to imitate the superior: If the real lady claims a head-dress sixteen inches high, that of the imaginary lady will immediately begin to thrive. The family, or surname, entered with William the First, and was soon the reigning taste of the day: A person was thought of no consequence without a surname, and even the depressed English, crept into the fashion, in imitation of their masters. I have already mentioned the Earl of Warwick, father of a numerous race now in Birmingham; whose name before the conquest was simply Turchill, but after, Turchill de Arden, (Matter of the Woods) from his own estate.

Thus the family of whom I speak, chose to dignify themselves with the name of _de Birmingham_.

Peter wisely consulted his own interest, kept fair with Paganall his Lord, and obtained from him, in 1166, nine Knight's-fees, which he held by military service.

A Knight's-fee, though uncommon now, was a word well understood 600 years ago. It did not mean, as some have imagined, fifteen pounds per annum, nor any determinate sum; but as much land as would support a gentleman. This Peter was fewer to Paganall, (waited at his table) though a man of great property.

The splendor in which the great Barons of that age lived, was little inferior to royalty.

The party distinctions also of Saxon and Norman, in the twelfth century, began to die away, as the people became united by interest or marriage, like that of Whig and Tory, in the eighteenth. And perhaps there is not at present a native that does not carry in his veins the blood of the four nations that were grafted upon the Britons.

Peter himself lived in affluence at his castle, then near Birmingham, now the Moat, of which in the next section. He also obtained from Henry the Second, as well as from Paganall the Lord paramount, several valuable privileges for his favourite inheritance of Birmingham. He bore for his arms, _azure, a bend lozenge_, of five points, _or_; the coat of his ancestors.

WILLIAM DE BIRMINGHAM,

1216.

At the reduction of Ireland, in the reign of Henry the Second, a branch of this family, and perhaps uncle to William, was very instrumental under Richard Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke, in accomplishing that great end; for which he was rewarded with a large estate, and the title of Earl of Lowth, both which continue in his family. Perhaps they are the only remains of this honorable house.

WILLIAM DE BIRMINGHAM,

1246.

By this time, the male line of the Paganalls was worn out, and Roger de Someri marrying the heiress, became Baron of Dudley, with all its dependencies; but Someri and Birmingham did not keep peace, as their fathers had done. William, being very rich, forgot to ride to Dudley every three weeks, to perform suit and service at Someri's court.

Whereupon a contest commenced to enforce the performance. But, in 1262, it was agreed between the contending parties--That William should attend the Lord's court only twice a year, Easter and Michaelmas, and at such other times, as the Lord chose to command by special summons. This William, having married the daughter of Thomas de Astley, a man of great eminence, and both joining with the Barons under Simon Mountfort, Earl of Leicester, against Henry the Third, William fell, in 1265, at the battle of Evesham; and as the loser is ever the rebel, the Barons were prescribed, and their estates confiscated.

The manor of Birmingham, therefore, valued at forty pounds per annum, was seized by the King, and given to his favorite, Roger de Clifford.

WILLIAM DE BIRMINGHAM,

1265.

By a law called the statute of Kenilworth, every man who had forfeited his estate to the crown, by having taken up arms, had liberty to redeem his lands, by a certain fine: William therefore paid that fine, and recovered the inheritance of his family. He also, in 1283 strengthened his title by a charter from Edward the First, and likewise to the other manors he possessed, such as Stockton, in the County of Worcester; Shetford, in Oxfordshire; Maidencoat, in Berkshire; Hoggeston, in the county of Bucks; and Christleton, in Cheshire.

In 1285, Edward brought his writ of quo warranto, whereby every holder of land was obliged to show by what title he held it. The consequence would have been dreadful to a Prince of less prudence than Edward. Some showed great unwillingness; for a dormant title will not always bear examination--But William producing divers charters, clearly proved his right to every manorial privilege, such as market, toll, tem, sack, sok, insangenthief, weyfs, gallows, court-leet, and pillory, with a right to fix the standard for bread and beer; all which were allowed.

William, Lord of Birmingham, being a military tenant, was obliged to attend the King into Gascoigne, 1297, where he lost his liberty at the siege of Bellgard, and was carried prisoner in triumph to Paris.

WILLIAM DE BIRMINGHAM,

1306.

This is the man who tried the right of tollage with the people of Bromsgrove and King's norton.

WILLIAM DE BIRMINGHAM,

LORD BIRMINGHAM.

1316.

Was knighted in 1325; well affected to Edward the Second, for whose service he raised four hundred foot. Time seems to have put a period to the family of Someri, Lords of Dudley, as well as to those of their predecessors, the Paganalls, and the Fitz-Ausculfs.

In 1327, the first of Edward the Third, Sir William was summoned to Parliament, by the title of William Lord Birmingham, but not after.

It was not the fashion of that day to fill the House of Peers by patent. The greater Barons held a local title from their Baronies; the possessor of one of these, claimed a seat among the Lords.

I think, they are now all extinct, except Arundel, the property of the Norfolk family, and whoever is proprietor of Arundel castle, is Earl thereof by ancient prescription.

The lesser Barons were called up to the House by writ, which did not confer an hereditary title. Of this class was the Lord of Birmingham.

Hugh Spencer, the favourite of the weak Edward the Second, had procured the custody of Dudley-castle, with all its appendages, for his friend William, Lord Birmingham.

Thus the family who had travelled from Birmingham to Dudley every three weeks, to perform humble suit at the Lord's court, held that very court by royal appointment, to receive the fealty of others.

By the patent which constituted William keeper of Dudley-castle, he was obliged to account for the annual profits arising from that vast estate into the King's exchequer. When, therefore, in 1334, he delivered in his accounts, the Barons refused to admit them, because the money was defective. But he had interest enough with the crown to cause a mandamus to be issued, commanding the Barons to admit them.

SIR FOUK DE BIRMINGHAM,

1340.

This man advanced to Sir Baldwin Freville, Lord of Tamworth, forty eight marks, upon mortgage of five mills. The ancient coat of the _bend lozenge_, was now changed for the _partie per pale, indented, or, and gules_.

In 1352, and 1362 he was returned a member for the county of Warwick; also, in three or four succeeding Parliaments.

SIR JOHN DE BIRMINGHAM,

1376.

Served the office of Sheriff for the county of Warwick, in 1379, and was successively returned to serve in Parliament for the counties of Warwick, Bedford, and Buckingham. He married the daughter of William de la Planch, by whom he had no issue. She afterwards married the Lord Clinton, retained the manor of Birmingham as her dower, and lived to the year 1424.

It does not appear in this illustrious family, that the regular line of descent, from father to son, was ever broken, from the time of the Saxons, 'till 1390. This Sir John left a brother, Sir Thomas de Birmingham, heir at law, who enjoyed the bulk of his brother's fortune; but was not to possess the manor of Birmingham 'till the widow's death, which not happening 'till after his own, he never enjoyed it.

The Lord Clinton and his Lady seem to have occupied the Manor-house; and Sir Thomas, unwilling to quit the place of his affections and of his nativity, erected a castle for himself at Worstone, near the Sand-pits, joining the Ikenield-street; street; where, though the building is totally gone, the vestiges of its liquid security are yet complete. This Sir Thomas enjoyed several public offices, and figured in the style of his ancestors. He left a daughter, who married Thomas de la Roche, and from this marriage sprang two daughters; the eldest of which married Edmund, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, who, at the decease of Sir John's widow, inherited the manor, and occupied the Manor house. There yet stands a building on the North-east side of the Moat, erected by this Lord Ferrers, with his arms in the timbers of the ceiling, and the crest, a horse-shoe.

I take this house to be the oldest in Birmingham, though it hath not that appearance; having stood about 350 years.

By an entail of the manor upon the male line, the Lady Ferrers seems to have quitted her title in favor of a second cousin, a descendant of William de Birmingham, brother to Sir Fouk.

WILLIAM DE BIRMINGHAM,

1430.

In the 19th of Henry the Sixth, 1441, is said to have held his manor of Birmingham, of Sir John Sutton, Lord of Dudley, by military service; but instead of paying homage, fealty, escuage, &c. as his ancestors had done, which was very troublesome to the tenant, and brought only empty honour to the Lord: and, as sometimes the Lord's necessities taught him to think that money was more _Solid_ than suit and service; an agreement was entered into, for money instead of homage, between the Lord and the tenant--Such agreements now became common. Thus land became a kind of bastard freehold:--The tenant held a certainty, while he conformed to the agreement; or, in other words, the custom of the manor--And the Lord still possessed a material control. He died in 1479, leaving a son,

SIR WILLIAM BIRMINGHAM,

1479,

Aged thirty at the decease of his father. He married Isabella, heiress of William Hilton, by whom he had a son, William, who died before his father, June 7, 1500, leaving a son,

EDWARD BIRMINGHAM,

1500,

Born in 1497, and succeeded his grandfather at the age of three. During his minority, Henry the Seventh, 1502, granted the wardship to Edward, Lord Dudley.

The family estate then consisted of the manors of Birmingham, Over Warton, Nether Warton, Mock Tew, Little Tew, and Shutford in the county of Oxford, Hoggeston in Bucks, and Billesley in the county of Worcester. Edward afterwards married Elizabeth, widow of William Ludford, of Annesley, by whom he had one daughter, who married a person of the name of Atkinson.

But after the peaceable possession of a valuable estate, for thirty seven years; the time was now arrived, when the mounds of justice must be broken down by the weight of power, a whole deluge of destruction enter, and overwhelm an ancient and illustrious family, in the person of an innocent man. The world would view the diabolical transaction with amazement, none daring to lend assistance to the unfortunate; not considering, that property should ever be under the protection of law; and, what was Edward's case to-day, might be that of any other man to-morrow. But the oppressor kept fair with the crown, and the crown held a rod of iron over the people.--Suffer me to tell the mournful tale from Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire.

1537,

John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, a man of great wealth, unbounded ambition, and one of the basest characters of the age, was possessor of Dudley-castle, and the fine estate belonging to it:--He wished to add Birmingham to his vast domain. Edward Birmingham therefore was privately founded, respecting the disposal of his manor; but as money was not wanted, and as the place had been the honor and the residence of his family for many centuries, it was out of the reach of purchase.

Northumberland was so charmed with its beauty, he was determined to possess it; and perhaps the manner in which he accomplished his design, cannot be paralleled in the annals of infamy.

He procured two or three rascals of his own temper, and rather of mean appearance, to avoid suspicion, to take up their quarters for a night or two in Birmingham, and gain secret intelligence when Edward Birmingham should ride out, and what road: This done, one of the rascals was to keep before the others, but all took care that Edward should easily overtake them. Upon his arrival at the first class, the villains joined him, entered into chat, and all moved soberly together 'till they reached the first man; when, on a sudden, the strangers with Edward drew their pistols and robbed their brother villain, who no doubt lost a considerable sum after a decent resistance. Edward was easily known, apprehended, and committed as one of the robbers; the others were not to be found.

Edward immediately saw himself on the verge of destruction. He could only _alledge_, but not _prove_ his innocence: All the proof the case could admit of, was against him.

Northumberland (then only Lord L'Isle) hitherto had succeeded to his wish; nor was Edward long in suspence--Private hints were given him, that the only way to save his life, was to make Northumberland his friend; and this probably might be done, by resigning to him his manor of Birmingham; with which the unfortunate Edward reluctantly complied.

Northumberland thinking a common conveyance insufficient, caused Edward to yield his estate into the hands of the King, and had interest enough in that age of injustice to procure a ratification from a weak Parliament, by which means he endeavoured to throw the odium off his own character, and fix it upon theirs, and also, procure to himself a safer title.

An extract from that base act is as follows:--

"Whereas Edward Byrmingham, late of Byrmingham in the countie of Warwick, Esquire, otherwise callid Edward Byrmingham, Esquire, ys and standyth lawfully indettid to our soverene Lord the Kinge, in diverse grete summes of money; and also standyth at the mercy of his Highness, for that the same Edward ys at this present convected of felony: Our seide soverene Lord the Kinge ys contentid and pleasid, that for and in recompence and satisfaction to his Grace of the seyde summes of money, to accept and take of the seyde Edward the mannour and lordship of Byrmingham, otherwise callid Byrmincham, with the appurtinances, lying and being in the countie of Warwick, and all and singuler other lands and tenements, reversions, rents, services, and hereditaments of the same Edward Byrmingham, set, lying and beying in the countie of Warwick aforesaid. Be yt therefore ordeyned and enacted, by the authoritie of this present Parliament, that our seyde soverene Lord the Kinge shall have, hold, and enjoy, to him and his heires and assignes for ever, the seyde mannour and lordship of Byrmingham, &c."

In the act there is a reservation of 40_l_. per annum, during the lives only of the said Edward and his wife.

It appears also, by an expression in the act, that Edward was brought to trial, and found guilty. Thus innocence is depressed for want of support; property is wrested for want of the protection of the law; and a vile minister, in a corrupt age, can carry an infamous point through a court of justice, the two Houses of Parliament, and complete his horrid design by the sanction of a tyrant.

The place where tradition tells us this diabolical transaction happened, is the middle of Sandy-lane, in the Sutton road; the upper part of which begins at the North east corner of Aston park wall; at the bottom, you bear to the left, for Sawford-bridge, or to the right, for Nachell's-green; about two miles from the Moat, the place of Edward's abode.

Except that branch which proceeded from this original stem, about 600 years ago, of which the Earl of Lowth is head, I know of no male descendant from this honourable stock; who, if we allow the founder to have come over with Cridda, the Saxon, in 582, must have commanded this little Sovereignty 955 years.

I met with a person sometime ago of the name of Birmingham, and was pleased with the hope of finding a member of that ancient and honorable house; but he proved so amasingly ignorant, he could not tell whether he was from the clouds, the sea, or the dunghill: instead of traceing the existence of his ancestors, even so high as his father, he was scarcely conscious of his own.

As this house did not much abound with daughters, I cannot at present recollect any families among us, except that of Bracebridge, who are descended from this illustrious origin, by a female line; and Sir John Talbot Dillon, who is descended from the ancient Earls of Lowth, as he is from the De Veres, the more ancient Earls of Oxford.

Here, then, I unwillingly extinguish that long range of lights, which for many ages illuminated the house of Birmingham.

But I cannot extinguish the rascallity of the line of Northumberland. This unworthy race, proved a scourge to the world, at least during three generations. Each, in his turn, presided in the British cabinet; and each seems to have possessed the villainy of his predecessor, united with his own. The first, only _served_ a throne; but the second and the third intended to _fill_ one. A small degree of ambition warms the mind in pursuit of fame, through the paths of honor; while too large a portion tends to unfavorable directions, kindles to a flame, consumes the finer sensations of rectitude, and leaves a stench behind.

Edmund, the father of this John, was the voracious leech, with Empson, who sucked the vitals of the people, to feed the avarice of Henry the Seventh.

It is singular that Henry, the most sagacious prince since the conquest, loaded him with honours for filling the royal coffers with wealth, which the penurious monarch durst never enjoy: but his successor, Henry the Eighth, enjoyed the pleasure of consuming that wealth, and _executed_ the father for collecting it! How much are our best laid schemes defective? How little does expectation and event coincide? It is no disgrace to a man that he died on the scaffold; the question is--What brought him there? Some of the most inoffensive, and others the most exalted characters of the age in which they lived, have been cut off by the axe, as Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, for being the last male heir of the Anjouvin Kings; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, Sir Thomas Moore, Sir Walter Raleigh, Algernon Sidney, William Lord Russell, &c. whose blood ornamented the scaffold on which they fell.