Transcriber's Note

The cover image was created by the transcriber, and is in the public domain.

Memorials of the Counties of England

General Editor:
Rev. P. H. Ditchfield, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., F.R.Hist.S.

Memorials of
Old Cheshire

MEMORIALS OF
OLD CHESHIRE

EDITED BY
THE VEN. EDWARD BARBER, M.A., F.S.A.

Archdeacon of Chester and Canon Residentiary of Chester Cathedral

AND
THE REV. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A.

Author of
“The Cathedral Churches of Great Britain,” “English Villages,” “The Parish Clerk,” &c.

With many Illustrations

LONDON
GEORGE ALLEN & SONS, 44 & 45 RATHBONE PLACE, W.
1910
[All Rights Reserved]

Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co.
At the Ballantyne Press, Edinburgh

TO THE

MOST NOBLE

THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

LORD-LIEUTENANT OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESHIRE

THIS VOLUME

IS

DEDICATED

BY HIS GRACE’S KIND PERMISSION

PREFACE

THE Editors desire to express their grateful thanks to those who have co-operated with them, and have contributed papers for this volume. Their only regret is that the limits of space prevented them from inviting the assistance of others, and thus of including other subjects, which, it may be, some readers would expect to find here.

But wide as the range is, it is manifestly impossible in a volume of this size to cover the whole ground. It does not profess to be a complete history, or to give all those memories of the past which ought to be of interest to those of the present day. Perhaps no county is richer in these treasures than the county of Chester, and every corner of it has its own special ones. The city of Chester gives its title to the heir to the Crown, as the Prince of Wales is always Earl of Chester; and that fact in itself gives a dignity and importance to both city and county. Then, as will be pointed out in some of the papers which follow, as a County Palatine, Cheshire had privileges and rights of a peculiar character, and all this has made the task of selection of subjects to be treated of more difficult, and the reader will doubtless sympathise with the Editors, even though he may not altogether approve of the result of their labours, and may lament certain omissions.

Some memorials of old Cheshire will be presented to the mind and eyes of many in the Historic Pageant which is to take place in July, and will give further proof of the wealth of material from which selection had to be made. We may hope that both this volume and the Pageant will have an educative effect, in that they will lead residents in the county, and the rising generation in particular, to take a growing and intelligent interest in its history. This may be done either in the small and confined space of the parish in which they live, or in the wider sphere of the neighbourhood, or of the county as a whole. And it can be done by individual search and inquiry, and by association with the Societies which foster and promote such studies as conduce to the creation of a greater interest in the story of the past, and in the preservation of the objects which will keep it alive.

We have to thank the Chester and North Wales Archæological and Historic Society for the loan of some illustrations, and are only sorry that more could not be inserted. We have photographs from Dr. Elliott, Mr. F. Simpson, Mr. G. W. Haswell, and others, some admirable drawings by Mr. C. H. Minshull, whilst His Honour Sir Horatio Lloyd has permitted us to reproduce a sketch of his of the old High Cross at Chester.

We were fortunate to secure the services of so busy a man as Professor J. C. Bridge, M.A., F.S.A., for two of the papers, both of which will be found most instructive, dealing as they do with distinctive peculiarities of the county, and giving evidence of full and wide knowledge of the subjects treated of. To one and all, named and unnamed, we tender our cordial thanks, and trust that the present volume may be regarded as a not unworthy successor of those in the same series which have preceded it.

Edward Barber.
P. H. Ditchfield.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

HISTORIC CHESHIRE

By P. H. Ditchfield, M.A., F.S.A.

BRIGHT and fair is the Cheshire land and well renowned in story. It is one of the most famous counties in England, and can raise its head proudly above other less noted shires. It rejoices in being a County Palatine, its Earls in former days having sovereign jurisdiction within its precincts. The Earls of Chester held their own Parliaments, summoned the barons and tenants to the conclave, and Acts of Parliament passed by English houses of representatives had no force within the Palatinate of Cheshire. It had its own courts of justice for determining all pleas of land, tenements, contracts, felonies, &c. It was an imperium in imperio, and though Lancashire and Durham claimed similar privileges of Palatinate, their County Palatines were established later than that of Chester and were not so well settled, nor their powers and privileges so clearly defined. For a brief space Cheshire was a Principality, and Richard II. styled himself Princeps Cestriæ, and it can still boast of having a Prince for its Earl, the title of Earl of Chester being always borne since the reign of King Henry III. by the eldest son of the kings of England.

Famous, too, is the county for its illustrious sons. Speed, a Cheshire man, who ought therefore to know well the truth of his statements, though perhaps for that reason a little partial, says: “The shire may well be said to be a seedplot of Gentilitie, and the producer of many most ancient and worthy families; neither hath any brought more men of valour into the Field than Cheeseshire hath done, who, by a generall speech, are to this day called The Chiefe of men; and for nature’s endowments (besides their noblenesse of mindes) may compare with any other nation in the world; their limmes strait and well-composed; their complexions faire, with a cheerfull countenance; and the Women of a grace, feature and beautie, inferior unto none.”

Verily, Master Speed was a patriotic son, but he was not far from the truth. Cheshire men have had their detractors, as who have not? These scurrilous, envious persons have dared to frame this distich:

“Cheshire born and Cheshire bred,

Strong i’ th’ arm and weak i’ th’ yed.”

It sounds like a taunt thrown across the border of my native county of Lancashire. Strong i’ th’ arm Cheshire men have ever been, as the story of many a fight and foray in which they have gallantly played their part has effectually told, but the long line of Cheshire worthies serves to prove that their heads are not weaker than those of their neighbours. If you need a further testimony to their excellences, you can refer to the sixteenth-century Cheshire tourist, who wrote of them: “They are of a stomach, stout, bold, and hardy; of stature tall and mighty; withall impatient of wrong, and ready to resist the enemy or stranger that shall invade their countrey; the very name whereof they cannot abide, and namely, of a Scot.” Possibly they have since that time seen fit to modify their dislike of the gentlemen from across the Tweed, who are said by a modern critic “to keep the Sabbath and everything else they can lay their hands on.”

The story of the shire presents many features of unique interest. Its proximity to Wales rendered it the field of many a wild fight between the sturdy Cheshire men and the warlike Welsh folk, and required the possession of a powerful garrison. The port of Chester was the chief place of embarkation for troops, which the turbulent Irishmen often needed for the preservation of peace, and Briton, Saxon, Dane, and Norman have left traces behind them of their presence in the county.

Before the advent of the Romans the district was inhabited by a warlike British tribe called Cornavii, whose territory embraced most of the counties on the Welsh border. They were a strong and martial people, who gave much trouble to the Roman conquerors, and required a formidable company of legionaries to keep them in order. The Romans firmly established themselves on the banks of the Dee, or Deva as they called the river. They knew well the district of Great Meols, where many coins and fibulæ have been discovered, but their great stronghold was Chester. The discoveries of Roman remains in the city are so important that no other place in the kingdom can rival it, and most of these have been found during the last twenty-two years. Built into the Roman city wall were found a large number of inscribed, sculptured, or moulded stones, probably taken from the Roman cemetery, erected in memory of the soldiers who fought in Roman legions. They establish some interesting historical facts. First, we gather from a stone erected to the memory of a soldier, whose name is lost, that the legionaries were here in the earliest years of the Roman conquest of Britain, about A.D. 50. The conquerors pushed along the old Watling Street, which led to the Dee, and must have established themselves there very soon after their advent to Britain. Secondly, we learn that Chester was the permanent quarters of two special legions, Legio II., Adiutrix Pia Fidelis, and Legio XX., Valeria Victrix. Nearly all the inscriptions relate to soldiers of one or other of these troops. When the Second Legion was withdrawn to defend the Danube frontier, the Twentieth remained to guard the Chester country, and sent contingents to protect the forts of Manchester and North Wales. From the fact that these memorial stones of Roman soldiers were afterwards taken from the cemetery and built up in the Roman wall of the city, Dr. Haverfield has determined that the Roman wall of Chester was built in the latter part of the second century or in the commencement of the third century. But we must leave the inviting subject of the Roman antiquities of Chester to another chapter.

It must have been a noble place in Roman times, with its walls and streets and houses replete with the usual fittings with which the Romans used to love to surround themselves. It was a great centre of traffic, situated on the Watling Street that ran from Richborough, through Chester to Anglesea, and through Chester to Manchester, York, and Carlisle. Suetonius pitched his camp at Chester, and Claudius Cæsar and the Emperor Galba are said to have visited it. The existence of Julius Cæsar’s Tower will doubtless suggest to the “raw antiquary” mentioned below a visit of the illustrious conqueror.

When the Roman legions were withdrawn to defend the centre of the Empire, the British remained masters of the country as far as the Picts and Scots would permit. Cheshire is far from Kent, where soon the dreaded Teutonic races made their appearance, and established their rule over the enfeebled Britons. The country of the Deeside remained at peace. Caer-Leon, or Caer Leon Vaur[1] as the Britons called it, heard only the smooth-tongued tones of Celtic speech, and nothing disturbed its quietude, as far as is known, until in A.D. 613 the fury of war burst upon the British people. Christianity had taught them many holy lessons of faith. Wales, with Cheshire, was a land of saints. Bede tells us that the monastery of Bangor, which may have been the Christian Banchor, about 15 miles from Chester, “flourished with learned men at the coming of Augustine.” SS. David, Asaph, and Padern all flourished after the Saxons had occupied England, and the sixth century saw, not only the foundation of the Welsh bishoprics, but also of the great Welsh monasteries, which were the especial glory of the Church in Wales. But the British Christians liked not Augustine, his haughty ways, and his new-fangled customs, and at a council refused subjection. So Augustine waxed wroth, and said that “if they would not preach the way of life to the English, they should at their hands undergo the vengeance.”

[1] The imagination of the Celtic mind has made Chester the Neomagus, founded by Magus, son of Samothes, son of Japheth, 240 years after the Flood. They say a giant named Leon Vaur, a conqueror of the Picts, built a city here, which was afterwards beautified by two British princes, Caerleid and Caerleir. But, concludes the chronicler, “they are but raw antiquaries that will give credit to such relations.”

A terrible storm did burst upon the unhappy people. The heathen King Ethelfrid of Northumbria came down upon the fair land of Cheshire, defeated the Britons, captured and destroyed Chester. The monks of Bangor came in crowds to the battle to offer prayers for the success of their countrymen, and nearly 1200 of them were slaughtered. Bede, with his Roman leanings, sees in this slaughter the execution of the Divine judgment and a fulfilment of Augustine’s prophecy—a suggestion unworthy of the pious historian. If the Divine wrath was turned upon the people of Cheshire and the monks, it was soon dispelled. Ethelfrid’s triumph was of short duration. Soon the gallant Welsh princes raised an army, marched on Chester, defeated the Northumbrian King with great slaughter, and elected Cadwan King of Wales at Chester.

For more than a century Cheshire remained under British rule, but stronger grew the Saxon power, when the rival kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex had settled their quarrels; and in A.D. 828 King Egbert came to Cheshire, captured the city, and made the country parts of the Mercian kingdom. This Mercian kingdom embraced a large extent of country, and was not divided into shires until the beginning of the tenth century. The older counties—Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hants, Wilts, Berkshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk—some of them representing old kingdoms, are known to have existed as defined districts in the ninth century. In these the shire is not named after the chief town except in Hants; but when, in A.D. 912, Mercia was divided, each shire took its name from the county town. Thus we have Stafford-shire, Worcester-shire, and others, and Chester-shire or Cheshire. The county then assumed the concrete shape and size which it has since preserved.

At the end of the ninth century came the first visit of those dread marauders, the Danes, who carried fire and sword through so many fair regions of England. From Northumberland they swooped down on the fields of Cheshire, led by the sea-king Hastings, and “arrived at a western city in Wirall which is called Lega-ceaster. Then were the forces [of King Alfred] unable to come up with them before they were in the fortress; nevertheless they beset the fortress about for some two days, and took all the cattle that were there without, and slew the men whom they were able to take without the fortress, and burned all the corn, and with their horses ate it every morning.”[2] The Danes liked not this, and were reduced to eating horse-flesh, and were glad to leave the country and escape to North Wales. The Saxon Chronicle tells us nothing more of the visits of the Danes. Higden mentions that at the close of the tenth century the county was laid waste by pirates, doubtless the sea-rovers, the Danes, but the evidence of names proves that the Danes were firmly established in the shire as settlers. By the Peace of Wedmore in A.D. 878, they won from Alfred all the country east and north of Watling Street, including the greater part of Cheshire. Indications of their presence are not so strong as in Lancashire, but these are sufficiently plain to show they partially colonised the country. There is a church at Chester dedicated to St. Olave, a Scandinavian king and saint, to whom the Danish colony in London dedicated a church (Tooley Street in London is, of course, a corruption of St. Olaf’s Street). All names ending in by are Danish, of which we have Kirby, Pensby, Irby, Frankby, Greasby. That the Danes were Christians is proved by such names as Kirby, Kirkdale, Crosby. But the most remarkable memorial of all is the name Thingwall, the place where the Folkmote or Thing met. It is surrounded by several other villages with Scandinavian names on the small tongue of land between the Dee and the Mersey. Sometimes a Celtic name is met with, which has survived amid the Saxon and Danish population, such as Meols, Dove, Llandican, and Inch. Further inland Saxon names predominate, such as Bebington, Oldfield, Woodchurch, Upton.

[2] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 892; according to other authorities, 894.

Over the poor remains of Mercia that remained to Alfred’s rule he set the Ealdorman Æthelred, the husband of his daughter Æthelflæd, or Ethelfleda, a ruler well fitted for his courage to guard against the inroads of the Danes. He rebuilt Chester, which had been ruinated by the wars. On his death the government devolved on his spirited widow of whom Henry of Huntingdon says:

“O potent Ethelfleda, terrible to men,

Whom courage made a king, nature a queen.”

She built a town or fortress at Eddisbury in the forest of Delamere, and another at Runcorn. The English power grew stronger in the land. In 920 King Edward the Elder built the city Thelwall on the Mersey, and placed a garrison there. King Edgar was at Chester in 973, and received the homage of eight petty kings, or chieftains, Kenneth III. of Scotland, Malcome of Cumberland, Macon of the Isle of Man, James of Galloway, Howell of North Wales, Owen of South Wales, and two joint rulers, Sfreth of South Wales and Inkil of Cumberland. Ralph Higden, the monk of Chester, relates a story of his having been rowed by them from his palace to the Church of St. John, and Dean Howson, when speaking of this church, said:

“As regards the historical associations, it should be observed in the first place that the water in front of the church is that reach of the river Dee over which the Saxon King Edgar was rowed in 973 by eight British chieftains. His landing place is on the rocky ground immediately under the church, and from the church, on looking down the river towards the old bridge, can be seen the starting point of that short but very expressive voyage. The picturesque little chapel among the foliage is also connected by tradition with Saxon history. It is said that Harold, having ‘lost hys lefte eye’ in the battle of Hastings, ‘yescaped to the countrey of Chester and lived there holylie in St. James’s cell, fast by Saynt John’s Church.’”

This last is, of course, pure legend, but the story of the wonderful rowing seems to be fully accepted by the Dean, and is not scoffed at by most Cheshire historians.

When Cnut the Dane ruled over English land, he committed the government of this part of Mercia to certain chief men with the dignity of Earl, who were styled Earls of Chester. Only three of these ruled during the closing years of the Anglo-Saxon period—Leofric, the son of Leofwin; Algar, the son of Leofric; and Edwin, son of Edgar. Then the Normans came, and many changes took place in the Cheshire land. The Conqueror confiscated the estates of the Saxon gentlemen and nobility, and bestowed them upon his Norman adventurers and followers. He gave the Earldom of Chester to Gherbod, a noble of Flanders; but he was compelled to go to his native land, was seized by his enemies, and retained a prisoner. So the King gave the title to Hugh Lupus, son of the Viscount of Avranches, his sister’s son, a valiant soldier, whose efforts were much needed to restrain the tumultuous Welsh. He gave to the Earl a Palatinate jurisdiction and sovereign power, to be held under the King in the province over which he ruled. These are the terms of the grant:

“Tenere totum hunc comitatum sibi et heredibus suis ita liberè ad gladium ut ipse Rex tenebat Angliæ coronam.”

Hugh Lupus had several barons to assist him in council. These were Nigel his cousin, Baron of Halton, Constable and Marshal of Chester; Sir Pierce Malbane, Baron of Nantwich; Robert FitzHugh, Baron of Malpas; Robert de Vernon, Baron of Shipbrook; Hamon Massey, Baron of Dunham; Walter de Pointon, Baron of Stockport; and Eustace Crew de Montalt, Baron of Hawarden.

The stark Earl was as good a Christian as he was a soldier. He sought the advice of the saintly Anselm, and sent for him from Normandy to Chester, and so brought to England its future Archbishop of Canterbury. By his counsel Earl Hugh converted the Nunnery of St. Werburgh into an Abbey, replacing the nuns by monks of the Benedictine Order. His Welsh neighbours caused endless trouble. He built a castle at Halton, and gave the barony to Nigel, on condition that he should be Constable of Chester, and by the service of leading the vanguard of the Earl’s army whenever he should march into Wales.

The history of Cheshire during the two centuries after the coming of the Normans is a record of the incursions of the Welsh, and of the continued attempts of the English to resist them. The country was reduced to a deplorable condition. The Welsh raided and ravaged the lands next their borders. English armies came to Cheshire, consumed the produce of the farms, and often burned the corn and killed the live-stock lest the Welsh should seek for plunder. Many of these raids find no place in history; only those are recorded which were attended by startling results. We can mention only a few of them. In 1093 they came, led by Griffith ap Conan, and made great slaughter. They fought a great battle at Nantwich during the rule of Hugh Lupus. In 1121 they made a raid and burned two castles, Shocklach and Malpas, celebrated for its bad road. In 1150 they came again, but were cut off on their return at Nantwich. King Henry II. in 1156 came with an army and encamped on Saltney Marsh. Ten years later he came by sea with an army to Chester, determining to crush the Welsh by invading their territory; but his heart failed him, and he abandoned the enterprise. In 1212 these terrible Welshmen took castles, killed the garrisons, burned several towns, and returned home rejoicing laden with plunder. King John marched to Chester determined to punish these outrageous folk who loved fighting, but he had certain troubles with his barons which need not be here chronicled; and being assured that if he marched against the foe he would be either assassinated or handed over to the tender mercies of the marauders, he preferred to hie him back to London. Matthew Paris, the old chronicler, tells us much about these terrible doings—how in 1245 Henry III. tried in vain to conquer them, and then caused a fearful famine in Cheshire by destroying all the corn and produce, including the salt pits, lest the Welsh should gain plunder; how again in 1256 the Welsh invaded the country and ravaged it to the very gates of the city, and by way of reminder repeated the process in the next year. Even the stark Prince Edward they defeated, and King Henry came himself with a mighty army to reduce them to order. He adopted the usual tactics of burning the provisions of the poor Cheshire farmers, and was thus hoist on his own petard, as his army could not find food, and the expedition was abandoned. Then James, Lord Audley, who on returning from abroad found his castles burnt and his retainers slaughtered, being mightily enraged, marched into Wales to slay these terrible folk. He killed many, but he might as well have tried to sweep back the waves that beat on the Wirral shore. The pertinacious foe only retaliated and attacked his lands again. And so the fight went on backwards and forwards, houses and castles being burnt, men and women slain, crops destroyed, until the whole county was reduced to a howling, desolate wilderness. The duel between Prince Llewellyn and Edward I. is well known. The King brought an army to Chester; the Prince sued for peace, and the expedition was abandoned. In 1274 the King summoned Llewellyn to a conference at Chester, which invitation the Prince, perhaps wisely, declined. Instead of coming to a conference, he made inroads and plundered the country. Then Edward in 1277 marched with a vast army to Chester. He cut great avenues through the forests, so as to protect his men from ambuscades. He marched into Wales in triumph. Llewellyn made his submission, but this did not prevent him from renewing his inroads four years later. At last he was killed in a skirmish by Lord Mortimer, and the land had rest. Edward gave to his infant son, born at Carnarvon, the title of Prince of Wales, and peace at length descended on the hills and vales of Cheshire which for two hundred years had been complete strangers to it.

Our chronicle of the Welsh wars and plunderings has carried us far afield, and we must hark back to the line of Earls who ruled over the harassed Palatinate. When Hugh Lupus died without issue, the Earldom descended to Ranulph Bohun, who married his sister, Margaret. He took for his arms three wheat sheaves or in a field azure, which are the present arms of the city. He was succeeded by his son, Hugh de Bohun, in 1152, who foolishly joined the rebellious Prince Henry against his father Henry II., and was sent a prisoner to Normandy. Ranulph III. succeeded, and earned the title of “the Good.” He founded several abbeys, fought in the Crusades, and drove the Dauphin Lewis out of England, who had come to depose King John.

During the Wars of the Barons against Henry III., a battle was fought between the Earl of Derby and a large force for the barons against the royal army led by William, Lord Zouche, David, brother to Llewellyn, and John, Lord Audley, when the Earl was victorious and Chester was captured in 1264. John, Earl of Chester, adopted a novel expedient to end the Welsh invasions. He married Helena, the daughter of Llewellyn, during an interval of peace in order to confirm it. But the lion and the lamb might as well have mated, and the wild turbulent Princess proved a strange bride. History records not the differences of that ill-assorted alliance. Perhaps he tried to tame her too severely. Perhaps he was but a faint-hearted Petruchio. At any rate she poisoned him, and, leaving no children, the King took the Earldom into his own hands and gave it to his eldest son, Prince Edward. When this Prince was captured by Simon de Montfort, he was forced to relinquish the Earldom as part of his ransom, but on the triumph of the King’s forces it reverted again to the Crown.

Richard II., in his troubles with the barons, chose a bodyguard of 2000 Cheshire men, so trusting was he in their loyalty and bravery. As a reward for their fidelity he made the county a Principality by Act of Parliament, styling himself Princeps Cestriæ, as we have already noticed. This honour the county did not long enjoy, as Henry of Lancaster revoked the Act. Not all the men of Cheshire were loyal to Richard, or were perhaps wearied of him. When the storm burst some of them, including Sir Richard and Sir John Legh, went over to Henry’s side. He came to Chester and raised an army there, and executed Sir Piers Legh, who had remained faithful to Richard. Soon the men of Chester saw the stern Duke of Lancaster marching into the city, and behind him rode their unfortunate King, a prisoner in the hands of one who knew no pity, and soon to be done to death at Pontefract Castle. Reports were circulated that Richard was still alive. In 1403 the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Percy, commonly called “Hotspur,” conspired against Henry IV. and ordered the news that Richard was living to be proclaimed throughout the county, stating that he could be seen at Chester Castle. The Cheshire men rallied to their old adherence, and readily joined the standard of the Northumbrian Earl. Every one knows the result of the fatal fight fought within sight of Chester walls, when most of the knights and squires, the flower of Cheshire chivalry, lay dead on the stricken field. Woeful was the day for Cheshire men. Henry captured the Baron of Kinderton and Sir Richard Vernon, and beheaded them. Even some who fought on the King’s side fell in battle, including Sir John Calveley and Sir John Massey. Moreover, the stern Henry was wroth against the county, and every man felt that his head was in jeopardy. But in the following year the King was pleased to pardon the county, and extracted a fine of 300 marks from the city.

The valour of Cheshire men has shone forth on many a battlefield. Look at that gallant feat of arms at the battle of Poictiers, when Lord Audley and his four Cheshire knights, Sir John Delves, Sir Thomas Dutton, Sir Robert Foulshurst, and Sir John Hawkstone won for themselves undying fame. Sir Piers Legh of Macclesfield, from whom are descended the Leighs of Lyme, had the lordship of that place granted to him for taking the Count of Tankerville prisoner. He was afterwards slain at Agincourt. But in our unhappy Civil Wars the good gentlemen of Cheshire were never a united body. They espoused different causes, ranged themselves under different banners, and so fought against each other and slew each other. It was so in Richard’s time. It was so at Blore Heath in 1459, when neighbour fought with neighbour and many fell, amongst whom were Sir Thomas Dutton, Sir John Done, Sir Hugh Venables, Sir Richard Molineux, Sir William Troutbeck, Sir John Legh of Booths, and Sir John Egerton. Thus does Drayton sing of this unhappy slaughter:⁠—

“Then Dutton Dutton kills; and Done doth kill a Done;

A Booth a Booth; and Leigh by Leigh is overthrown;

A Venables against a Venables doth stand,

A Troutbeck fighteth with a Troutbeck hand to hand:

Then Molineux doth make a Molineux to die;

And Egerton the strength of Egerton doth try.

Oh Cheshire! wert thou mad of thine own native gore,

So much until this day thou never shedd’st before!

Above two thousand men upon the earth were thrown,

Of whom the greatest part were naturally thine own.”

Again, on Flodden Field, the valour of the Cheshire men was proved. Macclesfield had cause to weep over the slaughter of her sons, including her brave mayor, Sir Edmund Savage. Again, in the Scottish War, in 1544, they showed their fighting powers; of the sixty men knighted at Leith, one-third were gallant Cheshire men.

Before we close this account of the mediæval period, we notice the shire studded with fine towns and villages, fine churches, and noble monasteries. Of these we may mention the Monastery of St. Werburgh, founded by Hugh Lupus at Chester; and the smaller houses of St. John for secular canons, of St. Francis, a Franciscan monastery founded by King John and suppressed by Cardinal Wolsey for the founding of his college at Oxford; and the Nunnery of St. Mary, founded by Earl Ranulph. At Birkenhead there was a priory of Black Canons founded by Hano de Massey, Earl of Derby, and dedicated to SS. Mary and James. At Combermere there was a house of White Monks founded in 1134 by Hugo Maltana. At Dernhall was a Cistercian house, founded by Edward I. in performance of a vow which he made for a deliverance at sea. This was afterwards removed to Vale Royal, and became a large monastery with a hundred Cistercian monks, and was valued at £32,000. It was consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, with the Bishop of Durham and many other prelates. Another Cistercian monastery was founded by Robert Pincerna in 1153 at Poulton, and then removed to Dentacres. A Collegiate Church was established at Macclesfield by Thomas Savage, Archbishop of York, in 1508. He was born at that place, and this showed his affection for it. His death prevented him from finishing it, but his heart was buried there. Mobberley Abbey of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine was founded by Patrick de Mobberley; a Priory at Norton by William, son of Nigel, Constable of Chester. He founded also one at Runcorn in 1133, but afterwards removed it to Norton. Stanlaw Abbey was founded in 1172 by John de Lacy, Constable of Chester, but it was afterwards removed to Whalley, where the fine ruins testify to its former magnificence.

Such were the principal monastic houses in the county which the decree of ruthless Henry VIII. doomed to destruction. Chester was one of the sees founded by him out of the spoils of the monasteries, together with Bristol, Oxford, Westminster, Gloucester, and Peterborough, and the Church of the Monastery of St. Werburgh was assigned as a Cathedral. Previously the Bishop’s Chair was placed in the grand old Church of St. John, as there were Bishops of Chester in ancient times, as the author of the Holy Life of St. Werburgh sings:⁠—

“Also the see of Lichfield was translate to Chester

By helpe and suffrance of the bysshop Peter”;

and that good Bishop Peter enlarged the stately Church of St. John, which dated back to Earl Ethelred and his good wife Ethelfleda. The story of St. John’s Church is full of fascination, especially when told by its vicar, Canon Cooper Scott.

Desolation reigned throughout the land when the King’s Commissioners had stripped the churches and chapels of their valuables and endowments. The historian of Vale Royal, writing of the deserted and ruined chantries and chapels, states: “Wherein nothing now but the tune of lacrymæ is sung, crying out mercy, not for sinners, but for miserable singers, in these days.”

Chester saw the sad burning of George Marsh, a Marian martyr.

The incessant passing of the military connected with the settlement of the Irish confiscated estates and of soldiers oscillating between the Low Countries and Ireland, and the constant presence of fierce, reckless adventurers, kept alive a martial spirit and made the county extremely lively. The following examples may suffice to show how great a thoroughfare Chester had become:⁠—

1594.—There came into Chester at several times 2200 footmen and 1000 horsemen to go to Ireland for the suppression of the rebellion of Hugh Fardorough, Earl of Tyrone. The mayor had much ado to keep the soldiers quiet, and caused a gibbet to be set up at the high cross whereon three soldiers had like to be hanged.

1595.—There came to Chester at several times 2400 footmen and 300 horsemen to go to Ireland.

1596.—Nine hundred soldiers came to Chester, whereof 500 were sent to Ireland, and the rest, staying for a wind, were disbanded and sent away.

1597.—A thousand footmen and 280 horsemen came at several times and went into Ireland.

1598.—The Earl of Essex, lieutenant-general for the wars in Ireland, came into Chester, and with him three other earls, besides many other lords, knights, and gentlemen, who were honourably received by the Mayor and his brethren. A great army of soldiers went over to serve in Ireland, both horsemen and footmen, all under the command of the said Earl.

1599.—The 14th of February the Lord Mountjoy, Deputy of Ireland, and with him a great train, dined with the Mayor the 17th of February, and departed towards Wales the 19th of February to take shipping for Ireland.

1591.—Many soldiers were this year sent into Ireland.

In 1600 still larger consignments were sent and passed through the county. We hear of 4000 foot and 200 horse.

View of the City of Chester.

Soon the bugles of war sounded nearer at hand, and Charles was fighting against the Parliamentarians. Another pen will describe the horrors of that fearful war, and of that terrible siege of Chester, when the loyal inhabitants were nearly starved. We seem to see the ill-fated monarch watching with sad eyes from the Phœnix Tower on the city wall the defeat of his troops at Rowton Moor. Cheshire was a vast theatre of war, and witnessed more fighting than almost any other county. And sad was the havoc wrought. As in olden days, the gentlemen of Cheshire were as divided as ever; some were loyal, and others espoused the cause of the Parliament. Beeston Castle withstood a brave siege, and was afterwards “slighted” by Cromwell and reduced to its present state of ruin. Doddington Castle, Crewe Hall, Dorfold Hall, Cholmondeley Hall, Carden Hall were garrisoned, and endured attacks and sieges. Nantwich was a stronghold of the Parliamentarians; and even churches, such as Barthomley and Acton, were garrisoned and besieged. Adlington Hall, Stockport, Broughton Hall, Malpas, Tarvin, Huxley Hall, Birket House, Bunbury, and Nether-Legh all saw much fighting, and suffered from sieges or attacks. A volume would be needed to tell of all the fightings in Cheshire during that disastrous war. No less than twenty-two of the great and beautiful houses of the gentlemen of the shire were destroyed.

The Cheshire folk soon wearied of Cromwell and Puritan ways, and as early as 1655 several of the principal gentry were imprisoned at Chester on the charge of disaffection to the Government. Four years later Sir George Booth, with the Earl of Derby, Lord Cholmondeley, and others raised 3000 men “to deliver the nation from slavery.” A battle was fought at Winnington Bridge, near Northwich, but Booth’s forces were defeated. The Restoration of King Charles in the following year was but a fulfilment of the design of the Cheshire “Chief of Men.”

The Duke of Monmouth honoured the county with a visit in 1683, hunting for popularity and representing himself as the champion of Protestantism against the Roman tendencies of James II. His visit caused a “No Popery” riot in the Cathedral, when the mob did terrible damage, broke the font and organ, tore up surplices, destroyed the glass, and much else. The Duke acted as godfather to the Mayor’s infant daughter, attended the Wallasey Races, rode his own horse, won the cup, and presented it to his godchild. The heads of the good citizens were turned by his graciousness, but that did not prevent them from ringing the bells of St. John’s Church when the news came of his defeat at Sedgemoor. He is said to have hatched his insurrection at Bidston. Henry, Lord Delamere, son of Sir George Booth, was accused of an intention of raising a troop for the Duke, and had the unpleasant experience of being tried before the notorious Judge Jefferies, but strange to say he was acquitted. A few years later came James II., who heard mass in the little Early English chapel at the Castle. The good folk of Chester liked not his Roman Catholic ways, and we read the “King departed from Chester not well pleased with the disposition of the people.” His course was soon run, and he fled the country.

Again the divided counsels of the Cheshire men were displayed. While Lord Delamere was raising a great force to support Dutch William, marching south to meet him, Lord Molyneux and Lord Acton seized Chester for King James. Happily no fighting was needed.

When James II. landed in Ireland in the spring of 1689 a large army was collected to oppose him. It was led by the Duke Schomberg, and suffered severely in camp during the ensuing winter for want of conveniences and even necessaries. Most of the army encamped for a week at Neston, and then embarked at Highlake (Hoylake) for Ireland. There were about a hundred vessels to convey them, and the port and river must have presented an animated scene. In the following summer large reinforcements passed through the city at various times, and the farmers of West Kirkby, Grange, Neston, and Meols made good profits by entertaining the officers billeted on them. William III. came in person, the army being encamped on the Wallasey Leasowes. He was at Chester on Sunday, June 10, attended service at the Cathedral, and slept at the house of William Glegg, Esquire of Gayton, whom he afterwards knighted.

Since that time no great events in the annals of England have occurred to disturb the peace of Cheshire. In subsequent chapters we hope to record the names of many of Cheshire’s illustrious sons, and of the great and noble families who have shed lustre on the shire. We shall roam the countryside, see the traces of the great historic past, note the beauties of the ancestral houses, the half-timbered mansions, the red-sandstone farms, and if it be our good fortune to have been born within its borders, one of Cheshire’s “Chief of Men,” feel no little proud of our heritage.

THE COUNTY PALATINE OF CHESTER:
ITS PLACE IN HISTORY

By Henry Taylor (Chester), F.S.A.

THAT safe guide Stephen’s Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the English law student’s vade mecum, in treating of “The Kingdom of England itself,” says:⁠—

“Three of the English counties, viz. Chester, Durham, and Lancaster, are called Counties Palatine. The two former are such by prescription or immemorial custom, which dates back at least to the Norman Conquest. Lancaster was created a County Palatine by Edward the Third in favour of Henry Plantagenet, Duke of Lancaster, whose heiress being married to John of Gaunt, the King’s son, the franchise was greatly enlarged and confirmed in Parliament to honour John of Gaunt himself.

“Counties Palatine are so called a palatio because the owners thereof, the Earl of Chester, the Bishop of Durham, and the Duke of Lancaster, had formerly in those counties jura regalia as fully as the King in his palace. That is to say, they might pardon treasons, murders, and felonies; they appointed judges and justices of the peace; all writs and indictments ran in their names, as in other counties in the King’s; and all offences were said to be done against their peace, and not as in other places contra pacem domini regis. These palatine privileges, so similar to the regal independent jurisdictions usurped by the great barons on the Continent, during the weak and infant state of the first feudal kingdoms in Europe, were in all probability originally granted to the counties of Chester and Durham because these counties bordered upon inimical countries, Wales and Scotland; in order that the owners, being encouraged by so large an authority, might be the more watchful in its defence. In the twenty-seventh year of Henry the Eighth, however, the powers before mentioned of the owners of these three counties palatine were abridged, the reason for their continuance having in a manner ceased, and in modern times alterations have taken place in regard to the administration of justice in the counties palatine, which have, for the most part, assimilated them in that respect to the rest of England. Thus by the Law Terms Act, 1830, the jurisdiction of the Court of Session of the County Palatine of Chester was abolished, and that county was subjected in all things to the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts of Westminster. And by the Judicature Act, 1873, the jurisdictions of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster and of the Court of Pleas of Durham were respectively transferred to the High Court of Justice, by that Act established. None of the counties palatine any longer remain in the hands of subjects. For the Earldom of Chester was united to the Crown by Henry the Third, and has ever since been one of the titles of the monarch’s eldest son; the palatine jurisdiction of Durham was taken from the Bishop of Durham by the Durham (County Palatine) Act, 1836 (amended by the Durham Palatine Act, 1858), and was vested as a separate franchise and royalty in the Crown; and the County Palatine of Lancaster, with the duchy which had been conferred on John of Gaunt, was at length, in the year 1485, vested in King Henry the Seventh and his heirs, as a distinct and separate inheritance from the Crown of England.”

Of these three Palatinates we must, however, here treat only of Chester, the eldest of the trio. There were Earls of Chester in Saxon times, but the establishment of the Palatine County of Chester dates from the Norman Invasion. Before we proceed to describe its foundation and history, let us see what Camden, in his quaint way, has to say about Cheshire and its inhabitants. Quoting Lucian the Monk of Chester, he remarks:⁠—

“Whoever sets about to describe the manners of the inhabitants of this County in general, or in particular, according to their situation, he will find them in comparison with those of other parts of England in some respects better, in others the same. Their manners seem to be in the main of the best sort, according to the general idea of manners. They are sociable in their entertainments, cheerful at meals, liberal in their hospitality, hasty, but soon brought to temper, impatient of dependance and bondage, kind to the distressed, compassionate to the poor, fond of their relations, sparing of labour, free from resentment, not given to excess in eating, undesigning, fond of borrowing other people’s property, abounding with woods and pastures, rich in meat and cattle. They border on one side the Britons, and by long commerce of manners are become very like them. Nor must I forget to observe that the County of Chester bounded by Lime (Macclesfield) Forest from the rest of England enjoys distinguished immunities, and by the indulgences of our Kings and the great merit of its Earls is more accustomed to attend on the Sword of its own Prince than on the Crown of the Sovereign in the assembly of the people, and without restraint or reserve determine the most important causes within its own territories. Hence Chester itself is much frequented by Irish, a neighbour to the Welsh, and plentifully supplied with provisions by the English; beautifully situated, its gates are of an ancient form of building; approved by hard experience. It has merited the name of City by its river and its watch-towers, defended by a watchful guard of holy men and through the mercy of our Saviour it has always been preserved by divine assistance.”

The late Professor Freeman has said: “Chester was the last English city to bow to the Norman invader. After the fall of Chester no integral part of the English kingdom remained unsubdued. William was full King over all England.”

Recognising, as the Romans before him had done, that Chester was the key to Wales, and also that it could be made the headquarters for an invasion of Ireland, the Norman Conqueror placed a great military camp there, and in A.D. 1070 granted to his kinsman and follower Hugh, surnamed Lupus of Avranches (which is situate on the borders of Normandy and Brittany close by Mont St. Michael), the whole of the present county of Chester, and as much of the neighbouring parts of Wales as he could secure, to hold as an independent state inferior to the Crown of England, “ita libere ad gladium, sicut ipse Rex totam tenebat Angliam ad coronam,” “as the very words of the Charter do run,” saith Camden. Which words, says Leycester the Chester antiquary, “some expound to be the tenure of being Sword-bearer of England, whence we read in Matthew Paris that when Henry III. married Eleanor of Provence, A.D. 1236, the marriage was pompously solemnised, and all the great men of the kingdom used those offices and places which had of ancient right belonged to their ancestors at the coronation of the Kings. The Earl of Chester (John Scot) then carried the Sword of St. Edward (which is called Curtein) before the King in token that he was an Earl Palatine and had power by right to restrain the King if he should do amiss, his Constable of Cheshire attending on him.

“But although this office might have of ancient right belonged to the Earls of Chester ever since the time of Hugh Lupus, yet I believe there is something more magnificent couched in these words of the first Charter or donation—namely, a dignity inherent in the Sword, as purchased by it, and to be kept by it also; for as in the Crown of England there is an inherent right of regality annexed, so here is given an inherent right of dignity in the Sword. This is to hold as freely by the Sword as the King holds by the Crown, only inferior to the King. Hence was it that whatsoever we say concerning the pleas of the Crown or to be done against the King’s Crown and Dignity, the same is also said (but in a more limited sense) concerning the pleas of the Sword of Chester, or against the Sword and Dignity of the Earl of Chester, as is most evident out of the records and indictments of those times.”

There were seven of these Norman Earls, viz.:⁠—

I. Hugh Lupus, before mentioned.

II. Richard his son who, when only twenty-five years of age and soon after his marriage, was drowned in the White Ship catastrophe, together with his bride and the two sons (William and Richard) of King Henry the First.

III. Randle Meschines, Viscount Bayeux of Normandy.

IV. Randle Gernons.

V. Hugh Cyveilioc.

VI. Randle Blundeville.

VII. John the Scot, Earl of Huntingdon, who died without issue at Darnhall Abbey, Cheshire, on the 7th June 1237.

These Norman Earls had their Chamberlains or Chancellors; also Justices (before whom causes which of their nature should otherwise belong respectively to the King’s Bench and Common Pleas were triable), a Baron of Exchequer, a Sheriff and other officers similar to those of the Crown at Westminster.

They also had palatinate Barons who held court in council with them. The form of act or grant of Hugh Lupus began thus: “Ego Comes Hugo et mei Barones.” These barons were—

I. Nigel, Baron of Halton, High Constable of Cheshire.

II. Robert, Baron of Monte Alto or Montalt (Hawarden and Mold), High Steward of Cheshire.

III. William, Baron of Wich Maldeberg (Nantwich).

IV. Robert FitzHugh, Baron of Malpas.

V. Richard Vernon, Baron of Shipbrook.

VI. Hamo de Massie, Baron of Dunham-Massie.

VII. Gilbert Venables, Baron of Kinderton, whose heirs male in the direct line continued until 1679—the last survivors of the Barons of Cheshire.

VIII. Nicholas, Baron of Stockport.

IX. Robert, Baron of Rhuddlan.

Each of these barons had his own court of all pleas, suits, and plaints (except such as belonged to the Earl), and power of life and death. The last instance of the execution of this latter power was in the person of Hugh Stringer, who was tried for murder in the court of Sir Thomas Venables, Baron of Kinderton, and was executed in 1597.

The business of these barons was to attend the Earl in Council, follow him, and grace his court, and as an old record sets forth, “they were bound in time of war with the Welsh to find for each knights-fee one horse harnessed or two unharnessed within the divisions of Cheshire. And their knights and free tenants were to be furnished with breastplates and haubergeons, and to defend their respective fees in person.”

The Abbots of Chester and Combermere also had their own courts as well as the barons, and doubtless they and the heads of the other monasteries and priories were called to the Earl’s Council in the same way that other ecclesiastics were summoned to the Parliaments of the early Kings of England. We here give a copy of the plate by Hollar in King’s Vale Royal of “Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, sitting in his Parliament with the Barons and Abbots of that County Palatine.”

Of these Norman Earls of Chester the distinguished pre-eminence of Earl Randle Blundeville during his long and active rule has been noticed by all writers on Cheshire history. That he was a strong man is evidenced by his refusal in 1232 to comply with the demand for money from the county made by Henry III., as well as by his resistance to that King’s permission given to the Pope’s officers to collect Peter’s Pence in his Palatinate, and his expulsion of those officers from the county, whereas all England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales paid.

On one occasion Blundeville was surprised and surrounded in his Castle of Rhuddlan by a superior force of Welsh. He contrived to send a message to his Constable de Lacy for help. It happened that the Abbot’s great fair was being held at Chester, and de Lacy at once collected from those attending it an immense crowd of “Players, Fiddlers, Musicians, and other loose persons,” and marched with them to the relief of Rhuddlan. The Welsh seeing this immense host, and hearing withal the terrible discord of “harp, flute, sackbut, psaltery, and other kinds of music,” evidently concluded that Bedlam was let loose, raised the siege, and took flight.

“Was ever an enemy thrown in such plight?

Did ever a pen such a hist’ry indite?

And yet the fact’s true as black differs from white!”

After the Earl’s return he rewarded de Lacy with an exclusive prerogative over the “Trades and Mysteries” of the followers in his rabble army. The Constable’s son, John de Lacy, reserved his exclusive privileges over the mechanic occupations, but granted the Player and Minstrel prerogative to Hugh Dutton of Dutton and his heirs, who was the son of that Dutton who marched at the head of the minstrels. The Dutton family and their successors, down to the year 1756, regularly held a court (which in the Cheshire Recognisance Rolls is called “a Court of Histrionics”), and granted licences to play on musical instruments within the county and within the city of Chester. The various Acts of Parliament passed for the regulation of “Players Minstrels and other Rogues and Vagabonds” specially recognise this right, and exempt Cheshire from their provisions. We believe to this day this right is recognised in the grant of certain music diplomas.

The rule of the Norman Earls of Chester may be said to have extended over a period of about one hundred and sixty-seven years—that is to say, from the time of the grant to Hugh Lupus down to the death of John the Scot, when, he having died in 1237 without male issue, the Crown seized the Earldom. King Henry III. then gave it to his son, Prince Edward, probably in 1245 (together with other possessions), on his marriage with the Princess Eleanor of Castile. Two years after this the new Earl—the first of the royal Earls of Chester—made his public entry into his county palatine, and in its ancient metropolis received the homage of his officers and military tenants. The entry in the Chronicle of St. Werburgh’s Abbey recording the event runs thus:⁠—

“1236. On the Feast of Kenelm (July 17) The Lord Edward, Earl of Chester, entered Chester for the first time, and was received with all due respect, as well the Clergy as the laity having gone forth to meet him. Having remained three days to receive the homage and fealty, as well of the Nobles of Chester as of Wales, he set out for Wales, to inspect his lands and Castles there, and returning on the day of the invention (or finding) of (the relics of) S. Stephen, August 3rd, he left Chester and returned to England,[3] going by way of Darnall.”

[3] Observe the expression “left Chester and returned to England.” Cheshire was a separate state apart from England.

On Prince Edward succeeding to the throne, he relinquished the Earldom in favour of his eldest son. His successors, on being invested with the executive power when they created their heirs-apparent to the Crown Princes of Wales, at the same time invested them with the Earldom. The oldest title the present King when Prince of Wales held was that of Earl of Chester.

The greater part of the present county of Flint was held by the Norman Earls before the conquest of Wales. King Edward I., after he had created it into a separate county, attached it to the “Sword of Chester” as presently described. It is evident that it was considered an important appanage to the Earldom, as from time to time the name Flint has been associated with that of Chester, the title adopted being that of Earl of Chester and Flint. Edward of Windsor, eldest son of Edward II., was summoned to Parliament by the name of Earl of Chester and Flint, “since which time it has been continued as a title in the Princes of Wales; and there you will be sure to find who were Earls of Flint,” says Peter Heylyn in his Help to English History. The last Prince of Wales summoned by that title to Parliament was Prince George, afterwards George II., in 1714.

If the reigning sovereign had no son to succeed him, the Earldom appears to have been retained by the Crown until a new creation. This was so in the case of Richard II., who styled himself Prince of Chester, and created the county palatine a principality. This, however, was revoked in the following reign.

There seems to have been a close attachment between this King and the people of Chester and of Wales, doubtless in consequence of the esteem in which they held his father, the Black Prince, whom they followed in his French wars, and who had placed confidence in them. King Richard had a bodyguard of 2000 Cheshire archers, many of whom accompanied him in his ill-fated expedition to Ireland, on his return from which he was taken prisoner by Bolingbroke at Flint Castle, and from there, it is said, brought to Chester Castle on his way to London.

When the conquest of Wales had been finally completed by the defeat and death of Prince Llewelyn, Edward the First proceeded to regulate the administration of the territory he had acquired. By his ordinance called the “Statute of Rhudland,” he formed Flintshire into a county, attached, as previously mentioned, but subordinate to, that of Chester, and directed the Sheriff of Flintshire to render his accounts to the Exchequer there. The judges were appointed, sometimes for both counties, at others for each county separately. By the same statute the greater part of the district governed by Llewelyn was divided into the three counties of Anglesey, Carnarvon, and Merioneth, and it was to these counties that the name of “North Wales” was originally confined. Chester and North Wales were the oldest of the Welsh Judicial Circuits.

Subsequently, on the petition of the Welsh themselves, in the reign of the Tudor King, Henry VIII., Wales was incorporated with England, and the Lordships Marches were divided into shires, the counties of Denbigh and Montgomery being added to North Wales. Wales then for the first time sent representatives to the English Parliament, but it was not until the reign of his son, King Edward VI., that the County Palatine of Chester was given parliamentary representation. Professor Freeman has said:⁠—

“The Earldom of Hugh of Avranches stood alone in its greatness from the rest of the realm. How distinct Chester and Durham stood from the rest of the kingdom, is best shown by their having for so many ages (not until the reign of Edward VI.) no voice in the national Parliament. While Chester had its own courts and own baronage, knights and citizens from the all but independent state would have been as much out of place as knights and citizens from the Isle of Man or the Norman islands of the English Channel.”

About this time also, viz. in 1542, it was enacted that sessions for the administration of justice should be held twice in every year in each of the twelve shires of Wales, to be called “The King’s Great Sessions of Wales,” apparently to distinguish them from those of the Justices of the Peace, who were directed to be eight in number in each county, and to hold their sessions four times a year. For the business of the Great Sessions, Wales was divided into four districts, each independent of the rest, with its own judge and its own establishment of judicial officers. Anglesey, Carnarvon, and Merioneth continued as before under the Justice of North Wales, and formed the North Wales Circuit; while Denbigh and Montgomery were joined to Chester, to which, as before mentioned, Flint from its first creation had been attached. Each Circuit at first had a single judge, but in the reign of Elizabeth a second one was added. The judges were styled Justices, and within the limits of their Circuits they exercised all the powers of the Justices of King’s Bench and Common Pleas. They also had an equitable jurisdiction, but important equity cases were seldom brought before them, as the Court of Chancery was open to Welsh suitors, and it was only in matters of immediate urgency that the powers of the Great Sessions as a Court of Equity were found of use. In equity an appeal lay to the House of Lords, and in legal cases “error” could be brought in the King’s Bench. In the administration of criminal law, when cases of difficulty arose the opinion of the twelve Judges was obtained, in a similar way to that which was pursued in England. The process of the Courts could only be executed in the counties of the Circuit, and the want of further power to give effect to their orders outside their jurisdiction was one of their greatest disadvantages. But when final judgment had been obtained, a transcript of the record could be removed and execution issued from one of the Superior Courts. Each Circuit had its judicial seal. The use of seals was looked upon as a matter of paramount importance (as it is in many foreign Courts at the present time), and Henry VIII. himself is stated to have devised these seals. The original seal of Chester was used for Flint. Here we give an illustration from the last seal which was in use when the Chester Palatinate Court was dissolved. Another original seal for the shires of Denbigh and Montgomery was entrusted to the Steward and Chamberlain of Denbigh, and these two counties formed in some respects a distinct division of the Chester Circuit. Causes commenced in the Superior Courts could be sent down to Chester to be tried. The equitable jurisdiction at Chester belonged to the Chamberlain and not to the Justices. The Chamberlain’s Court is described as having been one of a very singular character, and to have administered a mixture of law and equity. The Vice-Chamberlain presided as the Judge, and the business, which is said to have been at one time considerable, appears latterly to have been small; but it is to be regretted that it was abolished and not retained, as in the adjoining County Palatine of Lancaster, as in these days it would have been of great use.

The Chief-Justiceship of Chester, being the most lucrative as well as the most important of the Welsh Judgeships, was looked upon as one of the great prizes of the profession, and was held by many distinguished men. When the Great Session came to an end the salary of the Chief Justice was £1630, and that of the second Justice £1250. An annual pension of £1015, 12s. was granted to Thomas Jervis (father of Sir John Jervis, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas), who was second Justice of Chester, by way of compensation for loss of his office. The Chief-Justiceship of Cheshire was vacant at the time. In Ormerod’s History of Chester, in the History of the Great Sessions of Wales, by Mr. W. R. Williams, and in the contribution to the History of the Courts of Great Session of Wales and of the Chester Circuit, by the late Chancellor Trevor Parkins, from which I have obtained a considerable amount of information, is given a list of judges and officers of these Courts from early days to their abolition in 1830. A very important person on every Circuit was the Attorney-General, who was appointed by the Crown, and possessed all the powers of the King’s Attorney-General. The principal officer on each Circuit was the Prothonotary, who attended on the Justices when they held their Courts, and discharged similar duties to those now performed by the Associate. He was appointed by the Crown, and was usually Clerk of the Crown also. The subordinate officers were a marshal, a registrar, and a crier, and these were appointed by the Chief Justice.

The Chamberlain of Chester or his Deputy was the Keeper of the original Seal of Chester and Flint. At Chester, where a considerable amount of business was transacted, there was a much larger bar than there was on the Welsh Circuits. The Northern Circuit was strongly represented there. John Williams, James Parke (afterwards Lord Wensleydale), Joseph Littledale, William Wightman, and Charles Crompton, all of whom became High Court Judges, were among the members of the Northern Circuit who practised at the Chester Assizes in the early years of the last century. David Francis Jones, for some time Recorder of Chester, better known as Sergeant Atcherley, and those eminent lawyers, John Horatio Lloyd and William Newland Welsby, Recorder of Chester, and long the leader of the present Chester and North Wales Circuit, were also members of the Chester Palatine Bar. Lord Kenyon and Chief Baron Richards, both of whom were afterwards Chief Justices of Chester, were among those who belonged to the Welsh Circuit.

We give an illustration of the old County Hall and of the Old Court of Exchequer at Chester Castle (where causes were heard), before they were taken down and the present classical buildings, the creation of a Chester architect, were erected at the close of the eighteenth century, taken from the Gentleman’s Magazine of June 1789. The Exchequer Court is said to have been the building in which the Norman Earls sat in Council.

Some years after the abolition of the Palatine Courts the records relating to them and to the County Palatine were examined, arranged, and ably reported upon by the late Mr. Black of the Public Record Office. Efforts were made to retain these records at Chester, where it was proposed that a branch of the Public Record Office should be established; but ultimately in the autumn of 1854 they were removed to London, first of all to the Tower, and afterwards to the Public Record Office in Chancery and Fetter Lanes.

I find in Appendix 11 of the Sixteenth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records the following:—“The records brought from Chester packed as closely as possible, filled four or five large boxes and 369 bags, about 100 of the latter being large five bushel bags. The weight was nearly 13 tons. They filled five of the largest London and North-Western Railway luggage vans.” These records are being gradually cleaned and classified. The reports and calendars relating to them, which have already been published, are extremely valuable and interesting, although they only touch the very fringe of the information contained in such an immense mass of documents. There are no more able or courteous public servants than those in the Record Office, but they cannot do impossibilities, and unless the staff is increased it will be ages before the public can be informed of the entire contents of these valuable Cheshire and Welsh records. We here give one of the entries on the Chester Recognisance Roll of the time of the Owen Glyndwr rebellion, as a sample of the entries contained in the Deputy-Keeper’s reports:—1403 September 4.—The Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen of the City of Chester are empowered and directed by Writ to “expel all Welsh from the City, both men and women, the same not to enter the City before sunrise or tarry in it after sunset, on pain of decapitation, nor presume to walk about armed, except with a knife to cut their dinner, nor to use any tavern or to hold meetings in the same, nor any three of the said Welsh to meet together within the Walls on pain of being sent to prison as rebels; and should any strangers, Welshmen, viz. from the County of Flint, or other parts of Wales, come to the said City, the same to leave their arms, &c., outside the gate by which they entered.”

Camden, in speaking of Cheshire, has said “this County ever surpassed the rest in producing nobility, nor is there any County in England that has anciently brought more Noblemen into the field or can boast a greater number of Knightly Families.”

“Cheshire Chief of Men” is an ancient Cheshire proverb, and is used by Michael Drayton in his Polyolbion.

We may summarise the history of the County Palatine of Chester thus:—On its foundation and during the reigns of the Norman Earls, it assumed the form of a semi-regal state. Afterwards, on the assumption of the Earldom by the eldest sons of the Kings of England, it became their most ancient appanage, and at first was maintained with all its regalities. Edward I. made Chester his headquarters during his Welsh wars, and resided in the city and neighbourhood more than any other sovereign or prince has done. Subsequently the powers of the Palatinate were gradually vested in the Crown, and finally abolished in the reign of Henry VIII., the administration of the law being all that was left of its ancient prerogatives. Finally, by the Act of 1830 this peculiar jurisdiction was also taken from it, and, as we have already seen, in 1854 all its records (the muniments of its former greatness) were removed to London.

All that remains is the name “County Palatine,” and the title it gives to the reigning monarch’s eldest son.

The Old Shire Hall, Chester.
(Now pulled down.)

THE ABBEYS OF CHESHIRE

By the Archdeacon of Chester

IT is more than possible that the title of this paper will provoke the question from our readers, “Where are they?” There are no beautiful and picturesque ruins like Fountains, or Tintern, or Glastonbury to be visited, and we are compelled to go back to the period of the Dissolution of the Monasteries to find out how the county was in previous ages served and helped by religious houses. When we do this we discover that Cheshire did not contain a large number; in short, that there were only four counties (those of Cumberland, Westmorland, Rutland, and Lancaster) and the two Welsh dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, which had fewer. If, however, we look at their value, Cheshire took a higher place, as ten counties, in addition to the four Welsh dioceses, were inferior to it in this respect. This was due to the richness of the Abbey of St. Werburgh at Chester, of which the possessions amounted to three-fifths of the whole. In fact, St. Werburgh’s, valued at £1003, was richer than Fountains (£998), nearly as rich as Ely (£1084), though considerably poorer than Reading (£1938) and St. Albans (£2102).

But when we remember the debt which we owe in the past to the monasteries, and how they kept alive in the dark ages both education and religion, we must admit that a volume like the present would be incomplete without some account of the Abbeys which were situated in the county, even though in some cases the name only remains. The title also excludes foundations like St. John’s, Chester, which was for secular canons, and another of a similar character at Bunbury. It might also reasonably take no count of the Hospital of Little St. John’s, Chester, though this is included in the list given by Dugdale, no doubt because it was connected with the Abbey of Birkenhead. On its site now stand the Blue Coat School and Almshouses founded by Bishop Stratford in 1700. The Abbeys mentioned by Dugdale are St. Werburgh, Chester, St. Mary’s Nunnery, Chester, and Birkenhead, which were Benedictine; Vale Royal and Combermere, which were Cistercian; and Norton, which belonged to the Augustinian Canons. There was also Stanlow, which was translated to Whalley, in Lancashire, A.D. 1294; and, for a very short period, a Cell of Augustinian Canons at Mobberley. It will be convenient to take them in the reverse order to that in which they are here given.

The small house at Mobberley was founded in 1206 by Patrick de Mobberley. He no doubt intended to establish a permanent institution, but it came to an end at his death, as he had only a life-interest in the estate with which he endowed it, and the fact of its having existed only remains as an interesting feature in the history of that parish.

Stanlaw, or Stanlow, was an Abbey of the Cistercian Order, and was built on a rocky eminence jutting out into the river Mersey where the river Gowy joins it. Some remains of the buildings still exist. Originally they were extensive and handsome. At the end of the thirteenth century the lands and buildings suffered severely from the encroachments of the sea and from fire, and the great body of the monks were transferred (not without protest from several quarters) to Whalley, in Lancashire, and only six left in charge of the church and buildings. The ruins are interesting, but are now more difficult of access, being cut off by the Manchester Ship Canal.

Norton Priory belonged to the Augustinian or Austin Canons. At the Dissolution it was purchased of the King by Richard Brooke, and the property still remains in that family. A mansion was built on its site, and the only relics of the monastery are to be found now in the basement or cellar, where an old doorway may be seen, which was no doubt part of the substructure of the religious house. It is worthy of note that the suppression of the monastery was stoutly resisted by the Abbot or Prior and his companions, who were taken prisoners. The house still bears the name of Norton Priory. In 1643 it was besieged by the Royalists, who were repulsed, owing to the sturdy defence which was offered by the eighty men who were sheltered in it.

Combermere Abbey is, again, only a name for the country residence belonging to the Cotton family, but now occupied by Katharine, Duchess of Westminster. The Abbey was Cistercian, but was apparently demolished when the present house was built, though some fancy that traces of the old work are to be seen in portions of the building. It was the second richest Abbey in Cheshire, though it did not reach in value one quarter of what St. Werburgh’s was assessed at. A cell of this Abbey was founded in 1153 at Pulford, near Chester, by Robert, the Earl of Chester’s baker, when his lord was a prisoner to King Stephen. The Earl on his release confirmed the foundation, and granted the monks a fishery in the Dee. In 1214 the cell was removed into Staffordshire on account of the frequent incursions of the Welsh.

Vale Royal was another Cistercian foundation. It had an interesting history, and it must be a matter of regret that no remains of the original building are left, unless traces of the refectory are to be seen in the south wing of the residence, now the seat of Lord Delamere. It was founded in 1277 by King Edward I., hence the title Vale Royal. Originally the monks had a temporary home at Darnhall, and it was not until 1330 that they were established at Vale Royal, where £32,000 had been spent upon the buildings. Their royal patron bestowed great privileges upon the monks, including the extensive right of advowry or protection of criminals, and the power of life and death in their manors of Darnhall, Over, and Weaverham. We learn from some records that have been left that the Abbots had a somewhat troubled experience, and that some of their number were decidedly warlike in their tastes.

We come now to consider the Benedictine houses which were situated in the county. Birkenhead was not large, and was for sixteen monks, and its value was only £93. As has been stated above, it had some connection with Chester, for the Hospital of St. John, outside the North Gate, was attached to it. Some remains of the Abbey are left which are interesting. The monks were sixteen in number, and the Abbey possessed the exclusive right of ferryage, and the name Monks’ Brow Ferry still survives. The ruins consist of the refectory and Prior’s apartment, and of the church. There is also a crypt with elegant groined roof, and the chapter-house, which was used as a chapel before the present church was built at the beginning of the last century. Washington Irving, in his Sketch Book, vol. i., writes: “As we sailed up the Mersey I saw the mouldering ruin of an Abbey overrun with ivy and the taper spire of a village church rising from the brow of a neighbouring hill;—all were characteristic of England.” The Hospital of St. John, Chester, was attached to the Priory, the mastership being granted to the Prior and his successors by Edward II. The chapel and hospital were destroyed during the civil wars.

St. Mary’s Nunnery, Chester, stood in the south-west corner of the city, and the name was retained in the title Nuns’ Gardens, and now in the newer title Nuns’ Road. Until 1840 some of the ruins existed on the site, but in that year they were removed, and an arch (which may have been part of the church) was taken to St. John’s Priory, the house where De Quincey once lived, and was subsequently erected in the Grosvenor Park, where it may now be seen. The arch appears to indicate a building of the thirteenth century. A plan in the British Museum of the date of Queen Elizabeth gives certain details of the buildings, and we learn from it that the dimensions of the church were 66 feet by 45 feet, of the cloisters 90 feet by 60 feet, and of the chapel (no doubt the Abbess’) 27 feet by 14 feet. We gather from other sources that the Abbess at the Dissolution was named Elizabeth Grosvenor, and that she retired on a pension of £20 a year; and that in 1553 thirteen nuns were still living and in receipt of pensions. In the Calendar of Patent Rolls is preserved a chartulary of the nunnery down to the year 1400. The foundation by Randulf Gernons, Earl of Chester, dates about the year 1150. The founder and his successors, Earl Hugh and Earl Randulf Blundeville, and many others, gave many and valuable gifts to the nunnery, which, besides manors and landed possessions, included the right to have one boat in the water of Chester, together with one net, and the privilege of free multure of their corn for the table at the Chester mills. Even more interesting than these various charters is a copy of the processional of the nuns, preserved in the collection of the Earl of Ellesmere, for it throws some light upon their services and on the extent of their buildings, for no fewer than twelve altars are mentioned by name. But perhaps the most interesting relic is to be found at the end of this manuscript in a charming carol, which has been rendered into modern notation by Professor J. C. Bridge, Mus. Doc., M.A., F.S.A., and which is occasionally sung in Chester Cathedral. There is thus a delightful connection between the present and the past.

Norman Doorway in Cloisters, Chester Cathedral.

We now come to St. Werburgh’s Abbey, preserved to us in the present Cathedral. Here, as at Gloucester, Bristol, and Peterborough, the foundation of a new See at the dissolution of the monasteries has had the effect of keeping for us the church of the monks, with some adjacent buildings, so that we are able to estimate in some degree what their Abbey was like. Here, too, in the stones of the edifice, with its varying styles of architecture, is written a history which is well worthy of careful consideration, and which brings before us many personages of note and importance. We have reason to believe that a religious house existed on the same spot in Saxon times, though no trace of such a building is visible; for in the year 875 the remains of St. Werburgh were brought to Chester from Hanbury, during an incursion of the Danes, and enshrined in a church said to have been dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul. She was the daughter of Wulfhere, King of Mercia, who, according to one authority, first built the Abbey in 660. She was a niece of St. Etheldreda, Abbess of Ely, whom she succeeded, and was herself head of establishments for nuns at Trentham, Hanbury, and elsewhere, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that her uncle Ethelred placed all the religious women in the kingdom of Mercia under her rule. It was probably from the date of the translation of her remains to the church in Chester that the dedication was changed to St. Werburgh. A century and a half later we are told that secular canons were established in a monastery of St. Werburgh and St. Oswald. The buildings were repaired and enlarged by Leofric, Earl of Chester, in 1057; but in 1093 the Abbey was reconstituted, the secular canons were banished, and a body of regulars of the Order of St. Benedict was introduced by Hugh Lupus, the Norman Earl of Chester. In this work he was assisted by his friend St. Anselm, then Abbot of Bec in Normandy, whom he had invited over for that purpose. The story is that Anselm hesitated to accept the invitation lest he should be placed in the vacant chair at Canterbury. Eventually he came, and was called to fill the primatial see. There can be no doubt that Anselm was responsible for the planning of the Norman Church of St. Werburgh, of which distinct traces are to be seen in the north wall of the edifice, the basement of a north-west tower (never finished), the north transept, and the large vaulted cellar or chamber on the west side of the cloisters. Though there are no remains of Norman cloisters left, there are plain indications that the cloister garth must have coincided with that which we have at the present day. It is a matter of considerable interest, then, to be able to associate the name of Anselm with the Abbey in Chester, and to know that he must have been anxious in some measure to reproduce in England the learning for which Bec had by that time become noted. His chaplain, Richard, became the first Abbot of the newly founded monastery; and even the material characteristics of his old home may be said to have been reproduced, of which evidence is found in the strange stone roof of the apse at the end of the south choir aisle. There was now established a body of regulars of the Benedictine Order, which was to find its home here for four hundred and fifty years. During that period the monks, as well as their buildings, went through many vicissitudes. In 1180 a destructive fire devastated the whole of the city, and no doubt as a consequence of this, in 1194, we find the seventh Abbot complaining that the church was in ruins. He was able to raise enough money wherewith to build the choir, and his successor appears to have completed the repairs, and even to have extended the buildings under the patronage and with the aid of Earl Randle, surnamed Blundeville. But troublous times again arose, and the Abbots had much difficulty in protecting both their property and their church. In 1265 Simon de Whitchurch became Abbot, and has left his mark behind him in the eastern bays of the nave and in the beautiful and elegant Lady Chapel, which is such an excellent specimen of Early English architecture. Here is to be seen some early vaulting on the roof, a feature not common in the building generally, as though provision was made by graceful shafts in the choir and elsewhere, it was only completed in the Lady Chapel and in the aisles of the choir, either from lack of funds or for some other reason. In the groining one of the bosses has a representation of the martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and as this must have been put up only a hundred years after his death, it shows how soon Becket attained a high position in the estimation of his countrymen. About the same time was erected the Chapter-house with its vestibule, an exquisite example of architecture as it developed from the Norman to Early English; and to the same date we may refer the refectory with its matchless reading pulpit. The latter building is unfortunately in a maimed condition, as one-third of it is roofless and has been separated from the rest, whilst the raising of the ground on the north side, and the erection there of some modern houses, quite destroys the original effect of the exterior. It would be a great and noble undertaking if this room could be carefully restored to its proper form and proportions. Subsequent Abbots were engaged in the completion of the choir, and in the fifteenth century Abbots Simon Ripley and Birchenshaw did much to extend and enlarge the fabric. One of the most striking features of the Abbey (now the Cathedral) is the south transept, which is almost as large as the nave. The north transept is quite small as designed by Anselm, and the south transept was no doubt originally of the same size. When the monks desired to extend their church by the addition of more chapels they could not build on the north side as their other buildings occupied that space. On the south they found a parish church, which they removed, building another church for the parishioners on an adjoining site. They then built the large south transept, in which were four altars in their respective chapels, the vaulting of only one being erected at the time. After about forty years the parishioners asserted their rights, and assumed occupation of the transept, which thereafter became the Parish Church of St. Oswald until 1880, when it was once more thrown into the main building, and the partition which had separated it was removed. Here the clerestory windows, as in the nave, are Late Perpendicular, but the tracery of the other windows gives us a good specimen of Decorated work. The interior was restored eight years ago as a worthy memorial of the late Duke of Westminster. The central tower was probably erected by these later builders, but its plainness and severity were removed when it was refaced and ornamented under the direction of Sir Gilbert Scott. The same Abbots commenced the building of a south-western tower, which was not, however, carried higher than the nave roof, the corresponding position on the north side being occupied by the base of Anselm’s Norman tower, which was incorporated in the Abbot’s lodgings. Before dismissing the exterior of the church, it should be noted that the Early English builders extended the Norman church eastwards, and added apsidal chapels to the aisles. These were removed in Perpendicular times, and a further extension of the aisles was made; but that on the south was taken down by Sir Gilbert Scott, and the Early English portion was restored.

Cloisters, Chester Cathedral.
(West Walk, showing one of the Monks’ Studies.)

Norman Chamber, Chester Cathedral Cloisters.
(Secundo Aula of the Abbey.)

We inherit from the monks in the interior of the church some most beautiful and elegant woodwork in the choir stalls, with their quaint and richly carved Misereres and the delicate tabernacle work with which they are crowned. There is probably no finer specimen in England, both in design and execution, and it is a matter of sincere congratulation that it has been preserved, especially when it is remembered that the position of the stalls has been changed more than once. The shrine of St. Werburgh, now placed at the west end of the Lady Chapel, is another treasure, and was designed in the fourteenth century to take the place of an earlier structure. It has had a varied history, the lower part having been used as the base of the Bishop’s throne for many years after the foundation of the See. It was adorned with forty figures, richly gilded, representing ancestors or relatives of St. Werburgh.

It should be noted that in monastic times the choir included one bay of the nave, an arrangement still to be seen in some of our cathedrals. One old fireplace is to be seen at the entrance to the north choir aisle, and this was, no doubt, used for heating the obley irons with which the wafers were prepared for the Blessed Sacrament.

Though many of the buildings of the monastery have been destroyed, sufficient are left to enable us, with the aid of a plan, made probably early in the seventeenth century, to recall the daily life of the monks. The cloisters are perfect in form, though the tracery of the windows has in some instances perished, whilst the glass has altogether vanished. On the south side, rebuilt recently, and on the south part of the west side, may be seen the carrels or places where the monks studied, two in each carrel, and hard by are the armaria or recesses where the books or manuscripts were kept. Close at hand is the seat where the librarian would have his position, ready to supply any book or material which might be wanted. At the south-west corner was the place where youths were instructed. The floor would be strewn with hay or straw, mixed with herbs, to afford some little warmth or protection to the silent monks as they wrote and studied. The silence would be broken now and again by the footsteps of those who were entering or leaving the church, where the offices were said; otherwise the place would be perfectly still save for the voice of the monk instructing his pupils. In this way would the everyday life of the religious be spent. On the north side was the refectory, where the meals were served, and even at such times, as a rule, there would not be ordinary conversation, but the monks would in order take their place in the beautiful and unique pulpit, and read out of some devotional or instructive book for the edification of the brethren. On the eastern side was the dormitory, reached by a staircase which still exists through the doorway in the north-eastern corner. On the north side, in the exterior wall of the refectory, graced by a beautiful Early English arcade, was the washing trough or lavatory, and we can imagine the monks, when they had descended each morning from the dormitory, performing here their simple ablutions. The water was conveyed in pipes from the neighbouring village of Christleton. On the west side was the great hall of the Abbot’s lodgings, and underneath it a vaulted chamber, which could be entered from the cloister, and might be used as an ambulatory or place for exercise when the weather was unpropitious. In the south-east was (and is) an ornamental doorway leading through the vestibule to the Chapter-house, where the brethren sat in conclave to consider matters affecting the welfare of the body. Eastwards of this was the infirmary, where the sick and aged were tended, but no remains of this building or others near it are now left. The style of architecture of the present cloisters is Late Perpendicular, and their date is fixed pretty accurately, for the arms of Cardinal Wolsey on one of the bosses show that he must have been Archbishop of York when they were erected. Similarly, we may add, the Cardinal’s arms are to be seen on the flat oak roof of the north transept, the only portion of the church where no provision was made for groining. Another boss in the cloisters bears the initials of Thomas Marshall, who was Abbot for a few months in 1529. But though the present cloisters are of this late date, there is little doubt that they are only the successors of earlier ones. In fact, the Early English decoration above the lavatory seems to indicate that cloisters in that style had existed, whilst the late Mr. Parker, in 1857, gave it as his opinion that “there was an early cloister even at the Norman period.” The cloister garth, in the plan to which reference has been made, is called “the sprise garden.” This is wrongly interpreted as “a corruption of Paradise or the Churchyard.” The enclosure was not meant to be used as a burying-place, though interments did take place in some of the cloister walks. But the title probably indicated that here were grown those aromatic shrubs which the monks would require for their fragrance or for medical purposes. Just outside the city walls, which bounded the monastic property on the east, was their vegetable garden, as is indicated by the title which the place still bears, “the Kale-yard.” Here the brethren would be able to engage in out-door operations, and to obtain that exercise which would be so necessary for the preservation of health. Other opportunities of service would be afforded within the enclosure, which was a fairly large one, for it contained “the brewhouse and storehouses, the great kiln and drying floors,” besides all the offices necessary for so large an establishment. It was entered through two gateways, the one for general use, the other for cartage and purposes of that kind. Both openings still remain, and are known by the name of “the Abbey Gateway” and “the little Abbey Gateway.” The superstructure of the former was unfortunately altered and modernised early in the nineteenth century, but the gateway itself, with its groined roof and finely-carved bosses, is well worthy of close inspection by the visitor. The gates have, of course, disappeared, but the larger arch for the admission of vehicles and the smaller doorway for pedestrians give us a clear indication of the way the entrance was used. The porter’s lodge was on the southern side, and you can still see traces of the doorway of it and of the window through which the porter would make his observations. It was before this gateway that the Chester Mystery Plays were first represented before they were taken round the city, and thus had ecclesiastical as well as civic patronage and support. Before this gateway, too, was held a fair or market, about which certain disputes arose between the monks and the citizens which were finally settled in 1488.

Doorway in Cloisters, Chester Cathedral.

Of the Abbot’s dwelling, converted at the Dissolution and foundation of the See of Chester into the Bishop’s Palace, some few but interesting remains are still extant. For instance, the basement of the projected north-west Norman tower was, according to the plan in the British Museum, the wine cellar. It was reached by a spiral staircase from the room above, which was probably the Abbot’s private apartment, and became the Bishop’s study, obtaining its light from a fan-light in the ceiling. On the north of this was the Abbot’s chapel, which was a Norman building, and entered from his room by a fine doorway. This again was used by the Bishop, and in Bishop Bridgman’s time had a Jacobean chancel added to it. The chapel is in a somewhat dilapidated condition, and is approached from the church by the above-mentioned staircase. “The wine cellar” and the room above have been thrown into the Cathedral, and now form the baptistery, and in it is a beautiful fifth-century font of Italian origin, which was given by the late Earl Egerton of Tatton in 1885. From “the wine cellar” a square-headed doorway, now filled up, led into “the pantry,” and beyond this was “the strong-beer cellar.” It is possible that the names given to these apartments simply indicate the purpose to which they were put when the Bishop’s Palace was here, and that they have no reference to the use made of them in monastic times. But they were, at any rate, part of the Abbey buildings. “The strong-beer cellar,” with its graceful columns and vaulted roof, has been restored by the Dean and Chapter, and is now known as “the vaulted chamber,” and is most useful for lectures and meetings. The Abbot probably, like the Bishop, was able to come down into the church without going into the open air; at any rate, the latter could do this.

The Abbey had certain small houses or dependencies in the neighbourhood. To such houses the title Grange was often applied, and Saighton Grange, the residence of the Right Honourable George Wyndham and Countess Grosvenor, was such an appanage of St. Werburgh’s Abbey. The present building was only a portion, probably the gateway, of the original structure. At Ince was another, and here again some interesting remains are to be seen, though they have been converted into cottages and for agricultural uses. A small number of monks no doubt always resided at such places, and generally had charge of the services in the church. The other brethren might seek change of scene and air by occasional visits. The Granges would also be necessary for the storage of the crops, which could not be carried into the city, and at Ince the large barn used for this purpose is still to be seen. When we remember the frequently unsettled state of the country, especially on the Welsh borders, we are not surprised to learn that in 1499 permission was given to the Abbot to fortify the Granges at Ince, Saighton, and Sutton, so that protection might be afforded to the residents and to the movable property of which they were custodians. Both at Ince and Saighton we may see traces of the work which was then undertaken.

The Abbey of St. Werburgh cannot claim amongst her sons men of such distinction as the Venerable Bede, the monk of Jarrow; but Ralph Higden, a lay brother, who died in 1363, may be mentioned as a writer of some distinction. He was the author of Polychronicon, a record of events from the Creation to his own time. It is in seven books, and compiled from various authorities, and, though not free from inaccuracies, is a surprising work considering the age in which it was written. Bishop Creighton says that the work enjoyed unexampled popularity, and was schemed with a completeness never known before. It stands out as a memorial of the patient study and research which often characterised the lives of the dwellers in our monasteries, and may thus help us to realise how much we owe to their labours in the preservation of our history and literature. Higden’s tomb may still be seen in the south choir aisle.

From what has been already said, it will readily be admitted that we owe a deep debt to those monks of old for the loving care and artistic skill which they lavished on the Houses of God, and for the patient labour whereby they preserved for future ages our literature, both ecclesiastical and secular. The services, too, in many a parish were maintained by them, and it is hardly too much to say that the lamp of religion would have been utterly darkened in many a place, if it had not been kept alight by the teaching and preaching of those who had their home in the monasteries. Nor must we forget, what has already been hinted at, that the monks were virtually the only—at any rate the chief—instructors of the youth of the country, and thus did much for the education and elevation of the people. They, too, were the principal almoners of the poor, who must have suffered acutely when the monasteries were suppressed. In all these different ways there is no reason to doubt that the Abbeys of Cheshire (and especially the comparatively wealthy one of St. Werburgh’s) did their part and share for the benefit of those around them, and, like similar institutions elsewhere, did much to inspire and preserve a high and noble ideal of Christian life. This is not the occasion or the place to discuss fully the great question of the suppression of the monasteries, or the motives of those who were responsible for it, and the means which they adopted for the purpose. But the candid student of history, unless he be very bigoted, cannot but admit that the measure was characterised by some very questionable acts, and marked by deeds which cannot be defended. The reformation of the religious houses—or of such as needed such treatment—could probably have effected all that was necessary, and have been more beneficial to the country at large. The monasteries might have adapted themselves to the changed circumstances and to the growing needs of the age. At any rate there need not have been that terrible and needless waste shown in the wanton destruction of countless treasures of art and learning, whereby opportunities for the improvement of man were deliberately thrown away. Not to mention the reliquaries and church plate, which were unscrupulously seized and desecrated, books and manuscripts of priceless value were destroyed, painted windows broken, hospitals and schools closed, buildings unroofed, and suffered to fall into ruin, and to become a mere quarry for the neighbourhood. In these various ways no doubt Cheshire suffered much like the rest of England; but the preservation of the Abbey of St. Werburgh as the future Cathedral of the newly founded See of Chester, rendered the loss much less than it would otherwise have been. Still it was sufficiently great, though it is not possible now fully to estimate it. All that was left to the Church from the Dissolution of the monasteries were the six poorly-endowed bishoprics, Westminster, Oxford, Chester, Gloucester, Bristol, and Peterborough, and of these Westminster was appropriated by the Crown in 1550.

Though not strictly comprised in the title of this paper, perhaps mention ought to be made of the other religious houses which were under the friars. Of these there were three in the city of Chester, all in one quarter, the record of the fact being still preserved in the names of three streets, Whitefriars, Blackfriars, and Greyfriars. These represent respectively the three orders, the Carmelites, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans. The only remains of these establishments are to be found in certain walls, which, if not the actual boundary walls, have been evidently erected with stones from the buildings. Whitefriars possessed a church with a steeple, erected in 1496, “of great height and beauty.” An old annalist records that “in 1597 the Whitefreeres Steeple, curiously wrought, was taken downe, and a faire house built there by Sir Thomas Egerton, Knight, Lord-keeper: a great pitie that the steeple was put away, being a great ornament to the citie. This curious spire steeple might still have stood for grace to the city, had not private benefit, the devourer of antiquitie, pulled it down with the church, and erected a house for more commodity, which since hath been of little use, so that the city hath lost so goodly an ornament that tymes hereafter may more talk of it, being the only sea-mark for direction over the bar of Chester.” The quotation (which is from Harleian MS. No. 2125) is not without interest, especially in its condemnation of the destruction of historical buildings for merely utilitarian purposes. At the Dissolution the Whitefriars had a prior, sub-prior, and eight brethren. The other houses were no doubt also small, and, of course, in accordance with their tenets, there was little or no property beyond the buildings which constituted their home. The retention of the names in the streets mentioned above may occasionally induce thinking men to consider what we owe to the friars. If the monk withdrew from the world, the friar plunged into its busiest haunts. The one used the weapon of prayer and intercession, the other went as a missionary among men. The one kept alive the lamp of learning, and wrote or preserved for future generations literature which otherwise would have been lacking. The other brought the influence of religion into the daily common life of mankind. To both we of the present day owe a debt of gratitude; and our consideration of the Abbeys of Cheshire ought not to be limited to recalling the nature and number of the fabrics, without some thought of the labour of those who inhabited them, and of the heritage which they have passed on to us.

It ought to be mentioned that when the See of Chester was founded, the dedication of the church was altered, and the Abbey of St. Werburgh was constituted the cathedral church of the diocese by the name of “The Cathedral Church of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary in Chester.” We may regret the change, though there is still one church in the diocese dedicated to the daughter of Wulfhere, that of St. Werburgh, Warburton (or Werburgh town).

CHESHIRE CASTLES

By the Archdeacon of Chester

CONSIDERING that Cheshire lies on the border of Wales, and bearing in mind the frequent incursions made in early days by the inhabitants of the Principality, we should expect to find in the county, or, at any rate, in the portion opposed to these attacks, many fortified buildings or castles. Such, however, is not the case. There are few examples of ancient castles to attract the attention of the resident or the traveller, and we have nothing approaching in size or interest the magnificent pile of Warwick. That the borderland was guarded and protected by numerous fortifications is quite true, but, as will be seen, most of these have disappeared entirely, leaving behind them only the name, with little or no traces above ground of the buildings which once were there, and which played no unimportant part in the history, not of the county only, but of the nation. It may be well to look at these, with special reference to their origin and purpose as works of defence.

Looking, then, at that part of Cheshire which is adjacent to Wales, we shall find that a close and strong line of forts was established in very early days. The estuary of the Dee formed a sufficient protection in itself for the Wirral until Shotwick was reached, and as this place at one time was not only a port of departure for Ireland, but also afforded a landing for a crossing from Flintshire, it was natural that it should be selected as a site of a castle. Then, following the course of the Dee upwards, we have first, as was to be expected, a strong castle at Chester, which also had the protection of its ancient walls. Above the city, and on the other side of the river, there were castles of varying size and construction at Dodleston, Aldford, Pulford, Shocklach, Malpas, and Oldcastle. A second and inner line of defence would be furnished by castles at Beeston, Maiden Castle on the Broxton Hills, Newhall in Audlem parish, and Nantwich; whilst a third line, and one protecting attacks from the Mersey and its tributary the Weaver, included Runcorn, Halton, and Rocksavage, Frodsham and Northwich, with Thelwall and Dunham Massey higher up still. It must not be supposed, however, that all these date from the same period, or could always be used at one and the same time to resist attacks. They are mentioned thus as showing their disposition over the county.

Old Shotwick Castle.
(Now destroyed.)

It will readily be understood that around these different spots, events of great interest and of lasting consequence have centred, and that they have witnessed many things which, if they could now be rescued from oblivion, would add points of supreme importance to the memorials of Old Cheshire. We can only here give very slight indications of their history, but even these may not be without some result, especially if it leads people to make further inquiries and investigations for themselves. It may be well first to give some information as to those which have entirely disappeared, and then to turn to those which are still in evidence by the remains which exist. Shotwick must, from its situation, already indicated, have been a position of considerable importance. Although portions of it were standing in Leland’s time, nothing but the mounds which mark its site are to be seen. Its walls have all disappeared, though the ruins remained in 1622, and, according to Lysons, “the stones were carried way to repair roads within the memory of man”! It received several royal visitors. Henry II. is said to have lodged here on his way to and from Ireland, and King Edward I. was here in 1278. A plan and sketch of the castle are in the British Museum in the Harleian MSS., from which it appears that it was pentagonal in form, with several circular towers enclosing a lofty square one. Of Dodleston, Aldford, and Pulford nothing but the sites remain, though in the two former the earthworks, which include about an acre in each case, are visible. The same may be said of Shocklach, which was said to have been burnt by the Welsh in 1121. This occupied a moated site near Castleton Bridge (deriving its name from the castle), adjoining a small stream. Hanshall gives rough sketch-plans of all these, and tells us that at Shocklach the keep was 22 feet in height. It is more remarkable that we have no remains left of Malpas, though the site of the keep is seen near the church, for here one of Hugh Lupus’s Barons had his seat, and we might have imagined that some portion of the building would have been preserved. Oldcastle, again, is a name only. This also is in Malpas parish. The castle is said to have been burnt by the Welsh at the same time that Shocklach was destroyed. In 1565 not a vestige of its walls remained. On Oldcastle Heath the Royalist forces were defeated in 1644.

Nantwich Castle was in ruins before the reign of Henry VII., when the stones were removed and made use of for the purpose of enlarging the south transept of the church, which was called Kingsley’s aisle. Newhall was in the parish of Audlem and not far from Nantwich, and was also destroyed by the Welsh, probably at the same time as Shocklach and Oldcastle. Leland, in his Itinerary, speaks of “Newhaull Tower, where there be motes and fair water.” Maiden Castle was an old British fortification on the Broxton Hills, and defended the pass between Bickerton Hill and Raw Head. It commanded a most extensive and magnificent prospect. On the south-west side it was protected by a precipice, whilst on the other side the earthworks formed a perfect semi-circle, and outside this was a ditch 15 yards wide. The only entrance was on the north side. The site is now covered by heather. There was probably no building of any kind, the fortification being composed entirely of mounds of earth. At Runcorn, according to the chronicler Higden, a castle was founded in 915 by Ethelfleda, but of this no remains are preserved. The rock on which it stood was called the Castle Rock, and had evidently been used for purposes of defence. A description derived from a resident was given in Hanshall’s Cheshire, with a sketch of the Castle Rock and the supposed plan of the castle. Its position at what is called Runcorn Gap was evidently a strong one. A little later, that is in 920, Edward the Elder built a tower and castle “at Thelwall,” so called, says Leycester, “from the stakes and stumps cut from the trees, wherewith it was environed about as a wall; and King Edward made it a garrison.” Nothing is now left to indicate its position. On the Overton Hills at Frodsham, again, was a castle, where it is supposed that Randle Blundeville, Earl of Chester, resided in the early part of the thirteenth century, several of the charters granted by him being signed at that place. In 1654 the castle, which had probably been built on the foundations of the earlier building, was completely destroyed, the dead body of the owner, Earl Rivers, being discovered in the ruins. It is said that the building was of stone, with walls of immense thickness, and in the Norman style of architecture. A view of some small remains is to be found in Buck’s Antiquities in 1727. At Northwich, we learn from the Harleian MSS., there was “a very stronge castell on the top of a verie high hill.” Here again the name only is left behind, that portion of the town where it was situated being now called Castle Northwich, as it was once known as Castleton. From old documents we gather that there was an old castle at Dunham Massey before the present residence was built there: for Walter of Coventry records that “Haimo de Masci held the castles of Dunham and of Ullerwell.” In the description given by Dr. Ormerod of the modern house in imitation of Italian architecture, we are told that “it stood within gardens laid out in the stiff taste of the time, and surrounded by an ample moat, in the angle of which is a large circular mound with a modern summer-house on the top of it.” It has been suggested that, from its form and situation, the mound was “the last relic of Haimo’s Castle, and, like similar mounds in the other castles of Cheshire, the site of the Norman keep.”

We come now to consider the castles of which we have some remains. Rocksavage Castle is not one of the ancient ones, for it was built by Sir John Savage, who died in 1597. It cannot therefore claim anything like the interest which attaches to the others. It was, in fact, a mansion rather than a fortress, just as we have the title given to other seats in the county, as Bolesworth Castle and Cholmondeley Castle. It occupied, however, a striking position, and it is to be regretted that so little of it now remains. It has been converted to agricultural purposes, and the stones have doubtless been used in the construction of other useful buildings. What was in 1640 described as a magnificent fabric is now a shapeless ruin, with no trace of its former glories. And glories it had, for in 1607 James I. and his train were entertained here, and his Majesty killed a buck in Halton Park. The property descended through the female line to the Marquis of Cholmondeley, and gives the title to the eldest son, who is called Earl Rocksavage.

Close to Rocksavage is Halton, which stands in an even more commanding position, its very name being said to imply as much, as meaning a town on a hill. The castle was probably built soon after the Conquest, as the barony was given by Lupus, the second Earl of Chester, to his cousin Nigel. Notwithstanding its situation, which rendered it a strong and important military post, no great historical event can be associated with it. The neighbourhood was indeed much infested with gangs of robbers at an early period, and in the reign of Edward II. these freebooters became so bold as actually to steal armour from the castle itself.[4] Piers Plowman has the following as a proverb locally allusive:⁠—

“Thoro the pas of Haulton

Poverte might pass whith oute peril of robbinge.”

[4] From Hanshall’s Cheshire.

In the Civil Wars the castle was occasionally occupied by both parties, and in August 1644 the Parliamentary forces were in possession. Subsequently it became a prison for debtors for the honour of Halton. But though no account has come down to us of the castle having ever sustained a siege, it has interest for us from its connection with royalty. “Old John of Gaunt, time-honoured Lancaster,” was Baron of Halton, and when his son, Henry Bolingbroke, became King, the barony passed to the Crown. The King has the title of Baron of Halton as well as that of Duke of Lancaster. Three halmote courts were held here yearly, and one is still held annually of which an account is given in another paper in this volume. There are now few remains of the ancient buildings. The Survey in Cromwell’s time describes them as being very ruinous. The gate-house has been altered or rebuilt and is now the Castle Inn, and is a picturesque building, and contains a room where the courts for the honour are held. The honour had jurisdiction over thirty-seven townships in Cheshire and over several in Lancashire. The records of this court are preserved, and give interesting information, whilst a paper read in 1858 by the late Mr. William Beamont of Warrington before the Chester Archæological Society contained many particulars as to the castle and its owners and its history.

Beeston Castle.

Beeston Castle affords a most striking object to the traveller as he journeys from Chester to Crewe. It stands on a rocky insulated hill, rising in a regular and steep slope which terminates in a precipice. It was built by Ralph Blundeville, sixth Earl of Chester, “after he was come from the Holie Land,” and is of irregular form, with a wall and eight round towers after the style introduced by the Crusaders. The upper ward occupies something less than an acre. The outer court includes a considerable space of ground, and is of an irregular shape, with several round towers. The keep is surrounded with a deep ditch, cut in the solid rock. The entrance was defended by two circular towers, still remaining, and the moat was crossed by a drawbridge. The approach under the gateway is very narrow, by rugged steps cut out of the natural rock. In the inner court is the draw-well, perfect, but now quite dry. It was emptied by directions of the late Lord Tollemache, and found to be 366 feet in depth. It contained nothing but rubbish, although stories were current of valuable treasures which had in bygone times been hidden there. The position of the castle is remarkable, and very similar to that of Edinburgh Castle, though the plateau there is much more extensive. The precipitous rocks on three sides seem to render it impregnable, but these cliffs were climbed by Captain Sandford, a devoted Royalist, with eight of his firelocks, on December 13, 1643. The castle bore its part in the Barons’ War. In 1237 Henry III., before possessing himself of the Earldom of Chester on the death of John Scot, the last of the local Earls, seized on the castle, together with that of Chester, and placed it in the hands of Commissioners. In 1256 Prince Edward inspected the fortress, and put it and the Castles of Chester, Dissard, Schotewyke, and Vaenor in the charge of Fulco de Orreby, Justice of Chester. In 1264 the partisans of Simon de Montfort took possession of it, but in the following year it was recovered for the royal Earl. In 1399 King Richard III., just before he was dethroned, made it the repository of his treasure, which was subsequently transferred to Chester; but on Bolingbroke’s advance it was abandoned by him. In 1406 the castle was given to the Duke of York. Eighty years later Leland describes the fortress as being in a state of ruin, and so it remained until the Civil Wars, when it was put in a state of defence by a party of three hundred Roundheads in February 1642. From this time, until it was dismantled after the siege of Chester, it had many vicissitudes, falling into the hands of one party or the other, as is set forth in another paper in this volume. A contemporary writer gives the following description of its final surrender to the Parliamentarians on 16th November 1645: “After having sustained a siege of eighteen weeks, the garrison of fifty-six soldiers was driven to the greatest extremity, and had to surrender. Neither meat nor drink was found in the castle, but only a piece of turkey pie, and a live peacock and peahen.” Sir William Brereton magnanimously made a treaty with the brave Royalist Governor of the castle, “that he and his men should be allowed to march from the castle with their arms, colours flying and drums beating, with two cartloads of goods, and be conducted with a convoy to guard them to Flint Castle. Twenty of the soldiers laid down their arms and craved liberty to go to their own homes, which was granted.” Such an incident as this must awaken many memories as we gaze upon this ancient fortress. Now it rises up on its rocky promontory out of a fertile and grassy plain, presenting in its ruined walls a striking contrast to the scene below. A recent writer has said of it: “Excepting Warwick Castle there is perhaps no more interesting relic of feudal power in England than we behold in this famous and far-seen ruin.”

Old Gateway, Chester Castle.
(Now pulled down.)

We come last of all to the Castle of Chester. It is almost certain that the site occupied by it was outside the walls of the original Roman city, and may have been included in them either by later Roman builders, or when the city was repaired, enlarged, and beautified by that great builder, Ethelfleda, the daughter of King Alfred, in 907. At any rate the erection of the first Castle of Chester may safely be attributed to her. Though no trace of the work exists in Saxon masonry, it is fairly certain that the inner or upper bailey stands upon the earthworks thrown up by her, whilst the line of ditch that belonged to the mound on which the flag-tower stood may still be discerned. In 1894 the late Mr. E. W. Cox was permitted by the commanding officer to make a minute examination of the modern buildings on the west side of the court. He satisfied himself that the lower storey of the flag-tower still existed enclosed within modern work, and that this was indeed the base of the Norman keep. This is the only evidence of Norman masonry having been erected on the site, and Mr. Cox formed the opinion that any other work of that period may have been of timber, often used by those early builders, as proved at Montgomery, Shrewsbury, Deganwy, and other places. We come now to the mediæval work, of which we have a portion preserved to us in the Julian Tower, beside the walls on the south and west. This tower is of three storeys, each room being vaulted in stone, the centre one having been the chapel. This is about 16 feet high, and the groins spring from slender pillars with capitals in the style of the thirteenth century. James II. heard Mass in this chapel on 27th August 1687. The building has for some time been used for storage. Some years ago traces of sacred paintings were found on the walls, but they have now entirely disappeared. A plan and sketch of the castle, made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, is in the British Museum. This gives us in the lower court the noble hall called Hugh Lupus’ Hall, which was taken down about the year 1790. It was 90 feet long by 45 in breadth, and the roof was supported by woodwork carved in a bold style and resting on brackets. Adjoining this was the Exchequer, said to have been the Parliament House of the Earls of Chester. All these and the other buildings were swept away, and their place taken by the Assize Courts and County Buildings in the Grecian style of architecture. On either side of the square are now the quarters for the soldiers, a depôt of the Cheshire Regiment being quartered here. The County Prison, erected at the same time on the ground below between the castle and the river, has been removed. Although the remains of the old castle are so slight, we are able from early drawings and prints to gather what it was like, and can thus form some idea of the loss, from a picturesque point of view at any rate, which the city sustained when it was deemed necessary to erect the present buildings.

But although the ancient buildings have gone, we may still call to mind some of the many historic scenes which have been enacted on the spot. We may picture to ourselves the warrior princess Ethelfleda, Alfred’s daughter, resolved that Waste Chester should be a waste Chester no longer, raising up from the old ruinous heaps new fortifications, and enclosing within them a wider area, and erecting here within the re-arranged walls the earliest fort or castle. We can recall the stirring times of the Norman Earls, when the castle, much strengthened from the simple fort of Ethelfleda’s time, was a valuable bulwark and rallying-point, especially in the frequent inroads of the Welsh. Here, too, Henry II. must have spent some time, when he was putting the Flintshire castles in order, before he set sail for Ireland from Shotwick. King John was in Chester, and presumably at the castle, in 1212, and left the city “an outlaw to all Christendom,” to fight his rebellious barons. Chester and its castle played a prominent part in the stirring times that followed, and could tell of visits paid by Henry III. and Simon Montfort and others. Henry took over the earldom, the succession of the Norman earls having failed, which ever since has been a royal appanage. Edward I., first as Prince and afterwards as King, was here again and again; and with his Queen Eleanor attended a service of thanksgiving for his subjugation of Wales on May 26, 1293. In 1301 the castle was the scene of a grand ceremony, when the formal homage of the freeholders of Wales was paid to Prince Edward of Carnarvon, who was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester at the famous Parliament of Lincoln. Richard II. was here in 1394 on his way to Ireland, and again in 1396 when he granted Charter 22, and in the following year was a prisoner, and was lodged in the donjon in the tower over the great outer gateway of the castle opposite Gloverstone, before he signed his abdication. It would, however, be impossible in the space at our disposal to give a list, much less an account, of all the royal visits paid to this historic place, or a description of the notable events which have transpired here. The castle opened its gates to receive both Henry VI. and Henry VII. and their Queens; whilst of the Stuarts, James I., Charles I., and James II. in their turn came to the place, and some of these visits were historical. Our late Queen, whose statue, erected as a memorial of her Jubilee, adorns the Castle Square, passed its entrance in October 1832, when she accompanied her mother the Duchess of Kent, and as Princess Victoria opened the new Grosvenor Bridge over the Dee.

Then, the Shire Hall, within the castle enclosure, was the place where the Parliament of the Principality met, and we can imagine the proceedings which went on there, when the affairs of the county were discussed and managed. For we must remember that it was only in the reign of Henry VIII., in 1543, that the county received summons to send two knights and the city two citizens to Parliament. Until that time the county was an independent jurisdiction. His predecessor, Henry VII., had separated the City from the county, under the title of “The County and City of Chester,” so that the city is a county in itself. Curiously enough, the castle is not in the city but in the county; and some amusement might be caused by a statement of the difficulties which have sometimes arisen through conflicting police jurisdiction. Chester Castle, then, though but little is left of its ancient buildings, may awaken memories in the minds of the men of Cheshire and of England generally. They may acknowledge that it has witnessed many stirring scenes, and that it has taken its share in the defence of our country, and in that long line of memorable events which have made England what she is, and her children proud of bearing the name of Englishmen.

THE TIMBER-FRAMED CHURCHES OF CHESHIRE

By the Rev. Dr. Cox, LL.D., F.S.A.

ALTHOUGH in any survey of timber-work in the old churches of England, Essex in one sense stands out clearly first in the number and importance of the fabrics wherein wood is more or less freely used, in another sense Cheshire, so justly celebrated for the beauty and frequency of its half-timbered houses, both small and great, has a claim to the first position. One or two other counties can point to a single old church or chapel almost entirely of timber framing, but Cheshire is the only county which still possesses several.

By far the best known example of such Cheshire churches is that of Nether or Lower Peover, which was formerly a chapel of the large parish of Great Budworth. It was probably always a timber building, as it still remains, save for a substantial western tower of stone which dates from Elizabethan days. There was certainly a chapel there prior to 1269, for in that year it was agreed between the prior and convent of Norton (who held the church of Budworth and lands in Peover) and Richard Grosvenor and other parishioners of Nether Peover, that the priory should find them a secular chaplain to say mass in their chapel every Sunday and Wednesday throughout the year, and on Christmas Day and all the leading festivals, as well as on St. Oswald’s Day, in whose honour the chapel had been founded. The parishioners were also to have liberty of baptism in their chapel, provided they could obtain leave from the mother church of Budworth. The parishioners were to find books, vestments, vessels, and other ornaments of the church at their own cost. Baptismal rights for this parochial chapelry were not, however, gained until the year 1331, when Bishop Roger de Norbury granted to the inhabitants of the hamlet of Peover the use of a font (Lichfield Diocesan Registers, ii. f. 25).

In the original edition of Ormerod’s Cheshire (1819) it is stated that it appears from the register book of Peover that the tower was built of stone in 1582, “John Bowden being then master of the work.” It is added that “the two out-isles on either side of the chappel have been enlarged by the parishioners in late ages.”

The present church is usually spoken of as the best example of a timber church now extant; but this is scarcely the case, for it underwent a vigorous restoration, accompanied by a considerable rebuilding of the outer walls, at the hands of Mr. Salvin in 1851–52. An account of this building, written shortly before the restoration, states that “The church is divided from the side aisles by four wooden arches on each side, formed by rude beams of wood springing from wooden pillars, from which, again, spring other spars, forming an obtuse arch over the nave. The principal part of the exterior is formed of timber and plaster, which presents a most picturesque appearance.” Although the substantial timber framing, stained black, with the filling-up of white plaster, is almost entirely new, Mr. Salvin found the inner arcade work, just described, for the most part sound, and little more was done to it than the clearing away of several coats of whitewash. In an interesting account of the unrestored church by Rev. W. H. Massie, written about 1850, which appeared in the first volume of the Cheshire Archæological and Historical Society, it is stated that the mouldings of some of the window mullions, and more especially the ogee heads of doorways, pointed unmistakably to the erection of the timber church, as it then stood, in the fourteenth century.

The restoration under Mr. Salvin included the removal of a western gallery and certain eighteenth-century sash windows and brick walling on the south side. Prior, too, to this restoration, the church was roofed with a flat debased ceiling covering the whole of the area. This ceiling was removed, and the church was again supplied with three high-pitched, gabled, and open roofs, of the original existence of which there was abundant evidence. The eastern ends of the aisles form chapels, known of old as the Hulme and Holford Chapels, and appropriated to the families of Shakerley of Hulme and Brooke of Mere. Both chapels are separated from the chancel and from the rest of the aisles by massive parclose screens of early Jacobean date.

Marton Church.

Notwithstanding two somewhat severe restorations during the Victorian period, the church of Marton, which stands out prominently close to the roadside, with its somewhat imposing tower and spire, is certainly the most notable of the extant timber churches of Cheshire. In this case the exact date of much of the present fabric is known. The chapel of St. Paul’s at Marton (for it remained a chapel of the widespread parish of Prestbury until comparatively modern days) was founded by Sir John Davenport in the year 1343. He endowed it with 60 acres of land, and the chaplain was to celebrate masses for himself, his ancestors, and his posterity. When Randle Holme visited this church in 1597, he noted that “In the Chapell yard lyeth there two monuments (of which rough drawings were given); it is said by ancient people that they were Sir John Davenport and Vivian, his son, who founded the chapell of Merton, 17 Edward III., and they lie buried there, obiit 31 Edward III., 1357.” These monuments, or rather stone effigies, have rested under the tower since 1871. They are both much more mutilated, through their long sojourn in the churchyard, than they were in Randle Holme’s days. It is said, though scarcely credible, that they were ejected from the church by ignorant Elizabethan Puritans under the supposition that the two knights were popish images! The one on the north side, said to be Sir John Davenport, has lost both legs, but the feet rest on a lion; the head rests on a great helm crested with a man’s head couped. The figure on the south side is very similar; one leg is missing. Both of them are undoubtedly of fourteenth-century date.

The church underwent some repairs in 1804, when the old roof was taken off and lowered. In 1850 there was a considerable and unhappy restoration, when the old two-light wooden-framed traceried windows of fourteenth-century date (one of them is drawn or described in Mr. Massie’s paper just cited) were removed and plainer three-light windows substituted. A yet more considerable restoration took place, under Mr. Butterfield, in 1871, when the old north door was closed, the south porch rebuilt, and much new work introduced into the outer woodwork of the tower. Fortunately Mr. Massie’s paper on the timber churches of the county is illustrated by drawings of the exterior and interior of Marton church, as well as of the inner timber framework of the tower, taken before Mr. Derrick, the architect of 1850–51, had begun his doubtless well-intentioned but sadly destructive work. From these it can be gathered that at that time the body of the fabric was much the same as when originally built by Sir John Davenport.

The substantial pointed wooden entrance on the west side of the tower basement, as well as the doorway within the south porch, appears to be fourteenth century. In the interior there are two substantial oak pillars on each side of the nave supporting arcades of three arches. These pillars are octagonal, with projecting moulded capitals, and from these capitals spring timbers forming an arch across the nave, as at Nether Peover. The dimensions of the nave are 37 ft. 9 in. in length, with a complete width of 33 ft. The church evidently underwent considerable alteration and improvement in the fifteenth century, at which time a substantial wooden tower was added at the west end, surmounted by a broached spire. The massive timber framework to support the belfry and spire is carried out after the same fashion as the best of the wooden towers of Essex. It has a projecting course of buttressing timbers to the lower stage, which is covered with lean-to roofs. The interior measurements of the ground-plan of the tower are 23 ft. 9 in. north and south by 17 ft. 1 in. east and west. The outer uprights of the framework of this lower stage have an effective quatrefoil pattern at the head of each division just below the eaves. The last restoration was done on somewhat meagre lines, for several of these quatrefoils and other parts of the outer timbers are of black-painted deal. The roofing of this part is in stone slates, and the octagonal spire is shingled.

At the time of the restoration of the church in 1871, the chancel, which had been rebuilt in brick about 1800, was restored externally in woodwork. The whole of the outer black-and-white framework of the church now consists of uprights of timber, at a short distance apart, banded together by a horizontal transom, the intervals being filled up with plaster.

The pulpit seems to date from about 1625. The font is remarkable, consisting of a square leaden bowl or basin, enclosed in a square frame of oak. We suppose that this extraordinary font (which has more than once been ignorantly added to the list of old lead fonts) can only date from the restoration of 1871, for Sir Stephen Glynne’s notes of 1853 name the font as “a plain octagonal bowl.” There is a plain oak chest, 5 ft. 8 in. long by 1 ft. 9 in. broad and 1 ft. 10 in. high, with three hinges and three square lock plates; its date is circa 1550. At the west end are two eighteenth-century pictures of Moses and Aaron, painted on panels, with the Ten Commandments.

Siddington Church.

A short distance to the west of Marton lies the church of All Saints, Siddington, which was also a former chapel of Prestbury. It is usually stated that it was erected in 1474, but this statement is merely based on the fact that there was a bequest in that year by Robert Sydyngton to that chapel. It is said that this church or chapel was originally entirely of timber and plaster, which may very probably have been the case; but at present it is only the chancel which is of that construction, together with the south porch and the belfry or square turret over the west end of the nave. The fabric was much restored in 1853–54, and again in 1895–96. At first sight the west front appears to be of an elaborate black-and-white half-timbered design, but it is in reality merely painted to produce this effect. The south porch has a wide arched entrance of old timber, formed of three pieces, and the inner doorway is of like construction and apparently temp. Henry VII. The interior of the plastered nave walls are painted to imitate half-timber work. The upright timbers of the chancel are about a foot apart. The east end has an interesting projecting piece of cored work over the three-light wooden-framed window. There is some old screen-work, and the pulpit is dated 1633.

Old Warburton Church.

At Warburton, on the northern confines of the county, close to the great Ship Canal, stands the old church of St. Werburgh, which was at one time entirely of timber; but there were some outer stonework repairs done to the west end of the nave in 1645, and a brick tower was added to the north-east of the church in 1711. The interior of the church and chancel afford remarkable examples of timber construction. The two bays of the nave are supported on each side by two great timber pillars, which have bevelled edges but no capitals. There is a space of 15 feet between them. A single high-pitch roof covers both nave and aisles. The timber details of the chancel, with its chapel on the north, are also somewhat exceptional, as appears in the plate and seem to be of somewhat later date than the nave. Among other quaint details of this interesting church, it may be mentioned that deer-horns are attached to the nave pillars to serve as hat-pegs. The large octagonal font is inscribed, “William Drinkwater, the Keeper, 1603”; it bears a wooden pyramidal cover, which has the date 1595 at the apex. The altar table, altar rails, and pulpit are all Jacobean. There is a simply-formed iron hour-glass stand near the pulpit. In the north chapel or small aisle of the chancel is a large stone coffin, over 7 feet long, also a much smaller one, about 3 feet long, a fine thirteenth-century grave cover, and some other remains which were found in the churchyard and placed here in 1819.

At Chadkirk, near Romiley, in the north-east of the county, there is an ancient chapel of very early foundation, as its name implies, which was doubtless at one time, as tradition has it, wholly of timber construction. It came in 1548 into the evil hands of Edward VI.’s commissioners, when its small endowment was confiscated to the Crown and the building itself dismantled under the plea of being a superstitious chantry. It was “raised out of its ruins” in 1747, “repaired, beautified, and a loft erected” in 1761; again repaired in 1860, and finally restored in 1876, as is stated on tablets within the walls. The nave is now of stone, after a Georgian fashion; but the small chancel, which has brick walling on the south, has interesting ancient oak and plaster work at the east end and on the north side, which is at least as old as the beginning of the fifteenth century.

It remains to say a word or two as to another ancient Cheshire chapel which up to about a century ago was described as being “wholly of oak and plaster.” This was the chapel of High Leigh (West Hall), to the north-west of Knutsford. This chapel was pulled down in 1814, when a pretentious, classical substitute was erected on the site. A peculiarity of the old chapel was that it had no bell turret, but a single bell swung from the boughs of a great sycamore tree near its west end. The classical chapel was destroyed by fire in 1891, and in 1893 the church of St. John’s, built on the same site, and chiefly constructed in black-and-white half-timber, was opened for worship.

In Ormerod’s Cheshire, early in the last century, the church of Baddiley is described as “standing on a small green within the same enclosure with the barns and other domestic buildings. It consists of a small nave and chancel, originally composed of timber. Another nave has been recently underbuilt with brick.” The writer of these notes has not had the opportunity of seeing this small church, but it has apparently not changed during the century, for it is described in the Little Guide to Cheshire (1905) as consisting of “brick and timber,” whilst in the introduction it is named as one of the half-timbered churches.

There are many traditions up and down the county as to various other parish churches or chapels having been originally timber-framed or of black-and-white work. In some cases these traditions are known to have been true. Thus Goostrey church was half-timber up to 1790 (probably from its foundation in 1230), when it was pulled down to make room for a brick successor; and Eccleston church was half-timbered up to 1808.

Bruera Church, near Chester.

In several of the southern counties many of the stone or flint churches have timber belfries over the western gable of the nave,[5] but such a construction seems to have never been common in Cheshire. The church of Bruera, formerly a chapelry of St. Oswald’s, Chester, a building of much interest, with traces of Saxon work, has a somewhat remarkable wooden belfry at the west end; it has been restored, but the older part of the timbers are of fourteenth-century date.

[5] Such towers are to be seen at Warndon, Dornston, Kington, and Pirton in Worcestershire.—Editor.

There was much timber-work in the smaller parish churches of Chester in the old days, as is shown by the pen-and-ink drawings of Randle Holme III. in the latter part of the seventeenth century (Harl. MS. 2073). The elaborate drawing of St. Peter’s church shows that considerable civic building, known as the Pentice or pent-house, a great timber lean-to on the south side, rebuilt about 1500, but extant in another form as early as 1311; it was not pulled down until 1808. St. Martin’s had a wooden belfry on the west gable and a timber porch on the south side, approached by a flight of steps of the like material. St. Olave’s had also an elaborate wooden belfry on the west gable, which was taken down in 1693. St. Michael’s had a considerable tower of timber at the west end, as well as a curious raised portico or room resting on wooden pillars over the west entrance. St. Bridget’s is shown with a timber parapet, resting on projecting beams, encircling the base of the spire; all this was taken down in 1690.

Cheshire used to be a remarkably well-wooded county, and this is still the case in several districts. The area occupied by woods and plantations, according to the last woodland return of 1905, is 24,655 acres, and this takes no account of hedgerow timber or detached trees, for which the vale of Chester is so celebrated. The two chief royal forests of Cheshire were those of Mara and Moudrem, afterwards known as Delamere, about the centre of the county, and Macclesfield, on the south-east. The two parishes which have now the largest acreage of woodland are those of Delamere, 2596, and Taxal (below Macclesfield), 1285. There was a third forest district, namely, that of the Hundred of Wirral, that big projecting peninsula which juts out to the north between the Mersey and the Dee. The old term forest did not, however, imply a big wood, but simply a district reserved for royal hunting; and Wirral Forest was singularly destitute of timber, according to the old records, as it is at the present day. The parish of Woodchurch, not far to the south of Birkenhead, probably obtained its name in early days from being the only place within many miles which had a church of logs or timber framing.

THE WALLS AND ROWS OF CHESTER

By the Archdeacon of Chester

ITS Walls and Rows (especially the latter) give to the city of Chester a character all its own. They are not only the pride of the inhabitants of the city and county, but they also afford an unfailing source of attraction to a constant stream of tourists and visitors. In no other town in the kingdom is it possible to make a complete circuit of the Walls, which involves a walk of nearly a couple of miles. That walk is a favourite promenade, and offers a pleasing and varying prospect not only of the different features of interest in the city, but also of the surrounding country, and of the distant Welsh hills. The Walls too furnish a never-ending subject for discussion as to their origin and history; upon which fresh light is continually being thrown by discoveries that are made. The main point in dispute has been as to whether they can claim any connection with Roman builders; and the question seems by some to have been settled in the affirmative on various grounds. Whilst Roman stones have been found in portions of the north wall when under repair, on the eastern side some masonry is to be seen which from its character may safely be ascribed to that early date; and quite recently some excavations, which were necessary for building operations, unearthed at that particular spot the foundations of the Roman wall just a few feet in front of the present one. The plinth thus discovered indicates that the place is the south-eastern angle of the Roman Wall, and proves what had been tentatively suggested, that originally and in Roman times the compass of the Walls was considerably less than it is now. It has been suggested that at a later date the Romans enlarged the boundaries of the town, which at first was a camp or fortress, and that subsequently Ethelfleda, in 907, when she repaired the city, which had lain waste, still further enlarged its borders on the south side. On the west there are undoubted traces of Roman work, and here the Walls (or more correctly the Quay) in early days must have been washed by the tidal waters of the Dee, and vessels must have been able to come up close to them and moor at their side. The Roman stones discovered in the north wall when it was under repair, were many of them inscribed and sepulchral: and so some authorities concluded that they could not have been placed there by Roman builders. It was shown, however, that a similar use of a sepulchral monument occurred in a bastion of the Roman wall of London, and that none of these stones were found in the upper part of the wall, but in the lower unmortared base, which was evidently Roman. The conclusion arrived at was that the Romans had extended their wall at an early period, and, in doing so, had enclosed or made use of their cemetery. In confirmation of this theory, it may be stated that the surrounding masonry is of Roman character, and that a similar use of tombstones has been found elsewhere, as in a Roman edifice on the Roman Wall in England, and at Worms, and other towns in Gaul. As we walk round the Walls, then, to-day, we may remember that a considerable portion of them are on the foundations and lines laid down in Roman times.

The upper portion is no doubt Edwardian, though alterations and repairs at different times have somewhat altered their character. This is specially to be noted in the removal, at the close of the eighteenth century, of the old Gateways. These, as we can see from old prints, were striking and picturesque, if they were at the same time inconvenient. In York the Gateways (or Bars as they are there termed) have been retained, and the convenience for traffic has been obtained by opening arches at the side of them and leaving the Bars untouched. We can only regret that the same policy was not adopted in Chester.

Each of the four gates was under the guardianship or sergeantry of particular persons. The North Gate, which contained the prison, was under the charge of the city authorities; the East Gate, given originally to Henry de Bradford, passed into the possession of the Crewe family. The sergeantry of the Water Gate descended through the Barony of Montalt to the Earl of Derby, and that of the Bridge Gate from the Rabys and Troutbecks to the Earl of Shrewsbury. Near each of these latter two gates are beautiful old specimens of half-timbered houses, where the sergeants or their deputies used to live. In addition to these principal gates, there were smaller ones or posterns, like the Ship Gate, which led to the crossing over the Dee—the New Gate, and the small Kale Yard Gate, which led to the monastic vegetable garden. There was also a further protection, at a distance of about a quarter of a mile on the road eastward, called the Bars, which has been removed many years ago, though the name is still preserved.

In early times a murage rate was levied for the maintenance of the Walls, and the officers who had charge thereof and collected and expended this money were called murengers. At one time a considerable sum was raised by the impost placed upon Irish linen, which was imported into Chester in large quantities.

As we walk round the Walls we can call to mind the scenes which must have been enacted on them when the city was attacked. In those days the walk was probably at a lower level, or at any rate the outer Wall was higher (and perhaps battlemented), thus affording protection to the defenders. At various distances were bastions and towers, some few of which remain, and enable us to form a better idea of the earlier condition of the city defences. In Roman times there was the additional protection of a ditch or fosse, and traces of this have been found in various places. When the Canal was made close to the North Wall the contractor found to his great advantage that much of the excavation out of the solid rock had thus been done for him.

Bonewaldesthorne’s Tower.

The common gaol of the city was in the North Gate, and the prisoners there confined must have had very close quarters. A similar use of the North Gate was made at Canterbury (where the building still remains), and possibly in other places. Just outside the North Gate is the Hospital of St. John, and here in later years the prisoners attended divine service. A memorial of this is to be seen in the little bridge which crossed the fosse, now the Canal, and which has been sometimes called “The Bridge of Sighs.” Not far from here westward is Morgan’s Mount, with a lower chamber and an upper platform from which a fine view may be obtained. During the siege of the city a very important battery was planted here, and the site may well arouse memories of anxious and troublous times. Still further west is Pemberton’s Parlour, so called from the fact that in 1700 John Pemberton established a rope walk here within the walls, and probably from this spot watched at times the operations of his workmen, or rested here after his own labours. Though now semi-circular in shape, it may once have been circular, with a passage through it. It also bore other names, as “Dille’s Tower,” or “The Goblin’s Tower,” the latter suggestive of a ghost story connected with it. An inscription on the city side records the repair of this portion of the Walls 200 years ago, and reminds us of those civic functionaries, the murengers, who had charge of the Walls. The north-west angle of the Walls is marked by Bonewaldesthorne’s Tower, and connected with it by a battlemented curtain wall is the New or Water Tower. When the latter was built in 1323 it was washed by the waters of the Dee, and not long since the rings attached to it for the mooring of vessels might have been seen. At the present day the Tower rises out of gardens, and the river is at some little distance away. Continuing our walk southwards we come to the Roodeye. Formerly, as its name implies, this was an island surrounded at high tide by the waters of the estuary, but it gradually silted up. In 1609 Mr. W. Lester, mercer, who was then Mayor, founded, chiefly at his own cost, the St. George’s Race, which was to be run on St. George’s Day. This was the origin of the Chester Races, which take place ordinarily in the first week in May, which would correspond with old St. George’s Day. On its first foundation the race was introduced by a stately procession, in which certain emblematical characters took part, as well as the Mayor and Corporation “in their best apparell and in scarlet,” and it was followed by a civic banquet at the Pentice. We may call up such scenes as these as we look over the Racecourse, and not content ourselves with imagining what things are like, when that busy throng comes to the Chester Races nowadays. Here, too, were at times presented the Miracle Plays and city Pageants, and Triumphs and other games, including that of football, promoted by the Company of Shoemakers on Shrove Tuesday, otherwise Goteddesse Day, which in 1539 was abolished owing to its dangerous character, foot races being substituted. We may think, too, of the training of soldiers here in Elizabeth’s reign, and in recent years of the Yeomanry, until they were removed to Delamere Forest. As we reach the southern side, and see the waters of the Dee, we may picture to ourselves Edgar rowed up by the tributary princes to the Church of St. John, and in later times see the Walls manned by archers and other brave defenders, ready to resist the incursions of the Welsh. In short, the Walls are full of interesting memories, though only one event is chronicled in an inscription in stone, and that is on the Phœnix Tower, so called from the device of the Painters’ and Stationers’ Company, which is carved upon its south wall. It was from the top of the Tower that King Charles I. witnessed the defeat of his forces on Rowton Moor.

King Charles’s Tower.

But though only one event is thus definitely recorded, we can think of others—of the monks bringing in solemn procession the relics of St. Werburgh at some critical time of danger, and of the protection which these venerable Walls afforded to the dwellers in the city. Now indeed they afford a pleasant and enjoyable promenade, much frequented both by residents and visitors; but time was when they were an absolute necessity to secure the safety of the citizens, and needed to be jealously guarded by their watchmen, whilst the Gates which provided an entrance had their sergeants and keepers. And thus a walk round the Walls should not fail to suggest a contrast between the peaceful days in which we live, and the troublous and disturbed times which often threatened our forefathers.

Watergate Row, Chester.

If the Walls of our city possess this great interest for us, what shall we say of our Rows? They are practically unique. Other cities and towns have their Walls, but no other place, in England at any rate, has anything like the Rows. And their origin is veiled in obscurity. It is very difficult to give such a description of them as shall enable one who has not seen them to realise what they are like. The late Dean Howson spoke of them as “public highways passing through the front part of the drawing-rooms on the first floor of a series of houses, the windows being taken out, while the inner parts of these drawing-rooms are converted into shops, the bedrooms being overhead, and the passengers walking over the rooms of the ground storey, these rooms again being converted into shops.” Mr. Pennant in his Tour gives this description, founded, as we shall see, upon a mistaken idea as to their origin:—“The principal streets run direct from east to west and from north to south, and were excavated out of the earth, and sunk many feet below the surface. The carriages are driven far below the level of the kitchens, on a line with ranges of shops, over which passengers walk in galleries, which the inhabitants call the Rows, secure from wet or heat. In the Rows are likewise ranges of shops and steps to descend into the street.” Without giving earlier descriptions, it will be gathered, that in the main streets within the city Walls there are covered galleries over the shops on the street level, which also are lined with shops. The walks in these galleries do not come quite to the street frontage, as opposite each shop there is, as a rule, a “stall,” or sloping platform, on which goods may be exposed, though in some few instances this space is occupied by buildings of a permanent character. The stalls are protected from the street to which they are open by balustrades, some of which are of oak and of varying and handsome old patterns. As the shops represent different properties, there is a pleasing lack of uniformity about the Rows. In some instances we have the half-timbered architecture for which Cheshire is famous, in others houses of the date of Queen Anne; whilst in recent times some have been rebuilt and made more in accordance with modern requirements, though due regard has latterly been paid to the character of the ancient buildings. The walk in Eastgate and Bridge Street is continuous, and here are the best and principal shops; in the other streets the walk is interrupted by intervening lanes or streets, except on the south side of Watergate Street, where there are some very striking houses, such as “Bishop Lloyd’s Palace,” or “God’s Providence House.” The variety is also seen in the height of the colonnade, which is sometimes through the older houses quite low, and in the more modern ones much higher. On the west side of Bridge Street there is, in fact, barely headroom for a very tall person in some parts, but here there are no shops in the Row, so that the inconvenience is not felt. In the greater part of Northgate the Row, if it ever existed, has disappeared, and in another part it has recently been brought down to the street level, the under shops, which were really cellars, having been removed. The Rows thus, like the Walls, afford a favourite promenade for visitors. In rainy weather they give protection to those who have business to transact in the shops which line them; whilst “the stalls” afford a convenient position for witnessing any procession passing through the streets. We may even go back in thought to early days and imagine how they would be crowded with spectators when the Chester Plays were acted in the streets, or when the questionable sport (?) of bull-baiting took place before the Pentice at the High Cross. It is curious to know that the ownership of the property on the street level does not necessarily carry with it the ownership of the shop or house in the Row above.

Bishop Lloyd’s Palace, Watergate Row.

In other parts of the city there are shops or houses where the first floor, supported by brick or stone arches or by wooden posts, is over the footway or pavement, and in the city accounts there are repeated entries of payments made for posts set up in the streets to hold up houses. Interesting examples of this are to be seen in Foregate Street and in Northgate.

The arrangement of the Rows is so singular, that much discussion has taken place as to their history and origin. Some have contended that they may be traced back to the Roman period, and that they were probably suggested by the common form of Roman building with a portico in front of them. Much ingenuity has been displayed by architects and others who urge this view in the drawings by which they seek to justify this contention. Stress, too, is laid by them on the fact that the Rows are confined to that part of the city which is of Roman origin, though this fact has been denied by those who adopt other theories.

The late Mr. John Henry Parker, F.S.A., in 1857, wrote as follows:—“The most probable origin of these Rows is, that after some great fire, it was found most convenient to make the footway on the top of the cellars, or vaulted substructures, instead of in the narrow streets between them. It was the usual custom in the towns in the Middle Ages to protect the lower storey, or cellar, which was half underground, by a vault of stone or brick. This was the storeroom in which the merchandise or other valuable property was preserved. The upper parts of the houses were entirely of wood, and the whole of these being destroyed by fire, it was more easy to make the footway on the top of the vaults, leaving the roadway clear for horses and carts. Many of these vaulted chambers of the mediæval period remain in Chester, more or less perfect; some divided by modern walls and used as cellars, others perfect and used as lower shops or warehouses.” This theory, again, is ingenious, and has this justification, that in 1114 a large part of the city was destroyed by fire; but against it may be urged the fact that one of the most perfect, and probably the oldest of these crypts (the house or shop in which it is being called “Ye Olde Crypt”), is not in the street front, but beneath the back portion of the house. Others have supposed that the original ground-level of the city was the same level with the Rows, and that the streets were gradually worn down to their present level through the solid rock. This opinion has, however, been shown to be untenable, inasmuch as in Bridge Street, Watergate, and other parts, Roman remains have been discovered which show that in Roman times buildings were even a little below the present street level, and that the foundations of the Roman buildings correspond practically with the height of the roadway. Archdeacon Rogers, at the end of the sixteenth century, urged that the Rows were constructed for defensive purposes, and would be found useful in this way in the time of Welsh incursions. We have, however, no record of the Welsh having ever effected an entrance into the town, so that the precaution would seem to have been superfluous. Canon Morris, in his valuable work (Chester during the Plantagenet and Tudor Periods), advances another theory at some length to account for the gradual development of the Rows from the seldæ, or movable sheds, on the street level, and the shops built on the higher ground behind, formed of the debris of Roman buildings which had been destroyed. These are some of the ideas which have been propounded as to the origin of the Rows. It is well to state them, so that our readers may gather what a fertile source of interesting discussion they furnish. Mr. Henry Dawes Harrod, F.S.A., after carefully examining these explanations, and the arguments on which they were based, came to the conclusion that we must look to ancient Chester for the origin of the Rows, and so go back to Roman times. His contention is not unlike that of Canon Morris, only he gives an earlier date. He says: “The shop of the ambulatory, with its covered way, is perpetuated in the shop in the Row. The stall for traders on the steps finds its lineal descendant in the shop in the streets. The covering over the Rows has given way before the growth of the houses to the front, economising space, and affording better living accommodation. Without any great revolution in design or architecture, the Rows have developed by a natural growth on the lines of the ancient design of Roman Chester.”

“When doctors differ who shall decide?” It may not be possible to come to a definite conclusion on the matter; but, personally, I think that the contention of Mr. Harrod, advanced in a paper read before the Chester Archæological Society on 19th February 1901, and supported by arguments and illustrations, is a most reasonable one, which at any rate commends itself to my humble judgment. The mere mention of these various theories may perhaps lead some of our readers to take even greater interest in the Rows of Chester, and remind the dwellers in both city and county that in them they possess a great and unique treasure.

THE HALF-TIMBERED ARCHITECTURE OF CHESHIRE

By C. H. Minshull

“He that hewed timber out of the thick trees: was known to bring it to an excellent work.”

ALBEIT this paper is to confine itself to the domestic or secular side of the subject, and this quotation might even more suitably serve as his text by the author treating exclusively of the ecclesiastical examples of timber-framed buildings, yet its appropriateness may warrant these words forming a sort of superscription for what is after all part and parcel of one theme.

While it may be conceded that Cheshire can count many extant memorials of greater historic importance and of longer lineage than any of those remaining recorded in that particular kind of “black and white” coming within our present immediate purview, it may nevertheless be claimed that these specimens of the carpenter’s craft constitute by no means the least charming and characteristic of the county’s architectural possessions.

The “post and panel” work, the “magpie” style, to use the sobriquet sometimes familiarly applied to it, so plentifully strewn throughout its length and breadth, does certainly bring a very distinct contribution to the picturesqueness of the Palatinate, whose now fertile plain, studded with these timber structures, is where buildings of this traditional type most do congregate. Indeed, it is a question whether they do not serve to connote Cheshire quite as much as that prosaic product the cheese, which has made the name and fame of the county a household word! Another proof of the identification of the county with the kind of buildings under consideration is that when a building is referred to as being in the “Cheshire style,” the description is always understood as implying a half-timbered erection, and at the same time goes to show that its designer has been paying his tribute of imitation to and admiration of the manner and method, which formerly was so felicitously employed in several parts of the country, but in none more extensively than in Cheshire—a fact happily still capable of demonstration in the frequency of surviving examples.

Many a piquant touch of contrasted colour does the landscape owe to these delightful buildings, one of whose attractive qualities resides in just that faculty of focussing the eye they so eminently possess. Here it may be a cluster of quaint cottages, or perhaps a single cottage of comely proportions nestling in some sequestered spot, or one of those moated granges or sturdy farmsteads that dot the countryside; or there it may be a more elaborate and ornate example, some “stately home,” attesting the skilful handiwork of the faber lignarius who centuries ago followed his calling with such excellent and enduring results, his fitly and soundly framing of the building together having enabled it to withstand the action of time and weather—if so be by good fortune it managed to escape that more fatal enemy fire, whose ravages are no doubt responsible for the disappearance of many an architectural treasure, which, had a more resistant material been employed, might have survived to shed additional lustre on the county, already so renowned for its half-timbered treasures.

The explanation of the prevalence of this species of building, and of Cheshire having become par excellence a centre for it, is, of course, to be found in the fact of the county having possessed an abundance of raw material in the “thick trees” ready to the hand of the hewer.

In his Story of some English Shires, as told by the late Dr. Mandell Creighton, speaking of the physical features of Cheshire, he says: “Three great forests covered much of the surface of the ground. From Chester to the sea stretched the forest of Wirral, from the Mersey to the Dee extended the forest of Delamere, and the forest of Macclesfield formed an impenetrable barrier between Cheshire and Derbyshire”; and he adds a remark not altogether irrelevant to the matter in hand: “There was so little agriculture that the men of Cheshire used to leave their homes and serve as harvesters in districts where corn was grown, in the same way as did Irish labourers in our own days.” These copious sources of timber have long since disappeared, and the once afforested area has given place to those broad acres under cultivation now covering the county.

In Domesday Book, under Cestrescire, these forests are often referred to, but we are left to conjecture what were the trees growing in them; doubtless there was the ash and the elm, and also “the monarch oak, sole king of forests all,” ready to hand for those who, in the elder days of the carpenter’s art, erected the dwellings from which those later buildings now being considered are either lineal or collateral descendants. The earliest extant of these may only carry us back some 500 years, but this had not only Norman but Anglo-Saxon progenitors. It is well known that the latter employed both in their churches and houses timber as their staple building material, and although all these have perished there remains the testimony of their language; the Saxon word “timbran” signified to build with wood, and builder meant carpenter. Their rude halls may be regarded as the origin of the old English timber-built houses.

The oldest form of rectangular house was erected in “bays,” the simplest form of construction being the house of one bay. Two pairs of bent trees (whence the term “roof tree” seems an outcome) were set up in the ground about 16 feet apart, each pair making a sort of pointed arch, united at their apexes by a longitudinal beam. The gable end of many an old Cheshire cottage shows the persistence of this traditional type.

Before bringing under review some few of the many specimens the county contains, a word or two with regard to their method of construction may not be out of place. Scarcity of stone and difficulties of transit account for this material being so sparingly used. Upon a few courses of stonework forming a plinth, horizontal beams were laid, and into these angle posts and intermediate uprights were framed. These carried the sill of the upper storey, whose floor joists were often made to project, producing the “overhang,” frequently coved, which is one of the most effective features of the style.

It is not, however, so much the general disposition of their main timbers as the varied patterns and devices of the panels filling in the intervening spaces that provides one of the distinguishing characteristics of these Cheshire buildings. As one may often determine a person’s native place by his dialect, so do these lozenges and other chequer patterns enable one to recognise the place of their origin; they are, as it were, a sort of idiomatic architectural expression. When the carpenter had finished the skeleton of the structure, there remained, to complete the wooden walls, the filling in of the interstices of the framing. For this purpose, what is known as “wattle and daub” was commonly employed. By this primitive process clay could be used in its natural state. The method was to make a foundation by interlacing osiers or hazel twigs, thus forming a sort of basket work, and then to daub over with clay mixed with straw or some stringy weed, and upon this put a thin coating of plaster on both the inside and outside faces. In his Cheshire Glossary, Colonel Egerton Leigh remarks, “The daub seems to have given a name to a trade,” and in support of this statement a quaint old couplet is quoted:⁠—

“The mayor of Altrincham and the mayor of Over,

The one is a thatcher, the other a dauber”;

and then follows this favourable comment on the old process: “Clay, being a non-conductor, makes a warm house in winter and a cool one in summer.”

Whether this “post and panel” work originally presented the study in black and white it now does, is open to question. Most likely the tarring of the timbers was resorted to rather with the object of preservation than with the intention of producing the contrasted effect between the wood and the plaster, now so conspicuous a characteristic. It may be that the dark brown and yellow ochre colour combination one sees in the corresponding manner of building on the Continent was more like the original appearance of these Cheshire buildings. Space forbids going into side issues and demands the taking into consideration some of the specimens of the “excellent work,” in which the county is so rich as to make the task of selection by no means easy.

The mere enumeration of notable examples would occupy many pages, and to deal with them in detail according to their deserts would call for a treatise instead of this cursory survey. But for a complete chronicle, is there not Ormerod’s magnum opus?—that mine of information and monument of industry which is indeed itself one of the county’s “memorials”; and for pictorial treatment there is that gallery of vivid illustrations, Nash’s Mansions of the Olden Time, wherein are to be seen, splendidly set forth, several of Cheshire’s celebrated “stately homes,” both as regards their outward aspect and their interiors, and containing, moreover, counterfeit presentments of their former occupants in their habits as they lived.

Any one unable to visit the actual building and desirous of getting an idea of their peculiar charm, aye and the splendour, of these fine old halls of Cheshire, would be well-advised to turn to that artist’s views of Bramall, of Adlington, and of Moreton, which constitute a trio of half-timbered treasures not perhaps surpassed by any buildings of their kind in any other county, or indeed country.

By right of seniority, as well as by reason of uniqueness, Baguley or Baggily Hall, in the neighbourhood of Stockport, claims first consideration. In Parker’s Domestic Architecture, remarking upon the difficulty of finding timber houses of the fourteenth century, Baggily is referred to as a “rare example.”

BAGGILY HALL, CHESHIRE.

On this account and because of its intrinsic interest, it is now illustrated by two sectional views and by a sketch of the interior showing the purely Gothic spirit of its open-timbered roof, and giving an idea of the massiveness of its oakwork.

There being but few surviving specimens for the purposes of further illustrating the period between the reign of Edward III., when Baggily was built, and that of Elizabeth, certain almshouses from Commonhall Lane, Chester, dating from about the time of Henry VII., may with advantage be here adduced. Unfortunately they are no longer standing, but, before they were pulled down some forty years ago, drawings were made which have rendered possible their reconstruction by means of this sketch; and by the reproduction of the window details to show the distinctive character of this earlier type of timber work.

ALMS HOUSES: COMMONHALL LANE, CHESTER.

It is on reaching the spacious times of Queen Elizabeth that there is no longer any paucity but a positive profusion, and there ensues an embarras de choix in the examples available.

Her reign and that of her immediate successors constituted what may perhaps be called the classic era of half-timbered architecture. A period of not much more than a hundred years sufficed for the style to attain its zenith and reach its decline and passing in the seventeenth century.

The frequency with which one comes across the royal cipher E. R. and the many corroborative arms and date panels, both in Cheshire and elsewhere, bring to mind the marvellous outburst of energy and activity that marked her times in all departments of life, one of whose outlets was in the building operations of the period, and especially in the domestic direction, some of the evidences of which we are now concerned with. England, as has been truly said, is awake after the slumber of the Middle Ages, and for a brief period the national life blazes with unprecedented brilliance and splendour.

Adherence to the traditional manner of timber building in Cheshire would be accounted for and be encouraged by the abundant supplies of the requisite raw material still available; for this and the adjoining counties of Shropshire and Lancashire, where this type of building also flourished, were at a safe distance from the iron-smelting works and ship-building yards which made such inroads on the woods and forests in other parts of the kingdom.

In the attractive appearance of those Elizabethan erections, that Baconian dictum (certainly challengeable, at all events, from an architect’s standpoint), “houses are built to live in and not to look on,” found plenty of contemporary refutation in the picturesque and delightful halls of this county.

As in the Edwardian Baggily Hall, so in its Elizabethan successors the “great hall” continued to be the chief feature, the principal pivot, so to say, of the general plan. But, whereas in the earlier examples it was invariably open right up to the roof, it gradually began to be divided into two storeys by the interposition of a floor. One consequence of this change was the disappearance of the minstrels’ gallery and the dais. The cause of the decline in importance of the great hall may partly have been the introduction of Italian ideas, but was mainly due to the alteration in the habits of life. The progress of civilisation brought with it the multiplication of apartments, and hence the space once entirely occupied by the lofty hall could no longer be afforded.

BRAMALL: THE PORCH E´. END.

BRAMALL:
A CORNER OF THE SOUTH WING.

An exemplification of this is provided by Bramall, where the “great hall” has a flat ceiling, and above this is the drawing-room; an apartment growing rapidly into importance in Elizabethan times. This upper chamber, as is the case of Bramall, becomes more handsomely treated with raised plaster and other ornament, and is, moreover, much loftier than the hall below it. Access was by means of a spiral staircase of solid blocks of oak. Bramall, like other contemporary halls of its class, was originally built in quadrangular form; but when peaceful times came, the owners, desiring a more open outlook, secured this by doing away with one side of the quadrangle, and with it swept away the gate-house. The south-eastern wing contains, as houses of this period commonly do, a domestic chapel and also the fine banqueting room. One of its most noteworthy features, “the long gallery,” of which Ormerod gives a sketch, has disappeared. Bramall originally belonged to the Bromeales or Bromhals, but passed by marriage to the Davenports as far back as the reign of Edward III. From the sketches an idea of the general rich character of the timber framing can be gathered. Rivalling it in some respects, one may next mention Moreton or Little Moreton Hall, near the Staffordshire border. It is surrounded by a moat spanned by a stone bridge, and sentinelled by a gatehouse of striking proportions, through which one enters the courtyard, where the many-angled bays at once arrest attention.

MORETON OLD HALL: GATEHOUSE.

By whom they were contrived or, at all events, actually constructed, and when, can be learned from the inscriptions carved above the upper windows, which run thus:

“God is al in al thing.”

“This windows whire made by William Moreton in the yeare of Oure Lorde mdlix.”

“Richard Dale Carpeder made thies windows by the Grac of God.”

MORETON HALL.
IN THE COURTYARD.

Vying with these charming bays in interest and importance, there is occupying the entire length of the main wing a magnificent room on the topmost (the third) floor which, tradition has it, was graced by the presence of Queen Elizabeth, and danced in by her Majesty.

It is at such places as Moreton Hall, with its fine ballroom, to quote some reflections which resulted from an architect’s—the late Mr. H. Taylor, of Manchester—study of this old house, we see the provisions made in the past for enjoying life in the country. In this old house the disturbed state of former times is brought vividly to our minds if we have sufficiently narrow shoulders to creep through the sliding panel into the apartment which was a harbour of refuge for those whose life was in danger. When hotly pursued, the fugitive escaped down a sort of well and through an underground passage. At Moreton Hall, built when Italian ideas were creeping into the country, it is instructive to notice how the architect was apparently puzzled by the conflicting principles of our humble and beautiful Gothic and of the more pretentious Italian style, e.g. the ballroom, which is on the third storey, has an open-timbered, pointed roof, with a thrust upon the walls. This thrust he evidently thought it not proper to counteract by buttresses as his brethren a hundred years before would have done, and from this cause the stability of the building has for some time been threatened. The inhabitants at Moreton, we cannot but feel, must have been put to sore inconvenience many a time, inasmuch as no one had then invented corridors, and so there are four or five staircases. This arrangement must have been very disagreeable on a wet night, as the bedrooms could only be reached from different sides of the building by crossing the courtyard with or without candles or lanterns. Much as one is tempted to linger at Moreton, there is that other member of the famous triad of half-timbered treasures on this side of the shire awaiting consideration—Adlington. This is the home of one of Cheshire’s oldest families, in whose possession it has remained for many centuries. Of considerable exterior interest and entered by an admirably-proportioned, two-storeyed porch, it is, however, the interior of the great hall that constitutes its chief glory. A very noticeable feature is the cove-shaped panelling that runs right across one end and contains a large number of shields of arms of the various families connected with the house of Legh.

The roof is of remarkably fine character with principals of hammer-beam design, and is a most effective and decorative piece of richly-moulded carpentry and carved work; the whole having an obviously Gothic character.

Upon some other “memorials” in this part of the county, all deserving to be dealt with at length, a very brief reference is all that can be bestowed—the little priest’s house at Prestbury, with its quaint and curious square-ended bays and four-way gables; Gawsworth Hall, now the rectory, with its remarkable three-storeyed octagonal bay; Handforth Hall, displaying a finely carved doorway; Alderley Edge with its farmhouse, “Eagle and Child” Inn, and cottages, with gables dressed out in the local fashion of draughtboard or chequered devices.

Of these examples it may be said that, while they all may have a certain family likeness, yet each possesses an individuality of its own, needing but a closer acquaintance for recognition and appreciation.

To pass to the opposite corner of the county, the Wirral. Contrary to what might have been expected, having regard to the fact that the whole of this peninsula, “from Blacon Point to Hilbree,” was formerly one continuous thickly-wooded tract, the region yields practically nothing of half-timbered work. The deforesting which took place under Edward III. may be mainly answerable for the absence alluded to.

This district did, however, once possess in a home of the Stanleys, Hooton Hall, what Ormerod describes as “a very large quadrangular building in timber,” and of which he gives an illustration. It was demolished in 1778, and in its stead stands the present stone-built successor.

Mid and Southern Cheshire well make up for the Wirral’s shortcomings.

BROXTON HALL.

To cite but a couple, Carden Hall and Broxton Old Hall. The former must have been a superb example, beautiful alike in situation and in itself; though now somewhat marred by sundry modernisings. Its neighbour, Broxton, has undergone restoration, but retains a good amount of the original framing. As fairly representative of its kind, a detail of a gable is given, “ab uno disce omnes.”

Seeing that several towns capable of supplying scores of opportunities for pursuing our subject—e.g. Stockport, Sandbach, Middlewich, and Nantwich—have been left out of sight, it is obvious that not a tithe of the county’s wealth has been touched upon in this slight survey.

If, however, none of these towns has been laid under tribute, a similar course with respect to the capital city would be indefensible.

Inasmuch, however, as Chester’s half-timbering has so often been dealt with from the standpoints of antiquary, artist, and architect, more than an abbreviated review seems unrequired, and anything like a complete catalogue raisonné uncalled for of the possessions of what must once have been a veritable “black and white” city, and can still claim to be one of the chief places for studying the style.

Chronologically the Chester timber buildings may not number any quite comparable to Shrewsbury’s “Butcher’s Row”; howbeit there is at least one example running that noted Gothic specimen fairly close, as regards age, at all events—the house at the corner of Castle Street being probably one, if not the earliest—(pace a placard on the seventeenth-century house in Lower Bridge Street proclaiming it to be the oldest house, adding a mere matter of 600 years by converting the figure six on the beam into a nought! and by this doctored date duping, it is to be feared, many an unsuspecting visitor!).

This corner house is closely associated with the names of those Chester worthies, the Randle Holmes, of heraldic and antiquarian renown. An examination of the mouldings and other details of this house points to it having been erected in Tudor times.

Happily still confronting us in Lower Bridge Street is that old hostelry known as the “Falcon,” and also “The Bear and Billet,” once the town house of the Earls of Shrewsbury and Talbot. The former has a most engagingly picturesque appearance, with an effective row of quatrefoils under the range of many-mullioned windows. Looking at the proportion of the fronts of both these buildings taken up by their ranges of windows, stretching from side to side, brings to mind that Derbyshire doggerel, coined to suit a somewhat like case—

“Hardwick Hall, more glass than wall.”

Some reference must be made to the famous fronts in Watergate Street, where is “God’s Providence House.” About the only piece of the original timber-work remaining is the beam with the inscription reminiscent of the plague, which in 1647 so ravaged the city.

Lower down the street is “Bishop Lloyd’s Palace” with its series of panels containing interesting and quaint renderings of sacred subjects. Further down the street one comes to Stanley Palace, which now has no frontage to the street, and hides the attraction of a fine flank up a passage. This is a notable specimen of Jacobean Renaissance as applied to timber work, showing but few traces of the almost forgotten Gothic which dictated its construction.

Among the minor examples may be mentioned a row of quaint little dwellings in Park Street facing the city walls. Of these “Nine Houses” but six are now standing. They have suffered from the insertion of incongruous sash windows, but this has not deprived them of all their interest. One may still admire the handiwork of the old carpenters who there so effectively employed the billet-moulds to the timbers and the chevron cutting on the beams.

HOUSE: WHITEFRIARS: CHESTER.

Exemplifying a later manner and different treatment, the house in Whitefriars is reserved as the last of this brief review. This bit of seventeenth century work with its widely overhanging upper portion, and the raised plaster ornament in the gables, with the date 1658, may claim to be regarded as not the least interesting of the “memorials” we have been considering.

Those who esteem the half-timbered work as among the county’s chief antiquarian attractions and architectural assets—indeed all who feel the fascination of the style—cannot but welcome the reversion to the type and the revival of the manner in recent years.

Among the patrons of the building arts none was more susceptible to the peculiar charm of this “nogging-work” than the late Duke of Westminster, who caused to be erected on his Eaton estate numerous buildings faithfully reproducing the forms and features of their Cheshire prototypes. In this work his Grace was fortunate in having at command the services of an architect, Mr. John Douglas, than whom no one has been more successful in recapturing the spirit of the old timber-work. To the late Duke’s liking for and desire to keep up the “Cheshire style” of architecture, Chester itself owes much that has been done towards preserving and also perpetuating the traditional character of its buildings. It is a matter for congratulation that the lead given has been so loyally followed, both by the Corporation and by the citizens. Another notable instance of revival is to be seen at Bidston Court in the Wirral; when this fine half-timbered house was built a few years ago, an actual and accurate reproduction of those bays at Old Moreton Hall was embodied therein.

By way of summing up the subject, the following words from Ruskin may perhaps be not out of place:⁠—

“If indeed there be any profit in our knowledge of the past, or any joy in the thought of being remembered hereafter, which can give strength to present exertion or patience to present endurance, there are two duties respecting national architecture whose importance it is impossible to overrate: the first, to render the architecture of the day historical; and, the second, to preserve, as the most precious of inheritance, that of past ages.”

AN OLD CONSISTORY COURT

By the Archdeacon of Chester

THE title of this chapter may possibly suggest to the reader that it will unfold some startling records of the proceedings which have been enacted in one of those ecclesiastical institutions called a Consistory Court. Let me at once dispel such anticipation. Though a search into the dusty documents which have accumulated might reveal some interesting details of some cause célèbre, and disclose and hand on to future generations some forgotten page of history, my purpose is much less ambitious, for it is rather with the building and interior arrangement of the Court than with its legal proceedings that I propose to deal.

One of the most interesting features of Chester Cathedral is, that it gives us specimens of every style of architecture, except, indeed, the Saxon. You have Norman work in the remains of S. Anselm’s Church and buildings; exquisite examples of Early English in the Lady Chapel and Chapter House; Decorated and Perpendicular of every period in the Choir, Nave, and great South Transept; and Jacobean in the Consistory Court and in some minor details. It is of the latter that we are about to treat.

The visitor to the Cathedral, as he enters by the south-west porch, may see on his left a plain nail-studded door, reached by three steps, and set in a stone screen surmounted by heavy ornamental masonry of the date of the seventeenth century. The doorway and wall may have been built in the sixteenth century, when the unfinished south-west tower was projected and commenced, but the superincumbent balustrade is at any rate later, and bears the date 1636, and on a small shield the initials “J. B.”—clear indication that it was erected by John Bridgman, who was Bishop of Chester from 1619 to 1650. It is through this door that the Consistory Court, which is, in fact, the basement of the unfinished tower, is reached. Comparatively few visitors to the Cathedral ever see this portion of it. One reason for this may be that it is not under the complete control of the Dean and Chapter like the rest of the building. The Consistory Court is the Bishop’s Court, and the papers contained therein are under his jurisdiction, and it would not do for the general public to be admitted indiscriminately, unless they were stored in safe receptacles. A Consistory Court implies a Bishop; in fact, “a consistory is the court of a Bishop, in which the principle is that he is surrounded by representatives of the clergy of his diocese, who act as his council. In modern times, however, the Consistory Courts of Bishops are held by deputy, the Chancellor of the diocese or one of his surrogates being the sole representatives of the Bishop and clergy.” Until the foundation of the See of Chester in 1541 there would, of course, be no Consistory Court in Chester, unless, indeed, the Bishop of Lichfield, who at one time had a throne or seat in S. John’s Church, ever had one there. When the Abbey Church became the Cathedral of the new See, it would seem that the Lady Chapel was used as the Consistory Court. At any rate it was here that George Marsh was tried and condemned to death in 1554, when George Cotes was Bishop. In The Life of Bridgman there is an allusion to this original position of the Court, when it is stated that Mrs. Bridgman was buried “at the east end of the church, next to the old Consistory Court, which is now called our Ladye’s Chapel.” Whether the Court was moved to the place it now occupies before Bishop Bridgman’s time, I cannot say. He, at any rate, put up the screen (or the upper portion of it) which separates it from the south aisle, as is shown by the date and by the arms of the Bridgman family. The Bishop was responsible for many repairs and improvements in the Cathedral, and “in the Pallace of the Bishop which was in great decay”; and in a manuscript in the University Library at Cambridge, there is a full and interesting account of what he did in this respect. Curiously enough no mention is made of this screen or of the fittings of the Court, and yet both undoubtedly were due to him, and erected in his time. He may have rightly thought that the basement of this tower at the west end of the church was a more seemly and fitting place for the holding of a Court, even though the business conducted there was ecclesiastical, than the chapel at the east, which was designed and used for the most sacred offices of religion. It may be said here that it is not an uncommon thing for the Consistory Court to be a portion of the Cathedral. This is the case at Carlisle, Durham, Chichester, Hereford, Lichfield, Llandaff, Peterborough, Ripon, and Winchester (and this list may not be exhaustive), though the exact position of the Court in the church varies considerably.

On entering the Court, the visitor cannot fail to be struck with the old-world scene before him as he looks upon the fittings, which were put up 270 years ago. There is a square enclosure, surrounded by a partition of oak some four feet high. To this there are entrance-doors at each corner. Inside a seat is fixed all round this partition, the central space being filled with a large square table covered with a green cloth. At the west side, reached by three steps, is the raised seat for the Chancellor, with a desk in front of it. The seat is sufficiently wide for two persons, so that the Chancellor might have an assessor by his side. The judgment-seat is flanked on either side by another seat with a smaller desk before it. It is rendered imposing by an elongated oak canopy with a carved cornice and by the Jacobean panelling which supports it. The cornice is, unfortunately, not quite perfect. A portion is missing on the south side, and on the north a piece has been cut away. The arms of the Bridgman family are to be seen in one of the centre panels, thus proving that the Bishop was responsible for its erection, and on the imperfect panel on the north side are the letters

These, no doubt, refer to Edmund Mainwaring, LL.D., who is styled by Sir Peter Leycester, “Chancellor of Chester in 1642,” though his patent is not in the office. It shows that the seat was intended for the Chancellor, and that it was originally constructed for the position it now occupies. At the north-east corner of the enclosure is a perched-up seat resting on the top of the oak partition which surrounds the enclosure. Any person who sat in it would have to mount upon the seat which surrounds the table, and to use it as a resting-place for his feet. It does not look a very safe position. We are left to conjecture for whom this seat was intended. It may have been for the defendant (perhaps a notorious evil-doer) in ecclesiastical suits or for the witness who was to be examined. In either case the seat was an uncomfortable one, and the occupant would certainly be under close observation. As we look upon these fittings, black with the lapse of years, one is tempted to think how much they would be improved by careful and judicious cleaning. The seat referred to is evidently of the same date as the other fittings, but it is never occupied now, though the Court is used regularly, and the Chancellor or his deputy sits on days duly advertised to hear applications for faculties. It may be doubted whether there is any other Court in England which has a similar experience, and of which it can be said that the seating and arrangements are identical with what existed nearly 300 years ago. I have been told that there is one of the same kind at Lincoln: if that be so, the Chester Consistory Court cannot claim to be an absolutely unique example. The Consistory Court at Lichfield, which is under St. Chad’s Chapel in the south aisle of the Choir, and is probably the oldest part of the building, has in it some curious old Jacobean woodwork, but this is part of the stall work put up after 1661. The Court has been presided over for many years by the Worshipful Chancellor Espin, one of the two clerical Diocesan Chancellors at the present time. I am indebted to him for the following:—“I do not know of any other Court which has preserved its ancient character as ours has. I suspect that some, perhaps many, of the Consistory Courts in the older dioceses have been dismantled. Some years ago, when Bishop Hobhouse was Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield, I went to stay with him. He told me that he had been touring about the West of England, and among other places had lionised Gloucester Cathedral. Having been taken round by the verger, he asked next to see the Consistory Court. The verger had never heard of it, and said there was no such place there. Hobhouse insisted, and after some altercation an old verger was sent for who had retired on a pension, and was mouldering away somewhere hard by. He did remember, but said the Court had never been used for many years, in fact, not since 1856. When Hobhouse was taken to the place, he found that all the fittings had been cleared away, and it was made a receptacle for coals and lumber. Alas for the judicature of England! I believe the ancient ‘Alma Curia de Arcubus’ (Court of Arches) is now a cheesemonger’s warehouse.” The Court still retains some relics of its old procedure. The official who opens and adjourns the Court, and who cites all objectors to an application to appear, always begins with the formula, “Oyez, Oyez!” carefully pronounced as “Oh yes, Oh yes!”

Consistory Court, Chester Cathedral.

It has been stated above that the Court is under Episcopal control, and so is not generally seen by visitors to the Cathedral. Any one, however, who is desirous of seeing this “Memorial of Old Cheshire” can do so by applying to the verger in attendance, and will be repaid by his visit, as it is extremely doubtful whether anywhere in England such a venerable specimen of the accessories of a legal court of olden days can be found. The visitor, if gifted with a lively imagination, may people the Court with persons of a former generation, and call up in fancy some keenly-contested suit in connection with Ecclesiastical discipline, or some matrimonial or probate cause. If it should happen that the Court is sitting, he may see the Chancellor hearing applications for faculties, and may possibly note the opposition which is sometimes raised; but he will not be likely to witness such a scene of excitement as recently marked the Consistory Court of a southern diocese. He must be content with hearing the judge give his decision, it may be after a few explanatory remarks, in the words: “The Faculty is decreed in terms of the Citation.”

HALTON COURT LEET

By V. B. Davies

Halton Castle.

THERE is an interesting little village called Halton on the northerly border of Cheshire, about two and a half miles from Runcorn; but as it is not on the high road to anywhere in particular, it is little known and seldom visited by strangers. It is interesting because of the ruins of an old castle which are there. This castle is situated on a high hill commanding an extensive view over a large part of Cheshire and across the river Mersey (which is of considerable width at this point) into Lancashire. Halton Castle is of very ancient date. It was built by Hugh Lupus, first Earl of Chester, soon after the Norman Conquest, and the manor and fee of Halton descended to Henry the Fourth, since when it has been annexed to the Crown, except during the time of the Protectorate of Cromwell, when it was put up for sale by auction and purchased by Henry Brooke of Halton, a predecessor of the present Sir Richard Brooke. On the restoration of the monarchy it reverted back to the Crown, and at this day it belongs to the King, who, as the Duke of Lancaster, is Lord of the Manor.

In former days the stewards of this manor were officials of considerable importance, and one of the early stewards was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. The late Mr. William Beamont and Mr. Robert Davies of Warrington were stewards in more recent years. On the death of the latter gentleman in 1902, Mr. Bolden, one of the officials in the Duke of Lancaster’s office in London, was appointed steward, and Mr. Vere Beamont Davies and Mr. Herbert Hatton of Warrington were appointed deputy stewards, and this arrangement holds good at the present time. In connection with this manor there is a court of very ancient origin, termed the Halton Court Leet, held at the castle, and over which the deputy steward presides. The earliest records of the court are dated 1347, in the time of Edward III.; but it is believed the court goes back for a period of about 660 years. The court formerly had a very extensive jurisdiction and a variety of duties to perform, but at the present time it has been superseded by the county courts and magistrates’ courts, and its powers have passed away.

The court rolls were formerly kept in a large chest at Halton Castle, but have now been removed to London. The late Mr. William Beamont gives a very interesting account of these rolls in his book, An Account of the Rolls of the Honour of Halton, and sets out numerous extracts detailing the work performed by the Court Leet in former days. The following are some of them, and will, we think, be of interest to our readers:⁠—

In 5 Ed. IV. the inquest at the court make this short return, “Nil presentant propter breve tempus.”

At the Halton Court held in 4 Hen. VIII., 1512, Elizabeth Heath, servant to John Blinsten, and Agnes, wife of John Owen, were found to be common carriers away of the poles of the park, and were fined for it; and Agnes was further charged with stealing the racks placed in the park to hold the hay which had been placed there for the King’s deer (feris).

In 1544 the jury at Thelwall presented Robert Bold and Thomas Heypey for keeping cards “talos [dice] et alia joca illicita,” in their houses, “contra firmam statuti.”

In 1559 a tenant was presented at the court for not ringing his swine.

In 1608 John Lawton was fined 3s. 4d. for allowing Thomas Whiteley to remain tippling in his house, which it is presumed was public, for one hour.

In 1655 a man was fined for suffering his wife to fight and draw blood.

On Thursday before St. George’s Day, 4 Hen. VIII., 1512, William Hicson was excused attending at the Manor Court because he was going with the King on his wars in France. This man probably went with the Marquis of Dorset’s unfortunate expedition, with which, however, the King did not go.

In the 42 Edward III., 1370, Hamon de Warburton is fined by the court for taking a hare in the lord’s warren at Whitley. The warren here spoken of must mean the lord’s free warren, for hares are not, like rabbits, confined in an enclosed warren.

In 1507 the jury at the Halton Court held at Thelwall presented John Bollyng of Warrington, yeoman, for that he on 1 February, and on divers other days as well before as after at Appleton and elsewhere within the fee of Halton with greyhounds and other dogs (cum greybitches venaticis et aliis canibus) was a common hunter “vi et armis,” not having lands and tenements to the value of xls. a year, and, it is added, “nil habet ideo capiatur.”

In 1512, at the Runcorn halmote, the jury, as we have before mentioned, presented William Runcorn of Runcorn, chaplain, for that he not being beneficed to xls. a year did keep a hare hound and was a common hunter.

In 1380 one William Harper, who had been tried at Chester and found guilty of the murder of Adam Mushet, was brought back to Halton and there hanged by the bailiff, and the lord of the fee received six pence for the value of his goods.

In 1450 six or more persons were charged with feloniously entering and breaking into a dwelling-house at Halton and stealing thereout money and goods.

In 1474 there is a notice of a more serious charge. Two Welshmen from Mold having committed a burglary at Keckwick, and stolen thereout, among other articles, a sheaf of arrows, and having been committed for it, broke out of the castle, taking with them their fetters and chains, which must have helped to discover them, for they were soon afterwards retaken and tried before Thomas, Lord Stanley, the seneschal, and, being found guilty, were hanged at Halton.

At the Widnes Court in 4 Hen. VIII., 1512, Robert Woodfall was charged with walking at night through the King Street in Farnworth in front of the houses of the King’s tenants, and with force and arms, namely, a staff and a dagger, calling out “Whoever wishes to fight me, let him come out,” whereby the King’s subjects were disturbed and put in fear; wherefore he was fined by the court.

In the same year three persons were presented for lucrum excessivum, by which it is supposed usury was meant; though in 1375 some butchers were presented quia ceperunt lucrum excessivum, meaning that they had charged too much. In 1512 some men were presented for using bows and arrows to drive a man off some land where he was digging turf.

In 1544 one George Amery of Barnton was presented for that he did keep and harbour crows in his grounds and did permit them to build in his woods, to the injury of the country and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.

On October 3, 1561, Helena Ditchfield was charged with a trespass in pulling down her neighbours’ fences.

In 1593, a grievous murder having been committed at Grappenhall Heath on the person of John Findley, a hawker of Scottish cloth, the crime was brought home to one William Geston, a servant of the Bishop of Chester. The jury at Halton presented the fact, and the prisoner, having been tried for it and convicted at Chester Assizes, was hanged in chains on April 27, 1593, near the spot where the murder was committed.

In 1608 one Stockton was presented for selling ale without the justices’ licence, and taking in and entertaining irregular and pernicious persons to the disturbance of his neighbours, and one Lawton for permitting a man to tipple in his house for one hour was fined 3s. 4d., and Charles Hall for taking in inmates was fined 6s. 8d.

On January 16, 1660, Roger Drakeford, who had conveyed a prisoner to Sir Peter Leycester’s (the great Cheshire antiquary), a journey of fourteen miles, was paid 3s. 6d. for himself and his horse, a small sum for so long a journey.

In 1388 the Prior of Norton was charged with making two fish-yards in the Mersey, one called Gracedieu and the other Charity, which obstructed the passage of the lord’s boat of eight oars from Fresh Pool to Thelwall.

In 1598 the jury found that Robert Dutton of Preston did fish in Thomas Dutton’s pit and did take his fish in the daytime without leave or licence from him, and therefore they did amerce him.

In 1605 the court complained of the number of the fish-yards at Thelwall and of the encroachments they made on the river.

On October 8, 1655, the old complaint of the river being obstructed by fish-yards was again renewed.

In 1655 a number of persons were presented and fined for keeping up their weirs and fish-yards in the mid-stream of the Mersey so that the Lord of the fee could not pass by the “key” of Thelwall with boats and barges.

It will thus be seen that the Court in former days had a wide and extensive jurisdiction and dealt with a variety of matters. Nowadays, as before stated, the court has no powers, but the court is held by the deputy steward at the Castle, or rather at the Castle Hotel adjoining the ruins, once every three years, simply to keep up the old custom, and for the sake of past memories. A jury summons signed by the Bailiff of the Court in the following form:⁠—

Witness my hand at Halton aforesaid, this day of 19

Bailiff of the said Court.

is sent to the Overseers of the following townships:⁠—

Aston juxta Budworth, Aston juxta Sutton, Appleton, Antrobus, Astmore, Barnton, Bartington, Bexton, Budworth (Great), Comberbach, Cotton, Church Hulme (Holmes Chapel), Cogshall, Crowley, Daresbury, Halton, Hatton, Kekewick, Lymm, Millington, Newton juxta Daresbury, Preston o’th Hill, Sutton, Stretton, Seven Oaks, Toft, Tabley (Over), Weston, Walton Superior, Walton Inferior, Whitley Superior, Whitley Inferior.

A jury is appointed, and sworn in by the deputy steward, and a constable and two burleymen are appointed.

The following is the form of oath administered to the foreman and rest of the jury:⁠—

“You as foreman of this inquest, with the rest of your fellows, shall duly inquire and true presentment make of all such matters and things as relate to the present service, wherein you shall spare no man for fear, love, favour, or affection, nor present any man out of malice or hatred, but according as things here presentable shall come to your knowledge, by information or otherwise, so shall you make thereof true presentment without concealment. So help you God.”

Before the opening of the court by the deputy steward, the bailiff makes the following proclamation:⁠—

“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All manner of persons who owe suit and service to this Court Leet and view of Frankpledge and Court Baron of His Most Gracious Majesty the King, as Duke of Lancaster, Baron of Halton, and paramount Lord of this Manor and Fee, draw near, give your attendance, and answer to your names.”

No business is, of course, transacted, and the proceedings finish up with a dinner, over which the deputy steward presides.

As before stated, the court must have had jurisdiction over a wide area, as the jurors are summoned from Barnton, near Northwich, and from Toft and Tabley, near Knutsford, and also from Holmes Chapel. It is also evident from the extracts from Mr. Beamont’s book that minor courts were held in connection with the Halton Court at a variety of places, and it is also to be noticed that the jurisdiction of the court extended across the river Mersey into Lancashire, and that courts were held at Widnes and Farnworth. In fact, there is the Manor of Widnes, comprising land on the Lancashire side of the river, which also belongs to the Duchy of Lancaster, and of which the King is the lord, and it is presumed the jurisdiction of the court would extend over the area of this manor.

In some remarks on the last Court Leet, held in December 1908, the Warrington Guardian stated:

“That the Widnes or Farnworth Leet, which was subject to Halton, had the power to mete out only four punishments. These included the pillory, an ignominious punishment; and the cuck-stool or ducking-chair, for punishing a scold, of whose unruly member it was said:

‘Of members the tongue is the worst and the best,

And an ill tongue sows often the seeds of unrest.’

To curb the tongue, they had also the brank, an iron bridle which kept the tongue quiet by more mechanical means. The court had also the stocks, the constable’s prison as it was called, and the whipping-post, but the Farnworth or Widnes Leet, though allied to Halton, had not the power which Halton certainly possessed of inflicting the punishment of death.”

In addition to its powers of punishment, there is no doubt that, prior to the days of printing and when only few people could read or write, the court was used as a means of making public proclamations, and that presentments were made to it of matters of general interest to the people which otherwise could not have been brought to their knowledge. To-day we have our telegraphs and telephones, our newspapers and our books, and all other ways of letting every one know everything. Who shall say which were the happier days?

“Let the great world spin for ever

Down the ringing grooves of change.”

In conclusion, we may remark that there is another relic of old times in connection with the Manor of Halton, in that part of the land there, and also in the Manor of Widnes before referred to, is still of copyhold tenure, and the ordinary laws of conveyancing do not apply to it. For instance, a conveyance of land is carried out by way of what is called a Surrender and Admission and a mortgage by a Conditional Surrender, and the deeds have to be signed by the parties before the deputy steward. These deeds are all entered on the court rolls of the manor, the originals being sent to the Duchy Office in London, and copies are kept at the office of the deputy steward, and other copies handed to the parties dealing with the property.

This mode of transfer of the land is cumbersome and expensive, and is gradually dying out, for any copyholder can apply to the Duchy of Lancaster to have his land enfranchised, and on the payment of certain fees he obtains a conveyance of same from the King, as Lord of the Manor, and the property then becomes his absolute freehold, and is dealt with afterwards like any other property. The seal of the Duchy of Lancaster is always affixed to the enfranchisement deeds, and is so large that it has to be attached to the deed by a strip of parchment and kept in a tin box.

CHESHIRE WORTHIES

By P. H. Ditchfield, M.A., F.S.A.

CHESHIRE, the “seed-plot of gentility,” as Speed loved to call his native shire, can boast of many illustrious sons who have conferred honour on their county. A large volume would be needed wherein to chronicle all their achievements, their deeds of prowess, their successes as poets, divines, lawyers, and philosophers. We can only record the names of the most illustrious Cestrians who have achieved fame in various professions and are worthy of a niche in these memorials of the county.

Soldiers

Cheshire men have always been good fighters. They have played their part bravely on many a battlefield at home and abroad, and honour shall first be done to the soldiers of the shire. In civil war there was little unity amongst the gentlemen of Cheshire. They fought with, or against, each other as party faction or inclination dictated; but against the enemies of England they were formidable foes. The great Civil War that raged between King and Parliament brought most of these Cheshire soldiers into prominence, and most of the names on our list of warriors are connected with that period.

In the wars with France when the third King Edward reigned, Cheshire men showed well the stuff they were made of, their valour and bravery in arms. Foremost amongst their number in this group of early warriors stands Sir Thomas Danyers, who fought gallantly in the battle of Crecy under the banner of the Black Prince. He plunged into the thickest of the fight, and when the King bade his son “win his spurs and the honour of the day for himself,” Sir Thomas “relieved the banner of his Earl and took prisoner the Chamberlain of France, de Tankerville.” For this gallant feat of arms the Prince rewarded the Cheshire knight with a goodly sum of money, and the promise of the grant of an estate in his native county. This promise was not fulfilled until after the warrior’s death, when the fair lands of Lyme were bestowed upon his daughter, who had married Sir Piers Legh; and thus the famous family of the Leighs of Lyme began their existence, and happily the connection still survives after the lapse of many centuries.

Another brave soldier of the period was Sir John Delves, who with his companions in arms contributed greatly to the glorious victory of Poictiers. That fight was memorable for Cheshire men. The gallant James, Lord Audley, a native of the shire, though he lived in Staffordshire, had for his four squires, John Delves, Dutton of Dutton, Foulshurst of Crewe, and Hawkeston of Wrine Hall, a Cheshire man though residing in Staffordshire. When the battle day dawned Audley vowed to be foremost in the field and lead the attack, and “with the ayde of his four scuyers dyd marvels in arms, and foughte always in the cheyfe of the batyle; y^t day he never toke prisoner, but always foughte and wente on his enemyes.” He was sorely wounded, and was borne from the field by his faithful squires. For his bravery the Prince made him a grant of five hundred marks a year for ever. This reward the good knight handed over to his squires, saying that they had deserved it as much as he, and had more need of it. So the Prince gave him a second grant of a like amount. Audley, as a further reward to his squires, ordered that they should bear on their coats of arms his own proper achievement, gules a fret, d’or. Sir John Delves purchased Doddington, near Nantwich, where he erected a goodly mansion in 1364, and where the statues of himself and his brave companions, carved in later times, could be seen. There is an alabaster effigy of Sir Robert Foulshurst, one of the gallant squires, in Barthomley Church.

Sir Hugh Calveley’s Tomb, Bunbury Church.

Sir Hugh Calveley sleeps at Bunbury, a mighty hero of the French wars who fought under the brave leader Sir John Chandos. You can see his fine alabaster tomb, a lion couching at his feet, and his crest, a calf’s head, which he bore on many a foreign battlefield. Fuller says of him: “Tradition makes him a man of teeth and hands, who would feed as much as two, and fight as much as ten men; his quick and strong appetite could digest anything but an injury, so that the killing a man is reported the cause of his quitting this country, making hence for London and France. Here he became a most eminent soldier.” It were vain to tell of all his exploits. He fought in Brittany in 1357, at Auray in 1364, Navarete in 1367, in Brittany again with Sir John Arundell in 1380, when the expedition was almost entirely destroyed by a storm and 20,000 men perished. Many of these warriors lived a wild and turbulent life during the wars, and Sir Hugh, perhaps repenting of his deeds, in his old age converted the Parish Church of Bunbury into a collegiate church, with a master and six chaplains to pray for his soul. One of his companions in arms was Sir Robert Knowles, born of mean parentage in Cheshire, but brave and valiant. He fought with Sir Hugh Calveley in Brittany in 1351, when thirty Englishmen encountered the like number of Bretons and were sorely worsted. The ruined castles that he left behind him in France were termed “Knowles’s Mitres.” His last service to his country was the suppression of Wat Tyler’s rebellion.

The Wars of the Roses claimed some Cheshire victims. On the bloody field of Blore Heath, when the Earl of Salisbury defeated Lord Audley and the Yorkists on September 25, 1459, fell Sir Robert Booth, the ancestor of the Booth family of Dunham Massey. His brass memorial, with that of his wife, the heiress of that estate, is in the church at Wilmslow. Sir William Stanley, second son of the first Lord Stanley, in the time of Henry VII. held Ridley, being Chamberlain of Cheshire. He distinguished himself at the battle of Bosworth, rescuing Henry from great peril and saving his life. He was the first to set the crown of England on King Henry’s head, after it had been found on the battlefield trampled under the feet of the fighters. A gratified monarch bestowed upon him wealth and honour, but he was accused of favouring the design of Perkin Warbeck, and perished on the scaffold. His manor of Ridley was forfeited to the Crown and given to another distinguished soldier, Sir Ralph Egerton, who fought bravely at the battle of the Spurs, and at the siege of Terouenne and Tournay, capturing the standard of the French. He also fought at Flodden Field, and was appointed royal standard-bearer of England, a high distinction nobly earned. He lies in the church at Bunbury, and from him descended the lines of the Earls and Dukes of Bridgewater.

Of the brave men of Elizabethan times we may mention the Cheshire warrior Sir Uryan Legh, of the Leghs of Adlington, who, present at the taking of Cadiz under the leadership of the Earl of Essex in 1590, was knighted for his gallantry, and in the time of James I. became Sheriff of Cheshire. You can see his portrait at Bramall Hall attired in Spanish dress, in which, according to an old ballad, he wrought mischief in the heart of a fair Spanish lady who made violent love to him, and could only be deterred by the somewhat lately imparted knowledge that Sir Uryan had already a wife. Sir George Beeston, another gallant soldier, lies at Bunbury, where a fine monument records his memory. He was one of those who, though advanced in years, took an active part in defeating the Spanish Armada, and fought valiantly at the siege of Boulogne.

Fiercely did the great Civil War rage in Cheshire, and fiercely did the Cestrians fight. Foremost among them was Sir William Brereton, the great Cheshire leader of the Parliamentary army, and commander-in-chief of the Cheshire forces. The story of his fights is the history of the Civil War in this and the neighbouring counties, and cannot be told here. His relative Lord Brereton, the owner of the seat Brereton, one of the finest mansions in the county, was a brave supporter of the Royalist cause. Sir William lived to see the Restoration, and died at the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon, which had been granted to him by the Parliament. Lord Brereton returned to his goodly house, but families, alas! become extinct, and the name once so famous in Cheshire history now no longer exists save in memory.

Colonel Edward Massey, of the ancient family of the Masseys of Coddington, was a soldier of fortune who fought on both sides in the war. He, however, threw in his lot with the enemies of the King, and was made Governor of Gloucester. He held the city during the siege; but on the triumph of the Independents his career was chequered, and he found his way back to the King, and became Major-general in the Royal army. History tells not when he died.

Another Parliamentary leader was Colonel Robert Dukinfield, of Dukinfield, who came of an ancient Cheshire family. He defended Stockport Bridge against Prince Rupert, laid siege to and captured Whiltenshaw, became Governor of Chester, took part in the disgraceful court-martial of the Earl of Derby, who was judicially murdered at Bolton, and obtained the surrender by the Countess of the Derby estates in the Isle of Man. He wrote a delightful letter to Cromwell, in which he tells the Protector that he firmly believes that the root of the tree of piety is alive in him, though the leaves thereof, through the abundance of temptations and flatterers, seemed to the writer to be withered much of late, yet he hoped time and experience would have a good influence upon his lordship, Deo juvante. This letter, and other outspoken words, did not endear Dukinfield to the Protector’s followers, who showed their distrust of him. However, he crushed the abortive rising of Sir George Booth, and received the thanks of the Parliament and a reward for his services. He did not escape persecution at the Restoration, but the Royalists admired the staunch old Colonel, and the King made his son a baronet.

This Sir George Booth, who before the return of Charles II. was appointed commander-in-chief of the King’s forces in Cheshire, Lancashire, and North Wales, and headed an abortive attempt to restore his Majesty to the throne, was well rewarded for his services. After his defeat he escaped in a woman’s habit, riding on a pillion behind one of his grooms. But his sex was detected by the landlord of an inn where he sojourned, and he was captured and sent to the Tower. In 1660 the House of Commons voted him £10,000 for his services in effecting the Restoration. He was created Baron Delamere of Dunham Massey, and was appointed Custos Rotulorum for the county. He died at Dunham Massey, and was buried at Bowdon in 1673. In his attempt to regain the throne for Charles II. he was greatly assisted by Roger Grosvenor, ancestor of the Dukes of Westminster, who have always “stood by their pious principles of faith and loyalty,” as Randle Holme truly testifies. His son, Sir Thomas, commanded a troop in the Earl of Shrewsbury’s regiment of horse in 1685, which encamped at Hounslow Heath, and he was offered a peerage by James II. for his answer to the repeal of the Test Acts, a bribe which he had the courage to resist. He was M.P. for Chester, Mayor of the city, and Sheriff of the county.

The Astons were unfortunate Royalists. Sir Thomas was defeated by Sir William Brereton at Middlewich, and Sir Arthur, after being Governor of Reading, and earning the praise of his sovereign, who deemed that “there was not a man in his army of greater reputation, or one of whom the enemy had greater dread,” lost his leg and then his life in the slaughter of the garrison of Tredagh, in Ireland. Two other gallant Royalists must be mentioned, Sir Francis Gamul, of Buerton, who watched from the Phœnix Tower with the King the fatal fight of Rowton Heath, and helped him to escape from his enemies; and Sir Geoffrey Shakerley, who performed many deeds of daring during the war; and at Rowton Heath, in order to convey a message to the King, crossed the Dee in a tub, holding the bridle of his horse, which was swimming at the side. He was a good friend and servant of the King, Governor of the Castle of Chester, and lies beneath his fine monument at Nether Peover Church.

Henry Booth, Earl of Warrington and Baron Delamere, second son of Baron Delamere before mentioned, played as distinguished a part in the Revolution and in establishing William III. on the English throne as his father had done for Charles II. A brave assertor of his country’s rights, and a defender of the Protestant religion, he fell foul of James II., and was tried on a groundless charge of high treason, the notorious Jefferies being his accuser. He escaped that peril, and soon raised an army in Cheshire and Lancashire to aid Dutch William. To him fell the duty of telling the last Stuart king that he must leave Whitehall, treating the fallen monarch with a respect and deference that touched his Majesty. Many honours were heaped upon him, including the Earldom of Warrington and a pension of £2000 a year; but he did not long enjoy his dignity, as death summoned him at the early age of forty-two years in 1693–4.

Colonel, and afterwards General, Werden risked his life and fortune for King Charles, had to fly from the country, and continued with the royal family until the Restoration, after which he was appointed to several offices of trust, and was comptroller of the royal household. His son John was created a baronet, and held many important posts.

Sir Roger Mostyn, of Mostyn, Baronet, was a gallant soldier who raised 1500 men for the King’s service, captured Hawarden Castle, was Governor of Flint Castle, which he maintained until the death of the King’s cause. His house of Mostyn was plundered, and he was imprisoned in Conway Castle; at the Restoration a baronetcy was the reward of his services.

Doubtless Cheshire had many other brave soldiers, but this list must now suffice.

Bishops

The county has seen many of her sons raised to the Episcopal Bench. Foremost amongst these was the saintly Bishop Wilson of Mona’s Isle, who was born of humble parents in the parish of Burton in the Wirral district. Three years after the Restoration Thomas Wilson first saw the light; his holy, wise, charitable, God-fearing life was a burning and a shining light in his age, and his influence spread far and wide. He planted the Church anew in his remote little diocese. In vain did Queen Anne and Queen Caroline try to tempt him to leave the island by the offer of another diocese. He set his face against pluralism, the curse of his time, refusing to hold any preferments in addition to his See, which was poor and impoverished. Crowds flocked to see him, to crave from him a blessing. The writer has been with the fishermen of this island, and heard them sing their sweet hymns as they kneel beside their bulwarks when they are going to ply their calling on the sea, and he was told that Bishop Wilson first taught their fathers to sing those hymns and seek a blessing on their toil.

We know little of Dr. Hugh Bellot, Bishop of Bangor and Chester. He was the son of Thomas Bellot, of Great Moulton Hall, in the parish of Astbury in this county, and died in 1596. Nor can I say much of Bishop Rider, who was born in 1562 at Carrington in this county. He became Bishop of Killaloe in 1612, and found time amid his episcopal duties to compile a Latin Dictionary. But every one has heard of the famous Bishop Heber, who was born at Malpas in 1783, the son of the rector of that place. His poems and hymns are known to all. It was his Newdigate Prize Poem at Oxford on the subject of Palestine that first brought him fame. For some years he was rector of Hodnet, where he delighted in the calmness of village life. At length he received a call to the See of Calcutta, where he died at the early age of forty-three years.

Bishop Edward Stanley was the son of Sir J. T. Stanley of Alderley Park, and was born in 1779. He was rector of Alderley from 1805 to 1837, and proved himself a model clergyman, shining as a light in a dark age. He came to an entirely neglected parish, and by his example and precept transformed it into a totally different place. He was an early educationist, and took care that his children should be well taught. He put down drunkenness and prize-fighting, and was a close observer of nature—a northern White of Selborne. In 1837 he was called to the See of Norwich, which he held until his death in 1849—a very worthy Bishop.

A few learned divines we may mention. Dr. Samuel Clarke, a Puritan, minister of Shotwick, where he was a favourite preacher. He was a very voluminous writer, and died in 1682. Dr. John Hulse, the founder of the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge, was born at Middlewich in 1708. When a child he was rescued by his grandfather from squalid circumstances, and obtained high university distinction at Cambridge. He became vicar of Goostrey until, on his father’s death, he became possessed of the family estate of Elworth, near Sandbach. John Barron, D.D., canon of Salisbury, chaplain to Lord Chancellor Egerton, and founder of a Hebrew lectureship at Brazenose College, Oxford, should be mentioned, who died in 1642. He is described by a contemporary biographer as “a bountiful housekeeper, of a cheerful spirit and a peaceful disposition.” Many other names of learned bishops and divines will occur to the reader, and this list would include many of the bishops and deans of Chester, but few of them were natives of the county, and are therefore not included in these biographical notes.

Poets

Of poets, we have mentioned the saintly Heber. But there are others of an earlier age. John Brownswerd, a native of the shire, was born in 1540, and after graduating at Cambridge became master of the Grammar School at Macclesfield, earning fame as one of the best Latin poets of his age. A tablet was raised to the memory of this “vir pius & doctus,” who is described as

Alpha poetarum, coryphæus grammaticorum

Flos pædagogum hic sepelitur humo.

He died in 1589, a good example of the learned men of the Elizabethan age, who trained their pupils in good classic lore. There were several such schools in Cheshire—at Chester, Audlem, Northwich, and other places. Another Elizabethan poet owed his education to such schools. Geoffrey Whitney, who was born at Nantwich, learned his classics at Audlem and Northwich, graduated at Oxford, and then migrated to Leyden. There he published his Choice of Emblemes, printed in 1586 in the famous printing-press of Christopher Plantyn, and a collection of fables. Each poem is dedicated to one of the principal gentlemen in Lancashire and Cheshire. The Cheshire historian Ormerod quotes a poem addressed “to my countremen of the Namptwicke in Cheshire,” relating to a fire that had lately destroyed the town, and comparing the place to a phœnix, of which the poet gives a device. Near Northwich was born Sir John Birkenhead, poet and political writer, of humble origin, his father being either a saddler or an innkeeper. The excellence of the Cheshire schools is again shown by his ability in taking a degree at Oxford and a fellowship at Oriel College. When the Civil War broke out he started the newspaper the Mercurius Aulicus for the purpose of “communicating the intelligence and affairs of the Court of Oxon to the rest of the kingdom.” The King was pleased with this product of his fluent pen, and appointed him Reader in Moral Philosophy. When misfortune befell him with the fall of the Royal cause, he wrote poems and divers political tracts, and at the Restoration was rewarded for his loyalty with a knighthood and other lucrative appointments. He has been described as a man “of great courage in words, scoffing humour, an unscrupulous conscience, and an inexhaustible fund of arch and mischievous drollery, ... one of the most expert and successful guerilla partisans on the side of the Royalists.”

The poet Milton is connected with this county, as his third wife, Elizabeth Mynshal, a lady connected with some of the best Cheshire families, came from Cheshire and died at Nantwich. She is believed to have been a termagant, and brought the poet little pleasure, but others have described her as of “a peaceful and agreeable humour.”

The Rev. William Broome, a native of Cheshire, was a poet of some distinction, a translator of Homer, and the coadjutor of Pope in the translation of the Odyssey. He supplied all the notes to that work, but he quarrelled with Pope, and was lampooned in the Dunciad. Dr. Johnson gave him a niche in his Lives of the Poets, describing him as an excellent versifier; “his lines are smooth and sonorous, and his diction is select and elegant.” Another name must be honoured among Cheshire poets, that of Henry Birkenhead, M.D., a poet of distinction, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, a founder in 1707 of the Professorship of Poetry in that University.

Judges and Chancellors

Some Cheshire lawyers have achieved fame. In the spacious days of Queen Elizabeth, at Nantwich in 1588 was born Randolph Crewe, who came of the distinguished family of the Crewes of Crewe Hall, though his father was in poor circumstances at the time of his birth. He and his brother Thomas were fired with the idea of regaining the family estates. The good schools of Cheshire enabled them to go to Oxford; they became students at Lincoln’s Inn, Serjeants-at-Law, and successively Speakers of the House of Commons. Randolph rose rapidly in his profession, and in 1624 became Lord Chief Justice of England. In the discharge of his high office he showed a perfectly honest and independent spirit, much learning and ability, strict honour and integrity, therein differing from many of the venal judges of his age. He refused to bow to the King’s will in respect of the imposition of illegal taxes, and in consequence was deprived of his rank. He retired to his beloved Cheshire, purchased the old family estates, and built for himself a new manor house. Fuller tells in his quaint way that Sir Randolph “first brought the model of excellent building into these remote parts; yea, brought London into Cheshire, in the loftiness, sightliness, and pleasantness of their structures.” His letter to the Duke of Buckingham is a model of straightforward honesty, stating his reasons for his decision in the matter of the taxation, and asking for his Grace’s intercession with the King. While the war was raging between King and Parliament he quietly passed away in his Hall at Crewe, and lies at rest in the Crewe Chapel at Barthomley.

Another eminent lawyer was Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, Thomas, Viscount Brackley, the natural son of Sir Richard Egerton of Ridley, born in 1540. Queen Elizabeth on one occasion heard him pleading with his usual shrewdness against a Crown case, and exclaimed, “In my troth, he shall never plead against me again,” and from that day his rise was rapid. He became Attorney-General in 1592, was knighted, Master of the Rolls in 1594, and two years later Lord Keeper and Member of Privy Council. On the death of the Queen he was called upon to conduct the affairs of the nation until the arrival of King James of Scotland, who constituted him Lord Chancellor and Baron Ellesmere. For twelve years he held the reins of office, conducted many important trials, helped to unite the kingdoms of England and Scotland, and at length, full of years and honours, with much pathos resigned his high office, being succeeded by Sir Francis Bacon. His body rests in Dodleston Church.

The name of Sir Edward Fitton, Lord President of Connaught and Thomond, and Treasurer of Ireland in the reign of Elizabeth, must not be forgotten or omitted from our list of Cheshire worthies. He was born at Gawsworth, and a memorial to the knight may be seen in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin.

Sir Humphrey Davenport was Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer in the reign of Charles I., and had a distinguished legal career. He was the fourth son of William Davenport of Bramhall, near Stockport. Sir Peter Warburton of Grafton, one of the Judges of the King’s Bench about the same period, was also a Cheshire man. Another great lawyer was Richard Peter Arden, Lord Alvanley, born at Bredbury in 1745. In 1780 he became King’s Counsel, M.P. for Newton in the Isle of Wight, Master of the Rolls, and, in 1801, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, when he was created Lord Alvanley, taking his title from a manor in the parish of Frodsham which had been held by his ancestors. He was a somewhat outspoken, hasty, and flippant judge, and amusing stories are told of his sayings in court and of his disputes with Lord Chancellor Thurlow.

Chief Justice Williams was the son of a rector of Bunbury, where he was born in 1777, and had a brilliant legal career. His reputation was made at the trial of Queen Caroline, whose junior counsel he was, with Mr. Brougham, afterwards Lord Brougham, as his senior. His able advocacy was the chief cause of the vindication of the unfortunate Queen. He was returned to Parliament for Lincoln in 1823, became Attorney-General in 1830, and Puisne Judge of the King’s Bench four years later, when he was made a knight. A volume of Greek epigrams testifies to his devotion to classical studies.

The last Cheshire lawyer on our list is Lord Kenyon. Though not actually born in the county, his native place being Greddington, just over the border in Flintshire, he had a Cheshire lady for his mother, and began his career at an attorney’s office in Nantwich. He might have spent his life there, having been offered a partnership; but he soared higher, went to London, and was called to the Bar in 1756. He was M.P. for Hindon and Chief Justice of Chester in 1780, and was engaged in the defence of Lord George Gordon in that memorable trial of the Gordon rioters. After being Attorney-General and Master of the Rolls, he was created a baronet, raised to the peerage, and appointed Chief Justice in 1788. He was noted for his parsimonious ways, relics of his early poverty; but his biographers assert that few lawyers so able, and none more honest, ever entered Westminster Hall.

Scientists

Edward Brerewood, the son of a Chester tradesman, born in 1565, was a celebrated mathematician and antiquary. From the Free School at Chester he went to Oxford, and became the first professor of astronomy in Gresham College. Several of his works were published after his death by his nephew, Robert Brerewood, of Chester.

Cheshire can boast of an early botanist and herbalist, John Gerarde, who was born at Nantwich in 1545. He was head gardener to Lord Burghley from 1577. He took his early lessons in the book of nature when wandering on the banks of the Weaver in his native shire. He wrote, in 1596, his work, entitled Catalogus arborum, fruticum ac plantarum, and he was the author of The Herball or General Historie of Plantes, “gathered by John Gerarde, of London, Master in Chirurgerie.”

A more eminent scientist was Samuel Molyneux, son of a learned father, and was born at Chester in 1689. He was a wonderful, precocious genius, and could do marvellous things when he was only five years old. His biographer tells us that “when he advanced to manhood he was acknowledged to be one of the most polite and accomplished gentlemen in England or Ireland, and was appointed secretary to the Prince of Wales, afterwards George II., and had a house in Kew, near Richmond, where he improved himself in his favourite study astronomy.” He greatly improved the making of telescopes. He married Elizabeth, sister to the Earl of Essex.

The third Lord Brereton, unlike his father, who loved warlike pursuits and fought for the King in the Civil War, was a lover of science and peaceful pursuits. He was educated at Breda in Holland, under the care of Dr. John Pell, and became a good mathematician and algebraist. He was one of the founders of the Royal Society, associated with all the learned men of his time, and always endeavoured to advance the cause of science. He was somewhat of a poet, musician, and composer. The proceedings of the Royal Society often record his name, which learned Society in its infant days seems to have concerned itself with somewhat childish questions, and exercised the minds of its members on the divining-rod and the superstition with regard to the portents presaging the death of any member of the Brereton family.

Lawrence Earnshaw was a wonderful mechanical genius, a native of Mottram-in-Longdendale in the first half of the eighteenth century. Nothing came amiss to his skilful fingers. He could shear sheep and make the wool into cloth entirely with implements of his own making. Engraver, painter, gilder, glass-stainer, blacksmith, gunsmith, bell-founder; maker of sundials, harpsichords, violins, organs—he could do everything. But his great achievement was in the art of clockmaking, producing a curious astronomical and geographical machine which represented the motions of the earth, moon, stars, &c. He anticipated the invention of the spinning-jenny, but destroyed his machine lest it should decrease labour and take bread from the mouths of the poor. Another noted clockmaker was John Whitehurst, Fellow of the Royal Society, born at Congleton in 1713. He was author of some philosophical papers, amongst others of an Inquiry into the Original State and Formation of the Earth.

Another learned Cestrian was Dr. William Falconer, born at Chester in 1741. He was learned in science and horticulture, and published several works, including An Historical View of the taste for Gardening and Laying-out Grounds among the Nations of Antiquity; An Essay on the Means of Preserving the Health of those employed in Agricultural Labours; and A Sketch of the History of Sugar in Early Times.

Historians

Many are the writers on Cheshire history whose names should be recorded—men who have loved their county and desired to tell of its beauties and historical associations. We can only mention a tithe of those worthy sons who have done honour to their shire, and accomplished work which has been often little understood or appreciated by their fellows.

The first of these is a name honoured by all historians, Henry Bradshaw, a native of Chester and a monk of St. Werburgh’s Abbey, who lived in the latter part of the fourteenth century. He was one of the earliest chroniclers of Cheshire, and wrote his works in the cloistered shade of his monastic house. His works consist of a treatise, De Antiquitate et Magnificentiâ Urbis Cestriæ, and a translation of “The Holy Lyfe and History of Saint Werburge, very frutefull for all Christen people to rede.” The first work is believed to have been lost, unless it is incorporated in the latter treatise, as Dr. Gower suggested. Perhaps we should have included Henry Bradshaw amongst our poets, in whose company he well deserves a high and important niche. His body lies near the shrine of the saint of whose virtues he loved to sing.

John Booth of Twamlowe, a contemporary of Sir William Brereton, was a distinguished Cheshire genealogist who occupies a foremost place amongst the antiquaries of the county. His works have been most useful to subsequent writers.

John Speed, born at Farndon in 1552, is a writer of whom any county may be proud. An account of this learned historian has already appeared in this volume.

The disputes of the learned often cause amusement, and the controversy between the rival baronets, Sir Peter Leicester and Sir Thomas Maynwaring of Over Peover, aroused much merriment in 1673–75. Sir Peter published a learned work in two volumes on the historical antiquities of Great Britain and more particularly of Cheshire, in which he asserted that Amicia, daughter of Hugh Keveliock, fifth Earl of Chester, a descendant of Hugh Lupus, was illegitimate. This aroused Sir Thomas Maynwaring, whose ancestor had married the said Amicia. He published a defence of the injured lady. Then Peter wrote an answer to Sir Thomas’s book, who retaliated with another book. So the controversy went on, each disputant waxing more wroth, until at last a law-suit ensued, the result being in favour of the champion of Amicia.

One of the earliest historians of Cheshire was Daniel King, the author of The Vale Royal of England, or History of Cheshire. He was more skilled in engraving than in writing, and his work was adorned with plates by Hollar. He was greatly aided by William Smith, Rouge Dragon, William Webb, clerk of the Mayor’s court at Chester, and William Aldersey, Mayor of Chester. Webb had some pretensions to be accounted a poet, and wrote “a Discourse on English poetry” in 1586. King’s Vale Royal was not a great book, but it has served its purpose in preserving a record of many things which might have been forgotten, and its engravings and illustrations will always be valuable. An abridged and revised edition was subsequently published by Thomas Hughes.

An account of the Randle Holmes—father, son, and grandson—a noted family of antiquaries, appears in another chapter. Mr. T. Worthington Barlow, F.L.S., barrister of Gray’s Inn, wrote much on the county; and we are greatly indebted to his Historical and Literary Associations of Cheshire for much valuable information which has been useful in the compiling of this record of Cheshire worthies. Nor must we forget the interesting diary of the Rev. Edward Burghall, the Puritanical vicar of Aston, who records with much perspicuity the events of the Civil War in Cheshire with many “moral reflections.” His animadversions on the Quakers, who troubled him sorely, are rather amusing reading.

Amongst Cheshire worthies must not be forgotten Sir Richard Sutton, co-founder with Bishop William Smyth of Lincoln, of Brazenose College, Oxford, “for the study of Philosophy and Sacred Theology, to the Praise and Honour of Almighty God,” in 1509. He was born at Prestbury, near Macclesfield, and was a lawyer, Governor of the Inner Temple, and Steward of the Monastery of Syon, afterward Sion College. He was the author of a work entitled Orcharde of Syon, but his chief fame rests on his completion of the foundation of the Oxford College which had been commenced by the bishop.

Such, then, are some of the worthies of Cheshire. Many others might be included, but the roll of honour of the county is already lengthy. We might mention the names of several of the illustrious families of the shire whose scions still continue to follow in the footsteps of their forefathers, and have conferred credit on their houses and on their native county. Some of the great and good men of Cheshire have but recently passed away, whose names are household words in the Cestrian land. They need no mention, no memorial, save that which their lives and good deeds have afforded. The love of the men of Cheshire for their shire has inspired many an act of daring, much toil, much devotion; may it continue so to do in the Vale Royal of England.

There is one name more that must be mentioned. He has been denounced as a “viper of hell,” a “monster of men,” whose bones were dragged from his tomb in Westminster Abbey and buried beneath the Tyburn gallows tree. Shall a regicide be mentioned among the worthies? Such was John Bradshaw, the judge of the Martyr King. He came of a good Cheshire family, and spent his life in studying law, rising high in his profession. This is not the place to judge his motives. He was no time-server, nor was he a universal favourite with his political colleagues. It is enough for us to note that he was born in Cheshire. A facsimile of the register of his baptism is shown with the additional word “traitor” added by a later hand, marking the writer’s detestation of the man who was called upon to play so prominent a part in the tragedy of the murder of a king, the chief instrument in the travesty of justice that ended on the scaffold at Whitehall.

THE FOUR RANDLE HOLMES OF CHESTER

(An Epitome of a Paper by the Late J. P. Earwaker, F.S.A.)

By the Archdeacon of Chester

NO book dealing with memorials of old Cheshire would be complete which did not give due prominence to those noted antiquaries of former generations, the Randle Holmes, and acknowledge gratefully and without stint the indebtedness of subsequent writers and students to their research and patient investigations. What follows will show, however inadequately, how great these obligations are. At the outset it may be said that some confusion has arisen from the fact that the name Randle Holme was borne by four members of the family in successive generations, and as a consequence the work of one has sometimes been assigned to another.

The family of Holme is a distinctly Cheshire one, Robert de Holme acquiring by marriage at the end of the fourteenth century a moiety of the manor of Tranmere or Tranmole. The property remained in the family till the reign of James I., when William Holme of Chester, on whom it had devolved, sold it. His uncle Thomas was the first to settle in Chester, and his fourth son was the first Randle Holme. He was born about 1571, dying in 1655, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. By his marriage in 1598 with the widow of Thomas Chaloner of Chester, a distinguished antiquary and herald, he succeeded to her late husband’s papers, and was thus probably led to take up the study of genealogy and family history. Chaloner had held an official position as deputy to the Heralds’ College, and in March 1600–1 he was succeeded by Randle Holme, who was appointed by William Segar, Norroy King-of-Arms, as his deputy, to keep a “regester booke of Funerals in the counties of Chester, Lancaster, and North Wales.” In this capacity he had to truly enter the arms and crests, &c., “of all such persons of Coate Armor and worship as it shall please God to call out of this transitory life”; and to demand and collect the “due fees.” In 1604 he is mentioned as an Alderman of his company, as also is his brother William, “a stationer,” he himself being “a painter.” In 1615 he was one of the two sheriffs of the city, and in 1622 rebuilt his house in Bridge Street, now the “Old King’s Head.” In 1631 he was one of those selected for “obligatory knighthood,” but he compounded by payment of £10. In 1633 he was elected Mayor of the city, and at the same time his son Randle became one of the sheriffs. He was in Chester throughout the whole of the troublous time of the Civil War, and also during the violent outbreak of the plague in 1647. In January 1646 he was charged by the Parliamentarians as having taken the King’s part, and was fined as a delinquent £160. This apparently he did not pay, for after his death his son protested against the payment of this large sum, and some interesting documents are in existence in which it was urged that he was looked upon as the Parliament’s friend. He died in January 1654–55, and was buried at St. Mary’s-on-the-Hill, the interesting memorial tablet on wood, bearing his arms, being unfortunately lost. He was succeeded by his son Randle, born in 1601, who in 1625 had married the eldest daughter of Matthew Ellis of Overleigh, whose widow became ten years later his father’s second wife. In 1629 he was one of the churchwardens of St. Mary’s, holding office for two years; and in 1643 he became Mayor, and as such was the recipient of numerous official letters from the chief commanders of the Royalist side. These and other similar documents were bound up by his son and successor the third Randle Holme, and are preserved in the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum. They bear autograph signatures of King Charles I., Prince Rupert, Sir John Byron, Sir Francis Gamul, and many others, and form a most interesting collection. The same description applies to another volume, giving a full account of the siege of Chester, and which was written at the time and derived from papers of the Randle Holmes, the writer in one passage stating that he had “for the most part gathered this history from the study of Randle Holme”—that is, the second Randle Holme. This is a sufficient indication of the historical instinct and practice of the family, and of what we owe to it for the preservation of accurate records of events that happened. Randle Holme the Second did not long survive his father—only a little over four years. A handsome monument to his memory in the Church of St. Mary-on-the-Hill in Chester gives a pedigree of the family, tracing it back to “Peter de Lymme, son of Gilbert, Lord of Lymme, who lived in the time of Edward I.” It also contains three coats of arms, besides crests, and is a good specimen of heraldic knowledge and genealogical research. This Randle Holme, though buried at St. Mary’s, lived after his second marriage, in 1643, in the parish of Holy Trinity, where his name appears in the list as Mayor in 1644. During the siege of Chester the Stationers’ Company could not hold their meetings in the “Golden Phœnix” (the Phœnix Tower), and so they met at “Alderman Holmes junior’s house in Watergate Street.” In the entry of a meeting “at the Alderman’s howse” on October 18, 1645, we are told that “the Golden Phœnix was employed for service for the defence of the garrison of Chester, the enimie in close seidge about the Cittye.” Whether Randle Holme the Second was able to secure the remission of the fine demanded of his father we cannot say. In the Harl. MSS. is a document in which he has left a record of his family, with the dates of their births and baptisms, and the names of their god-parents, designated in some of the entries as “witnesses” and in some as “gossips.” We learn from this that his first-born and eldest son, the third Randle Holme, was born on December 24, 1627, and baptized on the 30th of the same month, and that one of his godfathers was Francis Gamul, the other being his grandfather, the first Randle Holme.

Randle Holme the Third is the most distinguished of the four who successively bore that name. He was the author of a most extraordinary book, entitled The Academy of Armoury; and he was also a prominent Freemason. He took up the business of his father and grandfather, and in due course was admitted a member of the same company, of which, on the death of his father, he was duly elected an alderman. He served the office of churchwarden of St. Mary’s for two years from Easter 1657, and was instrumental in the erection of a new tower or steeple and the provision of a new peal of four bells, the initials of the churchwardens (George Chamberlain and Randle Holme), as well as those of the bell founder, John Scott of Wigan, appearing on them. The peal has now been enlarged into one of eight. In 1664 he was appointed to the office of “sewer of the chamber in extraordinary to his Majesty King Charles II.” A “sewer” was an officer whose function it was to place the dishes on the table and to remove them afterwards, and some think that it was also his duty to taste them. It almost looks as if the title had arisen from the mis-spelling of the word, and as if the “sewer” really was the “server.” However, the word is to be found in Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and others. In the Harl. MSS. we have the certificate of Randle Holme’s appointment, which shows that under it he was exempt from “bearing any publick office whatsoever.” This will account for the fact that, unlike his father and grandfather, he never held any office in the corporation of his native city. We do not know by what Court influence he obtained this appointment, which, though it contained certain privileges, must have been purely honorary, and we do not read of his being called upon on any occasion to fulfil its duties.

A dispute arose about this time between Randle Holme and the Heralds’ College, whose powers he was charged with usurping, by preparing coats of arms and hatchments, and receiving fees for so doing. The controversy was sharp and took a very practical shape, for we learn from the diary of William Dugdale, Norroy King-of-Arms, that he pulled down or defaced some “Achievements which Holmes, the Paynter, of Chester had hung up.” This he did at Budworth, Nether Peover, and Eastham, and other places in Cheshire. The dispute had nothing to do with his heraldic knowledge and skill, which cannot have been disputed, but probably arose from the fact that he had not then (as he subsequently was) been officially appointed deputy to the Norroy King-of-Arms. It would have been a dangerous precedent to allow any unauthorised person, however competent, to undertake such functions, and might have led to much confusion and to many mistakes, so that the action of the Norroy King-of-Arms is easily accounted for. The difficulty, which lasted some five years or thereabouts, was apparently solved by the appointment of Randle Holme as deputy to the Norroy King-of-Arms (as his father had been before him), though there is no record of the date of his appointment. He had probably acted for his father, and continued the same practice after his father’s death without waiting for the requisite authority.

It was in 1688 that he issued his extraordinary book—The Academy of Armory, or a Storehouse of Armory and Blazon. From the title it might be supposed that the work was entirely on heraldic matters, whereas it treats of almost every subject under the sun, and is a kind of encyclopædia, arranged, it must be confessed, in a most awkward form. He began collecting materials for it at a very early age, when he was only twenty-two; and it was forty years later before the book was printed. Whilst there can be no doubt that much of what it contains might well have been omitted, it stands out as a monumental evidence of the industry of the author as a collector of out-of-the-way information which he was anxious to preserve, and of his desire to make the work as complete as possible. The information thus gathered together is sometimes very valuable, and often very quaint; whilst specimens of Cheshire dialect, now obsolete, are to be found in words and phrases which were evidently in common use when the book was written. The title-page, which is very long, prepares us for the variety which the book contains, as the following sentence from it will show: “Very useful for all gentlemen, scholars, Divines, and all such as desire any knowledge in arts and sciences.”

The chapters are dedicated to various personages or classes of persons, and some of these lengthy dedications are interesting compositions. The Fourth Book was never set up in type, and of the latter portion of the Third Book the only printed example is in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle. Other copies end with the first part of Book III., concluding with a valedictory address, explaining how the vast expense entailed and the inadequate return made him “resolve to go no further.” The book was printed at Chester, and is the earliest work printed there, and as such has, of course, a special interest for the city and county. It is rather remarkable that on the site of his house in Bridge Street (engraved by Cuitt as Lamb Row, the house having subsequently been converted into a hostelry, “The Lamb”) now stand the printing works of Mr. Griffiths. In his will his son Randle referred to a “Room in his dwelling in the Bridge Street formerly made use of as a Printing House or place.” Dr. Ormerod describes the book as “the strangest jumble on natural history, mineralogy, and surgery, occasionally diversified by palmistry, hunters’ terms, the cockpit laws, an essay on Time, and on Men punished in Hell.” The description is not inaccurate, yet there can be no doubt that in its eleven hundred folio pages are to be found many valuable pieces of information, and that in this respect they form “a storehouse” not only of “Armory and Blazon,” but also of many other subjects, so that the student who has the patience to explore them is sure to learn something. They show, too, what an inquiring mind the author must have had, and how he noted down and kept ready for use the knowledge he obtained.

Old Lamb Row.

Randal Holme the Third was also a distinguished Freemason, and probably one of the earliest connected with Chester. He alludes to the fact that he was a “Member of the Society called Free-Masons” in his Academy of Armory, and one of his manuscript volumes is entitled Constitutions of Masonry, giving certain particulars as to the names of persons made Freemasons, and to the initiation fees paid by them. Evidently there was a lodge of Freemasons at Chester in the seventeenth century, of which Randle Holme (III.) was a member. It has been supposed by some that his father also may have been a Mason, as there are some masonic emblems on the monument put up to his memory in St. Mary’s Church. The Freemasons of the county showed their respect for his memory, and commemorated his connection with the church by rebuilding the north porch in 1892, whilst Mr. Henry Taylor, F.S.A., placed stained-glass windows of a heraldic nature in the same, with a full account of him. The laying of the foundation-stone of this porch by the then Provincial Grand Master, Earl Egerton of Tatton, with full masonic rites, was an interesting ceremony, and was attended by some two hundred Masons in their regalia.

It has been already noted that Randle Holme III. lived in Bridge Street. This house he apparently built about 1670, and did this without consulting the Corporation, and he was ordered to pull it down, and fined for persisting in building it. The house, however, was not demolished until early in the nineteenth century, when the Grosvenor Bridge was built over the Dee, and it was subsequently converted into a tavern called “The Lamb.”

Randle Holme III. died on March 12, 1699–1700, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was thrice married, and had issue eight sons and six daughters. Of the former only three survived him—Randle, by his first wife, born in 1659, and George and John by his second. Randle was taken into partnership by his father when he was thirty-one years of age—that is, in 1690. In 1691 he became a member of the Stationers’ Company, of which he was elected an alderman in 1705, the same year in which he was one of the two sheriffs of the city. Like his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father, he also served the office of churchwarden of St. Mary’s, and like them, too, he was deputy to Norroy King-of-Arms. He continued the work of his ancestors, and the churchwardens’ accounts of St. Mary’s contain various entries of payments to him for work done. He died August 30, 1707, aged 48, all his five children having predeceased him. In his will, referred to above, he bequeaths all his books and collections of heraldry to his half-brothers George and John, to be equally divided between them. These books and collections no doubt represented the work and labours of all four Randle Holmes, as well as what the first of that name obtained by his marriage with the widow of Thomas Chaloner. They represented the researches of over a hundred years, and contained abstracts of many documents which no longer exist, and accounts of visits paid to many churches, with accurate descriptions of the monumental inscriptions, and the old heraldic stained glass in the windows. Early in the eighteenth century they were purchased by Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, having been, it is said, first offered to the Corporation of Chester, who declined to buy them. They now form a portion of that magnificent collection of manuscripts in the British Museum known as “the Harleian MSS.,” and run to about 270 volumes. Naturally their contents are extremely diversified, and they vary considerably in value; but there can be no doubt that to any one inquiring into the history of Chester, Cheshire, Lancashire, and North Wales they contain a mine of information, and are simply invaluable. Unfortunately there is no complete and sufficient index of their contents, so that laborious perusal of them is necessary, for the acquisition of the information which they can convey. Allowance, too, will have to be made for the fact that none of the four were good mediæval Latin scholars, for none of them had the advantage of a university education. Consequently in their transcription of old Latin records many mistakes will be found, and though these may be irritating to the modern student, they can easily be corrected. The opinion passed on the first Randle Holme by the late Mr. W. H. Black, F.S.A., Assistant Keeper of the Public Records, may virtually be applied to them all: “In short, he was an industrious and faithful copyist or collector of historical antiquities, but his philological learning was too scanty for him to use extreme accuracy on the one hand, or to invent any of the documents which he professed to transcribe, extract, or abridge on the other. Therefore his copies may be always relied on as faithfully transcribed in substance.” Though the man of learned leisure has not yet appeared who can wade through these volumes and make us acquainted with the treasures they contain, yet it is true to say that no historian of Chester or of Cheshire can fulfil his purpose who does not either first-hand or second-hand (the former course being the better) derive a great deal of information from these industrious antiquarians of the seventeenth century. They have set an example which has been stimulating and fruitful, and it is only right that in a volume of this character generous and adequate expression should be given to the debt which we owe to them for the preservation of details and information which otherwise would have been irrevocably lost. They have left also in many of the churches in Chester and its neighbourhood many examples of their heraldic knowledge and skill in the memorials of deceased persons. Painted as these were on wood, many have disappeared; those that are still left are full of interest. May we not class these four Randle Holmes as amongst Chester’s most notable worthies?

THE CHESTER MYSTERY PLAYS

By Joseph C. Bridge, M.A., Mus. Doc. Oxon. et Dunelm., F.S.A.

Introduction.

THERE is no more interesting study in our early literature than the Mystery Plays which were once so popular throughout the length and breadth of England. It may be well to premise that their proper title is “Miracle” Plays, and no early writer ever alludes to them under any other name; nor was there in this country any difference between “Miracle” and “Mystery,” as stated by some authorities. But custom has now definitely coupled the latter title with those early dramatic efforts of our forefathers, and it will be used in these pages.

Excluding odd ones, four great series of plays have come down to us, viz. those of York, Wakefield, Chester, and Coventry, and each place probably served as a centre of dramatic influence. While York acted as a stimulus to Wakefield itself and Newcastle, so Chester supported the dramatic efforts from Kendal in the north to Shrewsbury in the south and Dublin in the west.

Each series of plays possesses distinct characteristics, and, happily, Chester can claim that her plays have in them “less to offend and a more reverential tone” than many others, for it is useless to disguise the fact that many readers object to these plays as seeming to treat religious subjects with levity. But with a little reflection we shall see that these plays do not deserve such condemnation if judged from the right standpoint, and that standpoint is assuredly not the twentieth century. We must throw ourselves back five centuries at least if we are to obtain a right focus. From the time of St. Paul, God’s Word has been preached in divers ways and by divers methods, and we must not be surprised if the mediæval preacher was shrewd enough to use the dramatic instincts of the people as distributing media of religious knowledge.[6]

[6] Milton thought of writing Paradise Lost as a Mystery Play, but changed his mind.

Let us remember that the Bible and religious books could not be read or consulted by the people; and as late as the seventeenth century we find an aged rustic who knew nothing of our Saviour except what he had learnt by seeing a Corpus Christi play at Kendal, where “there was,” said he, “a man on a tree, and the blood ran down.”

There is a good deal of strong argument put into the mouths of mediæval players by the old Wycliffe preacher, who makes them say that “by such playing of miracles men be converted to good living—and, since it is lawful to have the miracles of God painted, why is it not as lawful to have the miracles of God played, since men may better read the will of God and His marvellous works in the playing of them rather than in the painting of them ... for this is a dead book, the other a quick?”

The introduction of humour into these sacred plays is no novelty. There is a broad touch of it as early as the time of Hilarius in his play of St. Nicholas, and we cannot deny that the writers of our Miracle Plays showed some skill in thus early lighting upon one of the greatest of dramatic rules, viz. the law of contrast.

Then, again, one other point, which is generally overlooked, must be taken into consideration. The Persons of God and our Saviour are treated with the utmost reverence. It is only when the common people come on the stage that we find a certain coarseness and humour. And this is no more than we should expect to find.

These city actors would have thought it absurd to render shepherds as quiet, well-educated men. Did they not know plenty of shepherds round Chester who had hard times and hard fare, and whose only knowledge was of the diseases of animals? Were they not plagued with mischievous shepherd-boys who were ever ready for fun and play? And if Noah’s wife was a shrew, were they not well acquainted with many such, and was not the scold’s bridle and the ducking-stool kept at the Cross for such offending citizens? And can we blame them for looking upon many of the characters mentioned in the Bible as being ordinary everyday personages? I think not. However, opinions on this point will always be divided, and the following quotations from the writings of two well-educated women, who lived 100 years apart, are interesting:⁠—

“Next he (Mr. Bryant) spoke upon the Mysteries, or origin of our theatrical entertainments, and repeated the plan and conduct of several of these strange compositions, in particular one he remembered, which was called Noah’s Ark, and in which that patriarch and his sons, just previous to the Deluge, made it all their delight to speed themselves into the ark without Mrs. Noah, whom they wished to escape; but she surprised them just as they had embarked, and made so prodigious a racket against the door that, after a long and violent contention, she forced them to open it, and gained admission, having first contented them by being kept out till she was thoroughly wet to the skin.

“These most eccentric and unaccountable dramas filled up chief of our conversation; and whether to consider them most with laughter, as ludicrous, or with horror, as blasphemous, remains a doubt I cannot well solve.”

So wrote that somewhat priggish but clever and witty young authoress, Miss Fanny Burney, in the eighteenth century.[7]

[7] It may be interesting to note that her father, Dr. Burney, was educated in Chester.

The following twentieth-century opinion is from a paper by the late Mrs. Henry Sandford, a woman of sound judgment and of great educational experience:⁠—

“In the first place, we cannot but observe that, with all their faults, they did keep vividly before the mind of the English nation the leading outlines of Christian teaching, and that, in the historical form suggested by the Apostles’ Creed. Much that was legendary, coarse, incongruous, was there also, no doubt, but that was there above all.

“The old religious drama created in the popular mind a high ideal of the true use and purpose of dramatic art, namely, to present to the imagination a living picture of the realities of life and feeling.”

But I will not pursue the arguments any further. Suffice it to say that the sense of humour and the representation of everyday life occur in all the arts of the Middle Ages. Those who would eliminate all this human part of the plays, or would forbid their use, must, to be consistent, rip the Misereres out of the choir of Chester Cathedral and burn them for firewood.

It is sometimes said that not only was there irreverence, but even indecency, especially in the play of the Creation and Fall, where Adam and Eve are commanded to “stand nackede.” I believe this stage direction to be merely figurative,[8] and the Cornish play of the Creation of the World[9] gives a clue to the whole matter, as it contains specific instructions that Adam and Eve are to be “apparelled in white leather.”[10] At Norwich also we know that Adam wore “a wig, gloves, and a cote of hosen steyned,” and Eve “a wig, gloves, and two cotes of hosen steyned.”

[8] Thomas Wright, the able editor of the Chester plays, comes, I am glad to say, to the same conclusion.

[9] The Creation of the World. A Cornish Mystery, edited by Whitley Stokes.

[10] The Person of God was also occasionally represented in white leather with the face gilded.

Further, there can be no doubt whatever that women were not allowed to take part in plays or to appear on the stage in public until some years after Mystery Plays had completely died out.[11]

[11] Miss Hamilton Moore, in English Miracle Plays and Moralities, seems to think that I assert in my Introduction to the Chester Plays (published for the revival in 1906) that women acted the play of The Assumption. Not so: I merely stated that the ale-wives of the city provided and furnished the play, but I am quite sure they did not perform it.

Evidence of this may also be found in the music of the plays. In the Coventry Mysteries the “Lullaby,” supposed to be sung by the women in the Slaughter of the Innocents, actually has Tenor and Bass parts.[12]

[12] This trio would be sung by two men and a boy. Similarly the trio in Chester Noah’s Play would be sung by the “Three clerkes from the Minster,” who, as we shall see, were duly engaged as professionals.

Origin of Plays.

These plays sprang from the Church, and “all evidence points to Easter as the festival with which the earliest religious dramas were most intimately connected, and it is probable that the first form which the Easter play assumed was that of a ceremony in which the Crucifix was solemnly buried on Good Friday and again disinterred on Easter Day amid a pompous ritual.”[13]

[13] Professor Pollard.

So long as the Church controlled the plays, the clergy were favourable to their performance; but when their popularity and their growth rendered it necessary to perform them out of doors, when the stage was pitched on the green or in the street before the Abbey gate, it became another matter.

The following rimes, written in 1303 by Robert Manning (Le Brunne), show this distinctly:⁠—

“Hyt ys forebode in the decree

Miracles for to make or se

For miracles yf you begynne

Hyt ys a gaderynt, a syghte of synne

He may in the churche, thurgh thys resun

Play the resurrecyon.

Yf thou do it in weyis or grenys

A syghte of synne truly hyt semys.”

As late as 1385 we find William of Wykeham objecting to the plays taking place in the churchyard, and threatening those who should lend vestments from the church to the actors.[14]

[14] We must not forget that the Welsh played interludes in their churchyards on Sunday afternoons down to a very late period.

The opposition of the clergy might have been fatal to the continuance of Miracle Plays but for the Feast of Corpus Christi, which was instituted in 1264, and firmly established in 1311. On this day the people and the trade gilds took part in processions with the clergy, carrying pictures and images of saints, and sometimes accompanied by the members of the gilds dressed as angels, the twelve apostles, &c.[15] From this parade it was an easy step to dramatic representation; and this day was rigidly adhered to by the gilds as their great and common festival.

[15] This is frequently to be seen in Italy at the present day.

Chester has always had the credit of being an exception to the rule by holding the performances of the plays at Whitsuntide, but this view is incorrect, and Chester was, at first, in line with other places, for we find from the Bakers’ Charter, 2 Edward IV. (which is the earliest authoritative allusion to the plays), that “there hath been tyme out of mind a company of bakers,” and they are “to be redy to pay the costes and expenses and play and light of Corpus Christi as oft tymes as it shall be assessed.”[16] Chester’s gilds were numerous and powerful, and many of them exist in some form or other at the present day.

[16] The alteration must have occurred very soon after this, for the “Banes,” quoted later, which gives Whitsuntide as the time of the plays, cannot, I think, be much later than 1470.

The authorship of the plays is generally attributed to Ralf Higden, the author of Polychronicon, and a monk of Chester, where he is said to have died at a great age in 1353. But there is no evidence to justify such a definite statement as this. All we know of the origin of the plays is found in the following:⁠—

1. A “Banes,” XV. Cent., giving Sir John Arneway as the “deviser.” He was Mayor 1268–1276;

2. A Proclamation, c. 1520, giving Arneway as the “deviser,” and Francis, a monk, as the writer.

3. A “Banes,” c. 1570, giving Arneway as “deviser,” and a “Dom Randall” as the writer.

4. An account of the plays, by Archdeacon Rogers, c. 1575; one version gives “Randall Higden” as the writer, and places the time in the mayoralty of Arneway, 1328; the other version gives “one Randoll a monke,” Arneway as Mayor, and the date 1339.

5. An endorsement or a Proclamation in the Harleian MSS., supposed to be written by one of the Holmes, c. 1628, stating “Hignet” was the writer.

6. A similar endorsement on a copy of the plays of about the same date.

If the religious tendency of the Chester Plays was owing to a guiding hand from the monastery, that hand was, according to our earliest tradition, one Henry Francis, whose name occurs in deeds dated 1377–82. Higden was never mentioned until late in the sixteenth century.

It is quite possible that Henry Francis and Ralph Higden may have translated and revised some of the plays, and rendered literary help in reducing the cycle to unity, and that is all we can say with safety.[17] And this theory is supported by the fact that the closer the plays are studied, the more certain appears the fact that they are not by one hand.

[17] It seems to me sheer waste of time to try and synchronize Arneway and Higden as many writers do. I see no reason why we should not believe in the earliest tradition that Arneway devised the plays. The writing of them would be a gradual process, covering many years and involving, probably, several authors.

Wright and Collier have pointed out many passages which are identical with the French plays published in the Mystère du Vieux Testament. Certain plays may therefore have been translated from the French. The Sacrifice of Isaac is probably derived from a play found at Broom Hall, Suffolk, or perhaps both are from some other original. Miss Toulmin Smith says:⁠—

“Lines 163–314 have a strong resemblance to corresponding 134 lines in Chester version. This resemblance, sometimes of phrase, sometimes only of meaning, is interrupted by occasional passages in the Brome MS., which have no equivalents in Chester. Apparently, both editors worked upon a common original, but the Chester poet compressed the more freely, and, in so doing, greatly heightened the effect and dialogue. But he showed poor tact in omitting the charming scene between the father and the son after their agony is over.... It is possible, however, that the Chester play has come down to us mutilated. It was plainly at one time a separate play, and when amalgamated with that of Abraham and Lot may well have been cut down for greater convenience of performance.”

The germ of the fine speech from the Resurrection, quoted later, may be found in the Wakefield play, where it begins as follows:⁠—

“Earthly man that I have wroght,

Wightly wake and slepe thou noght!

With bitter bayll I have thee boght

To make thee free;

Into this dongeon depe I soght,

And all for luf of thee.”

The Three Kings seems founded on a Latin play, and the exceptional plays of the series (Nos. 23 and 24) can be traced in that fine old poem the Cursor Mundi.

In The Shepherd’s Play we certainly find the work of a local playwright, as references are made to a “jannock of Lancastershire,” butter from Blacon (a suburb of Chester), and ale from Halton. Other examples might be given.

It seems probable that as the plays sprang from the Church, so the four great cycles now existing are derived from some greater and anterior cycle authorised by the Church.

We find numerous references in the Chester Companies’ accounts to the original book of the play, which is generally called the “reginall.”

This may in some cases refer merely to the special playbook belonging to the company, but it more often refers to the volume of the plays possessed by the City Corporation. If we still had this book we might settle many vexed questions. Unfortunately it is missing, for on April 30th, 1567, “Randall Trever gent was called before the Maior of the Citie of Chester and was demaunded for the originall booke of the Whydson Plaies of the said Citie who then and ther confessed that he have had the same booke which book he deposeth upon the holy evangelist of God that by commaundement he delivered againe but where the same is now or to whom he then delivered the same book, deposeth likewise he knoweth not.”

In the year 1883, Mr. Sutton (the chief librarian of the Manchester Free Library) found an old parchment book-cover, with some writing upon it, which he submitted to Dr. F. J. Furnivall, who pronounced it to be a portion of a late fifteenth century MS. of the Chester Plays. It is the commencement of the play of the Resurrection, and it is very probable—being on parchment—that it is a remnant of the original Chester Play Book.

We are therefore dependent upon certain transcriptions of the whole series of plays made at the end of the sixteenth century. When the plays were dying out, it is certain that some of the old citizens would desire to keep a “book of the words,” hence the number of MSS. of that period.

The Chester MSS. extant are:⁠—

a. 1591, by “Edward Gregorie a Scholar of Bunbury”; now in possession of the Duke of Devonshire.

b. 1592 } by George Bellin, Brit. Mus.: Add. MS. 10305;

c. 1600 } Brit. Mus.; Harl. 2013.

d. 1604, by William Bedford, Bodleian.

e. 1607, by James Miller, Brit. Mus.; Harl. 2124.

f.“The Resurrection” Play, by George Bellin, in the books of the Ironmongers’ Company, Chester.[18]

[18] Found by me last year. It is no doubt the “riginall” which the Company used, as they were responsible for the play. I have collated it with the other MSS., but the differences are not very important.

George Bellin was parish clerk of Holy Trinity Church in Chester.[19] He wrote an excellent hand, was a member of the Ironmongers’ Company, and had doubtless often acted in the plays, and he is therefore, on the whole, a reliable guide, especially as to stage directions. He made some curious mistakes, and his French is very bad, but we must be grateful to him for his labours.

[19] “George Bellin ironmonger & Clarke of this p’rish bur: in the middle Ile 23 July 1624.”—Holy Trinity Registers.

As already stated, Chester was fortunate in possessing, like York, London, and other great centres, a powerful array of Trade Gilds.[20] These City Companies provided workable units, and their power of organisation, the discipline exerted over their members, the brotherly feeling engendered by the Companies were all potent factors in the representation of these plays. “It made the performance a local work of art, in which all the city had a personal share. They believed with just pride that search England throughout none had the like, nor like does sett out.”

[20] The City Gilds still hold an annual dinner in Chester, and in January 1908 representatives of some thirty Companies attended. Many of these Companies possess badges, flags, and documents of priceless interest; but in many cases they are insecurely kept.

The preparation of the plays occupied many months. There was keen competition between the various City Companies, and great pains were taken by the civic fathers to see that really competent players were chosen, and that no one should have an undue number of parts, and the Mayor frequently attended rehearsals.

Then the “Pageant carriages,”[21] which had been securely housed since the last performance, had to be newly cleaned and repaired, and there needed much mending and repainting of the canvas and boards which represented “Heaven and Hell,” “Morning and Night,” or, as in “Noah’s Play,” was embellished with representations of birds, beasts, and fishes.

[21] The carriages themselves were sometimes called “Pageants,” and were kept in special houses. Most of the Gilds had their own, but sometimes two Gilds shared the cost between them. They were drawn by men, as a rule, e.g.:⁠—

—Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.

The stage manager’s properties had also to be bought or borrowed throughout the town, and included many dozens of articles, ranging from a costly cope[22] down to the whistles[23] for the shepherd-boys and the ox tongue[24] for the old shepherd to put in his haversack, and it is obvious that the success of these plays depended greatly on the felicitous subdivision of work amongst the numerous City Companies, for no one manager could have supervised the whole.

—Smiths’ Accounts.

—Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.

The expenses were evenly divided among the members of the Company. Sometimes there was a “passive resister” who thought the plays nonsense, and that there should be “no more cakes and ale”; but he was speedily disillusioned, for the Mayor promptly clapped him into prison until he, or his friends, paid his proper[25] share.

[25] Andrew Tailer of the Dyers’ Company was thus treated in 1575.

It has been said that “no English play that has been preserved to us contains any mark of its representation by clerical actors,” but we find that as late as the sixteenth century the “clerks from the Minster,” the organist and choir boys, had no scruples about joining in the plays, and helping in those parts which required musical qualifications.

[26] Senior Minor Canon.

[27] Organist and a very celebrated musician. It was probably due to his influence and co-operation that the Cathedral authorities joined in the preparation and plays, as appears from the Cathedral Treasurer’s accounts for 1567.

This appears to be the only time that they did so:⁠—

[28] Organist.

But before the plays took place it was customary to send messengers on horseback and on stilts[29] to various places round the city[30] to read the “Banes” or “Banns,” announcing the performance, and Bellin has left us a copy of the “Banes,” which has been often printed, and is therefore here abbreviated. It is a curious document, for it is so extremely apologetic in tone, and notes even words in the plays which had become obsolete. The “Banes” is dated 1600, and it is possible that Bellin merely meant the date of his copying, but a careful study of it makes me suspect that there was in this year one last expiring effort made by the citizens to perform the plays, and that this “Banes” was specially written for the occasion. Although Archbishop Grindal had prohibited the plays in 1571, we know of performances up to 1576. In 1599, also, Henry Hardware, the Mayor, “was not liked by the commons,” because he tried to do away with the Midsummer show and all festivity, but we are expressly told that next year the Mayor, Robert Brerewode, “restored again all the ancient customs ... and put down Mr. Hardware,” and he may have tried to revive the plays as well as the Midsummer show. However, no trace of any performance in 1600 has yet come to light.

—Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.

Some of the performers from the Mayor’s Midsummer show gradually got grafted on to the “Banes Riding,” and increased the importance of it.

[30] The Castle and the North Gate were two of the appointed places, and the “Banes” would be heard by the wretched prisoners there, to whom a donation was generally accorded:⁠—

Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.

THE BANES

which are reade beefore the beginninge of the Playes of Chester, 4 June 1900.

Reverende lordes & ladyes all,

That at this tyme here assembled bee,

By this message understand you shall

That some tymes there was Mayor of this Citie

Sir John Arnway, Knighte, who most worthilye

Contented hymselfe to sett out in playe

The devise of one Done Rondall, moonke of Chester Abbey.

This moonke, moonke-like, in Scriptures well seene,

In storyes travilled with the beste sorte,

In pagentes set fourth apparently to all eyne

The olde & new testament, with livelye comforth,

Interminglinge therewith, only to make sporte,

Some thinges not warranted by any writt,

Which to gladd the hearers he woulde men to tyke yt.

This matter he abrevited into playes twenty-foure,

And every playe of the matter gave but a taste,

Leavinge for better learninge the scircumstance to accomplishe;

For all his proceedinges maye appeare to be in haste,

Yet all together unprofitable his labour he did not waste;

For at this daye & ever he deserveth the fame

Which all monkes deserves, professinge that name.

These storyes of the Testamente at this tyme, you knowe,

In a common Englishe tongue never read nor harde;

Yet thereof in these pagentes to make open shewe,

This moonke & moonke was nothing afreayde,

With feare of hanginge, breninge, or cutting off heade,

To sett out, that all maye disserne & see

And parte good be lefte, beleeve you mee.

As all that shall see them shall moste welcome be,

Soe all that here them wee moste humble praye

Not to compare this matter or storie

With the age or tyme wherein we presentlye staye,

But in the tyme of ignorance, wherein we did straye;

Then doe I compare that this lande throughout

Non had the like, nor the like dose sett out.

. . . . .

This worthy Knighte, Arnway, then mayor of this Citie,

This order took, as declare to you I shall,

That by twenty-fower occupations, artes, crafts, or misterie,

These pagentes shoulde be played, after breeffe rehearsall;

For everye pagente a cariage to be provyded withall;

In which sorte we porpose, this Whitsontyde,

Our pageantes into three partes to devyde.

. . . . .

But a much older and more valuable “Banes” has been found by Canon Morris amongst the Harleian MSS.[31] (not numbered or catalogued), and has been printed in his Chester during the Plantagenet and Tudor Periods.[32]

[31] Collected by the Randle Holme family of Chester.

[32] By his kind permission printed here.

The Banes or Proclamation of the Playes.

The comen bannes to be proclaymed and Ryddon with the Stewardys of every occupacon:⁠—

Lordings Royall and Reverentt

Lovelie ladies that here be lentt

Sovereigne Citizens hether am I sent

A message for to say.

I pray you all that be present

That you will here with good intent

And all your eares to be lent

Hertfull I you pray.

Our worshipfull mair of this Citie

With all his royall cominaltie

Solem pagens ordent hath he

At the fest of Whitsonday tyde.

How every craft in his decree

Bryng forth their playes solemplie

I shall declare you brefely

Yf ye will a while abyde.

The worshipfull tanners of this towne

Bryng forth the heavenly manshon

Th’ orders of angells and theire creation

According done to the best.

And when the angells be made so clere

Then folowyth the falling of Lucifere

To bring forth this play with good chere

The tanners be full prest.

You worshipfull men of the draperye

Loke that paradyse be all redye

Prepare also the mappa mundi

Adam and eke Eve.

The waterleders and drawers of Dee

Loke that Noyes shipp be sett on hie

That you lett not the storye

And then shall you well chrue.

The barburs and wax channdlers also that day

Of the Patriarche you shall play

Abram, that put was to assay

To sley Isack his sonne.

The cappers and pynners forth shall bring

Balack that fears [fierce] and mightie Kyng

And Balam on an asse sytting:

Loke that this be done.

Youe wrights and slaters will be fayne

Bring forth your cariage of Marie myld quene,

And of Octavian so cruell and kene

And also of Sybell the sage.

For findyng of that Royal thing

I grant you all the blessing

Of the high imperiall King

Both the maister and his page.

Paynters glasiars and broderers in fer

Have taken on theym with full good chere

That the Sheppards play then shall appere

And that with right good wyll.

The vynteners then as doth befall

Bringe forth the 3 Kings Royall

Of Colyn or pagent memoryall

And worthy to appere.

Then shall you see how that Kynges all

Came bouldly into the hall

Before Herode proude in paulle

Of Crysts byrth to heare.

The mercers worshipfull of degre

The presentation that have yee

Hit falleth best for your see

By right reason and style

Of caryage I have no doubt

Both within and without

It shall be deckyd y^t all the Rowte

Full gladly on it shall be to loke

With sundry cullors it shall glime

Of velvit satten and damaske fine

Taffyta sers-nette of poppyngee grene.

The gouldsmyths then full soone will hye

And masons theyre craft to magnifye

Theis two crafts will theim applye

Theyre worshipp for to wynne

How Herode King of Galalye

For that intent Cryste to distrye

Slew the Innocents most cruely

Of tow yeres and within.

Semely smythis also in hyght

A lovely caryage the will dyght

Candilmas day for soth it hyght

The find it with good will.

The buchers pagene shall not be myst

How Satan tempted our Savyour Cryst

It is an history of the best

As witnesseth the gospell.

Nedys must I rehers the glover

The give me gloves and gay gere

The find the toumbs of Lazarey

That pagene cometh next.

Also the corvesers with all their myght

The fynde full fayre syght

Jerusalem their caryage hyght

For so sayth the text.

And the bakers also be dene

The find the Maunday as I wene

It is a carriage full well besene

As then it shall appeare.

Flechers bowyers with great honours

The Cowpers find the Tormentors

That bobbyde God with gret honors

As he sat in his chere [chair].

The Iron mongers find a caryage good

How Jesus dyed on y^e rode

And shed for us his precyus blud

The find it in fere.

Cryst after his passion

Brake Hell for our redempcion

That find the cookes and hostelers of this towne

And that with full good chere.

Also the skynners they be boune

With great worshipp and renowne

They find the Resurection

Fayre maye them befall.

Sadlers and Foysters [“Fusterers”] have the good grace

They find the Castell of Emawse

Where Crist appered to Cleophas

A faire pagend you shall see.

Also the Taylers with trew Intent

Have taken on them verament

The Assencyon by one assent

To bringe it forth full right.

Fysshe mongers men of faith

As that day will doe their stayth

To bringe there caryage furth in trayth

Wyt Sonday it hight.

The worshipfull wyves of this towne

Ffyne of our lady thassumpcon

It to bryng forth they be bowne

And meyntene with all theyre might.[33]

The Shermen will not [be] behynd

Butt bryng theire cariage with good mynde

The pagent of prophettys they do fynd

That prophecied ffull truly

Off the coming of Anticrist

That goodys ffaith would resist

That cariage I warrand shall not myst

Butt sett forth full dewly.

The hewsters that be men full sage

They bryng forth a wurthy cariage

That is a thing of grett costage

Antycryst hit hight.

They weyvers in very dede

Ffynd the day of Dame, well may they spede

I graunt them holly to theire neede

The blysse of heven bright.

Sovereigne syrs to you I say

And to all this ffayre cuntre

That played shalbe this godely play

In the whitson weke

That is brefely for to sey

Uppon Monday Tuysday and Wennysday

Whoo lust to see theym he may

And non of theym to sek.

“Erased
in
the
Booke.”

{ Also maister maire of this Citie

{ Withall his bretheryn accordingly

{ A solempne procession ordent hath he

{ To be done to the best

{ Appon the day of Corpus Christi

{ The blessed sacrament caried shalbe

{ And a play sett forth by the clergye

{ In honor of the fest

{ Many torches there may you see

{ Marchaunts and craftys of this citie

{ By order passing in their degree

{ A goadly sight that day

{ They come from Saynt Maries on the Hill

{ The Church of Saynt Johns untill

{ And there the sacrament leve they will

{ The sauth [sooth] as I you say.

Whoo so comyth these plays to see

With good devocon merelye

Hertely welcome shall he be

And have right good chere.

Sir John Arnway was maire of this citie

When these playes were begon truly

God graunt us merely

And see theym many a yere.

Now have I done that lyeth in me

To procure this solempnitie

That these playes contynued may be

And well sett fourth alway.

Jhu [Jesu] Crist that syttys on hee

And his blessed mother Marie [erased]

Save all this goodely company

And kepe you nyght and day.

[33] Played in 1488.

With regard to the Banes we must notice first that it is in the same metre and rhyming stanza as the Plays themselves, and may have been written with them. Secondly, it sheds light on some very important points. Here is one:⁠—

“The worshipfull wyves of this towne

Ffyne of our lady thassumpcon

It to bryng forth they be bowne

And meyntene with all theyre might.”[34]

[34] It is worth noting, that in 1483, at York, four men came before the Mayor, “& by the assent of all the Innholders of this said Citie tuke upon them to bring furth yerely during the term of VIII. yere, then next folluying the pagent of the Coronacion of our Lady perteyning to the said Innholders, etc.” It seems likely, then, that the “worshipful wyves” were the ale-wives of Chester, and it is by no means improbable that Chester again followed the lead of York. As Mrs. Green says, “Cooks and brewers and hostellers were naturally deeply interested in the preservation of the good old customs, and it was, in some cases, certainly this class (the most powerful in a mediæval borough), who raised the protest against the indifference and neglect of the townspeople for public processions and merry-making, because ‘thereby the victuallers lose their money’; and who insisted on the revival of these festivals for the encouragement of trade.”—Town Life XV. Century, i. p. 153.

Here we have The Assumption definitely classed as one of the Chester series (a point hitherto unknown), and also, we see that it was provided by women; this is unique, I think. In none of the other cycle centres do the women manage a play by themselves.[35]

[35] Canon Morris says: “It is omitted from Bellin’s transcript in 1600, and was, in all probability, discontinued in Edward VI.’s reign, in deference to the religious feeling of the time.”

Again,

“Also maister maire of this Citie

Withall his bretheryn accordingly

A solempne procession ordent hath he

To be done to the best

Appon the day of Corpus Christi

The blessed sacrament caried shalbe

And a play sett forth by the clergye,

In honor of the fest.

Many torches there may you see

Marchaunts and craftys of this citie

By order passing in their degree

A goadly sight that day.

They come from Saynt Maries on the Hill

The Church of Saynt Johns untill

And there the sacrament leve they will

The sauth as I you say.”

It will be seen that the Mayor and Corporation had ordered a procession at Corpus Christi, and that the clergy were to provide a play. What this play was we have, unfortunately, no means of knowing.

This may account for the transference of the gild plays to Whitsun week. The clergy, anxious to have the Corpus Christi procession to themselves without the trade gilds, may have said to the citizens, “If you will have your plays at another time we will, at our own charge and expense, provide a play on Corpus Christi, so that there shall be no loss to the citizens in that respect.”[36] Thus the plays got transferred to Whitsuntide.

[36] This is precisely what happened at York, where after 1426 the Corpus Christi procession and the plays were separated.

My third quotation must be:⁠—

“Sir John Arnway was maire of this citie[37]

When these playes were begon truly

God graunt us merely

And see theym many a yere.”

[37] Arneway was Mayor, 1268–76.

This is the earliest mention of their origin.

At last the momentous Monday in Whit-week arrived, and early in the morning the first car started from the great gates of the Abbey, where the Abbot and his followers sat in state, and proceeded down the street to the High Cross, where the Mayor and Corporation were assembled. As each car finished its play, its place was taken by another, and so in regular succession and at appointed places, the whole series of plays was gone through in three days. By this sensible and orderly arrangement a citizen could retain his standing place or seat, and be assured of missing nothing. No doubt seats at the performing points commanded a premium, and documents exist of an interesting law-suit between two citizens with reference to the right to occupy a “roome or place for the Whytson plaies in the Bridge-gate streets in the Cyty of Chester.”

We can imagine the pride of the Cestrian housewife when she saw her husband magnificently dressed as “Herod,” or her sons in parti-coloured costumes as “devils” rushing from the bottom to the top of the car only to disappear in “Hell’s mouth” amidst fire, smoke, and sulphur, and the laughter and applause of her neighbours; and may not she have felt a holy thrill when, perhaps, her youngest boy on bended knee offered his small shepherd’s pipe or his nutting stick as a gift to the “Lord of all”?

Depend upon it Chester was full of legitimate pride on such occasions, for, as the citizens said in their Banes, “None had the like, nor the like did sett out.”

And the educational force of this cannot be overestimated. The young citizen when he took up the freedomship of his company, took up also duties of stage craft and stage management which had been traditional for generations in that company. If he possessed ability as an actor he had no difficulty in obtaining a part to play, and if he could not act then he found plenty to do in preparation for the play, which esprit de corps demanded should not be behind other companies.

And so the Elizabethan drama found a people already prepared, by centuries of familiarity with the stage as an amusement, to respond to the demands good plays might make on their imagination and receptive faculties. The Mysteries were but young plants—Shakespeare was the fruit.

The fact is, the whole country was given up to plays of this sort, and we know of more than one hundred towns and villages which enjoyed these entertainments. The annual play at Wymonham (or Windham), in Norfolk, lasted two days and two nights; and the inhabitants of Lydd, in Kent, were so keen that they went to the play on a Sunday, while watchmen were paid to keep guard on the shore against a surprise from the French.

If the trade gilds showed any desire to shirk such representations, the Mayor could, and did, issue a notice commanding a performance; and it was also the Mayor’s duty, as officer of the King’s peace, to issue proclamations on all festive occasions of this sort.

The ordinances of the Mayor of York, in 1394 and subsequently, show that the regulations to control the plays and populace were most stringent and comprehensive, and that the plays began as early as 4.30 A.M.

In addition to the ordinary series of Chester Mystery Plays, we find that the play of the Assumption was performed at the High Cross in 1488, and before Prince Arthur in 1497, both at the Abbey gates and at the High Cross; and also in 1515 in St. John’s Churchyard. We find, also, the Cappers, Pewterers, and Smiths undertaking plays in 1520-1; and that in 1529 King Robert of Sicily had been performed at the High Cross.

THE PLAYS

The number of plays now existing is twenty-five, but we know that the Assumption has been lost, and there are signs of two plays being compressed into one, as in the Histories of Lot and Abraham, so that the original number was no doubt larger. Fluctuations would undoubtedly take place with the rise and fall of City Companies, if for no other reasons. As the number of gilds expanded or were reduced, so the plays were increased or amalgamated.[38] The list of plays and the gilds that performed them will be found in the “Banes” already printed. The Chester series is noted for two plays that occur nowhere else, viz. No. 23, on Prophecies, and No. 24, on Anti-Christ.

[38] At York the MS. of the plays (c. 1430) shows 48; but in 1415 there had been 51; and another earlier list shows 57.

The English employed seems to be of the beginning of the fifteenth century, many of the stage directions are in Latin, and the Three Kings, Octavian, and Herod occasionally use French, that being the Court language.[39]

[39] It is not generally considered to afford any argument as to the plays being derived from the French.

It is not to be supposed that we have the text of the plays as written at first, for the original plays are without doubt much older than the fifteenth century. We find that the quarrels of Noah and his wife formed so familiar a story that they became proverbial. Chaucer says:⁠—

“Hast thou not heard (quod Nicholas) also

The sorowe of Noe with his felowship

Or that he might get his wife to ship.”

Chaucer wrote this about 1390, and it appears certain, therefore, that our play of Noah, and probably those on the same subject at Wakefield and Newcastle-on-Tyne, were often performed by the middle of the fourteenth century.

The metre employed varies, but a large proportion is in eight line stanzas, sometimes with two rimes:⁠—

a a a b
a a a b

and sometimes with three;

a a a b
c c c b

as may be seen in the following example:⁠—

CHRIST’S ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM

THE CORVYSORS PLAYE

Pagina decima Quarta, de Jesu intrante domum Simonis Leprosi, et de aliis rebus.

Jesus.

a a a b
a a a b

Brethren, goe we to Bethanye,

To Lazarre, Martha, and Marye,

For I love moche their companye!

Thedder nowe will I wende.

Symond the Leaper hath praied me

In his house to take charatye;

With them nowe it liketh me

A whyle for to lende.

Petrus.

a a a b

Lorde, all readye shall we be

In life and death to goe with thee;

Greate joye they maye have to see

Thy cominge into their place.

Philippe.

a a a b

Lazarre thou raysed through thy pittie,

And Symonde also, messille was he,

Thou clensed, Lorde, that wotten we,

And holpe them through thy grace.

Tunc ibunt versus domum Simonis Leprosi.

Lazarrus.

a a a b
c c c b

Welckome, Lorde, sweete Jesu,

Blessed be the tyme that I thee knewe!

From death to liffe through thy vertue

Thou raysed me not yore;

Fower dayes in eairth when I [had] layne,

Thou granteste me life againe.

Thee I honoure with all my mayne,

Nowe and ever more.

But other metres are frequently used.

A very fine dramatic effect is produced in some of the plays by the sudden use of the short Skeltonian metre. In the play of the Passion the Tormentors cry:⁠—

And thou be messye

And loth for to lye

Who smote thee? Crye

If thou be Christe.

Now he is bounden

Be he never so wounden

Soon he shall be founden

With flaps in fear.

In woe he is wounden

And his grain is grounden,

No lad unto London

Such law can him lere (teach).

Again in the Crucifixion:⁠—

Secundus Judaeus.

This coat shall be mine,

For it is good and fine

And seam is not therein

That I can see.

Tercius Judaeus.

Yea, God give me pain

And (if) that shall be thine,

For thou art ever incline

To draw towards thee.

Quartus Judaeus.

Nay, fellow, by this day

At the dice we will play,

And there we shall essay

That weed for to win.

Secundus Judaeus.

His other clothes all

To us four can fall;

First part them I shall

And after play for this.

This kyrtel mine I call,

Take thou this pall,

Each man in this hall

Note I do not amiss.

Again, we get later rhythms grafted on to the original, as in the drinking trio sung by Noah’s wife and her gossips in Noah’s Play.

THE GOOD GOSSIPS’ SONG.

The flood comes flitting in full fast,

On every side it spreads full far;

For fear of drowning I am aghast;

Then, good gossips, let us draw near.

And let us drink ere we depart,

For often times we have done so;

For at a draught thou drinkest a quart,

And so will I do ere I go.

The “Song” concludes with what is probably a portion of the original trio. The other half stanza is unfortunately lost:⁠—