British Archaeological Association. Central Commit.

The Archaeological journal (Volume v. 34) online

. (page 12 of 54)
Online LibraryBritish Archaeological Association. Central CommitThe Archaeological journal (Volume v. 34) → online text (page 12 of 54)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

the brido-e, and others wadino- throuo-h the water. Flushed
with success, instead of securing the important ground
they had gained, they then charged up the hill towards
the windmills, where they were met by Whalley 's horse,
and thrown into confusion. They fled back into the town,
losing many killed and wounded, and the position at East
Bridge was recovered by the besiegers. On the 14th of
July some Suffolk Volunteers took the Hythe with little



opposition, and made prisoners of the garrison, consisting
of 80 Kentish fuOTtives.


On the 15th of July, Lucas and Lisle, knowing that the
consequences of having broken their parole would be
serious to them, made an attempt to escape in the night.
They forded the river at Middle Mill, intending to make
for Neyland Bridge, and so get away into Suffolk, but their
guides failed them, and they were obliged to go back into
the town by the Rye Gate Postern. On the 18th they
made another attempt to get away, and repeated the ex-
periment on several succeeding niglits, until the discontent
of their own followers was aroused.

After the occupation of the Hythe and the East Bridge
the General determined to complete the leaguer by driving
the besieged out of St. John's Gate, and their other ad-
vanced posts beyond the south wall. The fii-st step was to
silence a saker, which was planted on a platform in the
frame of the bells in St. Mary's To\ver, and which caused
considerable aruioyance by enfilading the trenches near
Barkstead's fort. Two demi-culverius were brought to
bear on the Tower, and, after about GO rounds, one side
was breached. Lord Faiifax then opened fire on the
position occupied by the besieged among the ruins of St.
John's, and having opened a breach with two culvo'ins,
he led Barkstead's regiment to the assault, and drove the
defenders into the old Gate House. Here they made an
obstinate stand, and I'epulsed several assaults, At last,
eight guns were brought into position, imder cover of Avhich
a storming party ft^dvanced, placed ladders and effected an
entrance. Thero was then a sharp hand-to-hand fight,
which ended in the retreat of the surviving' defenders into
the town throu2fh the Scherde Gate Postern. The besiecjed
were now closely confined within tlie walls of the town,

3r(7 Period. The Close BIoch(de.

Jidy 20th to August 2Sth.

We now come to the period of the close blockade. After
the water mills on the river were captured, the besieged
set to work with and hand mills, and constructed a
rude wind-mill on the top of the Castle, which was, how-
ever, knocked over by a shot from Bainsborough's Fort.
Scarcity now began to be felt, and on the 20th of July


the a'tirri«<>n commenced tlie eatnio- of horse flesh. The
trenches were advanced close up to the south wall, and a
redoubt was thrown up in Beriy Fields, between Magdalen
street and the East Hill, when a determined sally of* the
besieged from St. Botolph's Gate was repidsed. On this
occa.sion Lord Fairfax, who was always somewhat too
reckless in exposing his person in action, had a very naiTow
escape. He now removed head-quarters from Lexden to
the Hythe. As August set in, the sufferings of the be-
sieged became very severe. They had nothing but horse
flesh, and eats and dogs. The wretched townspeoj)le were
worse off than the soldiers, and the cruel treatment they
Avere exposed to from Sir Charles Lucas and his followers
is recorded by the citizens in their tract, entitled ' ' Col-
chester's Teares." Kelief was now absolutely impossible,
and the prolongation of the misery of tliese people was
utterly indefensible conduct, from a military point of view,
on the part of the leaders of the defence. On the 1 1th of
August the stores were nearly empty, the magazine would
not maintain two lioiu's' fight, and the clamours of the
townspeople for a surrender began to be echoed by the
soldiers. Negociations were attempted, l)ut Lord Fairfax
steadily adhered to his original terms— quarter for the
soldiers and subordinate officers, Init the leaders must
surrender at discretion. Lucas, Lisle, and other officers,
then determined to make another attempt at escape, in-
tending to break through on the night of the 25th of
August and leave the men to shift for themselves. But
the soldiers became mutinous when they discovered the
intention of the officers to desert, and agreed to kill them
if they attempted to stir. Then the clamour for a sur-
render increased, and the men swore that if conditions
were not agreed to, they would make them for themselves.
At last Commissioners were sent out to accept such
conditions as Lord Fairfax would offer. Before he would
treat, he insisted upon the liberation of the unfortunate
Parliamentary (Commissioners. Articles were then agreed to
and signed at the Hythe on the 27th of August, at about
ten o'clock at night. All horses, with saddles and bridles,
were to be collected at St. Mary's Church and delivered
over at 9 a.m. All arms and colours were to be deposited
in St. James's Church. All soldiers and officers under


tlie rank of captain were to have fail' quarter, surrendering
in Friars Yard, by the East Gate, at 10 a.m. All
superior oflRcers were to assemble at tlie King's Head Inn
by 1 1 a.m., and surrender to mercy. The total number
tliat surrendered was 3,471, of whom 3,067 were common
soldiers, 324 subordina,te officers, G5 servants, and 75
superior officers. In reply to enquiries it was clearly
explained in writing, that fair quarter ensured to the
soldiers their Hves, clothing, and food while prisoners ; and
that surrendering to merci/ signified surrender without
assurance of quarter, the general being free to put some
to the sword at once and to leave others to be dealt with
by Parliament. The town was to have paid £14,000, but
Lord Fairfax remitted £4,000, and £5,000 was levied on
Royalists throughout Essex, so that Colchester got off
with £5,000. of which £2,000 was given to the Essex
volunteers who had left their homes at great incon-
venience, and £1,000 to the poor of the town. The rest
(£2,000) was the prize money of the besiegers. At about
two in the afternoon of the 28tli of August, Lord Fairfax
entered the town of Colchestei', and rode round it. He
then returned to his quarters at the Hythe, and a court-
martial assembled at the Moot Hall to try Sir Charles
Lucas, Sir George Lisle, Colonel Farre, and the Italian
Guasconi — -the two first for having broken their parole of
honour, Farre as a deserter, and the foreigner for piracy.
Farre managed to escape, and Guasconi was pardoned.
Lucas and Lisle were found guilty, the facts being noto-
rious and incontestable, and they were condemned to be
shot. They were executed on the green on the Dorth
side of the castle at about seven p.m. Their bodies were
interred under the north aisle of St. Giles's church. The
reasons which induced Lord Fairfax to confirm the
sentence of the court-martial are stated in an official
despatch dated from the Hythe on the 29th of August.
They are : 1st, " the satisfaction of military justice ;" and
2nd, " avenge for the innocent blood they have caused to
be S2)ilt, and the trouble they have brought upon the
town, tliis cc»untry, and the kingdom.'

Connniseration may be felt for the fate of these brave
soldiers. Sii" George Lisle appears to have been a gallant
and amiable ollicor : but tlicre is nothing either to respect


or admire in what is recorded of Sir Charles Lucas. Their
private characters are, however, quite beside the question.
An officer who accepts his freedom on parole, on condition
that he does not serve again, and who is afterwards taken
in arms, deserves death. This is the military law of all
civilised nations, as much in the 19th as in the 17tli
century. It is a law which is observed, and which must
be observed, for without it all honourable intercourse
between hostile forces would be impossible. Lord Fairfax
could not have indulged in any desire he doubtless felt to
show mercy ; for an example had become absolutely
necessary, owing to other Royalist officers having broken
their paroles, among them so well-known a veteran as Sir
Thomas Glemham, It is higli time to protest against the
injustice of accusing Lord Fairfax of cruelty, or even of
undue harshness in sanctioninix these executions. He
always proved himself, on scores of similar occasions, to be
the most generous and lenient of victors, and he un-
doubtedlj'^ felt the confirmation of tlie sentence of the
court-martial to be a most painful, though a most neces-
sary, duty. It is no liglit matter that, in order to furbish
u] ) the sullied rej^utations of mere guard- room soldiers, an
accusation of cruelty should be brought against a great
and good man, whose only thought through life was to do
his duty to his country without one thought for himself.
The accusation is utterly untenable, and historical truth
demands that it should cease to be repeated. After the
executions, the other officers were assured of fair quarter
as prisoners of vrar. Lords Norwich, Capel, and Lough-
borough were sent to Windsor Castle, the latter escaping
on the road, and reaching Holland in safety. In February,
1G49, the two Lords were tried for their lives. The
casting vote of the Speaker saved the old Earl of Norwich,
but Capel was condemned by a majorit}^ of three in the
House of Commons. His execution was cruel and un-
iiecessary, and in my opinion, that majority was guilty of
a judicial murder.

As soon as the }>risoners had been dismissed, a grand
review of the besieging army was held on the 29th of
August. L^nluckily it wajij a very rainy day, but the
soldiers sliook hands A\ith each other, salutes were fired,
and the Volunteers returned to their homes. Lord Fairfax


tlieii devoted some days to his favourite pursuit — ■
archa3olocry, carefully examiniug the Koman remains here
and in this neighbourhood. Eventually, with his troops,
he marched north from Colchestei', arriving at Ipswich on
the 7th of September.

Thus ended this famous siege, and Colchester, bleeding
at every pore, ruined, impoverished, and half dest]-oyed,^vas
left to recover gradually, and with the sure aid of time.
But it was many years before the old city was restored to
the prosperity it enjoyed before the hery l,ucas broke
through the weak line of opposing citizens and entered the
Head Gate. The calamity came upon her suddenly, and
almost by accident. The war was over, and a month before
that fateful r2th of June, or even a week before, the horrors
of a siege seemed almost an inipossible contingency.
When they did come the people of Colchester seem to have
borne the extremities of suffering as became brave English
men and women. Their descendants may look back on
the conduct of the inhabitants of Colchester, ever
staunchly faithful to the cause of the Parliament, with
feelings of pride ; and the memorable siege will for ever
give a special historical interest to the old city. The
general outlines are but little altered. Nearly every spot
mentioned by the narrators of the events of the siege can
easily be identified and in many instances even the ap-
pearance of the localities is little altered. So that a
detailed examination of the positions of tlie l:)esieged and
of the lines occupied by the besiegers will long continue
to be a very interesting, as w^ell as a profitable, historical


By tlie Rev. C. R. MANNING, ^\.A.

The moniiments to wliich I have tlie pleasure of calling-
tlie attention of the Archgeological Institute have been
more or less noticed in the pages of Gough, Bloniefield,
Lysons, and others, but have never been accurately de-
scribed, and from the somewhat retired situation of the
parish where they remain, in a sadly injured and neglected
condition, are known but to very few. Yet they are tine
and interesting examples, and in some points present pecu-
liarities which render them worthy of publication. It
may add to our interest in them to think that theii* con-
templation seems to have given to the indefatigable anti-
quary, Richard Gough, his first impetus to the study of
this branch of antiquities, a taste which resulted in the
production of his magnificent work, the " Sepulchral
Monuments." He says : — " They were some of the first
objects of my antiquarian contemplation, in the frequent
excursions to their church at Burgh, with my respected
friend and tutor, the Rev. Dr. Barnardiston, of Benet
College, who then served the hving for the late Dr. Green,
Bishop of Lincoln, Master of the college. They recall to
my remembrance the many pleasing hours spent in their
neighbourhood during four years' residence at the Univer-
sity, now thirty years ago. ' O noctes coenaque Deum.i' "

Burgh Green is a village in Caml:)ridgeshire, on the
borders of Suffolk, about two and a half miles from the
Dullinghani Station, near Newmarket. The C.hurch lias
now but little in it of interest beyond tliese monuments,
and has greatly suffered during the worst period of archi-
tectural neglect. It has a deep chancel, a rather short
nave, and two aisles, with a south porch and a w^estern
tower. There was formerly a chantry chapel on the noi-th
side of the chancel, belonging to the family of De Burgh,

1 Sep. Mon., L. Ft. ii., p. 220.


from which, at its demohtion, some of the monuments
now in the chancel were removed. There was another
chantry on the south side. The east window of the chan-
cel is Decorated, of the middle of the 14th century, and
one window of the same style remains on the south side.
The only indication of earlier work in the Church is in tlie
sedilia and piscina, which are Early English. The latter
is a doul)le one, with round shafts and trefoil arches. The
sedilia arches are not trefoiled. High up in the walls are
some remains of battlemented corbels, supports of a former
roof, which preceded the present ceiling. The chancel
arch has been destroyed, but the shafts remain, each sup-
porting an incongruous marble urn. The nave has three
arches on each side, with Decorated pillars. The aisle
windows have lost all tracery, and the roofs have been
modernized, with dormer windows. There is a plain font,
dated 1672, with a low cover surmounted by a dove. The
tower is small, and has a good window of two lights at
the west end.

The manor of Burgh, before the Norman conquest, be-
longed to Queen Edith, wife of Edward the Confessor,
who had large possessions in the county, and as this is the
only one of her manors where a deer-park is described in
the survey of Domesday, Lysons observes that "it is most
probable that she had a palace here for her occasional
residence." " Near the village, and near to "a wood still
called Park Wood, within the demesne of the manor, is a
moat about 12 feet deep and 30 feet in breadth, inclosing
somewhat more than an acre of ground ; without the
moat are tlie remains of a keep, and other traces of build-
ings ; there can be little doubt that this was the ancient
site of the manor." ' If there are any of these remains to
be seen now, they would appear wortliy the attention of
the Cambridge Antiquarifin Society.' The Conqueror gave
the manor to Alan, Earl of Brittany, and we subsequently
find it in the family of Burgh. In 1330 Sir Thomas de
Burgh had tlie king's license to impark his woods at

' L> sons' Camb. p. 96.

2 I have since ascertained that the two otlicr similar moats iu the parish,

moat exists. There are no remains of Burgh Green ll^ill, near the church, is

masonry within it ; nor of any earthen an old house, with some remains of the

mound. It is of square form, with an sixteenth ccntui-y ; and probably occupies

entrance on one side only. Thore arc a more ancient site.


Burgli/ From them it passed by an heiress to the famil}-
of Ingoldsthorpe and their descendants and representa-

There are now three canopied tombs remaining, with
six effigies, two of them being on the floor at the east
end, partly bnilt over. Mnch confusion has ensued from
their removal from the destroyed chapel, and it is some-
what cUfficult now to identify them. They are thickly
coated with yellow wash, and the parts nearest the ground
are a mass of green moidd. All the painting and heraldry
is now obliterated, unless preserved beneath successive
coats of wash. In Philpot's Cambridgeshire Collections
in the College of Arms, some poor drawings of the figures
are given, with pedigree and arms.- There is also a pedi-
gree in Pdchmond's Visitation by Camden, 1G19, with
additions, in the British Museum.' To these I will refer
in enumerating the different tombs.

1, The earliest efiigj, which I will call No. 1, now lies
on the middle tomb of the three. This does not appear to
be the one mentioned by Gough as that of Sir Philip de
Burgh on the south side of the north aisle, cross legged,
under an arch, which seems to have been lost, but of his
son Sir Thomas. The knight is clad in the armour of the
middle of the fourteenth century. He wears the usual jupon
with a baldrick, and the camail, and a pointed bascinet.
Over his camail is a collar, but any devices on it cannot
now be made out. His head is much disfigured, and rests
on his tilting helmet. The most remarkable point in the
effigy is that his body is half turned on the right side,
his right arm being being placed on his breast (his left is
partly concealed by the wall built upon him), and having
held a tilting spear ; his left leg is crossed over the right,
and he lies on a bed of large pebbles. The foot rests on
a lion. Traces of colour appear in various parts. I am
only aware of two other monuments in England repre-
senting knights thus lying on a bed of pebbles — one at
Ingham, Norfolk, of Oliver, Lord Ingham, 1344, and the
other of Sir Roger de Kerdeston, 1337, at Beepham, in
the same county. Both these are engraved in Stothard.
The meaning of the bed of stones has been variously ex-

' P:it. r.olls, 4tli Edw. TIL - St. George's Visit, of Camh. 1G81.

' Hail. MSS. l.-)34, f. W2 h.



plained. Weever, speaking of the Ingham effigy, says
that " being a great traveller, he lieth npon a rock."
Blomefield calls it a " mattress,"' In Murray's Guide it is
"lying upon a rock, as if shipwrecked;" and the half
turned position is described by another as " ready to
jump up on his feet." It may have been only a fashion
of the time ; or a sculptor's peculiarity. Its occurrence
seems to be only associated with these few examples of
knights' effigies, half-turned, all of nearly the same date.
The present instance appears to be about 1345, and is a
late example of a cross-legged hgiu-e. On the eastern end
of the arch, under the canopy, are marks of the place
where the feet of a knight's effigy reached the v/all, the
figure having been forcibly torn away, so that the impres-
sion of the soles of the feet as it w^ere remain. This is a
proof that the figure of Sir Thomas cle Burgh did not
belong to this tomb or canop)^, and indeed the architec-
ture of it Avould 1)0 twenty or thirty years later than his
armour. This can0|)y is 1)eautifully double foliated and
cinquefoiled, deeply recessed, of ogee sliape, with crockets
and finial, and side pinnacles. The altar tomb on which
the effigy rests is lov/, and partly liidden by the raised
floor. It had three lai'ge shields within quatrefoils on
the side. On the same slal) with tlie knight is now placed
an e&igy of a lady, of v\'hicli I v/ill speak under No. 4.

2. Sir Thomas de Burgh married a Waldegrave, of the
adjoining parish of Westley Waterless. His son. Sir Thomas
who married the daughter of lloger, Loi'cl Grey of Ruthin,
appears to be the one next mentioned l)y Gough as
" grandson to the founder, Sir Philip," and having a monu-
ment here representing him with a chain. This I take to
be the tomb and figure to the east of No. 1. It re]>re-
sents a knight, apparently in banded mail, with a jupon
and horizontal baldrick, camail and pointed bascinet, a
sword and dagger, his head on a helm, and his feet on a
lion. His hands hold a small object, probably a heart.
There is novv^ no appearance of a chain. The date would
be about 13G5. This tomb is liijxlier than the other two.
It has a lofty cinquefoiled canopy, with a foin - centred
arch under an ogee one, with a shield in a circle in the
spandril. The tomb has no ])anels at the side.

No. 3. The son of this Sir Thomas was Sir Jolni de


Burgli. (n)uo-li says, '*' He Avas stately entoinLed at
Burgh with one of his wives. He gave the advowson of
Swaftliam St. Cyrlae to tlie convent of Ely, In his will
dated 7 Kic. II, 1084, he mentions Mary, his first wife,
buried at Anglesea Abbey, Cambridgeshire. Katharine,
his second wife, in her will dated 1409, bequeaths her
body to be buried in Burgh Church, and wills that Sir
John Inglethorp and his heirs should be lords of Burgh
and [)atrons of the chantry there." This Katharine was
an Engain of Stow Quy, (Jainbridgeshire. I suppose the
tomb to tlie west of No. 1 to be his, although there is no
second efHgy of a lady there now. He is clad in armour
very similar to No. 2. He has an escalloped jupon, and
may well be of the date of 1384. The tomb below is the
same as that of No. 1 , and the canopy above very similar
to No. 2. His hands also hold a heart, or other object.

No. 4 is the lady's effigy lying on the same slab wdth
No. 1. She is dressed in the sideless garment and mantle,
with buttons or studs of a square form, from the waist
nearly to tlie feet. Her hands hold a heart. Her hair is
coiled in a net, with a fillet above the forehead, very
much like a small brass at Long Melford. Her head rests
on a double cushion, supported by a single angel, whose
wings reach to her shoulders. There is no animal at her
feet. This costume is of about the year 1410, and it most
probably represents Katharine, second Avife of Sir John de
Burgh, whose will is dated 1409.

No. 5 is the male efhgy on the floor, below the tomlj
No. 2, This is a rather remarkable one, and there is less
doubt as to the person represented, or the date. He is
in armour, but has no camail or gorget, or bascinet. He
is bare headed, with flowing locks, confined hy a roll or
band. Appended to this roll was formerly to be seen a
buckle hanoinof on the forehead, but there is no trace of
it now. It is so mentioned by Gough, and by Blomfield
form a note of Le Neve's,' He Avears a jupon and hori-
zontal baldrick. On the right armpit is a large roundel.
His feet rest on a lion. Unfortunately this figure is
divided down the middle by the tomb No. 2. It appears
that it Avas once on an altar-tomb of its oaahi, described as
a stately monument on the north side of the Chancel, Avith

BlomcfiL'lJ, Norfolk, vii., 126.


statues of himself and his lady ; he in complete arnioiu',
with a surcoat of his arms, and a collar of S S. about his
neck.^ This is Sir John Ingoldsthorp, who married Eliza-
beth, daughter and co-heiress of Sir John de Burgh. By
his will, dated the Thursday after All Saints, 1419, and
proved July 8, 1420, he gave £20 to the chantry at
Burgh, and legacies to the churches at Tilney, Emnetli,
Rainham, Ingoldsthorp, Snettisham, Norfolk, and S waft-
ham Bulbeck, Cambridgeshire, in all of which places he
held lands.

No. C is the figure of a lady l^eside No. 5. It may be
that of Elizabeth de Burgh, his wife, but she is a foot
taller than his effigy, Ijeing seven feet in height, and
therefore it seems unlikely that she was on the same slab.
It is a fine figure, of about the date 1420, dressed in a
lonaf sleeved o'arment with a fallino- collar. Her hair is in
two large coils, with a jewelled band, supported on a
double cushion. Her hands are broken oft'. The feet
rest on an animal. The will of Elizabeth Ingolclsthorpe
was proved 12 th February, 1421.

There was formerly another large tomb in the middle
of the Chancel, as Gough relates, with brasses of the
grandson of the last named Edmund Ingoldsthorp, son of
of Thomas Ingoldsthorp of Burgh Green, by his wife
Margaret, dauQ-liter and heir of Walter De la Pole,, of
Sawston and Trumpington, Cambridgeshke, who married
Joan, daughter of John Lord Tiptoft, of Burwell. His

Online LibraryBritish Archaeological Association. Central CommitThe Archaeological journal (Volume v. 34) → online text (page 12 of 54)