Part 3

“This manor, in truth, with its tenements, and the other things premised, reaching the clear annual value of £46 17s. 7d., not considering the tithe. The aforesaid manor, its advowson, rents, revenues, services, and all and each of the other of its rights, are to be possessed and held by the aforesaid Robert Broke, his heirs and assigns, for the personal use of the said Robert Broke, his heirs and assigns in perpetuity.

“In consideration of the military service due in taxation to us, our heirs and successors, viz., the twentieth part of the value of one feudal knight, £4 13s. 9¼d. of our legal English money are to be paid to our legal treasurer, for the increase of the common revenues of our crown, on the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, each year, for all the rents, services, and demands whatsoever . . .

“We also wish, and by these presents we concede, to the aforesaid Robert Broke that the said Robert Broke shall have and retain these letters patent of ours, drawn up in the usual manner, under our great seal of England, and signed without fine or tax, heavy or light, to be paid into our revenue office, or in any other way to be demanded or paid to the use of us, our heirs, or successors.

“Therefore express mention of this our will has been made, etc. In testimony of which, etc., T. R. Signed at Westminster, 23 July [1544]. On behalf of the king himself, in virtue of the royal commission.”

The MS. breaks off abruptly in places, probably from the copyist not being able to decipher the original. Of the Richard Charleton here mentioned we have no account in connection with Madeley, but a Richard Charlton is mentioned some ten years earlier, in the accounts of the first-fruits office, as the king’s bailiff or collector at the Marshe, near Barrow, where the Wenlock priors had one of their principal granges, and held a manorial court.

This was in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Henry VIII., and shortly after the very subservient parliament of 1534–35 had requested the king “to be pleased, as their most gracious sovereign lord, upon whom and in whom depended all their joy and wealth, to receive the first-fruits of all spiritual dignities and promotions.” An earlier member of this family is also mentioned as Bishop of Hereford, examining the titles of the prior to certain privileges in Madeley, during one of his Visitations. We have also heard it said, but are not aware on what authority, that one of this very ancient and distinguished family at one time lived at the Hay, in the parish of Madeley.

The deed is further interesting from its mention of the ironworks at Coalbrookdale, described as Smithy Place and New House. It is earlier by a century than any notice previously met with, and we shall further allude to it when we come to speak of these works. The patronages spoken of, probably, were the rights exercised over the minerals by the Wenlock priors, one of whom, in the exercise of such rights, had, in 1322, for the sum of six shillings, granted a license to Walter de Caldebroke to dig for coals in the Brockholes, for the term of one year.

Some light is thrown upon the advowson and tithe of Madeley by interesting old documents carefully preserved in the vestry of Madeley church. The following copy of the “Terrier,” kindly lent by Joseph Yate, Esq., made March 14th, 1710, shows the kind of tithe then collected:

“True copy of the Terrier of the parish of Madeley, in the county of Salop. For the vicar and clerks’ fees, tythes, offerings, and minister’s fees, &c.

“Imprimis. The court demesnes pays Easter offerings for master and servants, but no other tythes, except eight shillings at Easter, in lieu of tythes. The general way of tything within the parish is: hay and clover is due throughout the whole of the parish, except the demesnes, and is to be gathered at every eleventh cock; grass at the tenth cock; every pig and goose pay at the tenth, but for want of that number pay at the seventh; wool and lambs pay at the tenth, but in case they are set, is twopence a fleece and threepence a lamb, and for what lambs are fallen in wintering the owner pays twopence; calves are gathered in like kind, at the tenth, but for want of ten, at sixpence per calf. One penny a cow, in lieu of milk. Tythes of orchards or fruit-trees are gathered in kind throughout the parish, except the demesnes. The parishioners pay twopence for every stall of bees they put down, in lieu of tythe-money. Twopence for every colt, and two eggs for every hen or duck. Three eggs for every cock or drake at Easter. Surplice fees are paid after this manner: every marriage solemnized by banns, three shillings and sixpence; if by license, five shillings (let the parishioner be man or woman). For churching every woman, sixpence. Easter dues are: every man pays threepence, every woman pays twopence; one penny smoke, and one penny garden, clerks fees. Every hen at Easter, one egg; every marriage by banns, sixpence; if by license, one shilling. Churching every woman, twopence. Every burial without a coffin and ringing the bell, twopence; if with a coffin, one shilling and sixpence. Fourpence for every plough land; twopence every householder; double fees for all strangers (and likewise the minister). Ten shillings per year for looking after the clock. Tythes of corn-mills are due in all parishes except demesnes.

“Taken 14 March, 1710. Jeremy Taylor, vicar. John Stringer and William Wood, churchwardens.”

It would appear from this that the dead were sometimes buried without a coffin, in which case a coarse cloth was, we believe substituted. The “smoke penny” was a penny collected for every chimney emitting smoke, or rather a tithe paid to the vicar upon the wood burnt. A dispute having arisen in the earlier part of the last century between the vicar and impropriator, respecting the right of the former to tithe on woods, a parish meeting was called and a case got up by the vicar and churchwardens for the opinion of counsel, in which the payment of the smoke-penny was quoted to establish the vicar’s claim. We give the queries put and counsel’s replies in the Appendix.

Tithe and Easter offerings were occasionally paid in kind, as appears from the churchwardens’ accounts. In one case two heifers are mentioned, which it is added, produced forty shillings.

In the churchwarden’s accounts of Easter offerings to the vicar of Madeley, in 1693, we get an insight of the household of the Court. The sums given are not stated, but the entry is as follows:—

“Basil Brooke and wife gave —, John Brooke gave —, John Bowdler gave —, John the butler gave —, Dennis — gave —, Joseph Littlehales gave —, Thomas gave — Francis, — gave —, Anthony — gave —, Edward — gave —, Mrs. Lawson gave —, Margaret — gave —.”

We have already referred to this distinguished family in connection with Madeley and Claverley, where one branch continued to reside for many generations, whilst another was seated at Blacklands, in the neighbouring parish of Bobbington. Dukes says:—

“The family of Brooke, formerly of Lapley, in Staffordshire, and afterwards of Bobbington, and subsequently of Haughton, in Shropshire, had possessions in this parish, in whose family it continued until 1800, when the capital mansion and estates belonging thereto were sold by George Brooke, Esq. to different purchasers.”

In Claverley the name of John de la Broke occurs in 1242, and that of Thomas de la Bruche, in 1260, both of whom are supposed to have resided there. In 1268 a Geoffrey de la Broke is mentioned as having been on an inquest at Kinver. From 1299 to 1338 Richard de Broke, of Claverley, is sometimes called Richard atte {35} Broke, in connection with juries on which he sat, and in attesting deeds at Claverley, Bridgnorth, and elsewhere. In 1316 he was a grantee of land at Beobridge, whilst his son Richard is mentioned as a clerk in 1318, and the same son is again mentioned with his father in 1324. In 1342 and 1343 this succession, Mr. Eyton thinks, continues in Thomas atte Broke, of Claverley; but Randolf atte Broke, who was at Enville, in 1347, he takes to have been an ancestor of Brooke of Blacklands, one of whom (deceased in 1385) seems to have married a co-heiress of the Gravenors.

We have already noticed the very magnificent alabaster tomb, in the N.E. corner of the Gatacre chancel, on which are the recumbent figures of Lord Chief Justice Brooke, in his official robes, and his two wives, one on each side; and a subsequent visit enables us to add some additional particulars. The female-figures have ornamental head-gear, flowing mantles, single ruffs round their necks, three rows of chain necklaces hanging loose, and ruffles with braid at the hands. On the three sides of the tomb are figures of their eighteen children, in the dresses of the time. This tomb must have been a gorgeous one, for a close inspection shows traces of gold and colour, which once adorned the principal figures. It is to be regretted that the arms of this distinguished family, like those of the Gatacre, the Beauchamp, the Talbot, the Ferrers, and some others, which, about the end of the seventeenth century adorned this church, have disappeared. Among others Mr. Eyton, in his “Antiquities of Shropshire,” gives the following:—

“Quarterly—first and fourth, Chequy * *, and * *, a crescent for difference; second and third, * * a Cross Flory * *. (‘Thomas Broke’ written over this Coat.)

“Quarterly—first and fourth, Chequy * * and * *, on a Chief * *, a Brock * *; second and third, Arg, a Cross Flory Sa.

“Brooke (quarterly) empaling—Paly of six, Or and Az, a Canton Erm.

“Quarterly—first and four, Chequy Arg and Sa; second and third, Arg a Cross Flory Sa.”

Over each of the doors, forming an entrance to, or egress from, the gardens, at the old Court House, Madeley, are massive stones, with the arms of the Brooke family, but without the crest. These correspond, too, with the arms of the Rev. John Brooke, of Haughton, near Shifnal, who represents another branch of the family of the Brookes, of Claverley. They are as follows:—

Parted per pale first Chequy * * and * *, second, Paly of six * * and * *, a Canton Ermine.

Parted per pale first Chequy * * and * *, second * * a Chevron, * * between three Helmets.

ARMS ON CEILING OF CHAPEL.—Quarterly—first and fourth, Chequy * * and * *, second and third, * * a cross Flory * *.

SHIELD OF ARMS IN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THE LARGE DINING HALL BELOW.—Quarterly—first Chequy, * * and * *, second * *, a cross Flory * *, third * *, a fess Chequy * * and * *, between ten Billets * *, fourth * *, a fess * *, thereon three Bugle Horns * *, stringed * *, garnished * *, between three Bucks’ Heads cabossed * *.

Crest: Ostrich.

There are also coats of arms over the gatehouse of the Brooke family, {37} those over the window and doorway being—

Party per pale. First Chequy * * * and * * *. Second paly of Six, and a Canton Ermine.

On the right tower—

Paly of Six * * * and * * * with Canton Ermine.

On this tower also is an heraldic rose, and on the left * *, a Cross Pommee, * *.

The first entry of an interment in the register at Claverley, the vicar tells us, is that of a Brooke, and the second entry in the register at Madeley is also the interment of a member of the same family.

Subsequent and more detailed examinations of the arms in various parts of the Court House and adjacent buildings throw a doubt upon the statement in a previous page, as to the proprietorship or occupation at one time of the Ferrers family. These arms differ, it will be seen, as may be expected, from marriages and inter-marriages, but we are not sufficiently acquainted with the arms of other old families of the time to say with what or whose arms they were incorporated, and it would be overloading our pages with genealogical lore to go into details. A family, some of the members of which had two wives and eighteen children, would naturally soon spread itself about the country.

The Rev. C. Brooke, of Brackley, Northants, as these pages are going through the press, writes to say:—

“From the similiarity in the arms it would seem that there was a connection between Robert Brooke of Madeley Court, and Brooke of Blacklands, whose arms are given by Dr. Plot, in his ‘History of Staffordshire,’ as ‘Chequy, arg. and sable;’ but it does not appear to be so by the pedigree in the Visitation taken 1623, or by the pedigree of Brooke of Blacklands, compiled by Mr. Eyton, for the Rev. J. Brooke, from original deeds at Haughton, which he did as well as the scanty records would allow.”

A contributor to “Salopian Shreds and Patches” (Feb. 9, 1876) says one of the bells of Church Stretton church has the following inscription:—

“Donatum pro avi Edwardo Brooke de Stretton Generoso. 1711.”

And adds—

“Assuming that this is a correct reading of the abbreviated words on the bell, the following is a literal translation:—‘Given for luck by Edward Brooke, of Stretton, gentleman. 1711.’”

The Rev. John Brooke, of Haughton, unwilling that one of the family should have been supposed to have associated the word “luck” with things so sacred, writes to say:—

“On referring to the copies of the Claverley registers, as I have, I find that ‘Avis’ was the Christian name of one of his wives, 1636; therefore, after all, Edward Brooke probably gave the bell in memory of either his wife or a daughter of that name.”

One of the Brookes, residing or having property, or both, at Coalbrookdale, went to Ireland, taking the name of the place with him, and calling it “Colebrook.”

In a work published on distinguished Shropshire families is the following, which is interesting from its bearing upon an important historical fact:—

“Robert Brooke Miles married three wives; one, Anne, d. and heir of Michael Warringe de Salop. He died 1558.

↓

John B. died 1598, aged 60. + Anne, d. of Francis Shirley, of Staniton, co. Leicester.

↓

Sir Basil Brooke Miles, 1623, died 1646. + Etheldreda, d. and sole heir of Edmund Boudendil.”

Sir Basil was one of the sporting friends whom Giffard of Chillington drew around him at his housewarming on the border of Brewood Forest, a house which subsequently gave shelter to the Earl of Derby and King Charles the First. It was built nominally as a hunting-seat, but really for purposes of concealment; and the site on the bolder of two counties, deep in the recesses of woods, traversed by no public roads, was exceedingly suitable. It is said that on the completion of the building the owner invited a few friends to dinner, to celebrate the occasion, and amongst them Sir Basil Brooke, of the Court House, Madeley, who had recently returned from Italy, and who on being requested by his host to supply a name for the place, suggested Boscobel, or Bos co Bello; and this was considered so appropriate, from the prospect it commanded of the beautiful woods around, that it is said to have been at once adopted.

It will be seen from what we have previously stated that the family of Brooke continued to reside at Madeley till 1706, when, according to the benefaction-table in the church, Basil Brooke by will bequeathed the sum of £40, and for a further sum of £30, paid him by Audley Bowdler and eight other parties, sold three several cottages or tenements, with gardens and yards, at Madeley Wood, for the use of the poor. {40}

The next tenant of the Court appears to have been the first Abraham Darby, for we find that he died there, after which time we find no tenants of more importance than the Purtons and the Triggers, who were farmers, and held the land around.

Thus early, even in Madeley, did the great owners of the soil—who merely tilled the surface, and scarcely that—give place to miners and ironmakers who knew how to win wealth from beneath.

With regard to this fine old mansion itself, having about it the symbols of ancient and distinguished Shropshire families, and associated at still earlier periods with the history of the wealthy monastery of St. Milburgh, it is fast going to decay. The last of the long and distinguished line of Wenlock priors lived and died here, as did the first great Shropshire ironmaster, the first Abraham Darby, afterwards, and one almost regrets that the wish of the late James Foster, who purchased the property, to repair and restore it, was not carried out. The temptation to get the mines underneath it, however, proved too strong: the whole has been undermined, and from attacks below and above, with all the usual elements of decay at work, must ere long disappear, rich as it is in associations of the past.

It is one of that class of buildings the country can ill afford to spare, for it speaks not to the antiquarian or the historian merely, but to all who take an interest in the manners, customs, and domestic arrangements of the past. It is difficult to say which are the original portions, but the vaults and cellaring, and some other parts appear to have belonged to a building which has undergone many changes. The windows, walls, and doorways of that portion of the building occupied by Mr. Round, and the substantial foundations that gentleman found beneath the surface in cutting a drain in the same direction, with a well 15 yards deep, indicate pretty clearly an extension of the buildings formerly on that side.

On going inside, and descending a spiral stone staircase to the basement story of the building, visitors will have opportunities of seeing how substantially the walls are built. They are a yard and a half in thickness, and have narrow openings, each growing narrower towards the outside, every two converging towards a point similar to what the reader has witnessed in many a fortress of byegone times, and designed no doubt for the same purpose, for defence. This staircase did not then as now terminate in what was the large hall, but in the adjoining apartment, now used as a brewhouse. The partition, too, which shuts off the entrance to another pair of stairs near the coat of arms on the north did not exist, nor the stairs either. The room is now 38½ feet long; then it would be 40, by 22 feet wide, and 14 feet high. Beneath these arms, on a daias, probably, the head of the house would sit dispensing hospitality. The chief staircase was near the other end of the hall, and composed of immense blocks of solid oak. The spiral stone staircase from the base of the building to the chapel at the top of the house was for the use, it is supposed, either of the dependents or the officiating priest. A further examination of the arms on the ceiling and a comparison with those in other parts of the building show them to be those of the Brooke family. An oak screen divides the chapel, which is wainscoted to the ceiling with oak. On the eastern side of this screen is a piscina, which has been cut out of the solid brickwork, and which at a subsequent period must have been concealed by the wainscoating. In the western division, behind the wainscoating, is a secret chamber, a yard square; probably for concealment in times of danger. It is communicated with by a panel in the wainscoat just large enough to admit a man, who, once inside, had the means of bolting and barring himself in behind the oak panel, which would look in no respect different to the others. This is called king Charles’s hole, but there is no evidence or well-founded tradition that he occupied it. There are a number of other curious nooks and small chambers which might have served purposes of concealment in troubled times, and probably did so, when the votaries of the two dominant religions, fired with a zeal inspired by their positions, alternately persecuted each other, as in the times of James, Mary, and Elizabeth. It is an error however, and one which Harrison Ainsworth among others appears to have fallen into, to suppose that the unfortunate king Charles either came to the Court House or was secreted in it. It is probable enough that, from the well known loyalty of the owner, the house would be searched by the Parliamentarians for the king, and the fact that they were likely to do so would lead to more discretion in selecting a place of concealment. The fine old wainscoating is falling from the rooms, and the whole place presents a scene of utter desolation.

From the upper portion of the building a pit, said to be without a bottom, and leading to a subterranean passage to Buildwas Abbey, may be seen. There is of course no ground for either tradition: a house which belonged to the priors of Wenlock would want no communication with a rival monastery, which was looked upon with jealousy, and the more abstemious habits of the inmates of which were in some measure a reflection upon their own. The pit or well has no bottom, inasmuch as it slants when it gets below the building in the direction of the pool in which it terminates.

Outside the building are some of the grotesque, nondescript stone figures which builders of the Gothic age indulged in. On this side, too, is a handsome stone porch, which, like some other portions of the same building is more modern than others. The gate-house, like the porch, is both more modern, and more Elizabethan than the other. It is a well-proportioned and beautiful building, exciting the admiration of all who see it. It possesses several heraldic embellishments, relating to the Brooke family.

It is a pity that the memorials of a family so ancient and distinguished, and so connected with the early history of Madeley, have not been better preserved. There must, one would think, have been mural monuments of a costly kind in the old church, seeing that the family lived at the Court for two centuries and a half at the least.

The stone of which the house was built was quarried near the spot, but the shelly limestone covering for the roof must have been brought from Acton Burnell, or somewhere near. It is from the pentamerous beds of the Caradoc sandstone. The house is supplied with spring-water by pipes from an ancient reservoir on the high ground near where the stone used was probably quarried.

KING CHARLES’S VISIT TO, AND CONCEALMENT AT, MADELEY.