« PreviousContinue »
To our Right trusty and welbeloved Roger Puleston, Esq”. Keeper of
the Castle of Denbigh. Right trusty and wellbeloved, we greete you well, letting you witt that we have received yor letters by Hugh, and vnderstand the matter comprised within: and as touching the keeping of the Castle of Denbigh, we pray you that you will doe your faithfull dilligence for the safeguard of hit, as far as in you is, taking of the Revenue of the lordship there for the vittaling of the same, by the hands of Griffith Vychan, receyvoF there — we have written unto him that he should make pveyaunce therefore — and that ye will understand (ascertain] the good will and dispossicõn of the people, and that countrey, towards my Lord Pryncel and vs, and to send us word assoone as you may, as our trust is in you. Written at my towne of Tenbye the xxiiijo of July.
Jasper comes Pembrokiæ, Locūtenens gehat Edri Princips walliæ, ducis Cornuð, et com Cestr', pimogeniti Reg Henric' sexť illustris', oiðz ad quos pat’tre pht sattm. Sciatis nos p bono et laudabit sivic dño meo Princip’ et nobis p ditcũ armig' Rog ū a Pylston impenso et imposterū impendenđ, concessisse eiđm
Rogo, officiū vice Comit' coñ fflynt. Hệnd et tenend đcū officiū p se vel p suŭ sufficient deputat', cū omnimod vađ, feođ, et pficuis, đco officio debit' et consuet', quãdiu nobis placuerit-dans in mandatū oið et singul offic', battis, tenentib', et ministris, iðm, qd sint pfat Roger'in exercenđ officio paco, auxiliant', attendent', et in oið favent', put đcet.
In cui' rei testim, öntib' sigillū meū apponi fecim? Dat apud Monmouth, scđo die decembris, anno ab Inchoacõe Regni Henric' sext' xlixo, et redemp@nis suæ regiæ potestat' Anno primo.2
The foregoing letter, dated the 25th February, was written probably, not long after the battle at Mortimer's Cross, in Herefordshire, which was fought upon the 2d of February, 1461; when the Earl of March, who had succeeded to his father's title of Duke of York, defeated and dispersed the Lancastrians. The Earls of Pembroke and Ormond escaped, but Sir Owen Tudor, the Earl of Pembroke's father, was with several other Welsh chiefs beheaded on the next day at Hereford. — See Mackintosh's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 31.
W. W. E. W.
1 Edward, Prince of Wales, son to King Henry VI. A.D. 1470.
3 Not unlikely, upon the 25th of February in the same year.
The seal, from an impression of which the above engraving is copied, was found near Tanybwlch in Merionethshire, in the year 1831.
1831. It is of silver, of about the thickness of a dollar, and is a good specimen of an episcopal seal at the time at which it was made. But, independently of its value in that respect, it is valuable as establishing the fact of there having been a bishop of Bangor of the name of Lewis before Lewis Bayley, who died 26th October, 1631, and whose seal any one the least versed in antiquities, will, at first sight, pronounce this not to have been. Both Godwyn and Le Neve mention a Lewis, bishop of Bangor, as having held that see early in the fifteenth century, and the former supposes that he was the person who is mentioned in Walsingham's History of Henry IV. as having been taken prisoner, espousing the clause of Owen Glendwr, in a battle fought in Yorkshire February 19, 1403, at which the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph were slain. Browne Willis supposes this Lewis to have been the same person as Llewelyn Bifort, who, he says, was never acknowledged by the king
and archbishop of Canterbury, for that in a book of fines' and amercements imposed upon the inhabitants of Anglesey, for taking part with Glendwr, he is styled “Lewelinus Bifort vocat Episcopus Bangor.” Though the signification of Lewis and Llewelyn may be the same, I have never yet seen them used indifferently, in any ancient record. It seems clear, therefore, that Llewelyn Bifort and Lewis were two different persons, though probably the latter immediately succeeded the former in the bishopric. The seal is certainly of about the time of Glendwr, and from the inscription upon it, it is also quite certain that it was made for a Lewis, bishop of Bangor. According to Willis, Llewelyn Bifort was appointed by the pope to the bishopric of Bangor in 1404. The inscription round the seal is,
“S. LODOWICI EPI BANGOREN AD CAUSAS." 1846.
W. W. E. W.
DEMOLITION OF CAERNARVON CASTLE.
By permission of Sir R. Williams Bulkeley, Bart., who in the handsomest manner has given us access to a valuable collection of MSS. connected with the history of Wales in his POSsession at Baron Hill, we are enabled to publish the following highly curious document. It will be seen by it that the first time when any extensive injury was done in cool blood to that magnificent monument of the first Edward's military skill and taste, was the comparatively peaceful epoch of the Restoration; and that the perpetrator of the Vandalism was no other than King Charles II. Doubtless his majesty had never seen the castle, or, we think, any man, even of the coldest heart, would have hesitated ere he touched a stone of so grand a building; and, from the names mentioned in the warrant, we are inclined to suspect that the measure was suggested to the royal mind by persons, who had pecuniary motives for giving such bad advice. When such a warrant as this had been issued, me way well be surprised that any portion of the castle, still more of the town walls, should now
1 Willis refers to this book as “ex Coll. Reverendi Decani Bangor," — Dean Jones, instituted September 4, 1689.
be standing; and we should be very curious to know what were the local circumstances that occurred to hinder the royal mandate from taking full effect. Possibly some light might be thrown upon this subject by the archives of the town of Caernarvon. We now cease to wonder at the needy and profligate Earl of Conwy following his royal master's example, and dismantling Conwy castle for the sake of the timber and lead, just as a corrupt corporation of Ludlow, at a later period, did their best to ruin what they ought to have preserved at all cost and hazard.
We transcribe this warrant literally. The king's name is in his own hand writing; a seal, formerly at the left hand upper corner of the paper, has been removed. The document is endorsed in a hand of the same date, “Demolishing of Caernarvon Castle.”
Whereas for good causes & consideračons us thereunto
By his Maties Comand
WILL. MORICE. Sir John Carter Knt. & William Griffiths of Llyn Esq' or to either of them; and in their absence to Griffiths Bordurda Esq".
We cannot let this opportunity pass by without appealing in the strongest manner to those noblemen and gentlemen who are the owners of the still standing portions of the Town walls
of Caernarvon, and begging of them, if they value the national honour of their country, if they feel any pride in keeping up the honourable association of ancient names and things, if they at all appreciate one of the few remaining examples of mediæval military art, not to allow these walls to go to decay. Some portions of them are well kept up, but others are in a state of danger, yet not so far dilapidated but that a small expense would suffice to make them sound for centuries to come. We should be glad to hear of a public subscription being set on foot to aid the proprietors in undertaking such a work; and we hope that some of the residents of Caernarvonshire, who have access to the noblemen and gentlemen in question, will endeavour to turn their attention to the subject. The preservation of the monuments of the former greatness of our country ought to be esteemed as one of the peculiar privileges of our aristocracy; nay, it should be a point of honour with the nobles and leaders of the land to let nothing that once was noble fall to decay, through the neglect or the cupidity of a heedless or ungrateful posterity.
VALLE CRUCIS ABBEY.
(ADDITIONAL PARTICULARS.] The following deed of exchange from Griffith ap Madoc of
Lanegwystl,” or Valle Crucis, is transcribed from a copy written in the character of about the reign of Charles I. This copy
is in the possession of W. W. E. Wynne, Esq., who has never seen the original, and knows nothing more of the transcript he possesses than that he found it amongst a large collection of old deeds relating to his family property. There can, however, be little doubt of its being a copy of an authentic record :
Sciant tam phtes qñ futuri hoc scriptū suspecturi vel audituri, Qd ego Gruffinus filius madoci dñs de bromfield, consilio et assensu heređ meor’, dedi et concessi et hac pnti cart' mea Confirmavi, dio [sic] et beatæ mariæ et monachis Cistrensis ordinis Apud Lenegwystl deo et Beatæ mariæ servientib', p salute Animæ mee, & Animarū meor, antecessor', et Successor, in puram et ppetuā eleemosynā, villam quæ dicitur Northcroft, cū terminis et ptinenc suis, Qd dedi in excambis hominib de Lanegystl et heređ eor’imp cũ ipis hominib'