[9] In note 5 of Owen and Blakeway’s Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 194, it is stated that the church is in length 126 feet, and in breadth (with the cemetery) 65 feet.
[10a] Lel. Coll. vol. i. p. 388.
[10b] Grose, vol. ii. p. 356, plate 28, fig. 8. Meyrick’s Ancient Armour, vol. i. p. 33.
[11a] Some articles discovered there came under the notice of the Archæological Institute in August 1855.
[11b] Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1427.
[11c] See Frontispiece.
[11d] Similar to the trench or pit on the north side of Saxton Church, mentioned in my paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1849, relative to the field of the battle of Towton, which pit contained the bones of many men of men slain at that sanguinary battle. See Chap. VI.
[11e] In a note (5) to Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 194, referring to a MS., it is stated that a pit was made there for the slain, 160 feet long, 68 feet broad, and 60 feet deep, over which the church was afterwards built; but those dimensions, and especially the depth, are evidently very greatly exaggerated. In modern warfare, much smaller pits suffice for the dead.
[11f] Leland’s Itinerary, vol. iv. p. 181 a.
[12] When I visited the church in May 1856, I was very sorry to hear that a subscription had been entered into, for the purpose of what was termed “renovating” this curious and interesting edifice. As far as respects removing the modern pillars, and the plastered ceiling from the chancel, and making the latter appear more in accordance with its ancient state, few persons would object to that measure; but it ought to be borne in mind that the chancel will accommodate, and much more than accommodate, the whole number of church-goers of the very scanty population of Battlefield parish; and that the renovation or rebuilding of any other part is wholly unnecessary, with reference to the spiritual requirements of the parishioners. It would evince great want of taste and judgment to renovate or restore the ancient nave and tower. The remains are most valuable to the historian and archæologist. The interval was so very short, comparatively speaking, between the erection of the church in the reign of Henry IV., and the seizure of the edifice and its contiguous college and hospital in the reign of Henry VIII., that we cannot doubt that the remains are now an authentic and interesting example of church architecture of the reign of the former monarch. The parties who wish for or recommend the renovation of the nave, or the restoration of the whole of Battlefield Church, may possibly find some architect, who, like an old-clothes man, may undertake to “renovate” the article which he is accustomed to deal in, or, in other words, to make it “as good as new”; but when the alterations in this church are finished, they may probably furnish an example of a lamentable destruction of a very ancient, curious, and historical relic of times gone by. As a proof of the mischief which may be done by so-called restorations, let any person of good taste, who has paid even moderate attention to archæology and church architecture, look around, and say whether, out of the numerous ancient churches which have been attempted to be restored or renovated, during the last quarter of a century, there can be found more than some five or six, where bad taste or presumption has not been evinced in the attempts of the various architects to restore or renovate them. If this tasteless system is allowed to proceed, we may, ere long, hear of some ignorant architect who may offer to rebuild or beautify Tintern Abbey, or restore or renovate Kenilworth Castle.