The Project Gutenberg eBook of Memorials of Old Nottinghamshire
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Memorials of Old Nottinghamshire
Editor: Everard L. Guilford
Release date: February 5, 2026 [eBook #77866]
Language: English
Original publication: London: George Allen & Company, 1912
Credits: Tim Lindell, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MEMORIALS OF OLD NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ***
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 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
[Illustration]
[Illustration: NOTTINGHAM. THE OLD TRENT BRIDGE.]
MEMORIALS OF OLD
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
EDITED BY
EVERARD L. GUILFORD, M.A.
AUTHOR OF
“_Little Guide to Nottinghamshire_”
ILLUSTRATED WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON
GEORGE ALLEN & COMPANY, LTD.
44 & 45 RATHBONE PLACE, W.
1912
[_All Rights Reserved_]
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
At the Ballantyne Press, Edinburgh
TO
THE INHABITANTS OF
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
THIS BOOK
IS
DEDICATED
PREFACE
When this volume was originally planned the editorship was placed in
the able and experienced hands of Mr. W. P. W. Phillimore, but pressure
of work compelled his resignation before many essays had been selected.
The present editor then took up the work, and has now brought it to a
conclusion. The delay caused by the change of editor has not affected
the matter in any of the essays except that on “Nottinghamshire Poets.”
This paper was originally written four or five years ago, and since
then some of the criticisms have been made and published by other
writers.
The present editor has tried to choose his subjects from a field as
varied as possible, and he ventures to think that papers will be found
here which will be welcome both on account of the matter to be found in
them and because of the novelty of the subject.
Nor must it be thought for a moment that the choice of interesting
subjects is by any means exhausted. Enough material could easily be
found to fill a second and perhaps even a third volume.
It only remains for the editor to thank all who by their contributions,
helpful advice, and encouragement have made the task of compiling this
small tribute to the memory of a great county a pleasure.
EVERARD L. GUILFORD.
LENTON AVENUE, NOTTINGHAM,
_June 1912_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Historical Nottinghamshire By EVERARD L. GUILFORD,
M.A. 1
The Medieval Church Architecture By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON,
of Nottinghamshire M.A., F.S.A. 12
Newstead Priory and the Religious By Rev. J. CHARLES COX,
Houses of Nottinghamshire LL.D., F.S.A. 54
Wollaton Hall By J. A. GOTCH, F.S.A. 77
The Ancient and Modern Trent By BERNARD SMITH, M.A. 88
The Forest of Sherwood By Rev. J. CHARLES COX,
LL.D., F.S.A. 106
Roods, Screens, and Lofts in By AYMER VALLANCE,
Nottinghamshire F.S.A. 124
The Civil War in Nottinghamshire By EVERARD L. GUILFORD,
M.A. 168
Nottinghamshire Poets By JOHN RUSSELL, M.A. 193
Nottingham By W. P. W. PHILLIMORE 228
Southwell By W. E. HODGSON 239
Nottinghamshire Spires By HARRY GILL 270
The Low Side Windows of By HARRY GILL 295
Nottinghamshire
The Nottingham Mint By FRANK E. BURTON,
F.R.N.S., J.P. 306
The Clockmakers of Newark-on-Trent, By H. COOK 323
with Notes on some of
their Contemporaries
INDEX 339
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Nottingham. The Old Trent Bridge _Frontispiece_
(_From engraving after McArthur; from a photograph
by A. Lineker, Nottingham_)
PAGE, OR FACING PAGE
Blyth Priory Church 20
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
South Scarle: Nave North Arcade 26
(_From a photograph by J. Selby_)
Southwell Minster: East End 32
Southwell Minster: Capital in the Chapter House 32
(_From photographs by E. L. Guilford_)
Barnby in the Willows. (South Side of the Chancel) 42
Car Colston 42
(_From photographs by E. L. Guilford_)
Newstead Priory: Buck’s West View, 1726 60
(_From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London_)
Plan of Newstead Priory 71
(_From a plan by Rev. R. H. Whitworth_)
Plan of Wollaton Hall, by John Thorpe 78
Wollaton Hall: Ground Plan, 1901 80
Wollaton Hall: Half-elevation, by John Thorpe 80
Wollaton Hall 81
Wollaton Hall: Plan by Smithson 82
Wollaton Hall: Elevation of Corner Pavilion, by Smithson 82
Wollaton Hall: the Orchard. Plan by Smithson 84
Wollaton Hall: the Screen, by Smithson 84
Wollaton Hall: Panel in the Screen, by Smithson 86
Wollaton Hall: Panel in the Frieze above the Screen, by
Smithson 86
Plan and Section of the Trent Valley South-east of Nottingham 92
Map of the Trent Valley between Clifton and Collingham 94
The Great Flood of October 1875. (View from Nottingham
Castle looking South) 96
(_By permission of the Geological Survey and Museum_)
The Trent separating Holme from North Muskham 99
Burton and Bole Rounds, after a Map by Mr. Gurnill, sen.,
Gainsborough, 1795 103
Specimen of Sherwood Forest Roll 112
(_From a photograph by Donald Macbeth, London_)
Blyth Priory Church: Screen in the Nave 126
(_From a photograph by A. Lineker, Nottingham_)
West Bridgford: Old Rood-Screen. (Now in South Aisle of
enlarged Church) 130
Holme Church toward the South-east from the Nave 137
(_From a drawing by Messrs. Saunders & Saunders_)
Newark Church: Rood-Screen, from the North-west 146
Southwell Minster: Pulpitum, from the West 154
Southwell Minster: Pulpitum, from the East 154
(_From a photograph by A. Lineker, Nottingham_)
Strelley Church: Rood-Screen 158
(_Measured and drawn by F. E. Collingham_)
Wysall Church: Rood-Screen 166
(_From a photograph by A. Vallance_)
Siege Plan of Newark 188
(_From C. Brown’s “History of Newark”_)
Robert Dodsley 200
(_From the portrait by Gainsborough_)
Philip James Bailey. “Festus” 210
(_By kind permission of Miss Carey_)
Halam 272
Sompting 273
Bradmore 274
Compton, Sussex 275
Gotham, Notts 275
Burton Joyce 277
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Wollaton 277
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Normanton-on-Soar 277
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Edwinstowe 277
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Normanton-on-Soar 277
Ratcliffe-on-Soar 278
Mansfield Woodhouse 279
Squinches, Edwinstowe 281
Gedling 282
(_From a photograph by W. H. Kirkland_)
West Retford 282
Gedling 283
Newark 284
(_From F. Bond’s “Gothic Architecture of England”_)
Bingham 284
(_From F. Bond’s “Gothic Architecture of England”_)
Thoroton 290
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Car Colston 290
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Keyworth 290
(_From a photograph by Thomas Wright_)
Upton 290
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Bradmore 293
Laxton 296
Costock 296
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Haughton 296
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Car Colston 305
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Linby 305
(_From a photograph by H. Gill_)
Coins. Athelstan to Stephen 309
(_From a photograph by Mr. S. Barlow Vines_)
Newark Siege Pieces. Half-crowns and Shillings 314
(_From a photograph by Mr. S. Barlow Vines_)
Newark Siege Pieces. Ninepences and Sixpences 316
(_From a photograph by Mr. S. Barlow Vines_)
Tokens 318
(_From a photograph by Mr. S. Barlow Vines_)
Tokens 320
(_From a photograph by Mr. S. Barlow Vines_)
Clocks by William Gascoyne and Nicholas Goddard 326
Clocks by William Barnard and Edward Smith 326
Clocks by S. Bettison, W. Barnard, and W. Unwin 332
Clocks by Humphrey Wainwright and Will. Foster 332
Sketch Map of Nottinghamshire _at end_
HISTORICAL NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
BY EVERARD L. GUILFORD, M.A.
Modern historians look askance at the writers of fifty years ago,
their methods, and their results. Their work is unreliable, supported
by little documentary evidence, and therefore of no worth. But these
despised historians of an earlier generation did what many modern
writers forget to do--they made history live. They remembered that
the characters in the great drama were once such men and women as
themselves, and they tried to reproduce them as such. Their frequent
inexactitudes in the light of modern knowledge have discountenanced
this school, and the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme.
No statement is accepted unless it can be amply and substantially
supported by documentary evidence, and, what is more, if I may use the
expression, by documentary evidence of the bluest blood. Thus it is
that our national history, and more especially our local history, has
lost many of those picturesque sketches which riveted our attention
and, like the piers of a bridge, helped us to span the intervening
gulf of interminable yet necessary detail. Nowadays we must eradicate
from our minds the stories of such heroes as Robin Hood and place them
among the national fairy tales. This is quite an unnecessary surgical
operation. It is as though we cut off our leg to cure a sprained ankle.
Much may be learnt from the adventures of Robin Hood if we regard them
from the social point of view, for we can obtain from them no mean nor
incorrect idea of what England, and particularly Nottinghamshire, was
like in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
I do not wish it to be thought that the importance of documents is
disregarded, but rather that they can be used much more than they have
been in conjunction with tradition and the study of natural features.
In this sense the study of local history is still in its infancy. Some
historians have even gone so far as to refuse to consider Nottingham
prior to the first definite date recorded--868 A.D. This is
mere stupidity, this erring on the safe side. One other side of the
question I would venture to point out before I deal more particularly
with Nottinghamshire history, and that is that it is impossible to gain
a clear and correct knowledge of a district without making a personal
acquaintance with the territory in question. Large scale maps will do
much to help, but a tramp through the land under consideration will
give clearer insight into the minds of the men who made the country,
the natural features and the artificial features will then assume their
proper positions and due proportions, and the why and the wherefore
will in many cases be as clear as the noonday sun.
Nottinghamshire has a great history--greater perhaps than any of its
sons realise--a history reflecting in miniature the history of the
country at large. The tale of all that has happened in this little
Midland shire cannot be rightly understood unless we appreciate the
importance of its geographical position and its natural features.
Nottinghamshire is par excellence _the_ Midland shire. Its four
neighbours all differ from one another, and Nottinghamshire in its turn
partakes of the characteristics of that which is nearest. Hence we
have a county of very varied character with two strongly predominating
features--Sherwood Forest and the Trent. Both of these have played a
great part in local history, the latter especially, for the importance
of the former was more trivial and not so permanent. Truly the “smug
and silver Trent” is the predominating feature in whatever way we
consider Nottinghamshire. By it the middle of England could be reached
by sea-going ships, and the commerce of the world distributed through
districts otherwise extremely hard to reach. Besides the Trent
served as a boundary between north and south England for legal and
ecclesiastical purposes. The crossings of the Trent at Nottingham
and Newark gave to these towns no small measure of their medieval
importance; they became keys to the north.
The earliest human inhabitants of these islands had a predilection for
dwelling in caves, and we know that they were able to attain to their
desires in one place at least within the county--at Cresswell Crags.
Their remains are so scanty that we can readily believe that they were
few in number, perhaps mere northerly outliers on the edge of a great
uninhabitable unknown. These men we call the Palæolithic men, and
their successors--though there is a great gap between--the Neolithic
men. We have good reason to believe that in the earliest times Britain
was not separated from the Continent, but we are certain that this
cleavage took place before Neolithic man made these shores his home. In
Nottinghamshire at any rate Neolithic man was much more numerous than
his predecessors had been, assuming that we may argue the comparative
population of races by the quantity and distribution of their remains.
Of neither of these races, nor of any that succeeded them till we come
to the Britons, can we obtain any fact which we can safely place on the
modern side of the distant border between history and pre-history.
The historians of the picturesque era brought the British period
into bad repute, just as the writers of thirty or forty years ago
discountenanced archaeology by classifying all architecture of
uncertain age as Saxon. But if we want to get at the truth we must not
be frightened of the pre-Roman days. The Britons were after all very
human, and acted in given circumstances as men may always be expected
to do. We must not look for their fords at the deepest parts of the
river’s course, nor must we expect their roads to take a difficult
ascent where an easy slope presents itself.
The publication of the first two volumes of the _Victoria History of
the County of Nottingham_ is an event of great importance to local
historians and archaeologists. The volumes, in which are gathered all
the store of present knowledge, show us how much we really know, and
how much work lies before the earnest seeker for the truth. A list of
more than a hundred earthworks is given, and of these hardly one has
been adequately explored, and yet each holds some secret which would
help us to a greater knowledge of our county’s story.
Historians nowadays divide the Britons into three races who came to
these shores one after the other, beginning about 600 B.C.
and ending only a short half century or so before the Romans arrived.
The first to come were the Goidels, with whom we have no concern, then
came the Brythons, who inhabited at the arrival of Cæsar all Britain
north of the Thames, and finally, south of the Thames, were the Belgæ.
Nottinghamshire of course did not then exist as a county, but the use
of the term must be excused because of its obvious convenience. So then
Nottinghamshire was inhabited by a Brythonic tribe called the Coritani,
a peace-loving, sparsely-scattered race, who offered no resistance to
the Roman invaders, and of whom we know but the one fact that they
existed. It seems hardly necessary to point out that Julius Cæsar’s
two exploratory expeditions do not concern us. They were passing
incidents whose importance has been greatly exaggerated by the survival
of the Roman leader’s account of his little war. It was not until a
hundred years later that the Roman world realised that there were
still lands unconquered to the west. The realisation was father to the
accomplishment, and within a very few years--by 50 A.D. to be
precise--the Roman wave had passed over Nottinghamshire, and, what is
more, had passed over very lightly.
Historians of the Romano-British period ignore Nottinghamshire as
containing nothing meriting notice, but the truth is that few or no
efforts have been made to find out more. There are four acknowledged
Roman stations within our borders, and of these two remain totally
unexplored, the exact sites even unknown, while only tentative
explorations have been undertaken on the remaining two sites. Yet,
while it can claim no such important station as Ratæ or Lindum within
its borders, Nottinghamshire cannot really be ignored, for it occupies
an intermediary position in Roman Britain between the hardy north,
where there was seldom peace, and the fertile and peaceful south,
where the colonists could live a life more congenial to their southern
desires. After all negative fact is often extremely useful. Why did
not Nottinghamshire assume a more important position in Roman Britain?
Why was not a strong station fixed on the twin hills of Nottingham?
No race with self-protective instincts would ignore such a strong
position as this, and yet the Romans passed hastily from Ratæ to
Lindum without approaching Nottingham. To have utilised the British
trackway which almost certainly crossed the Trent, passed through the
camp on St. Mary’s Hill at Nottingham, and vanished into the dark
forests to the north, would have brought into operation forces against
which the Romans seldom opposed themselves if they could be avoided.
A road driven through open country is more easily defended than one
which carves its way through many miles of dense forest, and even when
the forest was passed there lay to the north a wide marshy expanse,
watered by the Idle, now a well-drained fertile tract, but formerly a
wilderness of morass. The strong natural position of Nottingham would
not appeal so forcibly to the Romans as it did to later invaders. It
was then more a river town than a road town, and the Roman system of
defence and communication ignored rivers as much as possible. Leicester
and Lincoln could be linked together without any interference from
the Trent, while the road from Lincoln to Doncaster was in every way
suitable to Roman engineering--an easy ford over the Trent, and then a
road for the most part over raised ground, which avoided the marshes
of the Idle and the Cars to the north, and ran on the narrow crest of
the hills between Drakeholes and Scaftworth.
Nottinghamshire in Saxon times was a piece of essentially border
territory. When the kingdoms of the Heptarchy were fighting among
themselves the boundaries were ever changing, so that at one time
a piece of Nottinghamshire would be in Lindsey, another piece in
Northumbria, and yet a third in Mercia. During the early part of the
Saxon period it was pretty equally divided between Northumbria and
Mercia, but during the Danish invasions it was entirely Mercian. Of
actual history there is little, yet one or two facts there are which
must be recorded. About 630 St. Paulinus introduced Christianity
into the valley of the Trent, while in 617 Rædwald of East Anglia,
sheltering Edwin the exile King of Northumbria, defeated the usurper
Æthelfrith at the battle of the Idle, fought, I am inclined to think,
at Rainworth. This battle gave Edwin a kingdom which he kept until
his death in 633 at the hands of Penda at Heathfield, perhaps near
Doncaster, perhaps just north of Sherwood Forest.
It was not until some common foe appeared that the Saxons ceased from
intertribal warfare. During the early part of the ninth century all
western Europe had suffered from the cruel plunderings and harryings of
the Vikings--great sailors and great soldiers, whose fierce strength
gave them the victory over higher though more effete civilisations
than their own. Wave after wave of these fierce invaders broke on our
shores, but could find no resting-place. But at length the Danes came
to stay, and soon the north and east were overrun by these virile
warriors. York fell in 867, and in the next year Nottingham yielded
reluctantly to the Danish yoke, and entered on a bondage which was to
bear so grand a result in the hardy hybrid race who peopled the East
Midlands during the tenth and eleventh centuries. It was left for the
Danes to recognise the strategic importance of the twin rocks that
stand sentinel above the Trent. Every school-boy knows all about
the Five Boroughs, and in this loose confederacy Nottingham probably
occupied the premier place. What is perhaps of most importance to
history is that the Danish jarls who ruled in each of these towns
held sway over territory which a few years later was to be formed by
Edward the Elder into the counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire,
Leicestershire, and Lincolnshire, the great size of the last being
due to the union of the jarldoms of Lincoln and Stamford. The English
revival under Edward the Elder led to the emancipation of the East
Mercians, and at Nottingham we hear that the town was fortified and
“occupied by English as by Danes.” This phrase may possibly imply the
existence of a Danish as well as a Saxon town, each on its rock and
each with its own defensive earthwork.
We must pass over the brief invasion of the Five Boroughs by Anlaf
Guthfrithson, the quarrels of Eadgar with Eadwig, and Æthelred with
Cnut, and pass to the period shortly before the Norman Conquest, when
we find that England is divided into several great earldoms. Though
Nottinghamshire was at first part of a small earldom with Leicester,
yet soon it appears to have formed part of Siward’s vast Northumbrian
territory.
The history of Nottinghamshire after the Norman Conquest has been told
many times, and therefore may be treated in a more cursory manner.
William the Conqueror was at Nottingham in 1068, and then passed on,
leaving the castle to be rebuilt by his powerful dependent William
Peverel. It is almost certain that the English were sufficiently strong
in the county to merit consideration, and in the county town itself
we find that two boroughs were definitely established, an English and
a French, each constitutionally separate and each surviving in name,
if not in fact, till comparatively modern times. The great feudal
castle at Nottingham becomes the dominating factor in the history of
the town for the next 150 years, but before the end of this we see
the awakenings of commercial and corporate life. The great forest of
Sherwood provided a playground for kings, and throughout the county
religious houses were founded to give knowledge to the people, alms to
the poor, and rest to the weary.
This county played a large part in the civil war of Stephen’s reign;
both the castles of Nottingham and Newark were in the King’s hands,
though the former changed sides several times, and in the process the
town, whose prosperity and beauty Florence of Worcester belauds, was
burnt.
Henry II. had no intention of having Nottingham Castle held against him
should occasion arise, and in 1155 he took possession of it himself,
and at the same time ordered all adulterine castles to be dismantled.
Probably Cuckney Castle was one of these latter, and there were almost
certainly others, but the matter is obscure.
Henry II. gave the castle of Nottingham to his favourite son John
in 1174, and it remained this despicable prince’s chief and most
frequented residence, and here he made his rebellious stand against
his brother Richard, until he was ejected in 1194. It was in this
year that Richard discovered the suitability of Sherwood Forest for a
royal hunting-ground, and on April 17 he met the King of the Scots at
Clipstone.
After the conference at Runnymede had driven John into a corner, that
treacherous monarch determined to make a last stand at Nottingham
Castle, which he ordered Philip Marc, the constable, to prepare for
a siege. Newark, too, was faithful to John, though the surrounding
country was suffering much at the hands of his enemies. It is fitting
that, as John had loved this county and been loved by it, he should end
his worthless life here, and perhaps here alone was he regretted when
he passed away at Newark.
To all intents and purposes the history of Nottingham itself is the
history of the whole county. The character of this history undergoes a
change early in the thirteenth century. Henceforth Nottingham the town
attracts our attention instead of Nottingham the castle as formerly.
To quote Mrs. J. R. Green, “The interest of its history lies in the
quiet picture that is given of a group of active and thriving traders
at peace with their neighbours, and for the most part at peace with
themselves.” Commercial Nottingham owes everything to its magnificent
geographical position and fruitful geological formation. No marauders
pillaged it, no warring barons held it to ransom and impoverished it.
It dwelt in peace and grew in prosperity. Linen and woollen goods,
ironwork, bells, brazen pots, goldsmiths’ work, images, and ale were
all made in this wealthy town. During the fourteenth century the coal
that lay all along the western border of the county began to be worked,
and rich quarries of stone were cut to build the churches and houses
that sprang up everywhere. Compared with other towns in the Middle Ages
there seems to have been a noticeable absence of poverty in Nottingham.
We have seen how John used Nottingham as his headquarters in his
insurrection, and 200 years afterwards Richard II. attempted his
_coup d’êtat_ there--an attempt which was to have made the King
absolute.
Nottinghamshire had been but little affected by the Hundred Years
War. Except for an occasional demand for men or supplies--a demand
frequently occurring in connection with the Scotch wars of the end
of the thirteenth century--the records of the county are barren. The
fifteenth century saw the suicide of feudalism in the Wars of the
Roses, and here again Nottingham’s policy was a purely commercial one.
It was quite immaterial to her which side gained the victory, so long
as her trade was not interfered with, and so we find that whichever
side was on the top, to that side did the powers that be in Nottingham
send congratulations and men.
Edward IV. and Richard III. were much at Nottingham, and to both of
them the castle owed much. It was from here that Richard set out to
fight his last fight at Bosworth, and a few years later the river
meadows beneath the rock were black with the troops of Henry VII.,
drawn together to meet the puppet of the Yorkists, Lambert Simnel.
Henry passed from Nottingham to Newark and thence down the Fosse Way,
while Simnel’s troops crossed from Mansfield to the Trent, which they
forded, and met the King at East Stoke. This one important battle in
the county’s history was a most bloody affair, and the pretender’s
forces were completely routed.
The Tudors for the most part neglected this county, and though we meet
with such men as Wolsey and Cranmer now and then, they are but lights
that emphasise the darkness.
Nottinghamshire was shortly to awake from its lethargic commercialism
to its great struggle during the seventeenth century between the King
and the Parliament, between Newark and Nottingham, a struggle which
harassed the trade of the towns and ruined the agriculture of the
villages, which saw the standard of war raised at Nottingham, and the
unhappy King surrender himself at Kelham. Newark gained eternal honour,
and the county showed itself the birthplace of great men.
If we except the industrial riots of the early nineteenth century,
Nottinghamshire was to feel but once more the stirrings of civil
strife; the invasion of England by the Young Pretender progressed as
far as Derby, but the reputation of the fierce Scots covered a much
wider field, and the horrors of war were felt to be very close at hand.
But we must glance back for a moment and record the invention in 1589
of the stocking-frame by the Rev. William Lee, curate of Calverton.
Like many great inventors Lee was unlucky and without profit in his own
country, yet, if we may be permitted to quote Master Ridley’s famous
dying words, Lee had lit “such a candle, by God’s grace, in England,
as I trust shall never be put out.” This stocking-frame was the small
beginning whence came the great lace and hosiery trades which, during
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, may be said to have been the
staple industries of the county. Almost every village round Nottingham
earned its living by hosiery, and before the days of the big factories,
in 1812, there were said to be 30,000 frames at work.
It is impossible here to do more than state the fact that every great
invention in the cotton trade emanated from Nottinghamshire. We have
mentioned the early beginnings of the coal trade, and since then this
mighty industry has continued to spread, until now it occupies the
attention of one-third of the county, and in the near future it will
undoubtedly spread further.
Such is a brief history of Nottinghamshire, and though we realise that
history is still being made, it behoves us to turn now and then, and by
considering the past, try to wrest its secret from the Sphinx.
THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
BY A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A.
Nottinghamshire probably has received less than its due from students
of English architecture in the past. Its more easily accessible
churches, Newark or St. Mary’s at Nottingham, naturally have attracted
some attention; and the noble collegiate church of Southwell has never
been neglected by intelligent lovers of medieval art. Newstead, dear
to the illustrators of anthologies, is usually remembered as the home
of Byron and a subject of his verse. Blyth and Thurgarton, however,
are little known to the majority of Englishmen. Few people know of
the beautiful, if unpretentious, work of the thirteenth century which
is to be found in the churches of the Trent valley between Newark and
Gainsborough. While frequent allusion has been made to the Easter
sepulchre, the chief glory of the chancel of Hawton, little attention
has been given to the fact that this chancel is simply a member of a
group of fourteenth-century chancels, which, though not confined to
Nottinghamshire, possesses its most finished examples within or close
to the borders of the county. It is true that, for the most part,
Nottinghamshire parish churches are simple and unambitious in plan and
elevation alike. Their plans present few variations from the normal
type. Here, as elsewhere throughout the north and eastern midlands,
the aisleless nave developed, in the ordinary course of things, into
the nave with aisles, western tower, and south porch. The rectangular
chancel was lengthened, and here and there, as occasion served, was
provided with one or more chapels. But while, in adjacent counties,
considerable architectural development followed this expansion of plan,
Nottinghamshire builders were on the whole content to build churches
which were adequate for the services of the parish, without attempting
to give them any special magnificence of outward form and decoration.
This simplicity of design, however, has an architectural interest of
its own, as throwing considerable light on the methods of local masons,
who remained unaffected by the ambition of neighbouring schools of art.
Geographically, Nottinghamshire presented no obstacle to a general
architectural development on lines similar to those which were pursued
in other midland counties. Only a small district of the county, on
the north-west, reaches an elevation of from 400 to 600 feet above
sea-level: a height of 600 feet is exceeded only here and there. The
great stream of the Trent provided for building material a main artery
of water-carriage from which no part of the county was altogether
remote. The quarries of Ancaster, to which Lincolnshire architecture
owes so much, were within easy reach of Newark and the vale of
Belvoir. There was good building stone within the shire at Mansfield,
Maplebeck, and Tuxford. Moreover, the general state of Nottinghamshire
in the middle ages seems to have been highly prosperous: laymen were
well-to-do, and few, if any, counties of the size can show such an
array of well-endowed chantry foundations as that which it possessed
at the close of the period. It possessed a centre of ecclesiastical
influence at Southwell; and, although there was no religious house of
the first class within its borders, there were several fairly important
houses of canons regular, which might be expected to provide models for
architectural work in their neighbourhood.
It is probable, however, that, at any rate in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, much of the skilled workmanship of the district
was attracted eastwards by the splendid growth of architecture which
took place within the sphere of the trade route to Boston and in the
neighbourhood of the growing port of Hull. These provinces of art,
again, must have drawn towards them, and away from Nottinghamshire,
masons brought up within the architectural influence of Lincoln and
York. As Nottinghamshire formed the southern archdeaconry of the
diocese of York, we should naturally expect to find some Yorkshire
influence upon its buildings. This, as we shall see, was undoubtedly
the case. The influence of York upon Southwell is strong, and the
churches of north Nottinghamshire have a strong family likeness to
those of south Yorkshire. Again, the chapter of Lincoln possessed a
large amount of property in the wapentake of Newark, and in this part
of the county it is possible to trace at an early date an architectural
spirit which had its origin at Lincoln. The fact, however, remains
that, while Nottinghamshire possesses several individual churches which
are fully equal in beauty to those of south Lincolnshire or south-east
Yorkshire, it stood outside the main current of architectural progress
which set in, as the middle ages advanced, towards the Humber and the
Wash.
It may be said that the direct influence of ecclesiastical foundations
upon churches connected with them was probably much less than is
usually supposed. A large collegiate church, such as Southwell, which
played its part as a central point in the ecclesiastical life of the
county, and owned much local property, might have considerable effect
upon the progress of local architecture. The chapter and its individual
canons would be responsible for the repair of chancels in their
impropriated churches. Where they were lords of the manor as well as
impropriators, their care for the fabric might go still further. The
same thing is true of monasteries. But it must be remembered that, as
in our own day, so then, no corporation as lord of the manor, and still
more as rector, would go out of its way to beautify its possessions
at unnecessary expense. Its interest lay in the income to be derived
from the churches, not in the money which it might be possible to
expend upon them. The statement, so common in uncritical writers, that
the religious houses throughout the land built churches broadcast,
rests on no sound historical basis. It is far more accurate to say
that they simply built where they were obliged to do so, and that
then they did their utmost to avoid expense. The church west of the
chancel lay outside their province. Its maintenance was the duty of
the parishioners. In churches where they merely owned the advowson,
the rector, their presentee, was responsible for the chancel. Where
they were impropriators, they usually avoided part of their obligations
by charging their vicar with a sensible part of the repairs of the
chancel. Thus, Worksop priory undertook, in 1283–84, three-quarters
of the repairs of the chancel at Walkeringham: the vicar was charged
with the remaining quarter.[1] Many arrangements of this kind could be
cited. At Newark, in 1428, St. Katherine’s priory at Lincoln undertook
the whole upkeep of the chancel; but the vicar, on his part, was made
wholly responsible for the vicarage house.[2] In any case, a monastery
would save itself unnecessary expense, if possible. This is not to be
wondered at, if the whole question of monastic finances in the middle
ages, and the pressure of debt which constantly weighed upon even the
larger houses, is considered. The constant excuse for appropriating an
advowson was one of poverty, nor did bishops sanction appropriations
without a conventional demur.
These circumstances taken into account, it will be seen that the
religious houses cannot be credited with any great architectural
influence upon the churches belonging to them. For necessary repairs
in parish churches they would employ local masons, who would charge
them little, and execute their work neatly and adequately. It is true
that there are exceptions. The vast aisled chancel of Newark was
planned on an unusually liberal scale; but it may fairly be assumed
that the work was put in the hands of skilled local craftsmen who had
no direct connection with St. Katherine’s priory. Nor can any special
architectural relationship be discovered between the chancel of Newark
and the vanished church of the impropriating house. It may also be
noted that, until the fourteenth century, the number of churches
appropriated to monasteries in Nottinghamshire was not large. By the
time of the suppression of the monasteries, a third of the churches of
the county were appropriated to religious houses, and of these about
a third belonged to monasteries outside the county, Westminster abbey
holding six.[3] This, however, does not represent the proportion of
appropriated churches during the time of the greatest architectural
activity. The number of churches, on the other hand, appropriated to
prebendaries of Southwell and members of other collegiate bodies,
such as the dean and chapter of Lincoln,[4] or the warden and canons
of St. Mary and the Holy Angels at York,[5] was considerable from the
twelfth century onwards. Yet it is impossible to trace any general
attempt at architectural improvement on the part of ecclesiastical
bodies or their individual members. Here and there we may suspect
something; but the general rule is one of sound practical building on
local lines, following the general current of architectural growth
prevalent throughout the length and breadth of England, and touched
now and then by the work of a neighbouring school of masons whose
mastery of their craft was superior to the homely dialect of the
Nottinghamshire craftsmen. In most parishes the lord of the manor may
be regarded as the principal contributor, who may have helped with the
chancel, if he occupied a seat there, and would have been the ruling
spirit in the building of the nave. The rector, often a non-resident,
would be the repairer and rebuilder of the chancel, and may often
have been forced to do his duty unwillingly. The builders, save in
exceptional instances, were, we may well believe, masons of the village
or neighbourhood, who were also the builders and repairers of the
manor-house and such stone dwellings as the village might possess. For
the furniture of the church the local carpenter and painter would be
called in. In our own day, when we are familiar with the professional
architect who restores our village churches, and with improved means
of communication between place and place, it is difficult to imagine
that our villages possessed the necessary talent for all this work.
Architecture, however, in the middle ages was a general, democratic
art: building was a part of the practical life of the English village,
and the stonework of the place was a topic of current interest and
intelligence, not yet relegated to the province of archæology.
There are few buildings remaining in the county which can be said to
contain traces of pre-Conquest work. Foundations of a church which is
very probably of Saxon date have been uncovered at East Bridgford. The
tower of the church of Carlton-in-Lindrick belongs to the type of late
Saxon tower, of which there are many examples in north Lincolnshire. It
was originally unbuttressed, and in, each face of its belfry stage was
a double window opening, divided by a mid-wall shaft. In the fifteenth
century an upper belfry stage and buttresses were added to the tower;
the large dressed blocks of grey stone, of which these additions are
composed, afford an interesting contrast to the rubble work of the
older portion of the structure. In another volume of this series the
present writer has attempted to show that a pre-Conquest date cannot
with certainty be assigned to towers of this class, although there
can be no doubt that the type originated during the Saxon period.[6]
The presence of “herring-bone” masonry in the tower is a distinct
indication of its post-Conquest date. “Herring-bone” coursing never
occurs in portions of a fabric, of the Saxon origin of which there can
be no doubt. At Brixworth, in Northamptonshire, it is found only in a
portion of the tower, above the definitely Saxon work which remains: it
occurs, again, in a part of the crypt at York, for the traditionally
early date of which there is absolutely no evidence. On the other
hand, by far the most extensive use of “herring-bone” masonry is in
the walling of early castles, which were certainly not raised before
the Conquest, but owed their origin to the conquerors. The curtains
of Tamworth, Corfe, Lincoln, Richmond, and Hastings, the keep of
Colchester, works of the later portion of the eleventh century, are
imposing examples of the use of this method of masonry. It is not even
a method which can be attributed to English workmen: it is found in
Normandy, and is used on a grand scale in the interior of the donjon
at Falaise. Where it is found in churches, therefore, it probably
indicates Norman influence at a period soon after the Conquest; while
it may be taken as a criterion for doubting seriously the pre-Conquest
date of work that seems at first sight rude and primitive enough to
be attributed to English masons before the coming of the Normans.
Thus there is “herring-bone” coursing in the north wall of the nave
at East Leake, found in company with small and narrow windows, the
heads of which are not arched, but composed of flat lintels, with a
segmental cut in their lower surface. At West Leake, where, as at East
Leake, a south aisle was added to the fabric, but the north wall was
left untouched, the window openings are similar, and the masonry is
equally rude, but there is no “herring-bone” work. There are several
examples in Nottinghamshire churches of walls, in which roughly tooled
masonry, bedded in thick masses of mortar, and not infrequently
arranged in “herring-bone” courses, occurs; and the pre-Conquest date
of some of these--Oxton and Plumtree are cases in point--needs careful
consideration. The most important cases of “herring-bone” work are
found in the churches which fringe the left bank of the Trent below
Newark--Averham, South Muskham, Cromwell, Laneham, and Littleborough.
In the last two, which are the chief instances, the case for a
pre-Conquest date is very poor. The proportions of the fabrics, both
at Laneham and Littleborough, in which we find this masonry, have
nothing about them which is peculiarly Saxon. On the contrary, while
the earliest work at Laneham, the tower and tower-arch, is possibly
earlier than the twelfth century, the whole fabric at Littleborough is
an ordinary “Norman” aisleless church of twelfth-century character. It
may be added that, on the opposite bank of the Trent, “herring-bone”
masonry is hardly less common. At Marton, opposite Littleborough,
it is used in the very uncommon method employed at Tamworth castle,
with two horizontal layers of long, thin stones between the diagonal
courses; while, at Upton in the same neighbourhood, the whole south
wall of an originally aisleless church, somewhat larger than that of
Littleborough, and as thoroughly of the twelfth century in its design
and proportions, is composed of very regular “herring-bone” coursing.
The whole problem of the work of English masons after the Conquest
is one for the solution of which we have as yet no definite data.
These Nottinghamshire examples can hardly be said to do more than
leave the question where they find it. The one thing that can be said
positively is that such churches were built in country places at small
expense, and without the trouble of dressing stone in large blocks of
regular size, which was taken in cases where more money was probably
forthcoming. Such buildings, it need hardly be said, were intended to
have an outer as well as an inner coat of plaster. The masonry, when
exposed, is interesting, but unsightly. Far different was the case with
the larger churches of the Norman period in England, with the rubble
core of their walling faced, out and in, with courses of dressed stone.
Of these churches, in which principles of construction were gradually
developed by the attempt of the builders to solve the problem offered
by the stone roof and its abutments, Nottinghamshire possesses two, the
priory church of Blyth and the collegiate church of Southwell. Blyth
was the church of a priory of Norman Benedictines, founded in 1088 as
a cell to the abbey of La Trinité on the Mont-Ste-Cathérine at Rouen.
The eastern portion of the church is now gone, but the nave and north
aisle of the original building remain. These must have been built very
soon after the foundation: their characteristics are those of the
eleventh-century Romanesque of Normandy, as we see it in the large
Benedictine churches of Bernay (Eure) and Jumièges (Seine-Inférieure).
The masonry with which the building is faced is composed chiefly of
cubical blocks of dressed stone with wide joints. The arches of the
main arcades are round-headed, and of two orders, unmoulded: both
orders spring from a single soffit shaft with a trapezoidal capital and
heavy abacus. The piers dividing the arches are square blocks of wall,
in front of each of which a bold semi-circular shaft rises to the level
of the springing of the triforium arcade. The string-course at the
sill of the triforium arcade is continued as a band round the vaulting
shafts. Each bay of the triforium is pierced by a single archway, about
a third of the height of the corresponding arch of the main arcade.
Each of these arches is of two orders: the supports are formed by the
rectangular recessing of the intermediate piers, and the arches spring
from impost-blocks recessed to match. The construction of the triforium
is thus more logical and symmetrical than that of the main arcade
below, in which the two orders of the arches find no correspondence in
the jambs. The clerestory is composed of a single round-headed opening
in each bay, set in the outer face of the wall. The nave originally was
not vaulted, but in the thirteenth century the vaulting shafts were
adapted to receive the springing of a quadripartite vault, the ribs
of which spring at the level already mentioned. Both aisles, however,
were probably vaulted. At the end of the thirteenth century, a very
wide south aisle was built for the sake of the parochial services, and
the older aisle was removed. The north aisle, however, is left as it
was: each bay is covered with a groined vault of plastered rubble. The
groins are winding and irregular. The builders were evidently alive to
the difficulty of keeping the crown of their vault level, where the
compartment with which they had to deal was oblong in shape; and the
groins are made to spring, not from the same point as the transverse
arches dividing each bay, but from small stilts set rather awkwardly
upon the springing blocks. The whole work is severely plain: the
capitals of the soffit shafts of the main arcade have small volutes
at their angles, and there is simple grotesque carving on the flat
face of the capitals between the volutes. One of the bases also has an
excellent double roll carved in cable fashion.
[Illustration: BLYTH PRIORY CHURCH.]
The date of this work is of some importance in the general history of
English architecture. Apart from the early work at Westminster, few
churches in England, built wholly under Norman influence, can have
been completed at an earlier date than Blyth, although the building
of several was in progress at the time when Blyth was founded. The
largest eleventh-century church in the neighbourhood, that of Lincoln,
was consecrated in 1092; and the remains of the earliest work there
have much in common with Blyth--the wide-jointed masonry, unmoulded
arches, voluted capitals, broad triforium arches, and single clerestory
openings. The date of the consecration of Blyth, however, is
unrecorded, and it should be borne in mind that the work in 1088 would
have been begun with the eastern arm, of which there is nothing left.
All, therefore, that can be said about it is, that it is approximately
contemporary with the eleventh-century work at Lincoln, and that the
elevation adopted in the lateral walls of both churches probably
supplied a model to the builders of Southwell. The monks’ quire at
Blyth extended one bay west of the crossing, and, at a later date, was
divided from the nave by a solid wall the whole height of the building.
On this wall, towards the nave, remain traces of painting: the eastern
bay of the nave is open to the garden of the modern hall near the
church, and was used for some time as an aviary.
The great church of Southwell, as it stands, was begun in the days of
Thomas II., archbishop of York from 1109 to 1114. The eastern arm was
terminated by a rectangular chancel, while the aisles ended in apses,
the walls of which were rounded externally as well as internally.
Traces alone remain of this interesting plan.[7] The transepts of the
twelfth-century church remain, though the apsidal chapels to the east
of them have gone: the whole of the nave and south porch, the central
tower, and two western towers form one work with the transepts. The
general character of this work is of a rather late Romanesque type.
The gables of the transepts are filled with a relieved honeycomb
pattern which bears some affinity to that used in the gables abutting
on the lower stages of the western towers at Lincoln. The date of the
Lincoln work has been supposed to lie between 1123 and 1148, but is
very probably even later than the second date. The rich string-course
of chevron ornament which, in spite of some mutilation, is still
continued round the nave and transepts of Southwell at the level of
the sills of the aisle windows, and is raised to form the segmental
head of the doorway in the south transept, is another feature which
points to the late completion of the western part of the church. The
northern and western doorways of the nave, the first of five, the
second of four shafted orders, in addition to the continuous inner
order of rows of chevrons, have a refinement of detail which suggests
a date not earlier than 1150. In the side walls of the north porch,
the lower stage of the central tower, and the top stage but one of
the north-west tower, are arcades of intersecting rounded arches. In
the south-west tower, however, the arcade in the top stage but one
consists of pointed arches. The probability is that the work was slowly
achieved, and was not finished until the third quarter of the twelfth
century. The earliest portion appears to be the great arches beneath
the central tower, with their elaborate “double-cone” ornament, which
is really a highly-developed variety of the twisted-cable sculpture,
such as we have noticed on the base at Blyth.[8] The main arcades of
the nave were then probably built westward as an abutment to these
arches. The arcades are of seven bays up to the eastern piers of the
towers. The arches have a curve of rather less than a semicircle:
they are framed by a band of double-billet ornament beneath a small
roll: they have a deep outer order with an edge-roll, and an inner
order with two thick soffit rolls. They are divided by low and massive
cylindrical columns, the capitals of which are cylinders of larger
diameter, carved with scalloping and other ornament. This carving is
incised, and little relief is given to the scalloping. The work of the
triforium, clerestory, and aisles appears to have followed the building
of the main arcades.[9] The triforium, as at Blyth, has a single bold
opening in each bay. The moulding of the arches is very similar to that
of the arches below, but the outer band of ornament is richer. The
piers dividing them are square in section, and are recessed with an
angle shaft and soffit shaft, each with scalloped capitals to bear the
orders of the arches. The inner faces of the arches and jambs towards
the triforium passage are left unmoulded. The clerestory consists of
a circular opening in each bay, framed on the outside by a continuous
roll moulding. There is a barrel-vaulted clerestory passage, which
opens towards the nave by a plain rounded arch with soffit shafts in
each bay. No vaulting shafts were ever planned: the elevation of the
nave externally is rather flat and plain, but a strong horizontal
line is given by the triforium string, and the effect of light and
shade caused by the clerestory openings is one of the most beautiful
features of this noble church. It was originally intended to introduce
sub-arches into the triforium openings, on the plan adopted at Romsey:
the preparations for this subdivision remain, but it was never carried
out.
The aisles are vaulted in quadripartite compartments, with massive
diagonal ribs, square in section, with thick edge rolls, and a double
bead on the soffit. The centre of the diagonals is considerably below
their springing, with a fatal result to the artistic effect of their
curve. No special provision is made for their reception either on the
side of the main arcades or that of the aisle wall: their outward
pressure, which is considerable, is met by shallow pilaster buttresses,
which serve as thickening to the wall at the necessary points. The
north porch, which has a solar or upper chamber, is barrel-vaulted. The
rough rubble vault, denuded of its plaster covering, forms a strange
contrast to the richness of the north doorway and the intersecting
arcades of the side walls. Although, as already said, all this work,
and the north porch most of all, belongs to an advanced period of the
twelfth century, the actual plan, with the two rather slender western
towers, may probably be assigned to the time when the rebuilding of the
church was first projected by Norman builders. The two western towers
planned at Melbourne (probably after 1133) and Bakewell in Derbyshire,
at once recall on plan the towers of Southwell, and are less likely
to have suggested them than to have been suggested by them. There is
little doubt that the two towers of Worksop priory church bear witness
to the influence of Southwell, while the scheme of the elevation of the
nave there was derived from Blyth and Southwell, and expressed in later
terms.
The vaulted crypt which remains beneath the chancel of Newark church
has been curtailed of its full proportions, but is a good example of
the successful ribbed vaulting of a series of narrow oblong bays, the
transverse arch between each bay being omitted, as in the alternate
bays at Durham. Among the parish churches of the county there are
few instances of unmixed Romanesque work of post-Conquest date.
Littleborough and Sookholme are aisleless chapels with rectangular
chancels, and to these the greater part of the fabric at Halam
may be added. East and West Leake keep enough of their possibly
eleventh-century structure to enable us to realise their original
appearance; but both have undergone the process of the enlargement of
the chancel and the addition of a south aisle, and at East Leake the
tower is of the thirteenth century. Early towers with plain details,
as at Laneham and Mansfield, are not uncommon: that at Plumtree is
a case in which some slight architectural enrichment has been given
to a simple design. Such towers, the unbuttressed construction of
which, as at East Leake, survives into the thirteenth century, seem
to be the work of local masons on whom the methods of the Norman
builders have made comparatively little impression. On the other
hand, the distinctive ornamentation of Norman churches has left its
mark on chancel arches like those of Littleborough and Harworth,
and on a considerable number of doorways. The carved tympana of the
doorways of Hoveringham and Everton may be assigned to the early part
of the twelfth century. The tympanum, now built into the west wall
of the south transept at Southwell, is earlier in date. Its rude
and angular figure sculpture has been cited with some probability
as Saxon, but has much in common with other late eleventh- and even
twelfth-century sculpture, in which possible Scandinavian influence
may be detected. Work of a similar school may be seen in the carved
figures, representing nine of the months of the year, which have been
built into the tower at Calverton: these seem to have been the carved
_voussoirs_ of the doorway of the eleventh-century church, of
which the chancel arch remains. The influence of Yorkshire building on
Nottinghamshire was always strong, and we cannot expect to find in the
early work of the district the refined carving of the southern schools
of masons. Among doorways of a later date, the south doorway and the
outer doorway of the north porch at Balderton stand easily first: these
have rich and deeply-cut bands of chevron ornamentation.[10]
[Illustration: SOUTH SCARLE. NAVE NORTH ARCADE.]
Arcades of twelfth-century work are very few in number: there are no
cases among the parish churches where both arcades are of this date.
At Thoroton, South Collingham, and South Searle the north aisle was
added before the transition to Gothic had thoroughly set in; and the
two last examples are peculiarly instructive. In either case the arcade
is of uncommon beauty. At South Collingham it is of distinctly late
Romanesque character. The capitals are scalloped, the arches have
heavy double soffit rolls, the outer order has a band of chevron both
on the wall and soffit planes, and each arch has a hood of “nebule”
ornament, which recalls the form of the corbel table of the nave at
Southwell. Large grotesque heads occur at the junction of the hoods.
The date of the work is certainly earlier than 1150. The north arcade
at South Scarle belongs to the third quarter of the century. The
arches are rounded and of two orders. The inner order is ornamented
with bands of deeply moulded lozenges, formed by opposed rows of
chevrons, set both on the wall and soffit planes, the edge between
the points of contact of the lozenges being left square. The outer
order has a slender edge-roll: on both planes are bands of lozenges,
longer and narrower than those of the inner order, with a roll moulding
running through and bisecting each lozenge. The hoods are composed of
a double band of chevron, arranged on both planes, the edge, as in
the inner order, being left square. At the meeting of the hoods are
heads. The adjacent outer orders intersect and are combined with rare
skill. The column dividing the arches is cylindrical: the capital has
a heavy square abacus with a long vertical hollow, and the bell has a
simple band of deeply undercut foliage with angle crockets. The whole
design could hardly be surpassed in any English parish church of the
period. It is not fanciful to suggest that the carving of both planes
throughout the arch and hood was inspired by the outer order at South
Collingham, where the chevrons are arranged alternately, so as to
interlock, and no straight edge is left. But the work at South Searle
is of a superior delicacy of execution: in the arches the thick convex
curves of Romanesque work give place to the graceful undercutting of
Gothic sculpture, and in the foliage of the capitals Romanesque methods
have been entirely left behind.
South Searle is, in fact, an early example of the transition which
marks the end of the twelfth century. Other arcades of the period,
belonging to the last quarter of the twelfth century, and showing
sculptured foliage or figures, occur at Caunton and Attenborough. The
date of the work at Attenborough, however, may be called in question,
as it has features which indicate that it has been manipulated by
clever sculptors of a much later era. Plain arcades with rounded
arches, but otherwise Gothic in character, such as are common in
Yorkshire, are those of Sturton-le-Steeple. The present writer, who
has a clear recollection of the church as it was, saw it in its
ruined state after the fire of 1901, and has visited it since its
reconstruction, can testify to the substantial accuracy with which
the rebuilding has been carried out. An important piece of work was
begun towards the end of the twelfth century at Newark, of which the
evidence remains in the clustered piers, with plain capitals and square
abaci, intended, with a rather inadequate sense of the weight to be
laid on them, to support a central tower. The great achievement of
transitional work in Nottinghamshire, however, was the nave of Worksop
priory church, the date of which is about 1175. As has been said, the
Worksop builders owed something to Southwell, and their design at once
recalls, in its external appearance and proportions, that which had
been used at Southwell. The details are much simplified, as may be seen
by comparing the elevation of the Worksop with that of the Southwell
towers; and the large bull’s-eye windows of the clerestory at Southwell
are not repeated at Worksop. Internally, the proportions are those of
Blyth and Southwell--the low arch on the ground-floor in each bay, the
wide single opening of the triforium above, the low clerestory. From a
structural point of view, there is no very great advance upon Southwell
in lightness of construction. The columns, alternately cylindrical and
octagonal, are still squat and massive: strength of walls is still the
ruling principle with the builders. But the approach to Gothic work is
shown in the growing delicacy of detail, in slenderness of undercut
moulding, in the use of the pointed arch, where it is not necessitated
by vaulting, and in the abandonment of intricate twelfth-century
ornament for carefully sculptured mouldings and for the conventional
variety of carved foliage.
The district near the Trent, in the wapentakes of Bassetlaw and
Newark, provides a group of village churches which contain early
thirteenth-century work of rare excellence. North Collingham,
Marnham, Laneham, South Leverton, Beckingham, Misterton, and Hayton,
are the members of this group. The treatment of the work is by no
means identical in all these cases. At Laneham the nave arches
have simple mouldings of very early thirteenth-century type, cut
in rectangular planes, and rest upon clustered columns, the shafts
of which are engaged in a rather thick central shaft. The same
treatment of arch-mouldings may be seen at Ordsall, near Retford. At
North Collingham, South Leverton, and Marnham, sculptured foliage is
employed in the capitals of the nave arcade. These three churches
differ from each other in the design of their arches and columns, and
the true parentage of North Collingham, a worthy neighbour to South
Collingham, is not easy to decide. But the design of tail-shafted
columns and foliated capitals at South Leverton seems to be closely
allied to the early thirteenth-century work at St. Mary-le-Wigford
and St. Peter-at-Gowts in Lincoln; while the low columns and graceful
foliage at Marnham belong to the same family as much thirteenth-century
architecture in and round Lincoln--St. Benedict’s at Lincoln,
Nettleham, and Waddington, are cases in point. It is easy to understand
that Lincoln may have had a great architectural influence on a church
like South Leverton, which was one of the churches appropriated to the
dean of Lincoln, and forming part of his “parsonage.”
The chapter of Lincoln, as has been said, possessed much property
and several churches in Newark wapentake: the whole district, then,
including churches, like Marnham,[11] which had no direct connection
with Lincoln, might very well be brought within the sphere of the
artistic influence of Lincoln. North Collingham, the advowson of
which belonged to the abbey of Peterborough,[12] was well within the
possible range of Lincoln influence. Misterton, on the other hand,
lay outside the district to which Lincoln craftsmen were most likely
to resort. The church itself belonged to the dean and chapter of
York, who possessed property all round it; while five churches in
the neighbourhood, East Retford, Clarborough, Everton, Hayton, and
Sutton-cum-Lound with Scrooby, belonged to the collegiate chapel of St.
Mary and the Holy Angels at York. In later days, Yorkshire influence
was paramount in the buildings of the district; the tower of Haxey in
Lincolnshire, and the tower of Gainsborough, seem to have been built
by masons of the Yorkshire school. It has been explained that the
possession of a church by monastic or clerical owners did not imply
that the impropriators would do much for the fabric; and the examples
just cited show for how little, in an architectural estimate, the
actual owners of the church may count. Save only Balderton and South
Leverton, those churches, in the neighbourhood of the Trent, which
belonged to the dean and chapter of Lincoln, are not remarkable for
their beauty, or for any traces of the handiwork of Lincoln masons in
them. But it might well happen that, in the case of South Leverton,
Lincoln masons were employed, and their work might bear fruit in
neighbouring parishes.
The work of Lincoln masons is certainly apparent in the tower of Newark
church, begun during the second quarter of the thirteenth century. We
have seen that this church was the property of the Gilbertine priory of
St. Katherine without Lincoln. The canons of St. Katherine’s, however,
would be under no obligation to supply the church with a tower. On the
other hand, the bishop of Lincoln, as lord of Newark, would have a
direct responsibility, and would probably be the largest contributor
to the new work. What was more natural than that masons, whose methods
had been learned at Lincoln, should be employed at Newark? As a matter
of fact, the Lincoln influence is clearly declared, not only in the
foliated capitals of the western doorway, but also in the “smocking”
pattern which is used in the upper part of the thirteenth-century
work. This method of breaking up a flat surface, by a series of
diagonal fillets crossing and recrossing each other, into a chequered
surface of sunken lozenges, is a peculiar feature of the architectural
work done at Lincoln minster in the times of Bishop Grosseteste
(1235–54). It was employed again, with a little variation, towards the
end of the century in the tower of Grantham, which owes much to the
example of Newark.
The tower of Newark was the beginning of a great rebuilding, which
gives us the most interesting development of plan in Nottinghamshire.
It was planned, like most western towers, to stand free, on three
sides, of the west end of the church. After the lowest stage had been
built, however, arches were pierced in the north and south walls, so
as to open into aisles extended westwards to a level with the west
wall of the tower. This arrangement, as Sir Gilbert Scott suggested
with much probability, may have been derived directly from Tickhill
in south Yorkshire, where the tower was engaged within aisles at the
close of the twelfth century. The plan had been used in Yorkshire at
an earlier date.[13] There can be no question as to the influence of
this arrangement at Newark upon the plan of the tower and aisles at
Grantham some fifty years later. Grantham, however, completed its tower
and spire within a few years of the conception of the borrowed design.
Newark had to wait for the completion of its tower and spire until the
fourteenth century; and the thirteenth-century lower stages, as we see
them now, are an isolated fragment, crowned and flanked by work of a
later period.
The three western bays, which are all that remain, of the priory
church of Thurgarton, belong to the northern school of early Gothic.
The detail is severely simple, and the somewhat heavy clustered piers
recall those of the church of Great Grimsby in Lincolnshire, which bear
a near relationship to the early thirteenth-century work at Hedon
in the East Riding. The west front and north tower are practically a
translation into a more advanced type of Gothic of the west front and
south tower of the late twelfth-century priory church of Malton. The
work appears to belong to the first quarter of the thirteenth century:
the buttresses of the tower are mere pilasters, finished off with
gable heads above the belfry string. It is impossible to speak too
warmly of the noble simplicity of the design, which is very moderate
in elevation. A great west doorway, recessed in five orders, with
shafted jambs, occupies nearly half the height of the west front. The
upper half, which forms with its gable an equilateral triangle, is
occupied by a row of lancets, decreasing in height from the centre on
each side: the three central lancets are pierced. The north tower is
divided by string courses into five stages: the lowest stage is again
divided into two parts, the lower of which is pierced in the west face
by another moulded and shafted doorway. Great ingenuity is shown in the
care with which the surface of the tower and buttresses is broken up by
blind arcades of lancets, which are applied at points where emphasis
is really needed, and are not used indiscriminately. This is specially
remarkable in the belfry stage, the centre of which in each face is
occupied by two tall lancet openings. The unpierced wall on either
side of these is divided into two halves by a bold string course; but,
while the upper half is recessed with lancet niches, the lower half
is left blank, and is broken only on the west face by the projection
of the buttress gables. Probably no better instance could be found of
the dignity and variety of interest which thirteenth-century builders
contrived to create out of their stock of simple material. Every detail
is taken carefully into account, but none is so accentuated as to
lessen the harmony of the main design.
[Illustration: SOUTHWELL MINSTER. EAST END.]
[Illustration: SOUTHWELL MINSTER. CAPITAL IN THE CHAPTER
HOUSE.]
In the second quarter of the thirteenth century the old eastern arm of
Southwell minster was taken down, and a new aisled quire and presbytery
built upon lines closely akin to those of the churches of Augustinian
canons. The quire is of six bays. From the second bay from the
east, in which the high altar probably stood, projects on each side
a small transeptal chapel, with its roof on a level with that of the
adjacent aisle. The eastern bay formed the ambulatory behind the altar;
but the central body of the quire is prolonged beyond it for two bays
eastwards as an aisleless chapel. The high altar is now against the
east wall, but there can be no doubt as to the original arrangement. As
at Thurgarton, the design is marked by great restraint in the matter
of detail. The clustered columns, like those in the contemporary
work done, during the archiepiscopate of Walter de Gray, at York and
Beverley,[14] form an attached group around an inner core. Their
capitals are simply moulded. The arches depend for their effect upon
their mouldings, dog-tooth being used very sparingly in the hollows.
The upper stage, in which clerestory and triforium are combined by
the expedient of prolonging the inner arch of the clerestory to the
triforium sill, and omitting the inner clerestory passage, is treated
more richly. Dog-tooth is freely used in the ridge-rib of the vault;
the jamb-shafts of the prolonged arches have foliated capitals; the
capitals of the vaulting-shafts are foliated, and the shafts themselves
rest on corbels of great beauty, carved with stiff-stalked leaf-work.
This increased richness of the higher part of the composition gives
balance to the design, which otherwise might be almost too plain.
Taken as a whole, the composition is inferior to the transepts of York
and the magnificent quire at Beverley. The two-storeyed division of
the interior of the quire gives an effect of lowness, and the vault,
with its strongly marked ridge-rib, seems to weigh too heavily on
the building, which is rather broad in proportion to its height. The
arrangement of two tiers of four lancets, one above the other, at the
east end, is in keeping with the over-weighted impression given by the
whole elevation. At the same time, there cannot be two opinions as to
the picturesqueness of the design; for what is lost in height and
dignity is gained in the contrast of light and shade in the triforium
and clerestory stage. The vault, continued at one level through
the quire and eastern chapel, is of eight bays. Of these seven are
quadripartite, with a ridge-rib added. The eighth is, by an unusual
arrangement, quinquepartite: the upper tier of four lancets at the
east end is arranged in two pairs, between which a small shaft, with a
prominent foliated capital, carries an arched rib at right angles to
the east wall. This is brought up to the central boss of the vaulting
compartment, where it meets the ridge-rib.[15] Externally, the lowness
of elevation is less striking, and the striking projection of the
tall buttresses of the eastern chapel, with their gabled heads, adds
a vigour to the general outline which is missed in the interior of
the building. The original pitch of the outer roof has been lowered,
however, so that the complete effect is somewhat impaired.
The south chapel of the quire of Worksop priory church, the building
of which was almost contemporary with the thirteenth-century work at
Southwell, is a melancholy ruin; but its remains are still enough to
show the beauty which may be produced by the effective combination
of simple lancet forms. It may be said with some confidence that the
thirteenth-century builders at Southwell, Thurgarton, and Worksop,
and of the high vault which was added during this period to the nave
at Blyth, belonged to a school which had learned its traditions
in the beginning from the Cistercian architecture of Yorkshire.
Economy of ornament, variety in the use of simple forms, contrast
of light with shade conveyed by the alternation of bold convex and
deep hollow mouldings, are the characteristics of the twelfth- and
thirteenth-century work in churches like Byland, Fountains, and Roche.
From these the builders of the great churches of Beverley, Ripon, and
Southwell, the _matrices ecclesiæ_ of the East and West Ridings
and of Nottinghamshire, learned their art; and the example of these,
little touched by the influence of the south-eastern builders, which
appears at Lincoln, or of the western builders, which makes itself
felt at Lichfield, is manifest in the larger churches within their
neighbourhood.[16]
The ruined priory church of Newstead, on the other hand, which belongs
to the second half of the thirteenth century, has few characteristics
limiting it to the work of a special school. The great west window,
which has lost its tracery, and the traceried panels of the west
front, are symptoms of a general architectural movement peculiar to
no one district. From Binham in the east, and Salisbury in the south,
to Croyland, Lincoln, and Grantham in the eastern midlands, and to
St. Mary’s at York and Guisbrough priory in the north, single lancet
openings gave place to combinations of several lights in one window,
with tracery consisting of one or more cusped circles between them
and the enclosing arch. A study of the chronology of these buildings
leads to the conclusion that this development of art made its way
northward. The west front at Newstead forms a half-way house, as it
were, between the west front at Croyland and Abbot Warwick’s work at
St. Mary’s, York. The likeness of the tracery in the flanking portions
of the design at Newstead to that in the windows of the south aisle at
Grantham church is very noticeable. The date of the work at Grantham is
about 1280.[17]
Newstead takes an honourable place among the greater achievements of
the so-called geometrical period. The south aisle of Blyth priory
church, which is probably not later than 1290, and was added to give
more accommodation to the parochial services, is a good example of
the simple and well-proportioned work of an epoch, which, in spite
of the epithet of “Decorated” so often applied to it, produced some
of the plainest and most sober work of the middle ages. The tracery
of the windows, formed by the simple intersection of the mullions, is
a special, though not exclusive, characteristic of English midland
work, common in the windows of Leicestershire and Derbyshire churches.
At Stapleford, close to the Derbyshire border of our county, there is
a good window of this type. Nearly contemporary with the south aisle
of Blyth, is the greater part of the fine church of Gedling. Here the
chancel seems to have been rebuilt during the third quarter of the
thirteenth century, the nave following after a short interval. The
whole church, with the exception of the tower and spire, was probably
finished by 1294, in which year Archbishop Romeyn consecrated here a
bishop to his suffragan see of Whithorn in Galloway.[18] The tracery
of the nave windows is of a simple geometrical character; but the
place of the cusped and heavily-moulded circle is taken by the more
angular forms and thinner stonework which mark the transition to the
developed art of the fourteenth century. Otherwise, the detail of the
work is plain, and the aim of the builders was evidently spaciousness
of design before anything else. More decorative ambition is shown
in the sculptured capitals of the nave at Bingham, in which the
tendency to naturalistic treatment of foliage is very noticeable.
The tower and spire of Bingham are among the principal achievements
of Nottinghamshire masons at this period. There is some conservatism
of feeling about the design. Bingham is near the district which
was the early home of the broach spire, and it was long before, in
that district, old traditions died out. The stepped buttresses,
the double geometrical windows in the belfry stage, and the not
more than adequately lofty spire, with its many lights, set upon
a proportionately sturdy tower, are the leading features of this
beautiful composition.[19] The tower at Thurgarton must have supplied
Nottinghamshire builders with a first-rate lesson in design, and its
influence may have been felt at Bingham. It was certainly felt in the
thirteenth-century central tower of Langar--one of the few cruciform
churches in Nottinghamshire--not far from Bingham; and this tower may
have inspired the builders at Bingham with their ambition. It may be
added, however, that these fine models were not generally followed in
the county. Apart from Newark, which can hardly be considered from
a merely local point of view, and West Retford, the most remarkable
example--later than Bingham--of spire design in the county is at
Thoroton. Other spires, such as Cotgrave, East Leake, and St. Peter’s
at Nottingham, approximate to the very plain type of tall spire
on a parapeted tower which is found so constantly, as at Sawley,
Duffield, and Morley, in the adjoining county of Derbyshire. Bingham
and Thoroton, on the other hand, are within easy call of the fine and
elaborate spires of south Lincolnshire and Leicestershire. Another
chapter in this volume deals with the spires of the county in detail.
One church upon the Lincolnshire frontier deserves special mention
at this point. This is Barnby-in-the-Willows, on the left bank of
the Witham. Here a general rebuilding took place about 1300; and the
task was evidently entrusted to a master of the works whose ideas of
decorative design were all his own. In plan and construction he had
nothing radical to offer, but, when he came to his windows, he used his
geometrical tracery in defiance of all recognised canons, inserting
pieces of tracery at the bottom or in the middle of his lights, instead
of at the top of the window. This remarkable experiment, which, owing
to the remote situation of the church, has attracted little attention,
deserves full illustration and detailed description, which it is
impossible to give in the present article. The great architectural
successes of the neighbourhood, the nave of Claypole, and the aisles
of Beckingham and Brant Broughton, were yet to come; but, unless we
postulate a village genius reared in absolute isolation, it is hardly
likely that the designer of the windows at Barnby was wholly ignorant
of the magnificent work already accomplished within no great distance
of his village at Lincoln and Grantham. These would be his nearest
models for tracery at the time, and we may perhaps assume either that
he saw them with an admiring, but careless and inaccurate eye, or that,
having seen them, he gave rein to a personal eccentricity which hoped
for improvement in a reversal of their principles. In any case, the
design is of peculiar interest, and the chancel at Barnby is in some
degree a forerunner of the splendid series to which reference will be
made presently.
The chief stimulus to local art in the early fourteenth century came
from the chapter house at Southwell. This unique masterpiece was in
process of construction about 1290, when John le Romeyn, who laid
the foundation stone of the nave at York in 1291, was archbishop. It
was closely modelled upon the chapter house at York, the fabric of
which was certainly completed about the time (1286) when Romeyn took
possession of the see. Both chapter houses have the same octagonal plan
without a central pillar; but, while the vast chapter house at York was
never covered with any but a wooden roof, the less ambitious structure
at Southwell has a stone ceiling vaulted up to a central boss. Neither
the tracery of the windows nor the details of the mouldings are much
advanced for their period: the first is composed of cusped circles,
while in the second filleted rolls predominate, in alternation with
deep hollows. In the delicate sculpture, however, of the entrance
doorway, the pediments of the niches for seats which surround the inner
walls, and the capitals of the shafts which divide the niches from one
another and bear their arches, we have the most remarkable achievement
of the age. This carving was probably the work of years, and can
hardly have been begun until the bulk of the fabric was completed. The
leading feature of the work is its naturalistic treatment, which is
in striking contrast to the conventional lines of the window tracery.
One or two capitals occur, in which the sculptor allowed himself to
use the conventional foliage of a generation earlier, and leaves which
merely suggest natural forms grow, as in the smaller capitals of the
quire and of the vestibule which leads to the chapter house, from stiff
stalks. Such foliage has the advantage of seeming to take its life from
the stonework in which its stalks are rooted. But, apart from these
isolated instances, the sculptors have entirely modelled their work
upon natural forms. Sprays cut from the hedges have, under their hands,
been translated into stone, and wreathed round capitals, spread out
on flat surfaces, or turned in garlands to fill hollow mouldings. No
trouble has been spared to reproduce natural forms exactly: leaves are
ridged and veined as in nature, and, even where they are most thickly
clustered, they are everywhere undercut, and beneath them the concealed
stems may be discovered. The delight of the sculptors in their work
is obvious, and their never-flagging invention and labour converted a
daring _tour de force_ into a triumphant success.
Only this once, however, did English carvers apply themselves to the
naturalistic treatment of stonework with a care for detail in which
they may fairly be said to rival the conventional sculptors of the
thirteenth century. Stonework does not lend itself readily to this
purely imitative handling. The artist is bound by the limitations of an
art which, to approach most nearly to nature, demands an independent
life of its own. An impartial comparison between the carvings of the
quire and chapter house must lead to the conclusion that the smaller
capitals and corbels in the quire have greater life and vigour. The
sculpture in the chapter house is decoration applied to architecture:
the sculpture of the quire is part and parcel of the architecture which
surrounds it. The effort which is maintained in the chapter house
cannot be kept up. The interval of naturalism can only lead to a new
kind of convention, in which the carvers seek to give a naturalistic
effect to the surface of their work, without going to the full pains of
realistic imitation. This can be seen in the carvings of the eastern
side of the stone _pulpitum_ which separates the nave from the
quire, and is almost the latest of the structural additions to this
interesting church, as it has come down to us. The central archway
in the eastern face, and the canopies of the stalls on either side,
are of the ogee shape, which came into fashion in the early part of
the fourteenth century: the ogee also prevails in the cusping. The
mouldings are convex without intermediate hollows. The foliage and
diaper work, still beautiful and impressive in their richness, even now
that their early glory of gilding and colour is gone, become crowded
and indistinct, a mere collection of undulations, when examined close
at hand. The small figure sculpture, and the heads which form the
finials to the cusping, are still full of life. But even the figure
sculpture of the age is seen, when we turn from the screen to the
sedilia on the south side of the eastern chapel, to lose in strength
and distinctness, and to aim at producing a distant effect, which is
not enhanced by close inspection.
This phase of sculpture at Southwell at once recalls the work
of the same epoch in the Lady chapels of Ely and Lichfield, and
the altar-screen and Percy tomb at Beverley. It is the belief
of the present writer, founded upon a long and close study of
fourteenth-century work in the north and midlands of England, that the
turning-point of the art of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
so far as these parts of England are concerned, was reached at York,
where St. Mary’s abbey church represents the crowning achievements
of “geometrical” work, and the nave of the minster marks the first
decisive step in the direction of naturalistic sculpture, and greater
freedom in the lines of window tracery. The influence of the York
chapter house is clearly felt at Southwell, and the Southwell
sculptors worked in harmony with the masons who, under the patronage
of Archbishop Romeyn, were employed on the nave at York. In their more
modest area, they even surpassed their York contemporaries. Putting
buildings like Howden and the eastern bays of Ripon aside for our
present purposes, it seems clear that the first step of the York school
southward was made at Southwell. The close connection of Bishop Walter
Langton (1296–1321) with York[20] explains the appearance of what may
fairly be called the York manner in the eastern part of Lichfield
Cathedral. That the influence of work so splendid and distinguished
should spread into other dioceses is only likely, and it seems very
likely that, in the second quarter of the fourteenth century, it
was felt as far south as the Lady chapel at Ely, and far and wide
throughout the fens. Here other influences from the south doubtless met
it, which had been at work for some time in Essex and East Anglia. But
the community of style between such churches as Ely and Beverley, or
Patrington in Yorkshire and Claypole in Lincolnshire, at this period,
seems to be due to an activity which spread in the beginning from York.
In this dissemination of style, the southern part of the diocese of
York, which wedged its way in between the dioceses of Lincoln and
Lichfield, seems to have acted as a principal reservoir. The chancels
of Hawton, Sibthorpe, Car Colston, and Woodborough, with those, now
mutilated or destroyed, of Arnold and Epperstone, formed a band which
stretched nearly across the county, between Newark and Nottingham.
Their general characteristics are carefully dressed stonework,
profusely moulded base-courses, gabled buttresses of bold projection,
and admirably proportioned windows, with curvilinear or reticulated
tracery. Externally, ornament is used with great restraint, and almost
the whole emphasis of the design is laid upon the spacing of the bays,
and the clean and finished treatment of parapets, buttresses, and
base-courses. The tracery of the side windows is usually simple, but
the east window is generally of five lights, and is treated with more
elaboration. Internally, the chief feature, apart from spaciousness
of proportion, is the magnificent permanent stone furniture. Triple
sedilia, with a piscina to match, all adorned with crocketing and
figure carving of the same type as that of the sedilia at Southwell,
are a general possession of these fabrics. A founder’s tomb in the
north wall of the chancel, and niches for statues in the east wall
on either side of the altar, are also common. Hawton, however, has,
in addition to sedilia with a wealth of carving on the wall-surface
between their canopies, piscina, and founder’s tomb, a large permanent
Easter sepulchre in the north wall of the chancel. At Sibthorpe
there is a small Easter sepulchre, with a row of carved figures of
the soldiers sleeping at the tomb, in the wall above the recess for
the founder’s effigy. There are remains of a similar sepulchre at
Fledborough, and a large and handsome, but much mutilated, sepulchre
has been left in the rebuilt church of Arnold.
[Illustration: BARNBY IN THE WILLOWS.
(South Side of the Chancel.)]
[Illustration: CAR COLSTON.]
The actual date of these chancels is not very easy to fix. It is
clear that Car Colston, the least elaborate, though one of the most
spacious of the series, must have been rebuilt some years before the
appropriation of the church to Worksop priory in 1349.[21] The chancel
of Sibthorpe, similarly, may not be much later than 1324, when we
first read of the chantry which was gradually enlarged into a college
of chantry priests, and was celebrated in a chapel north of the
chancel.[22] At the same time, the college was not founded until 1340,
and the founder, Thomas Sibthorpe, endowed a chantry and lights in the
church of Beckingham, Lincolnshire, of which he was rector, in 1347,
when the aisles of Beckingham church were rebuilt.[23] The character
of the dated work at Beckingham is so like that at Sibthorpe as to
forbid our assigning too early a date to the latter. A chantry was
founded at Fledborough in 1343,[24] which seems to imply that the fine
fourteenth-century church which we now see had recently been rebuilt.
The Easter sepulchres at Fledborough and Sibthorpe have, as already
noted, much in common. If these comparatively late dates be admitted,
the date of 1356, which has been given to the chancel at Woodborough,
is just possible. At the same time, the design of Woodborough forcibly
suggests that it was built before the great plague of 1349, which
worked such havoc throughout the country and effected such a change in
English art. The founder of the chancel at Hawton died in 1330. The
tracery of the east window and the character of much of the carving is
in general keeping with this date. But the chancel was probably built
in the founder’s lifetime, just as the noble chancel at Heckington,
near Sleaford, was undoubtedly built some years before the founder’s
death in 1345.[25] In two points especially, the mouldings of the
founder’s tomb, which are of the first quarter of the fourteenth
century, and the group of figures relieved against the wall at the back
of the sepulchre, there is reason to antedate the fabric of Hawton to a
date nearer 1320 than 1330. The figure sculpture in question is fully
equal, in naturalistic treatment, to any of the carving in the chapter
house at Southwell; while the rest of the sculpture of the sepulchre
and sedilia is closely allied to the sculpture of the Southwell
_pulpitum_. In any case, we have in these chancels a group of
buildings which extend over a period between about 1320 and the plague
of 1349, and the architectural influence which inspired them may be
traced directly to Southwell, and so to York.
Hawton, and the allied Lincolnshire chancels of Heckington and Navenby,
were probably the first-fruits of the influence of Southwell upon
local architecture. The sculpture in these three cases is of a more
delicate and carefully worked type than that of the other churches
mentioned. It is a significant fact that, if we look for the closest
parallels to Sibthorpe, Woodborough, and Car Colston, we find them
in churches which lie north of York--Patrick Brompton, Kirkby Wiske,
and Ainderby Steeple. One of these, Patrick Brompton, the best of the
series, belonged to St. Mary’s abbey at York, and appears to have been
built in the decade between 1320 and 1330.[26] It is impossible to
visit these churches without recognising the complete identity of type
between the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire examples, or realising the
close link which binds them together. As has been said, the influence
of Yorkshire masoncraft found its way into the diocese of Lichfield. At
Sandiacre and Dronfield in Derbyshire this type of chancel appears once
more: it may be recognised at Checkley in Staffordshire and Norbury
in Derbyshire, and even more clearly in the distant church of Halsall
in south Lancashire. An isolated instance occurs in the old diocese
of Lincoln, at Cotterstock in Northamptonshire: the founder of the
rebuilt chancel here in 1337 was John Giffard, a canon of York, who
was beneficed at Barnby-on-Don, near Doncaster.[27] The geographical
distribution of these monuments, taken in conjunction with their
history, is overwhelmingly in favour of their northern origin, as
against any influence from southern schools.
Newark church, were it not for the disaster of the Black Death,
would probably be the finest of all fourteenth-century churches in
Nottinghamshire. Its present plan, a vast aisled rectangle, was
conceived in the early part of the fourteenth century, and the lower
courses of the outer walls were built as far as the top of the moulded
plinth.[28] Only the outer walls of the south aisle, however, and the
tower and spire above the already completed thirteenth-century work,
were finished. The north aisle, and the lofty arcades and clerestory of
the nave were not achieved until the second quarter of the fifteenth
century, while it was not until the last quarter that the chancel with
its aisles was completed, and the old chancel was finally removed.
Later still the plan received its final addition by the building of the
north and south transeptal chapels. All this work has the fine sense
of design and sketchiness of detail which are the chief symptoms of
late Gothic work in England: the dependence of the effect of such a
building on stained glass, colour, and furniture is absolute. Fragments
only of the glass remain, and the colour is gone; but the late
fifteenth-century rood-screen, which has few rivals in the country, and
two stone chantry chapels, one on each side of the altar, still remain
to give us some idea of the former dignity and beauty of this great
town church. The spire and upper portion of the tower were suggested by
the completed work at Grantham. Although they yield the palm in height
to Grantham, and the spire is inferior to Grantham spire in beauty, yet
the design of the belfry stage, with a prominent crocketed pediment
above the two lights in each face, is at any rate comparable to the
treatment of the similar stage at Grantham. While the Grantham builders
were uncertain about their design, and apparently altered it as they
got higher, the Newark builders knew exactly what they wanted, and were
content with a plan which, if more modest, is more homogeneous.
Of the work of the fifteenth century in Nottinghamshire, St. Mary’s at
Nottingham, which is almost entirely of one period, is the crowning
example. The rebuilding of this fine church was achieved during the
second and third quarters of the century. The architectural detail,
apart from that of the south porch, which was probably built when the
aisles were set out, as a beginning to the work, is somewhat hard and
formal; but the characteristic skill of the age in design is everywhere
present. The aisles were set out in six bays, divided by buttresses,
each bay containing two windows of three lights each. In the west walls
of the aisles are two windows of four lights each, with a doorway
beneath each pair; the south doorway and porch are in the third bay
from the east. Inside the church a very marked string-course, with
hollowed underside, forms a continuous sill to the windows, which are
framed within rectangular panels, formed by shafts projecting from
the wall near the outer edge of the moulded window recesses. These
shafts are continued through and below the string-course to tall bases
resting on a plain bench-table, so that the wall below the windows is
formed into a second series of panels. A similar framing is applied
to the arches of the nave and windows of the clerestory and to the
clerestoried transepts, of which the upper portions are contemporary
with the arcade and west wall of the nave, and were not added until the
aisles had been completed.[29] The treatment of the chancel, although
in general keeping with the rest of the work, is much plainer: here, as
elsewhere, the monastic impropriators, the prior and convent of Lenton,
felt no desire to emulate the expense to which the lay parishioners
committed themselves in the nave and transepts. The cruciform plan,
which was employed at St. Mary’s, is uncommon in Nottinghamshire;
and it may be mentioned that in one originally cruciform plan which
remains, that of Whatton, the transepts have been absorbed within
the aisles by the not uncommon method of widening the aisles to the
extent of the projection of the transepts. At St. Mary’s, the fine
effect of the tall central tower and long transepts is very noticeable
from outside. Internally, the need of aisles, both to transepts and
chancel, is much felt; and, although the whole design is actually more
interesting than the work at Newark, it has not the same grace or
spaciousness.
Most of the churches of the county have some remains of
fifteenth-century work. Here, as elsewhere, towers were built or
heightened, and clerestories were added to earlier naves. The best
work of this date, on the whole, is found in the north-east part
of the county. East Markham church was entirely rebuilt about the
middle of the century, and few churches are better examples of the
excellent proportions of “Perpendicular” work. The chancel of Tuxford
church, rebuilt in the last quarter of the century, and the elaborate
clerestory at Laxton, added much beauty and dignity to plain fabrics
of an earlier date. For combined beauty and simplicity, one of the
most attractive buildings in the county is the little church of Holme,
near Newark, rebuilt, with a south aisle to the nave and chapel to
the chancel and a handsome south porch with a solar or upper chamber,
towards the end of the century. This church fortunately keeps some
of its old furniture and stained glass, and, although the inner
face of its walls has been subjected to the process of scraping, it
has otherwise been little spoiled. Here, as at Tuxford and in most
of the late fifteenth-century work of the county, the windows have
depressed heads, which practically form an obtuse angle, and prominent
hood-mouldings; while the arch leading into the porch is four-centred.
The row of seven shields of arms above the doorway of the porch gives
some richness of effect to a design otherwise unpretentious.
The large number of chantries founded in Nottinghamshire were the
cause of the enlargement of many fabrics. This was certainly the case
at Newark, where several chantries were endowed during the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries.[30] The majority of such foundations in the
county belong to a comparatively early date, and the effect which they
had on the plan is seen chiefly in the enlargement of the aisles.
Chantry chapels which form an excrescence from the fabric are rare.
The north chancel chapel at Sibthorpe, which has now disappeared, and
the chapel at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, are examples of such additions
in the fourteenth century.[31] At Southwell the chantry chapel founded
by Archbishop Lawrence Booth, in which stood the altar of St. William
and St. Cuthbert,[32] projected from the wall of the south aisle.
It was built upon the enlarged site of an earlier chapel: it was
unfortunately destroyed in 1784. The foundation of a small college of
chantry priests (1476) in the cruciform church of Clifton-on-Trent[33]
led to the enlargement of the church and partial rebuilding of the
chancel. The enlargement of Holme church, which took place in or
a little before 1490, was due to the desire of the founder, John
Barton, to establish a chantry there.[34] This chantry, if actually
founded, was no longer in existence at the time of the suppression
of the chantries. The south chapel at Wollaton was built for the
accommodation of the service called Willoughby’s chantry, founded at
the end of 1470.[35] But, as a rule, the foundation of chantries was
followed by little variation of the normal plan. Thus, at Tuxford,
where Sir John de Longvilliers had contemplated the foundation of a
college of chantry priests in the middle of the fourteenth century, and
actually endowed three chaplains,[36] the plan consists of the long
chancel, built by the impropriating priory of Newstead in 1495, a north
chapel, a nave with north and south aisles, south porch, and western
tower. At Ratcliffe-on-Soar there is also a large north chapel to the
chancel.[37] The normal plan, however, of the Nottinghamshire parish
church is that of a chancel without chapels, aisled nave, western
tower, and south porch. East Markham is an excellent instance of this
design.
Monuments of lords of the manor and founders of chantries are a very
characteristic feature, which add to the architectural beauty of
Nottinghamshire churches. The series of three monuments, two of the
thirteenth and one of the early fourteenth century, at West Leake
are remarkable: the monument of a lady on the north of the altar is
almost unexcelled for beauty among effigies of the date. The late
thirteenth-century table-tomb of one of the Lexingtons and the effigies
(one wooden) of the Everinghams at Laxton, and the fine series of
fourteenth-century tombs at Whatton deserve special mention; while at
Willoughby-on-the-Wolds is a series of effigies from the thirteenth to
the middle of the fifteenth century. Reference has been made to the
architectural beauty of the founders’ tombs at Hawton and Sibthorpe.
But the finest monuments of all are those of the late fourteenth and
fifteenth century, when Nottingham was the centre of the alabaster
industry, and the work of its craftsmen was known far and wide through
England. Of the monuments already mentioned, one or more at West Leake,
Laxton, and Whatton are of alabaster. Holme Pierrepont and Staunton,
among other places, supply good examples. The beautiful table-tomb at
Wollaton, between the chancel and the south chapel, is one of the best.
But, for its architectural effect, the most striking of all the series
is the late fourteenth-century table-tomb in the middle of the chancel
at Strelley. This, combined with the other tombs of the chancel and the
very handsome rood-screen, gives great impressiveness to the interior
of a lofty and well-designed, but plain, building.
More definitely architectural than these monuments is the gorgeous
canopied chantry chapel, which a member of the Babington family built
for himself between the chancel and south chapel at Kingston-on-Soar.
The chancel and south chapel, which has a shallow half-hexagonal bay
for an altar in its east wall, were rebuilt in 1538: the date is carved
on the outside of the church, where shields of arms in rectangular
panels are inserted in the wall. The chantry chapel is a rectangular
erection, like those at Newark or the La Warre chapel at Boxgrove,
standing within the arch south of the chancel, and has a stone canopy,
elaborately vaulted, resting on four columns at the angles. The
space between its foot and the west side of the arch is bridged by a
depressed archway, forming an entrance into the south chapel, with an
attic and pediment above. No tomb or altar remains within the chantry
chapel. The design is rather heavy, and the broad octagonal capitals of
the angle columns are distinctly clumsy. Every inch of the structure is
covered with sculpture, some of which is coarse and inferior; but the
“babe in tun,” the rebus of the Babingtons, is repeated in the hollow
mouldings of arches and capitals with a wonderful amount of variety and
liveliness, and there is a very delicate, although crowded, carving of
the Doom on the east wall. The sculpture may fairly be compared with
that of the screen of the Kirkham chapel at Paignton in Devon, which
is rather earlier in date, and of the almost contemporary chapel of
Bishop West at Ely. The hexagonal coffering of the columns suggests
that the designer had seen the cast-metal screen of Henry VII.’s tomb
at Westminster, and wished to reproduce it in stone. The archway west
of the chapel has mouldings and other features of an unmistakably
Renaissance type. A step further towards the Renaissance is taken in
the tomb of Henry Sacheverell (d. 1558) in the neighbouring church of
Ratcliffe-on-Soar, where there are rough Italianesque reliefs on the
pilasters at the angles of the monument: the tomb of his father, Ralph
Sacheverell (d. 1539) is, on the other hand, Gothic in all but the
lettering.
The period after the Reformation is not within the province of
this chapter; but a word may be added as to the survival of Gothic
work after the civil war at St. Nicholas in Nottingham, and in the
well-designed central tower at East Retford, and to the beautiful
modern churches, in which the spirit of medieval Gothic architecture
is so well maintained, designed by Mr. G. F. Bodley, at St. Alban’s
in Sneinton, and at Clumber. Something, however, remains yet to be
said of towers and spires. Of spires later than those that have been
mentioned, the best is at West Retford, where the flying buttresses
seem to indicate a Lincolnshire origin for the design. Scrooby, Weston,
and Tuxford, in the same part of the county, and Edwinstowe, further
west, have good spires. In the district round Nottingham, spires, where
they occur, are, as already has been said, very plain. The unusually
lofty tower and spire at the north-west corner of Gedling church,
however, would call for honourable mention in any part of England. The
tower and spire of Attenborough are also an excellent composition.
The massive and heavily buttressed tower at Keyworth is crowned by a
stone octagon rising from a square base, and surmounted by a small
spire, and is engaged within aisles, which are not continued the full
length of the nave eastwards: the elevation and plan are altogether
exceptional. Of fifteenth-century towers, a large number, especially
in the north of the county, are of the ordinary type found in south
Yorkshire--_e.g._ at Silkstone, South Kirkby, or Fishlake. The
details are plain, there is a single window of two lights in each face
of the belfry-stage, and a battlemented parapet with slender pinnacles
at the angles. Such towers are found at Blyth, where the elaborate
parapet was clearly suggested by that of the neighbouring church of
Tickhill, and at Mattersey, East Markham, Saundby, Bole, Gamston, West
Drayton, and several other places: the type occurs as far south as
Hickling. At Carlton-in-Lindrick a belfry-stage and buttresses were
added to an eleventh-century unbuttressed tower. Sturton-le-Steeple
owes the latter part of its name to the far-seen array of twelve
pinnacles with which the builders thought fit to surround the parapet.
The tower of Dunham-on-Trent has a very lofty belfry-stage, pierced
with enormous windows of three lights, with different tracery in
each face--a design as unique in its way as the chancel at Barnby.
Near Newark a different type of tower comes into use about 1480.
This has double window openings in the belfry-stage, with depressed
heads and prominent hoods: the string-courses are more in number and
project more boldly, and the pinnacles of the parapet are less thin
in design. Hawton is the best example of this type, which has more
architectural ambition than the other: it is also found at Rolleston,
and across the Lincolnshire border at Beckingham and in the upper
stage of Hough-on-the-Hill. South Muskham, more massive and earlier
in date than Hawton and Rolleston, belongs to the same family. Upton,
near Southwell, has a small fifteenth-century tower, in the centre
of which is a solid stone pinnacle or spirelet. Other towers, such
as Sibthorpe, Woodborough, or Linby, of various dates and designs,
are merely serviceable bell-towers of no special architectural merit.
For gracefulness of design, no Nottinghamshire tower of the later
Gothic period appeals to the present writer so much as that of Car
Colston, with its long and slender belfry-openings. Indeed, the whole
church, with its thirteenth-century south doorway and its beautiful
fourteenth-century chancel, is pre-eminently one of those buildings
in which, as Dr. Whitaker said of Patrick Brompton in Yorkshire, “the
antiquary may happily waste an hour”; and, in its peaceful seclusion
at the head of one of the prettiest village greens in England, is the
appropriate last resting-place of the historian of the county, Robert
Thoroton.
NEWSTEAD PRIORY AND THE RELIGIOUS HOUSES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
BY REV. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
The county of Nottingham, considering its limited area, was rich
in old religious foundations. Almost every variety of mediaeval
monasticism was found within its bounds. There were Benedictine monks
at Blyth, and Benedictine nuns had a small house at Wallingwells.
Those reformed Benedictines, known as Cluniacs and Cistercians, were
each represented in this county--the former at the important priory
of Lenton, and the latter at the abbey of Rufford. The Carthusians,
the most rigorous order of all the monks, had a house of some note
at Beauvale. The Black or Austin Canons had five priories, of varied
importance, at Felley, Newstead, Shelford, Thurgarton, and Worksop. The
White or Premonstratensian Canons had a large and important abbey at
Welbeck; whilst at Broadholme was one of the only two English nunneries
pertaining to this order. The Gilbertine Canons were also represented
at the priory of Mattersey. The Knights Hospitallers had a preceptory
at Ossington, and they also held other property which they inherited
from the dissolved Templars.
As to the friars, it is not a little singular that so powerful an order
as the preaching Dominicans had no house in the county; they had,
however, friaries near at hand in the counties of Derby, Leicester, and
Lincoln. The county town, however, had settlements of both Franciscan
and Carmelite friars, whilst there was an establishment of Observants
or reformed Franciscans at Newark.
The colleges or collegiate churches, wherein a company of priests led
a more or less regulated common life, were six in number--namely, the
great collegiate church of Secular Canons, probably based on an earlier
monastic foundation, at Southwell, and five later congregations of
chantry priests at Clifton, Newark, Ruddington, Sibthorpe, and Tuxford.
The hospitals or almshouses of mediaeval foundation, under a more
or less definite religious rule, numbered thirteen--namely, five at
the county town, two at Blyth, and one each at Bawtry, Bradebusk,
Lenton, Newark, Southwell, and Stoke. In Nottinghamshire, as indeed
throughout the greater part of England, the story of the old hospitals
is a gloomy record of peculation by the masters or wardens of funds
intended by the founders for the relief of the sick and needy, so that
the seizing of their funds, as planned by Henry VIII. and carried out
by Edward VI., did but little harm to God’s poor. In this county, too,
the exceptionally large proportion of three of these houses managed to
survive the cruelly avaricious storm of the sixteenth century--namely,
Bawtry, Newark, and Plumptre (Nottingham); they are still doing good
work.
Although it is proper to include the mediaeval colleges and hospitals
under the head of religious houses, the description of them in this
short survey would too much curtail the limited space that can be
allotted to the more important foundations. It is much to be desired
that some one with the necessary ability and leisure would undertake a
Nottinghamshire Monasticon on a thorough scale, so rich and abundant is
the material ready to hand for those who know where to look for it. In
fact, several of the houses, notably Lenton, Newstead, Welbeck, Blyth,
and Beauvale--notwithstanding all that has been written of them--might
readily be treated in monographs on no meagre scale.
In order to find room for these brief historical sketches, it has also
been necessary to omit any reference to existing monastic remains. In
the majority of cases there are no traces left above ground of any of
the Nottinghamshire houses, but to this rule Newstead Priory is an
extensive and distinguished exception, whilst certain parts of the
Beauvale Charterhouse still standing are of importance and interest.
A few general remarks may be permitted before proceeding to the more
particular but very brief discussion of each house.
In Nottinghamshire there is an exceptional amount of general
interest pertaining to the history and development of several of the
monasteries. Thus Blyth Priory, in addition to the difficult problems
involved under its rule between the foreign abbot in Normandy and its
diocesan the Archbishop of York, had a direct influence on the trade of
Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire by reason of the considerable tolls
that it was enabled to levy on all merchandise passing through Blyth,
either by road or water. Again, the great semi-foreign Cluniac priory
of Lenton entirely overshadowed the town of Nottingham in matters
spiritual, and to some extent in matters temporal, after the like
fashion that the Cluniac priory of St. Andrew overshadowed the town of
Northampton.
Various picturesque incidents telling of the wildness of the districts
on the border of Sherwood Forest pertain to the story of Welbeck Abbey,
the greatest of the Premonstratensian houses, towards the end of its
life; whilst the special position and privileges of the houses of
Newstead and Rufford, within the centre of the same forest, are briefly
mentioned in another article in this volume.
Much can be gleaned as to the condition of the monasteries of
Nottinghamshire from time to time from the various visitations
recorded of the houses subject to diocesan control, as well as those
made by special visitors of exempt Orders, such as those of Cluni
and Prémontré. In these sketches nothing of the nature of evil or
careless living that is brought to light is omitted; but the noteworthy
smallness of the number of grave charges, as compared with the number
of the inmates, and of the great frequency of visitations wherein
no laxity was discovered, cannot fail to bring every honourable and
competent judge to the twofold conclusion that (1) the life and work of
the great majority of the Nottinghamshire “religious” were distinctly
praiseworthy and in accordance with their vows, and (2) that there was
a persistent determination on the part of those in authority to deal
sternly with careless or criminal living. To pass judgment on a whole
class, because of the sins or laxity occasionally detected among an
insignificant minority, is as malicious and absurd in connection with
England’s vowed religious of the past, as it would be to do the like
with England’s clergy of the present day.
As to the slanderous _Comperta_, or abbreviated charges of Legh
and Layton (men themselves of infamous life), Cromwell’s notorious
visitors of 1536, their amazing accusations against the religious of
this county are at once confuted by a study of the subsequent pension
lists. Take a single instance, the charges against Abbot Doncaster of
Rufford were of an appalling character; nevertheless, within a few
months of this report being presented, the abbot received a pension
of £25, which was, however, very speedily withdrawn in favour of
his appointment by the Crown to the important living of Rotherham.
Or again, in the cases of Welbeck and Worksop, the foul-minded
visitors singled out four of each house as guilty of peculiarly vile
offences, and yet seven of them were pensioned and the eighth retained
in a vicarage. Supposing for a moment that the black lists of the
_Comperta_ were true, which no one worthy of the name of historian
now ventures to contend, the action of the granters of pensions and
preferments was worse than that of the accused.
As there are still one or two writers who persist in trying to make
their readers believe in the generally foul life of the old monks and
nuns, with a malignant and ignorant persistency, it may be well to
point out that a second commission was sent out by the Crown in 1536,
consisting of State officials and leading gentlemen of each county
visited. Their elaborate and detailed reports are extant for religious
houses in the counties of Gloucester, Hampshire, Huntingdon, Lancaster,
Leicester, Norfolk, Rutland, Suffolk, Sussex, Warwick, and Wiltshire.
In these returns, as Dr. Gairdner, the official historian of the reign
of Henry VIII. says, “the characters of the inmates of the houses
visited are almost uniformly good, the country gentlemen who sat on
the commission somehow came to a very different conclusion to that of
Drs. Layton and Legh.” The returns for Nottingham are unfortunately not
extant; if they were there is every reason to believe that they would
flatly contradict the pair of professional slanderers.
It may be well here to confute the current notion that the suppressed
monks, nuns, canons, and friars were all pensioned. The fact is that
it was a distinct minority of the ejected religious that obtained a
pension in Nottinghamshire or elsewhere. A large number of the younger
professed members, namely, all under twenty-five years of age, were
ruthlessly ejected by order of Cromwell, as Visitor General, before
ever the scheme of thorough dissolution began. With regard to the
smaller religious houses, which were dissolved in 1536–7, the rule was
to grant pensions only to the superiors. Thus the prior of Blyth was
the only one of that house who obtained any pension, and the like was
the case with regard to the prioress of Broadholme. Friars received no
pensions, and on being ejected were simply presented with a suit of
secular clothes. Every excuse was made to avoid pension granting; thus
the Lenton monks received nothing, as they were supposed, on paltry
evidence, to be all tainted with high treason. The judicial murders in
connection with the suppression of Lenton and Beauvale are peculiarly
odious.
In the case of Nottinghamshire, it can readily be seen how serious a
matter the sweeping away of monks, canons, and nuns was to the poor
of the county. Not only was relief in kind given at the gates of
every monastic house, small or large, as well as a great variety of
voluntary doles and aids in sickness, and the assigning to the poor
after an inmate’s death the commons of the deceased for a whole year,
but there were actual obligatory alms that various houses were bound
by their statutes to distribute on specific days, often dating back to
the very time of their foundation. Among such obligatory alms were:
Lenton, £41, 1s. 8d.; Worksop, £25, 1s. 4d.; Welbeck, £8, 13s. 4d.;
Thurgarton, £6, 8s. 1d.; Newstead, £4; Blyth, £3, 6s. 8d.; and Shelford
and Wallingwells, £2, 6s. 8d. each--yielding an annual total of £93,
4s. 4d., or considerably more than _£_1000 a year according to the
present purchasing power of money. Not a shadow of attempt was made by
Henry VIII. and his abettors to save for the poor a single penny of
this money, which had been definitely dedicated to the service of the
poor.
When we come to the consideration of particular religious houses of
the county, there is no doubt that there were several of exceptional
interest, and whose history could be gleaned from unprinted or
little-known records with so much amplitude that there would be
abundant justification for the issue of monographs of no mean
dimensions. Such is emphatically the case with the Cluniac house of
Lenton, with which the town of Nottingham was so intimately connected,
and with the important Premonstratensian house of White Canons of
Welbeck. A third instance is undoubtedly to be found in the Black
Canons of Newstead. Newstead was by no means one of the largest or
wealthiest of the English houses of Austin Canons, but its history
can be so fully exemplified, its situation in a beautifully timbered
glade, surrounded on all sides by Sherwood Forest, is so exceptionally
picturesque, the extent of the remnants of its conventual buildings so
extensive, and its post-dissolution story, especially in connection
with Lord Byron, so romantic, that a complete and carefully compiled
work is much to be desired. It is proposed, then, to devote the
remainder of this sketch to a record of some of the facts relative to
Newstead Priory. In the later Byron period its title was changed to
Newstead Abbey, a piece of mendacious pride of which several other lay
owners of monastic sites have been guilty.
From certain statements in the foundation charter of Henry II., it has
been assumed by some that Newstead was a re-establishment of Austin
Canons from some other part of Sherwood Forest, where they had been
originally placed at an earlier date by Henry I.; but this is after
all only a matter of somewhat vague conjecture. The very name of this
religious house renders, however, some support to this idea. The prefix
“New” has the same force as in Newark, Newcastle, Newminster, and the
host of Newtons; and it was possibly here used in contradistinction
to the Oldstead of a former foundation. There are two other English
monastic establishments of this name--namely, the Gilbertine house
of Newstead in Lindsey, and another Austin house of Newstead near
Stamford; in both these cases a refoundation has been suggested.
Newstead Priory--officially termed Prioratus Sancte Marie de Novo Loco
in foresta nostra de Scirwurda--was founded in Sherwood as a house
of Austin Canons by Henry II., about the year 1770. The foundation
charter, executed at the royal residence of Clarendon, Wilts, conferred
on the canons a site near the centre of the forest, Papplewick, with
its church and mill and other appurtenances; the meadow of Bestwood
by the side of the water; and 100 shillings of rent in Shapwick and
Walkeringham. The canons were also granted a great extent of the forest
waste around the monastery, the bounds of which are set forth in detail
at the beginning of the chartulary. King John, in 1206, confirmed the
founder’s grant, together with the church of Hucknall, of his own
gift when Earl of Mortain, and £7, 8s. 6d. of lands in Walkeringham,
Misterton, Shapwick, and “Walkerith” in Lincolnshire.
In 1238, on 8th May, the mandate of Henry III. was sent to the prior
of Newstead to allow Thomas de Dunholmia, citizen of London, to have
all the goods late of Joan, Queen of Scots, which had been deposited
with the canons after her death by John de Sancto Egidio and Henry
Balliol, to do therewith what the King had enjoined on them.
[Illustration: NEWSTEAD PRIORY. BUCK’S WEST VIEW,
1726.]
The convent obtained the royal licence, in April 1241, to elect a new
prior, when their choice fell on William the cellarer. The licence was
delivered at Westminster to Henry Walkelin and Thomas de Donham, two of
the canons, who took the news of the death of Prior Robert to the King.
The endowments slowly increased by various small benefactions. Thus
Henry III., in 1251, granted the priory 10 acres of land out of the
royal hay of Linby, to be held quit of all interference by the forest
ministers, with licence to enclose the land with hedge and dyke.
Nevertheless the convent was so seriously in debt in 1274, that the
King appointed a receiver to administer their estates during pleasure.
In 1279 the prior and canons obtained licence to fell and sell the
timber of a wood of 40 acres which had been given them in 1245. Such a
step as this would certainly bring considerable financial relief; but
the regular income was after all very small for a house where wayfarers
would so often claim hospitality. The income, according to the Taxation
Roll of 1291, was only £83, 13s. 6d. The house was again pressed by
its creditors in 1295, when, at their own request, Hugh de Vienne was
appointed by the Crown to take charge of the revenue, applying the
income, saving a reasonable sustenance for the prior, canons, and their
men, to the relief of their debts; no sheriff, bailiff, or such-like
minister were to lodge in the priory or its granges during such
custody. On 25th July 1300, another like custodian, Peter de Leicester,
a King’s clerk, was appointed after a similar fashion.
The King, in 1304, made an important augmentation of the possessions of
Newstead by granting the house 180 acres of the waste in the forest hay
of Linby at a rent of £4, due to the sheriff, with licence to enclose
them and bring them into cultivation.
Both Edward I. and Edward II. seem to have been attached to this
house in the centre of the forest, notwithstanding the important
royal hunting lodge at Clipston. Edward I. sojourned at Newstead in
August 1280 and in September 1290, and Edward II. in September 1307
and October 1315, as is shown by the Patent and Close Rolls. The royal
licence was obtained from the latter King, in 1315, to permit the
appropriation of the church of Egmanton.
News of the resignation of Prior Richard de Grange was brought to
the King at Nottingham by the canons Robert de Sutton and Robert de
Wylleby on 13th December 1324, and they took back with them leave to
elect. On 10th December the King signified the Archbishop of York that
he had assented to the election of William de Thurgarton, canon of
Newstead, as prior. Owing to informality the archbishop quashed the
election and claimed that the right of preferment had devolved upon
him. Recognising, however, the worth of William de Thurgarton, the
archbishop proceeded to collate him as superior; the King, when at
Ravensdale, the forest lodge of Duffield, Derbyshire, on 10th January
1323, issued his mandate for the deliverance of the temporalities to
the new prior.
The financial troubles do not appear to have much abated when Edward
III. was on the throne. In 1330 the priory had remitted to them the
rent of £4 due to the sheriff for the 180 acres within the hay of
Linby. Licence was granted in 1334 for the alienation to the priory
by William de Cossall of 12 messuages, a mill, and various lands in
Cossall and Nottingham, to find three chaplains, two to serve in
the church of St. Katherine Cossall, and one in the priory church,
celebrating mass daily for himself, his ancestors, and successors.
Considerable additional grants of land were made in 1341, conditional
on the maintenance of two chaplains to say daily mass in the church of
St. Mary Edwinstowe.
Richard II., in 1392, granted to the prior and convent of Newstead a
tun of wine yearly in the port of Kingston-upon-Hull, in aid of the
maintenance of divine service.
Henry VI., in 1437, licensed Prior Robert and convent to enclose 8
acres within Sherwood Forest, just in front of the entry to the priory,
and to dyke, quickset, and hedge it, for which they were to render at
the Exchequer one rose at midsummer.
Edward IV., in 1461, licensed John Durham, the prior, and his convent
to enclose 48 acres of forest granted them by Henry II., adjoining the
priory on the north, east, and south, with a ditch and low hedge, and
to cut down and dispose of the wood growing thereon.
The Valor of 1534 gave the clear annual value of this priory as
£167, 16s. 11½d. The spiritualities, amounting to £58, included the
appropriated Nottinghamshire rectories of Papplewick, Hucknall Torkard,
Stapleford, Tuxford, and Egmanton, and the Derbyshire rectory of Ault
Hucknall. The considerable deductions included 20s. given to the poor
on Maundy Thursday in commemoration of Henry II. as founder; and a
portion of food and drink, similar to that of a canon, given to some
poor person every day, valued at 60s. a year.
The episcopal registers at York contain various records as to diocesan
visitations of Newstead. Archbishop Grey visited the priory in person
in 1252, when he found, after individual examination, that the prior
and canons were fervid in religion and lovers of peace and concord. He
laid down a number of minor injunctions for their still better rule,
which were to be read twice a year before the convent.
Archbishop Geoffrey de Ludham personally visited Newstead on 4th July
1259, and approved of the statutes made by Archbishop Grey, adding
certain injunctions of his own. The prior, considering the evil days
in which they were living, was to do his best to obtain grace and
favour with patrons; he was personally to receive guests with a smiling
countenance (_vultu prout decet hilari et jocundo_), and to merit
the love of his convent, doing nothing without the counsel of the
older canons. Medicines were to be reserved for the sick; any brother
noticing the infringement of a rule was to speak; there was to be no
drinking after compline, nor wanderings outside the cloister; and a
canon was to be specially deputed to look after the sick.
The record of a visitation by Archbishop Wickwaine in 1280 brought to
light certain irregularities. In addition to general injunctions, such
as the unlocking of the carrels twice a year, and oftener if necessary,
in order to eradicate the vice of private property, it was ordered that
two of the canons were to be confined to cloister for the improvement
of their manners, that another canon was to be restored to the general
convent through penitence, but that the cellarer and cook were to be
deprived of their respective offices.
Consequent on a visitation of Newstead by Archbishop Romanus, in 1293,
injunctions were issued for the correction of the house, which followed
the usual formal lines, save that he prohibited the resort to any games
with dice, and that the sick were to be more delicately fed, and not
with the usual gross food of the convent. The archbishop at the same
time laid down that John, their late prior, was to be honoured and
his counsel followed, because of his great services to the house and
his generosity about his pension in freely and voluntarily giving up
much to which he was entitled. As a new ordinance for his pension, the
archbishop ordered that Brother John was to have his chamber and garden
as previously arranged, with a canon’s livery for himself and another
for the canon who was to dwell with him and say the divine offices, and
another for his boy; and 30s. a year for his own necessities and for
the boy’s wages; any guest who came to visit him was to have his meals
in the frater or in the hall.
It is often forgotten that all the chief religious Orders had their
own scheme of visitation independent of the diocesan. An interesting
reminder of this occurs in an entry of a Newstead visitation which
took place on 16th July 1261; it was subsequently entered in Giffard’s
register. The visitors on this occasion were the priors of the two
Austin houses of Nostell and Guisborough, who were at that time the
duly appointed provincial visitors of the order. They enjoined that a
good servant, with a boy, was to be placed in the infirmary, and that
one of the canons was to say the canonical hours for them, as well as
celebrate mass, according to the rule of the Blessed Augustine.[38]
A chamberlain was to be appointed to provide clothes and shoes for
the convent; he was to have a horse to attend fairs and a servant
assigned him to buy necessaries. The canons’ dishes were to have more
eggs and relishes, but within moderation; never more than three eggs.
No one was to drink but in the refectory after collation, and then to
attend compline. Accounts were to be rendered twice a year. Canons
were to make open amends in chapter on Sundays for transgressions. A
lay brother (_conversus_) was to look after the tannery, with a
canon to superintend and to see to the buying and selling. Another
lay brother was to have charge of the garden, under the sub-cellarer.
Finally, the prior was ordered to bring Canon Richard de Walkeringham
with him to the next general chapter; he was to testify whether these
injunctions had been obeyed.
The clear annual income of Newstead having fallen considerably below
the amount of £200 fixed as the limit for the suppression of the
smaller houses in 1536, its fate seemed certain. But this was one of
the cases in which a semi-fraudulent arrangement was encouraged by
officials, who well knew that the doom of all monasteries was fixed,
whereby Newstead obtained exemption on payment of the heavy fine of
£233, 6s. 8d. A patent to this effect was signed on 16th December
1537; but it only held good for about eighteen months, for on 21st
July 1539 the surrender of the house was extorted. This document was
signed by Robert Blake, prior, Richard Kitchen, sub-prior, John Bredon,
cellarer, and nine other canons, Robert Sisson, John Derfelde, William
Dotton, William Bathley, Christopher Matheram, Geoffrey Acryth, Richard
Hardwyke, Henry Tingker, and Leonard Alynson.
Dr. John London, the commissioner who took the surrender of Newstead,
was one of the most objectionable and hateful of these suppression
officials. He held no small amount of preferments in the Church, being
a considerable pluralist. He was dean of Osney, dean of Wallingford,
and canon of Windsor, and from 1526 to 1542, warden of New College,
Oxford. He was one of the most thorough-paced spoilers of monasteries,
so far as the work of devastation was concerned. His letters to
Cromwell show that he delighted in the disfiguring of all that was
fair and beautiful in the monastic churches and chapels, personally
superintending the defacements. In connection with the friaries, he
avowed that his orders for immediate destruction of roofs and windows
were for the purpose of preventing the friars again taking possession
of their property. He showed marvellous ingenuity in hunting out
valuables of all kinds, but occasionally fell a victim to his credulity
in listening to slanders. Being assured by a tale-bearer that the abbot
of Combe had hidden £500 in a feather bed in his brother’s house, he
forthwith proceeded to that residence and ripped open the beds in
search for the money. Eventually he examined the abbot himself, who
readily acknowledged that he held some money belonging to his former
house, but it proved to be only £25. London’s shameful treatment of the
abbess of Godstow is well known, and in that instance even Cromwell had
to remonstrate with his conduct. Bishop Burnet, the historian, states
that he has “seen complaints of Dr. London soliciting nuns.” That he
was a man of odiously dissolute life is beyond all contradiction.
Archdeacon South has left the following record of this dissolute bully,
and his subsequent public exposure:--
“But to what open shame Doctor London was afterwards put, with open
penance, with two smocks on his shoulders, for Mrs. Thykked and Mrs.
Jennynges, the mother and daughter, and how he was taken with one of
them by Henry Plankney in his gallery, being his sister’s son, as it
was then known to a number in Oxford and elsewhere, so I think that
some yet living hath it in remembrance, as well as the penner of this
history.”[39]
Archbishop Cranmer summed up his judgment of this suppressor of
Newstead by styling him, in a still extant manuscript, in his own hand,
“a stout and filthy prebendary of Windsor.” He died in utter misery in
the Fleet Prison in 1543, after having been found guilty of perjury,
and condemned to ride through Windsor, Reading, and Newbury, with his
face to the horse’s tail, and to stand in the pillory in each of these
market towns with a paper on his head announcing his offence.
A pension scheme was drawn up on 24th July, and forwarded to Sir
Richard Rich for ratification. To the prior was assigned the not
unhandsome sum of £26, 13s. 4d., to the sub-prior £6, to the cellarer
£5, 6s. 8d., and to the remaining canons annuities ranging from £4,
13s. 4d. to £3, 6s. 8d.
Thus, in July 1539, came to an end the continuous services to God
and man, for upwards of three and a half centuries, of those devoted
religious the canons of St. Augustine of Sherwood Forest. That which
one royal Henry had founded of his beneficence, another royal Henry
blotted out through consummate greed. As Lord Byron says:--
“Years roll on years; to ages, ages yield;
Abbots to abbots, in a line, succeed;
Religion’s charter their protecting shield,
Till royal sacrilege their doom decreed.
One holy Henry rear’d the Gothic walls,
And bade the pious inmates rest in peace;
Another Henry the kind gift recalls,
And bids devotion’s hallow’d echoes cease.”
The following is a list of the successive priors (not abbots) of this
house so far as at present ascertained:--
Eustace, 1216.
Richard, 1216.
Aldred, 1230.
Robert, 1234.
William, 1241.
William de Mottisfont, 1267.
John de Lexinton, resigned, 1288.
Richard de Hallam, 1288.
Richard de Grange, 1293.
William de Thurgarton, 1324.
Hugh de Collingham, 1349.
William de Collingham, resigned, 1356.
John de Wylesthorp, resigned, 1366.
William de Allerton, 1366.
John de Hucknall, 1406.
William Bakewell, 1417.
Thomas Carleton, 1422.
Robert Cutwolfe, 1423.
William Misterton, 1455.
John Durham, 1461.
Thomas Gunthorp, 1467.
William Sandale, 1504.
John Blake, 1526.
Immediately on the surrender being accomplished the custody of the
house was handed over to Sir John Byron of Colwick. In May 1540, Sir
John Byron was put into legal possession of the house, site, church,
steeple, churchyard, and of all the lands, mills, advowsons, rectories,
and of the late priory in return for the then large sum of about £800
handed over to the Crown.
This Sir John Byron was by no means the mushroom man, like so many of
Cromwell and Henry VIII.’s _novi homines_ who were bribed with
monastic estates to support the policy of reckless confiscation, not
a few of whom found further reward in the creation of peerages. This
“Little Sir John with the Big Beard” was descended from the Byrons who
had fought at Crecy, was grand-nephew of the Byron of Bosworth Field,
and he himself had helped to turn Henry Tudor into Henry VII.
No sooner had the canons been turned adrift than the great conventual
church, 257 feet in length, the nave of which had always been reserved
for quasi-parochial use by the tenants on the prior’s estates,
was deliberately unroofed and dismantled. The great block of the
conventual buildings, surrounding the cloisters, on the immediate south
of the church, were preserved by Sir John, the south transept with its
stone Maundy seat, escaped destruction, as it completed the square of
the buildings now occupied as a domestic residence. He is said to have
moved the fountain, or water-conduit, which occupied the centre of the
cloister garth, to the west front of his reconstructed house. Among
the more striking survivals of the work of the first lay-owner of the
priory are two brilliantly coloured overmantels, carved with busts in
relief of Henry VIII. and other contemporary personages.
The successive owners of Newstead Priory were:--
Sir John Byron, who died in 1576.
Sir John Byron (2), who died in 1609. He was the founder of the
Hucknall Broomhill charity. In June 1603 he entertained at the priory
Queen Anne of Denmark and her son Prince Henry, when on their way from
Scotland to join James I. in London.
Sir John Byron (3), who died in 1625.
Sir John Byron (4), M.P. for Nottingham, a faithful adherent of Charles
II.; he was created Lord Byron, with remainder to his brother, in 1643;
he died in Paris in 1652.
Richard Lord Byron, the defender of Newark, succeeded his brother, and
died in 1679; he entertained Charles II. at Newstead.
His son William, the third baron, died in 1695; his wife, Lady
Elizabeth, gave the large silver-gilt chalice and paten to the church
of Hucknall Torkard.
William, the fourth baron, son of the third, died in 1736.
His son William, the fifth baron, known as “Devil Byron,” who killed
William Chaworth in a duel, died, without surviving issue, in 1798.
George Gordon, the sixth Lord Byron, the poet, was great-nephew of the
fifth baron. His two predecessors had seriously embarrassed the estate;
it was so heavily mortgaged that in 1814 he finally left Newstead,
to his intense grief, and after prolonged negotiations, the property
passed, in 1817, into the hands of his friend and schoolfellow Colonel
Wildman.
Colonel Wildman, at great cost and with considerable taste, considering
the general lack of taste of those days, proceeded to rescue the priory
from its deplorable condition. He replaced the water-conduit in the
centre of the cloisters; removed a disfiguring stone stairway; and
generally altered the interior in an endeavour to restore as much as
possible the original features. At a later period he erected the Sussex
tower, in commemoration of the visit of the Duke of Sussex. He left
the beautiful pile of buildings in much the same condition as it is at
present.
After the Colonel’s death, the priory and estate were bought in 1860
by the late Mr. W. F. Webb. Under Mr. Webb’s guidance “the work of
restoration and beautifying was piously and intelligently continued;
he made it one of the chief aims of his life to increase both the
historical and Byronic interests of the place.” Since his death the
greatest care and good taste have continued to be expended on the
house, and more particularly on the gardens and grounds, by his
daughters, Lady Chermside and Miss Webb.
Space entirely prohibits any attempt at a full or technical description
of the ancient conventual church, and the buildings round the cloister
garth which still retain, notwithstanding the frequent alterations,
so many distinctive features of their original erection, at different
periods for monastic purposes. The writer has had the advantage of
making a fairly thorough survey of the priory in both the “seventies”
and “eighties” of last century, and again during the twentieth century
under the intelligent guidance of his late valued friend, the Rev. R.
H. Whitworth, chaplain of Newstead, and for upwards of forty years
vicar of the adjacent parish of Blidworth. To describe Newstead
adequately would require at least the whole of this volume.
[Illustration: PLAN OF NEWSTEAD PRIORY, BY REV. R. H.
WHITWORTH.]
Mr. Whitworth loved every stone of Newstead and every detail of its
story. Not long before his death he gave to the writer the accompanying
plan (together with many memoranda) the work of his own pen, and
though not entirely accurate in dimensions or lettering, it is of real
interest, and it is a pleasure to reproduce it in facsimile.
All that can here be put on record are a few cursory remarks on certain
remaining details, chiefly taken from Mr. Whitworth’s memoranda. The
exceeding beauty of the west front of the church, with its delicacy
of execution, of the best period of the reign of Edward I., is well
known to all lovers of England’s ecclesiastical architecture. Sir John
Byron, leaving the stately front as an ornament in line with the front
of his reconstructed house, made so clean a sweep of the once stately
church right up to the eastern end, that the smooth turf shows not a
trace of even the foundations of the piers. It is characteristic of the
semi-pagan character of the poet Byron that though he could vigorously
upbraid the sacrilegious conduct of Henry VIII. and his myrmidons in
ejecting the canons and in silencing all strains of worship “within
these hallowed walls,” he did not apparently realise the unhappy
inconsistency and gross irreverence of burying his favourite dog
“Boatswain” on the holiest spot of this consecrated site and placing a
monument over its body!
Grievous as was the uprooting of this once stately church, it is
impossible not to feel grateful to Sir John Byron for the preservation
of the exquisite chapter house of the priory with its beautiful groined
roof supported by two pillars of clustered banded shafts. It is
situated, according to the invariable monastic custom, on the eastern
side of the cloisters, separated from the south transept of the church
by a slype or passage; it is of similar date to the west front of the
church. Tradition has it that the first Sir John Byron had this chapter
house set apart for use as a domestic chapel, and for that purpose it
is still used.
In common with other monks and canons, the inmates of Newstead Priory,
when they knew the storm was about to break, endeavoured to conceal
some of their ornaments and valuables ere they were inventoried. They
flung into the water of the lake in front of their house a fine pair
of great brass altar candlesticks, originally 4 feet 6½ inches high
(they have been raised 10½ inches), together with the brass eagle
which served as a Gospel lectern. These were accidentally found and
recovered from the lake about 1780. Hoping perchance some day to
reoccupy their old home, the canons packed tightly the cavity of the
globe on which the eagle rested with a selection of their parchment
title-deeds, dating from Edward III. down to Henry VIII. When fished
up, in the days of that evil spendthrift, the fifth Lord Byron, the
eagle and candlesticks were sold to a Nottingham dealer in old metals.
They were repurchased by Sir Richard Kaye, rector of Kirkby; he was a
canon of Southwell, and they are still in the honoured possession of
that cathedral church. The eagle bore an inscription asking for prayers
for the souls of Ralph Savage, the donor, and for all the faithful
departed; he was the founder of a chantry in the year 1488, in the
Derbyshire church of North Wingfield.
Like so many old residences formed out of ancient monasteries, Newstead
has the reputation of being haunted, and that by more than one spectre.
But the name and fate of the last of the Byrons has overclouded and
obscured all previous tenants, mortal or otherwise, and flung the pall
of poetic melancholy over the domains such as no spiritual imaginations
can survive. The legends connected with Newstead are many, and descend
from that mysterious maid of Saracen birth or residence, whose form and
features are so frequently repeated in the ancient panel work of the
priory’s interior, down to Lord Byron’s immediate predecessor in the
title and estates. “Devil Byron,” as this man was called, among other
wild tales connected with his name was said to be himself haunted by
the spirit of a sister, to whom he refused to speak for years preceding
her death in consequence of a family scandal, notwithstanding her
heart-rending appeals. Ebenezer Elliot, in a ballad he wrote on this
legend, introduces the apparitions of both Devil Byron and his sister
as riding forth together in stormy weather, the lady still making
passionate appeals to the immovable brother to speak to her[40]:--
“Well sleep the dead; in holy ground,
Well sleeps the heart of iron,
The worm that pares his sister’s cheek,
What cares it for Byron?
Yet when her night of death comes round,
They ride and drive together,
And ever, when they ride or drive,
All wilful is the weather.
On mighty winds in spectre coach,
Fast speeds the heart of iron,
On spectre steed, the spectre dame,
Side by side with Byron.
Oh, ‘Night doth love her,’ O the clouds,
They do her form environ,
The lightning weeps--he hears her sob,
‘Speak to me! Lord Byron!’
On winds, on clouds, they ride, they drive,
Oh hark thou heart of iron,
The thunder whispers mournfully,
‘O speak to her, Lord Byron!’”
Another family apparition which is said to have haunted the old priory
was “Sir John Byron the Little with the Big Beard.” An ancient portrait
of this mysterious ancestor was some years since seen hanging over
the door of the great saloon, and was sometimes at midnight said to
descend from its sombre frame and promenade the state apartments.
Indeed this ancient worthy’s visitations were not confined merely to
nightfall; one young lady on a visit years ago positively asserted that
in broad daylight, the door of his former chamber being opened, she
saw Sir John the Little sitting by the fireplace and reading out of an
old-fashioned book.
Several other apparitions have been seen from time to time about
this ancient, time-honoured building. Washington Irving mentions
that a young lady, a cousin of Lord Byron’s, on one occasion slept
in the room next the clock, and when she was in bed she saw a lady
in white come out of the wall on one side of the room, and go into
the wall on the other side. Many curious noises and strange sights
have been heard and seen by many visitors at Newstead; but the best
known and most noted spectre connected with the place and immortalised
by Byron’s verse is the “Goblin Friar.” The particular chamber that
this spectre is supposed specially to frequent, and which is known
_par excellence_ as the Haunted Chamber, adjoins Byron’s bedroom.
During the poet’s residence this dismal-looking room was occupied by
his page, who is said to have been a youth of striking beauty. Lord
Byron and many others not only believed in the existence of the Black
Friar, but asserted that they had really seen it. It did not confine
its visitations to the Haunted Chamber, but, at night, walked into the
cloisters, and other parts of the Priory.
“A monk arrayed
In cowl and beads and dusky garb appeared,
Now in the moonlight and now lapsed in shade,
With steps that trod as heavy, yet unheard.”
This apparition was the evil genius of the Byrons, and its appearance
foreshadowed misfortune of some kind to the member of the family
by whom it was seen. Lord Byron fully believed that he beheld this
apparition a short time before the greatest misfortune of his life, his
ill-starred union with Miss Milbanke. Alluding to his faith in these
things, he said:--
“I merely mean to say, what Johnson said,
That in the course of some six thousand years,
All nations have believed that from the dead
A visitant at intervals appears;
And what is strangest upon this strange head
Is that whatever bar the reason rears
’Gainst such belief, there’s something stronger still
In its behalf, let those deny who will.”
And he thus introduces the presumed duties, as it were, of the Black
Friar:--
“By the marriage bed of their lords, ’tis said,
He flies on the bridal eve,
And ’tis held as faith, to their bed of death
He comes, but not to grieve.
When an heir is born, he is bound to mourn,
And when aught is to befall
That ancient line, in the pale moonshine,
He walks from hall to hall.
His form you may trace, but not his face,
’Tis shadowed by his cowl,
But his eyes may be seen, from the folds between,
And they seem of a parted soul.”
However capable as a poet, Byron was clearly no student of monastic
affairs. Otherwise he would have known that anything more unlikely than
the residence of a Black or Dominican Friar within a house of Black
Canons could hardly have taken place. But to him, as to many modern
writers, including several of our leading novelists, monks, canons, and
friars, though absolutely distinct, are of one and the same order.
The apartments occupied by Lord Byron, bedroom, dressing-room, and
small haunted chamber--supposed to have been originally the prior’s
lodgings--are carefully kept in the same state as when occupied by the
poet. Other rooms over the cloisters, hung with suitable tapestry, are
named after Edward III., Henry VII., and Charles II.; they are said
to have been respectively occupied by these Kings when visiting the
priory.
WOLLATON HALL
BY J. A. GOTCH, F.S.A.
Nottinghamshire is not rich in ancient houses; for although it can
boast of many fine seats, they are either comparatively modern in
date, or they have been so much altered as to have lost their ancient
character. By far the most interesting architecturally is Wollaton
Hall, close to Nottingham, the seat of Lord Middleton.
It was built in the reign of Elizabeth by Sir Francis Willoughby, whose
family had lived for several generations in a house near the church.
Sir Francis left no son, but his eldest daughter and co-heir married
her cousin Percival Willoughby, who succeeded in her right to the
Wollaton property. He was among the earliest of the gentry knighted by
King James I. on his accession to the English throne, receiving that
honour at Worksop on April 20, 1603. He died about the beginning of
the Civil War; his son, another Sir Francis, succeeded him, and was
in turn followed by his only son, Francis, the celebrated traveller
and naturalist. Francis Willoughby achieved a great reputation as a
scientist, and was one of the first members of the Royal Society.
He died in 1672 at the early age of thirty-seven. To him eventually
succeeded his second son, Thomas, who was created Lord Middleton in
1711 by Queen Anne. He also left a daughter, Cassandra, who married
the Duke of Chandos, and is interesting to us because of some notes
concerning her ancestral home which she left behind her.
Wollaton Hall is sometimes quoted as a typical example of the work
of the English Renaissance. Those who are in sympathy with that phase
of domestic architecture point to it as a magnificent specimen of an
Elizabethan palace. Those who are out of sympathy direct the finger of
scorn to its extravagances and its pretentiousness. As a matter of fact
it cannot be called a typical example. In its chief characteristics it
stands by itself, namely, in its lofty central hall and its four corner
pavilions. In its extreme regularity of treatment, and in the great
care bestowed upon its detail, it exhibits far more of conscious effort
in design than the majority of houses built at that period.
The interesting question is, Who was responsible for the design
of Wollaton? So little is really known from actual records of the
architectural designers of that period, or of their method of work,
that the field of conjecture is a vast one, and offers scope for
manœuvres on a large scale. But there are one or two facts connected
with this house which help us to a certain extent. We know from the
inscription over the garden door that it was built by Sir Francis
Willoughby, constructed with uncommon art, and left as a precious
possession to the Willoughbys. It was begun in 1580 and finished in
1588. The actual inscription runs thus, and consists of two hexameters--
“En has Francisci Willughbi militis ædes
Rara arte extructas Willughboeisq relictas.
Inchoatæ 1580 et finitæ 1588.”
We also know that in John Thorpe’s collection of drawings in the Soane
Museum in London there is a ground-plan of the house and half the front
elevation. We also find in Wollaton Church a monument to “Mr. Robert
Smythson, gent. architector and surveyor unto the most worthy house of
Wollaton and diverse others of great account,” who died in 1614 at the
age of seventy-nine. There are also some drawings relating to Wollaton
in the valuable collection belonging to Col. Coke of Brookhill, near
Alfreton. These belonged to a John Smithson, architect, of Bolsover,
and were largely his own handiwork. The drawings of Wollaton
comprise a plan of the house with forecourts, an elevation of one of
the corner pavilions, a plan of the “new orchard,” dated 1618, and some
sketches of the stone screen in the great hall. Lastly, we learn from
Cassandra Willoughby, Duchess of Chandos, who wrote an account of the
house in 1702, that Sir Francis Willoughby sent for the master-workmen
who built the house out of Italy, and also for most of the stone
figures which adorn it.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. PLAN OF WOLLATON HALL, BY JOHN
THORPE.]
Here, then, we have apparently a number of conflicting claims. No one,
however, contests with Sir Francis Willoughby the honour of having
built the house in the sense of having ordered and paid for it. Nor
is its date in question. But there are three claimants to the honour
of having designed it, namely, John Thorpe, Robert Smythson, and the
master-workmen out of Italy. First, as to the latter. The idea has long
been very prevalent that the houses of Elizabeth’s time owed their
special characteristics to Italy and to Italian workmen; and so, in a
way, they did, because Italy influenced more or less directly the work
of the Renaissance in all other countries. But, as a matter of fact,
it is extremely difficult to trace anything but a very small amount
of English work to actual Italian hands. The whole tendency of recent
inquiries goes to show that it was English hands which executed most of
the work which has an Italian appearance. The tales of models having
been sent for from Italy for English houses are probably apocryphal,
because the plan of an English house differed widely from that of an
Italian; and although it might be rash to assert that Cassandra the
Duchess was wrong, still the master-workmen who were sent for out of
Italy could have had very little to do with the designing of Wollaton.
The chief credit for that performance ought to be given to John Thorpe,
and it is possible to reconcile his claims with those of Robert
Smythson by regarding the latter as the chief workman and clerk of
the works, or surveyor. It must be remembered that although the same
terms are used now as were used then, the meaning of them has changed.
We find a number of men described as “architectus” or “architector,”
who were what we should regard as master-masons, and that is probably
what Mr. Robert Smythson was. But it must also be remembered that the
relation of the master-mason to the architect was then very different
from what it is to-day. The architect to-day designs everything
himself; in those days he seems only to have given a general idea of
what he wanted, leaving the detail to be developed by the master-mason.
The latter might therefore well take credit to himself--or his
sorrowing family for him--as being the “architector” to a house like
Wollaton.
There is no established connection between Robert Smythson of Wollaton
and John Smithson of Bolsover; but both men were occupied with building
matters, and the dates would allow of Robert being the father of John.
The relationship, if it existed, would account for John being employed
to make drawings of Wollaton.
The actual origin of the house may properly be attributed to Thorpe. He
claims nothing for himself, he only leaves certain drawings behind him
(Figs. 1 and 3).
In comparing Thorpe’s plan with the actual ground-plan (Fig. 2), it
will be found that the main dimensions tally almost exactly; the corner
pavilions, however, are not quite so large as he shows them, and the
projection of the wings beyond the entrance and garden fronts is rather
larger than he indicates. The hall is built to his dimensions of 60
feet by 30 feet. As to the general similarity of the two plans, the
likeness is obvious, but the difference in the thickness of the various
main walls should be observed. The variations in the positions of the
internal cross walls need hardly be considered, because they result,
in all probability, from comparatively recent alterations. But in the
main skeleton there are several noteworthy discrepancies. The corner
pavilions in Thorpe’s plan do not overlap the north and south
fronts, whereas they do in the building itself. The entrance porch as
built is quite different from what he shows, and so is the projecting
window in the centre of the south or garden front. The two central
bays which he shows on the east and west fronts do not appear in the
building itself; as a matter of fact the east front has six large
windows between the pavilions, whereas the west has seven. Thorpe shows
both these fronts treated alike.
[Illustration: FIG. 2. WOLLATON HALL: GROUND PLAN,
1901.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. WOLLATON HALL: HALF-ELEVATION, BY
JOHN THORPE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4. WOLLATON HALL.]
Comparing Thorpe’s half-elevation with the photograph of the building
(Fig. 4), the general likeness again is obvious. But Thorpe shows no
basement windows; his front porch agrees with his plan and differs
from the actual work; he shows two four-light windows in the front
at the side of the porch, whereas there are actually a four-light
and a five-light; he shows a single pilaster between these windows,
whereas there are two. The end of his wing has a four-light window; the
building itself has a five-light. Niches which he does not show have
been made on the main front as well as on the flanks of the various
projections. He shows several ways of ornamenting the pedestals of
his pilasters; in execution they have the gondola rings shown to the
left of his ground story. The curly gable of his corner pavilion,
although carefully shown, does not quite tally with the gable as
carried out; nor does his angle turret on the central tower agree with
what was built. He evidently started by treating the angle with quoins
surmounted by a small turret at the top, but he subsequently lengthened
the turret downwards. The pilasters which he shows on this central
block do not appear in the building; if they had they would have served
to bring that part of the composition more into harmony with the lower
part, and nothing would probably have been heard of the suggestion
that the central pavilion is part of an older building. A study of the
plan and of the building, however, disposes of this suggestion, nor
could the lofty hall and the room over it be harmonised with any known
treatment of houses prior to the Elizabethan era.
The discrepancies here pointed out do away with the idea that Thorpe’s
drawings were made from the building after erection. They are easily
accounted for on the supposition that the drawings were modified in the
course of being carried out.
If we turn to Smithson’s drawings, we find that his plan (Fig. 5)
tallies almost exactly (as to the main walls) with the existing plan.
This leads to the supposition that his plan was drawn from the actual
building at a time when the addition of forecourts was contemplated;
if, indeed, owing to the considerable and irregular slope of the ground
they were ever contemplated. His elevation of the corner pavilion (Fig.
6) agrees almost accurately with the actual building.
There is one point in connection with the Thorpe drawings which bears
forcibly upon the question as to the source whence the ideas which
underlay our English Renaissance came. There was a tolerably widespread
desire in Elizabeth’s time to benefit by what was being done in
foreign lands. A young architect, John Shute, was sent by the Duke
of Northumberland to study architecture in Italy. Lord Burghley made
more than one inquiry for books on architecture recently published in
France, and John Thorpe himself, as his drawings show, studied Italian,
French, and Dutch books. One of the French books to which he devoted
considerable attention was Androuet du Cerceau’s _Les plus Excellents
Bastiments de France_, published in 1576, and in that book are a few
plans with corner pavilions such as those at Wollaton. The disposition
of Wollaton is so unusual that it is quite possible that Thorpe may
have put into practice here some of the ideas he gleaned from Du
Cerceau’s book. Some of Du Cerceau’s plans he copied into his own MS.
book, but in doing so he adapted them to English uses, and it was much
the same with Wollaton. The plan is not a direct copy; it is only
the general idea which may have been derived from the French source.
Thorpe having designed the plan and elevation, may be presumed
to have handed them over to Robert Smythson, who, with the help of
the master-workmen from Italy, carried the work out. Such a course of
procedure would at any rate reconcile the claims of the various parties.
[Illustration: FIG. 5. WOLLATON HALL: PLAN BY
SMITHSON.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6. WOLLATON HALL: ELEVATION OF CORNER
PAVILION, BY SMITHSON.]
But leaving the question of who designed the house, a few words must
be bestowed upon the structure itself. Its plan, although of foreign
origin, was so contrived as to comply with old-established English
habits. The central position of the hall rendered it not altogether
easy of access in the usual way--that is, into the passage at the end
called the “screens.” The most direct way from the front door to the
hall is that which now exists, but this leads you into the middle of
the side, not into the screens. Thorpe, therefore, kept his hall floor
above the level of his front door, and led the visitor, not directly
into the hall, but round to the right, and so, by way of a flight of
steps, up to the end of the hall, and delivered him into the screens in
the usual way. The spare space not occupied by the stairs he devoted
to the porter’s rooms. Smithson’s plan shows a similar arrangement. A
further reason for keeping the hall floor raised was that, contrary to
the prevailing custom, he put his kitchen and servants’ rooms down in
a basement. This was almost a necessity of the design, for being of a
pretentious nature, it was obliged to be grand on every side, and the
kitchen and inferior premises had to be hidden away in a basement in
order not to spoil the symmetry of the four show-sides of the house.
The disposition of the house, with a central hall surrounded by rooms
two stories high, necessitated an unusual height for the hall, which
is over 50 feet high. Its window-sills also had to be above the roofs
of the surrounding rooms, and they are some 35 feet from the floor.
The upper floor of these adjacent rooms on the east side was devoted
to the long gallery, but modern alterations, necessitated by constant
use, have not only divided this up into a number of small rooms, but
have effectually obliterated from the interior of the whole house all
its Elizabethan character, except what remains in the basement and in
the great hall. The fine stone screen remains here, and agrees with the
sketches in the Smithson drawings: the original roof is also left--an
excellent specimen of Elizabethan work. It has this peculiarity,
that though fashioned like an open hammer-beam roof, it supports in
reality the floor of a large room over, called the Prospect Room, which
occupies the upper part of the central block that forms so conspicuous
a feature of the house.
It only remains to say that the house was entirely new from its
foundations, and that it occupied eight years in erection. There was
apparently no building here before it, although very frequently we find
Elizabethan houses enveloping the remains of a humbler predecessor. The
Willoughbys had lived at Wollaton for some generations previous to the
building of the mansion, but their home was a house somewhere near the
church. It has been suggested that the central block is earlier in date
than that which surrounds it; but reflection shows that the hall must
necessarily have been built in relation to the lower buildings round
it. There is nothing to indicate any alterations of an older building;
the detail of the central block, although different, is contemporary
with that of the rest of the house, and the whole of it is shown on
Thorpe’s drawing. Everything, therefore, tends to prove that the whole
house was built at the same time. Duchess Cassandra tells us that the
stone was brought from Ancaster, and that the same pack-horses which
brought it took back Sir Francis’s coal in exchange. Notwithstanding
that he got his stone for nothing, she says, and that labour was much
cheaper in those days, the house cost Sir Francis £80,000.
[Illustration: FIG. 7. WOLLATON HALL: THE ORCHARD, PLAN
BY SMITHSON.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8. WOLLATON HALL; THE SCREEN, BY
SMITHSON.]
The external treatment is of pronounced classic character, with
plenty of pilasters and bold cornices. There are a number of circular
niches containing busts of classic personages such as Virgil, Plato,
Aristotle, and Diana. The master-workmen out of Italy were presumably
familiar with these celebrities, and so might have been Mr. Robert
Smythson, gent., but the ordinary English workman must have been
rather puzzled by them, and perhaps secretly relieved when he heard
that a shipload of them had gone down, an accident that is said to
account for some of the niches being empty. But, _pace_ Duchess
Cassandra, a good deal more assistance in English houses came from
the Dutch than the Italians in the time of Elizabeth, and it would
not be surprising if the building accounts, which are some day to be
published, showed that Holland rather than Italy was the source whence
some of the lower work was derived (in spite of the gondola rings which
adorn the bases of some of the pilasters), as it was almost certainly
the place where the curly gables of the pavilions had their origin.
The Smithson drawings, which have come to light again in recent years,
are of very great interest. It is difficult to say what was their exact
purpose. The elevation of the pavilion (Fig. 6) may have been drawn
from the executed building. On the other hand, it may have been a
development of Thorpe’s rather rough sketch. If so, it would probably
be the work of Robert Smythson, and thus link him up with John; and,
assuming that they were father and son, John must have preserved his
father’s drawing among his own.
The plan (Fig. 5) has already been surmised to represent an idea of
adding a forecourt to each front; but the levels of the ground seem to
preclude the possibility of their ever having been carried out, and the
drawing may be merely an exercise of fancy. In any case it appears odd
to modern notions that the principal objects opposite to three of the
fronts should be the stables, the dairy and laundry, and the bakehouse
and brewhouse. On the fourth or entrance front there was to have been
a gatehouse, which was quite a customary feature. The forecourt lying
between the gatehouse and the mansion was to have been surrounded by a
raised terrace or colonnade, as is indicated by the flights of steps
leading up to it.
The plan of the orchard (Fig. 7) is entitled “Sur Percevalles
Willoughbyes Newe Orcharde at Wollaton, Ann. Domi. 1618.” It is
curious, inasmuch as the central part corresponds in outline with the
plan of the house. Whether it was ever carried out or not is not known.
Sir Perceval, it will be remembered, was the son-in-law and successor
of Sir Francis, the builder of the house.
The drawings of the screen (Fig. 8) are of peculiar interest. There are
three of them: one is the general design, differing in some respects
from the actual work, and suggesting that it was the original design
subsequently modified; another is a sketch for the upper carved panels
between the columns (Fig. 9), and it agrees with the existing carving;
the third is a sketch for the panels in the frieze above the screen
(Fig. 10), and it agrees, in the main, with the actual work. All these
facts point to the drawings being the originals from which the work
was executed; they may, therefore, without forcing the argument, be
fathered upon Robert Smythson, and they thus provide another link to
connect Robert with John.
[Illustration: FIG. 9. WOLLATON HALL: PANEL IN THE
SCREEN, BY SMITHSON.]
[Illustration: FIG. 10. WOLLATON HALL: PANEL IN THE
FRIEZE ABOVE THE SCREEN, BY SMITHSON.]
It is always interesting to find out who the men were who designed
the old buildings which we admire so much. The houses did not grow of
themselves, there were definite means employed to gain the results; and
a careful study of such drawings as survive is gradually helping us to
further knowledge on the subject. Several groups of men at this period
seem to have been proud of their work and to have preserved their
drawings. Among them were the Thorpes, father and son; the Smithsons,
who for several generations (excluding Robert, who, however, seems to
be taking his place in the family) were architectural designers of
acknowledged ability; and Inigo Jones with his nephew and successor,
John Webb. The lives of these men covered almost the whole of that
interesting period in English architecture when the Italian influence
was gradually transforming our methods of design. The elder Thorpe,
who was already at work in 1570, saw the early stages; Inigo Jones,
who died in 1652, was the agent who familiarised his countrymen with
the finer forms of Italian design, and established the reign of
Palladianism, the effects of which lasted for more than a century and
a half. The work at Wollaton represents an early step in this long
development, and will always be interesting on this account alone,
apart from the striking, and indeed magnificent, individuality of the
house itself.
THE ANCIENT AND MODERN TRENT
BY BERNARD SMITH, M.A.
THE RIVER TRENT
The valley of the Trent deserves to be considered as one of the most
interesting of the antiquities of the county of Nottinghamshire. When
our ancestors dubbed it “The broad vale of Trent,” they unconsciously
laid stress upon its width, and, in fact, rightly, because the
present river Trent is a misfit--too small for the valley--a shrunken
representative of that ancient stream which carved the great
steep-sided trench between Nottingham and Newark.
There is something very human about the behaviour of rivers; they live
and move. In their youth, and at their headwaters, they are full of
energy, constantly overcoming difficulties and removing obstacles from
their course. As mature streams their paths are smoother and their ways
more orderly. In old age they wander lazily to the sea, often haltingly
and dropping their burdens on the way. But--unlike human beings--they
are constantly at work. Should their energy be greater than is required
to carry their load of rock-waste, they employ it in lowering and
widening their beds, and in clearing and straightening their path to
the sea. If all their energy is required to carry their load they can
still burrow sideways into their banks, although they cannot now cut
downwards. If the load is too great they wisely drop the overburden
and carry that which their strength is equal to. The power of a river
should never be gauged by its work or appearance at ordinary times,
for tremendous vigour--out of all proportion--comes both with increase
in volume and increase in pace, conditions only fulfilled when the
river is in flood. Rivers, again, are more than human in the manner in
which they adapt themselves to their environment. If hard rocks must be
crossed they take the shortest path in a narrow gorge; if soft rocks
are traversed they follow them as long as possible, meandering somewhat
lazily along the path of least resistance; they thus tend to become
adjusted to the texture and grain of the rocks over which they flow.
THE ANCIENT TRENT
The history of the river Trent is intimately connected with the
story of the Great Ice Age in Britain. This event--so recent from a
geological standpoint--was fairly distant from the human point of view,
since nearly all of the Palæolithic relics of this country date from
the retreat of the ice.
Long before the Ice Age (at a time when great earth movements were
taking place upon the Continent and building up the Alps) the younger
rocks in the Nottinghamshire area were uplifted and tilted gently to
the east, away from the older and underlying Carboniferous rocks of the
Pennines, and were thus brought within the influence of destructive
processes.
Rivers, running down the slope in the direction of the North Sea, began
to cut deeply and form a plain, whose general surface agreed roughly
with the slope of the river channels. The higher beds on the west were
stripped away, because a river is more active and cuts more deeply
at its head than near its mouth. Hence the original surface of the
uplifted plain has gone; the new surface slopes on the whole from west
to east, and the older rocks are more elevated than the younger ones.
Tributary streams, developed along north and south lines in the soft
belts of rock, became in time more important than the first-formed
west to east streams. One of these tributaries, no doubt, working its
headwaters backwards from the Humber, formed a valley in the red clays
of Nottinghamshire which lie west of the Lincoln Cliff, and tapped the
easterly-flowing waters, thus forming a river very similar in direction
to the present Trent.
However this may be,[41] there is no sign of that river and that valley
at the present day, although they were doubtless the guiding lines
which eventually determined the course of the Vale.
Nottinghamshire was invaded by ice-sheets descending from the north.
The direction of movement was rather from the west of north in the west
of the county, and from the east of north in the south-east of the
county; and as the ice advanced the rivers were naturally destroyed,
partly by refrigeration, but chiefly by being invaded by ice. When the
climate ameliorated the floods were let loose and the waters sought
their old channels.
As the ice-front retreated it left behind it a mass of gravel which
was in part washed from the ice-front by water draining the ice, and
in part introduced by floods from distant sources. At the same time it
is possible that much of the gravel was deposited beneath the surface
of a large sheet of water; for in late-glacial times the water in this
district seems to have been augmented by floods pouring into the basin
from the direction of the Cheshire Plain and endeavouring to escape to
the North Sea, since its escape to the Irish Sea was prevented by the
Irish Sea ice. In our district it is thought that the water, finding
its passage to the Humber barred by the retreating extremity of the
ice-sheet, which rested against the cliff north of Lincoln and extended
thence to the high ground north-west of Kelham, was forced to pour over
a low gap in the hills at Lincoln.
The highest elevations between Newark and Lincoln, near Coddington,
Potter’s Hill, Swinderby, Eagle, and Doddington, are capped by the
gravels of late-glacial age. The Lincoln gap was then cut down; the ice
had now probably retreated--although there is no direct evidence--and
already opened up the way to the Humber, and a second series of gravels
distributed by running waters on gently-inclined slopes of the solid
formations and in hollows scoured through the older gravels. Such
gravels occur near Nottingham, Radcliffe, Farndon, and Newark; and from
the latter place they stretch to Winthorpe and Langford, and thence in
a well-defined S-shaped belt to within one and a half miles of Lincoln.
They are also found to the east of that city. The waters were again
rapidly lowered and escaped by two exits--the Humber and the Lincoln
Gap. Gravels formed at this stage occupy not only the floor of the
present Trent valley, but below Newark spread widely over the ground
to the east, abut against the well-marked terrace of the second series
near Langford and Eagle, and sweep round the northern flank of the
Doddington Hills to Lincoln.
The rather scanty evidence at our disposal tends to show that all
these deposits were formed after the retreat of the ice, for although
they rest upon boulder-clay (the ground moraine of the ice-sheet) at
several points, they are never found beneath it. Between Nottingham
and Newark the valley floor is almost certainly post-glacial, for,
were it not so, we should expect to find boulder-clay on the valley
slopes or beneath the river deposits--but such relics are wanting. The
river had, however, established its present course very soon after the
close of the Ice Age, because the bones of extinct mammalia--mammoth,
rhinoceros, and hippopotamus--have been found in the valley deposits
above Nottingham. At such a time heavy floods would occur when the
winter snowfall melted in the spring, and the river and its feeders
would be larger and more powerful than the present stream, which cannot
lift and spread gravel over its flood plain.
Between the flood-periods the stream was choked with débris and
gravel-bars, and compelled to split up into rapidly changing branches
which spread the gravels far and wide. Such was the ancient Trent--a
powerful flood immediately after the Ice Age, but slowly dwindling in
volume and power as, in course of time, it cut deeper and deeper and
sunk its valley below the level of the earlier-formed gravels, which
were therefore left as terraces and flats above the level of the latest
and lowest flood-plains (Fig. 1). The older gravels are probably of
Palæolithic Age, although no remains of the earlier Stone Age have been
found in them. Palæolithic man, however, inhabited the district, for
signs of his presence have been discovered in the Creswell Caves, hence
it is reasonable to expect that Palæolithic implements may eventually
be discovered in some of the oldest post-glacial gravels between
Nottingham, Newark, and Lincoln.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.]
In the Idle and Leen valleys there are also gravel terraces of
considerable antiquity, whose history is very similar, although
somewhat shorter than those of the Trent.
THE PRESENT RIVER TRENT
Since the accumulation of the river gravels there has been slight
widening of the valley in places, but hardly any deepening. The
gravels, as a rule, are spread over it from side to side beneath the
recent alluvium of the present enfeebled river, and the surface of the
alluvial plain is at a slightly lower level than that of the gravel
terraces. At ordinary times the river meanders to and fro among its
ancient gravel-bars without sufficient energy to clear away all the
detritus brought down to the flat by its tributaries. It rearranges
the mixed sandy gravel of the old river, depositing the sand above the
gravel, and placing a layer of loam, derived mainly from red Triassic
rocks, upon the top of all. Thus the alluvial plain--within the old
gravel plain--is built up both by lateral wandering of the river and by
the floods which level up the surface.
Between Midsummer and Christmas A.D. 1346 long continued rains
caused one of the most disastrous of the early recorded floods. In
1683 the bridges at Nottingham and Newark were destroyed by ice and
water, due to the breaking up of a frost (which began in September,
accompanied by much snow). Muskham and Holme also suffered severely.
The Brampton bank (Breach Pit Bank) was broken five times previous to
1730, and again in 1824, since when a new bank has been erected. The
banks near Newton and Torksey gave way in November 1770 and flooded all
the lands on both sides of the Foss Dyke as far as Lincoln, flooding
villages and destroying great quantities of hay and corn. Water stood
several feet deep in the houses of Narrow Marsh, Nottingham. Floods
also occurred in 1774 and 1790.
The great flood of Candlemas 1795 was--like that of 1683--the result
of a quick thaw after a frost, which lasted from December 24, 1794,
until February 9, 1795, and was accompanied by some 15 inches of snow.
In Notts, as well as in Staffordshire and Derbyshire, the whole of the
Trent valley was a scene of desolation, rendered more terrible by the
masses of ice and melted snow carried along by the waters. The outer
river bank near Spalford (the Wath Bank) burst at the south-east end
of South Clifton Hill (Fig. 2), where the signs of the flood are still
discernible (the hollow formed, though now dry, was long filled with
water). An immense breach was formed, into which 80 loads of faggots
and over 400 tons of earth were dumped before it was filled up.
[Illustration: Fig. 2.]
Sweeping across country from this gap, the water soon converted some
20,000 acres of land, west of Lincoln, into a vast lake, and only
stopped here because the High Street at Lincoln was raised above the
general level of the Foss Dyke. The country inundated being in those
days largely composed of swamp lands (now drained and cultivated), the
damage would bear no comparison to that which would be caused by a
similar flood at the present day.
With one exception it entered every house in Spalford, and Girton
village street was submerged 3 feet. The water rose to a height of 4
feet 6 inches on North Collingham Churchyard wall (31 feet 6 inches
above O.D.). In Nottingham the inhabitants of Narrow Marsh were
prisoners for two days and nights, the water being 3 feet deep in some
places. Water also entered these houses in 1809.
A great inundation took place in 1814 after snow and frost, and
thousands of acres of hay and corn were laid under water by a high
flood on the 5th August 1839; whilst in November 1852, before the bank
gave way near Dunham, the waters were halfway up the western wall of
Collingham Churchyard and drowned Girton village street to a depth of 2
feet. At Nottingham the waters rose 14 feet 9 inches above their mean
level.
In more recent times a sudden thaw produced an immense flood in
January 1867, and in October 1875 thousands of acres were deluged in
the Trent valley, the scene from Nottingham or Newark Castles being
most remarkable, buildings, hedges, and railway lines alone appearing
above the water-line. Marks registering this flood are preserved at
Nottingham, Fiskerton (Trent House), Newark, Collingham, Girton,[42]
and Low Marnham (the stone crosses at North Muskham and Holme are
said to be records of floods, but are unfortunately undated). So deep
was the water that a four-oared boat was rowed by Newark Magnus boys
across country to Averham and Kelham. At Low Marnham, which is entirely
surrounded by a flood-bank, a great struggle took place to prevent the
water from overtopping the bank and flooding the village, in which
there was a valuable store of grain. When all efforts seemed to be in
vain, relief came at the critical moment by the bursting of a bank near
Ragnall.
This flood was at Nottingham 5½ inches higher than that of 1852, 23½
inches higher than that of July 1875, and 28 inches higher than that of
a later flood in January 1877. The flood of 1795 is estimated to have
been 10 inches higher than that of 1875.[43]
The severe floods of 1887, 1895, and 1901, and the recent flood which
at Nottingham culminated at 6 A.M. upon the 4th December 1910,
will live long in the memory of Nottinghamshire people. In the latter
case incessant rains, following upon a severe snowstorm, produced a
flood against which the improvements in drainage and dredging of the
river bed were alike impotent. The floods continued to rise between
Nottingham and Gainsborough and produced scenes unparalleled since
1875. Official figures for the height of the Trent at Trent Bridge in
the recent big floods are[44]:--
October 1875 80.38 feet above mean sea-level at Liverpool.
„ 1901 79.65 feet „ „ „ „
July 1875 78.46 feet „ „ „ „
„ 1895 78.25 feet „ „ „ „
Yesterday (December
4, 1910) 78.63 feet „ „ „ „
One of the most remarkable features was the flooding of the Midland
Railway line from beyond Attenborough to the centre bridge of the
Nottingham Midland Station. All trains between Nottingham and Trent had
to plough their way for five miles through water 3 to 4 feet deep in
places; every locomotive, however, got through safely. At Collingham
the water rose to within less than a foot of the 1875 level, whilst it
poured bodily over the flood-bank near Gainsborough.
[Illustration: THE GREAT FLOOD OF OCTOBER 1875.
(View from Nottingham Castle looking South.)]
It will be seen from the above account that whereas the smaller floods
usually inundate the lower and recent alluvial plain, mostly meadow and
pasture land, the more severe floods (_e.g._ 1875) cover large
tracts of the higher-lying river gravels of the ancient Trent, now
occupied by such villages as West Bridgford, Fiskerton, Collingham,
Holme, Girton, and Dunham.
BLOWN SANDS
As we trace the gravels northwards from Nottingham to Newark, and
thence to the Humber, the stones of which they are composed are noticed
to become increasingly finer, and there is much more sand mixed with
them. During the later days of the ancient Trent, when its waters kept
altering their courses, the river channels, when dry, laid bare the
sand, which was caught up by the prevalent winds--then, as now, blowing
from the south-west. The sand was swept up on to the higher parts of
the river plain, and accumulated as dunes near what is now the main
road from Collingham to the north.
Although to some extent fixed in position by the growth of grasses and
gorse, and partly destroyed or levelled by agricultural operations,
there still remain enough dunes to give a characteristic seaside-like
appearance to the district, especially near Girton and Besthorpe. It is
interesting to note that, since a part of the tract has been brought
into cultivation, the drifting has again commenced, the sand being
piled up in the north-east corner of every arable field, and swept away
from the south-west corner. The direction of the winds which formed the
original dunes also accounts for the nearly complete absence of blown
sands on the western side of the Trent valley below Newark.
It is related that in the coaching days wheeled traffic often
experienced considerable difficulty in passing along the high road near
Besthorpe and Girton because of the great depth of the sand which had
been blown into it from the dunes.
CHANGES IN THE COURSE OF THE TRENT
We have seen that the ancient Trent wandered freely over its gravelly
flood-plain, splitting up rapidly into branches, and abruptly altering
parts of its course with every flood. Nowadays, although floods still
occur, the river’s course is more or less controlled by flood-banks,
and the chief changes are due to the slow action of the river swinging
into and undermining its bank as it sweeps round its curves; yet, even
within historical times, we have records of sudden changes in course.
These changes are of two classes--firstly, those in which the river has
found a new channel through the old gravels; and, secondly, those in
which the river has shortened its course on its present alluvium. As
examples of the first class we may cite the cases of Kelham and Muskham.
Rastall, quoting from an autograph of Thomas Heron of Newark, says:
“Where the main stream now runs by Kelham there was a small brook
which, not being sufficient for the various purposes of the Sutton
family resident there, a cut was made from the Trent to the brook which
gave a turn to the whole current ... it then forced its way and formed
that channel which is now seen. There were carriage bridges over the
brook at Kelham and Muskham ... and they were obliged to build bridges
over the new and extended river.” This probably occurred before 1225,
because tolls were at that date collected at Kelham Bridge.
According to Dickinson and Throsby, the hamlet of Holme was attached
to the parish of North Muskham, until the Trent, in A.D. 1600,
separated the two places during a high flood (Fig. 3). Saxton’s map,
however, published about 1576, shows Holme already cut off. A will of
Stephen Surflett, of the same date, leaves land for the maintenance of
the water-bank at Holme; it is therefore probable that the change took
place in Surflett’s lifetime. The alluvium between Muskham and Holme is
three times the width of the stream, whilst that at Kelham is no wider
than the river itself; but whereas the Kelham cut was nearly straight,
that at Holme must have followed a winding course: subsequent movement
of the meanders down stream would account for the greater width of the
alluvial strip. An old man living at Holme last century remembered a
barge sinking in the river on a spot, now an orchard, 100 yards from
the stream.
[Illustration: Fig. 3.--The Trent separating Holme from North
Muskham.
The stippled areas are gravel.]
Changes in course on the recent alluvium have taken place sometimes by
artificial means, but usually in a natural manner.
The Nottingham Borough Records for 1392 give an account of a “Process
against the Lord of Colwick for obstructing the course of the Trent,”
the substance of which is that William de Colwick, Knight, and one
Richard Byron, Knight, and others, have diverted the waters of Trent
from its ancient course at Over Colwick into a trench, by which a
portion of the said water of Trent formerly held its course, by
planting obstructions, such as willows and piles. The water totally
left its former course and ran by the aforesaid trench to the mill in
Over Colwick, where a closed “wear” was made. The former course, about
1¾ miles in length, between the village of Adbolton and the village of
Over Colwick, was destroyed and filled up by sand, willows, and other
obstructions, so that ships could not come up the river to Nottingham
for nine years.
In judgment the “wear” and all other nuisances were ordered to be cast
down and removed. The mill-weir was apparently destroyed, but the
water held to the diverted course (_i.e._ the trench by which
a portion of the said water of Trent formerly held its course). The
ancient course is the Old Trent now defining parts of the boundaries of
Colwick and the Borough of Nottingham. In some manuscript notes from
the “Perambulation of the Forest of Sherwood [31st Queen Elizabeth]”,
by Launcelott Rolston and others, it is stated that the boundary
“ascendeth by the River of Trent, by the Abbey of Shelforde w^{ch}
is on the Southe pte of the Trente, and above the same Abbey it doth
followe the ould course and streame of the Trente wh^{ch} there is
dryven of the north pte from its ould course and so ascendeth still
to Collwicke by the River of Trente and so to Nottingham Bridge.”
The above-mentioned “old course” is still traceable to the west and
south-west of Shelford.
Instead of passing Kelham, as at present, the Trent, or a branch of
it, formerly passed Newark some 345 yards distant from the castle, and
joined the Devon below the town. This Old Trent, now a mere trickle in
a narrow winding valley, separates the hundred of Newark from that of
Thurgarton. Above Newark an artificial cut connects the Old Trent with
the Devon, which, after flowing beneath the castle, joins the Trent at
Crankley Point 1½ miles down stream. The arrangement is shown in an old
map of 1558 in C. Brown’s _History of Newark_.
At some unrecorded date the stream has cut off from Carlton parish
a field upon which the villagers still exercise right of pasturing
cattle. This field, Carlton Home, by its uneven surface, appears to
have been formed by lateral movement of the river; the old flood-bank
may have fixed the parish boundary (Fig. 2).
Sutton South Holme was an island in 1834; a part of the western
stream-course still exists as a long pool. Across the river, and
belonging to Sutton, is Smithy (Smeemus) Marsh, a pasture some 120
acres in extent. A bank, ditch, and the parish boundary on the east fix
the site of the Old Trent, which changed its course before the date of
Saxton’s map.
South of Clifton Hill, east of the Trent, an old meandering course,
more than a mile long, cuts off a piece of ground known as “The Ropes.”
This old course is probably of great antiquity, because it was the
boundary of four parishes; it was once half the width of the Trent
(Fig. 2). Other old courses may be seen on Marnham Holme, Fledborough
Holme, and under Newton Cliff. The island south of Dunham Bridge, shown
on maps from 1794–1834, was shaped like an inverted Welsh harp. The
river invaded a neighbouring drainage-channel at the turn of a meander,
which has since progressed down stream, as shown by the necessity for a
new tow-path bank.
Old and deserted meandering channels and dying pools occur in such
numbers on the recent alluvium that the conclusion is forced upon
us that, without embankments, the valley would rapidly revert to a
state of wildness similar to those of the rivers of young countries
(_e.g._ the Mississippi Valley, where channels and pools occur in
great numbers).
Evidences of recent lateral movement are extremely numerous; the
example at Holme given above is a case in point. Roman pottery occurs
in the gravel on the west bank above the site of the Roman bridge
near Cromwell, where the river runs straight; and a block of dressed
Blue-Lias stone was recently found here upon the site of the new lock,
at least 25 feet from the present (river) bank. Again, in A.D.
1649 a field, situated beyond the Trent, but in Collingham parish, once
of 35 acres, had been reduced to 8 acres by encroachment.
Near the “Crankleys,” about a mile north of Newark, an old loop of the
Trent forms a curved “ox-bow” lake. This loop appears as a right-angled
bend in a map (revised and published in 1725) drawn up by the chief
engineer of the Scottish army besieging Newark in 1646. It also
appears in Chapman’s map of 1774. In 1861 the Great Northern Railway
was carried across the then well-developed loop, and to facilitate
operations the bridge was first built upon the neck of the loop and
the river diverted to a new channel cut across the neck beneath the
bridge. Human remains, of Neolithic Age, with antlers of deer and bones
of ox and horse, were found beneath the bridge at a depth of 25 feet,
having been deposited in the bed of the river when it happened to be
flowing at that spot. By lateral movement of the river the remains were
entombed until thus brought to light.
The lateral movement and windings of the “smug and silver Trent” were
evidently well known to Shakespeare, for in _King Henry IV._, Part
I., Hotspur and Glendower are warmly debating about one of the meanders
north of Burton. Hotspur suggests straightening the river’s course,
but Glendower will not have it altered. The meander referred to is
apparently one of the abandoned “rounds” near Burton and Bole, nearly
opposite Gainsborough. In Shakespeare’s time they would have been
much more like huge half-moons--to use Hotspur’s expression--than like
circles, such as Burton Round.
[Illustration: Fig. 4.--Burton and Bole Rounds, after a map
by Mr. Gurnill, Sen., Gainsborough, 1795.]
By 1790 the necks of the loops were almost severed, and in February
1792 the Bole Round was breached by the river, possibly aided by the
Trent bore or “ægir”--an event celebrated three years later by a Mr.
Gurnill, senior, of Gainsborough, who published a map (a copy is in the
possession of Mr. J. S. Lamb, of Beckingham) showing that the other
loop (Burton) would soon suffer the same fate. The first vessel to pass
through the breach was the property of Mr. James Cuttle, of Lincoln.
White’s _Directory of Nottinghamshire_ for 1832 states that “Until
1797 the Trent here (Burton) took such a circular sweep that a boatman
might have thrown his hat on shore, and, after sailing two miles, have
taken it up again, but in that year the stream forced itself through
the narrow neck of land in a straight line, in consequence of which
the old winding channel was filled up and divided betwixt the counties
of Nottingham and Lincoln, besides which the latter had now about one
hundred acres on the west side of the course of the present river.”
Both rounds have recently been transferred to Nottinghamshire, and
remain as swampy hollows in Burton and Bole parishes, whose boundaries
they partly define.
Dr. Wake and others assume that the floods are efforts of the Trent
to regain its old channel, now occupied by the Fleet stream, which is
undoubtedly a part of the old river (Figs. 2 and 3). Between Langford
and Girton there is a low westerly-facing cliff or terrace of gravel
and sand, beneath which the Fleet stream flows from Winthorpe to
join the Trent near Girton. The relations between the cliff and the
alluvial flat make it clear that the Trent has worked along different
parts of the cliff at one time or another. The expansions at Langford,
Besthorpe, and Girton, and formerly at North and South Collingham, must
also be regarded as relics of the old Trent; but whether it flowed
beneath the whole length of the gravel cliff at one and the same time
is an open question.
The river has certainly moved from east to west, and is still doing so,
having on its right hand a well-dissected gravel plain, on its left
an unbroken sheet of gravel upon which it tends to encroach. It first
left the Wath Bank (Spalford) at some time before 900 A.D.,
according to Wake, when the hundreds were defined; deserted the Fleet
Mere between the tenth and sixteenth centuries, and lastly separated
Holme from Muskham. There were possibly also intermediate stages when
the river cut through from North Collingham to Carlton Rack, and when
the Kelham parish boundary was crossed.
Thus the old story is repeated. The ancient waters flowed directly from
Newark to Lincoln, then some of them fell away to the west to find exit
by the Humber. Now the river flows in a northerly direction, but is
edging to the west side of its valley--an effect probably due to freer
egress through the remarkably narrow gap between the Keuper hills of
Marnham and South Clifton, which would tend to shorten and straighten
the course as far south as Kelham and Averham.
The Trent has from very early times been a means of communication and
a highway. Domesday Book records that the water of Trent was kept so
that if any should hinder the passage of boats he should make amends.
Henry I. gave the Bishop of Lincoln permission to erect a bridge at
Newark, “so that it may not hurt my city of Lincoln nor my borough of
Nottingham.” Acts of Parliament relating to the navigation were passed
between 1699 and 1794, and troubles about weirs arose as early as 1292.
These and other instances mentioned above show that importance was
attached to the control of the waters from fairly early times.
The Trent is supposed to be a tamed river. Its banks are fortified
by flood-banks, piles, stones, cement, and even sunken barges; yet
it persists in meandering. As fast as it undermines the flood-bank,
the latter is repaired from the outside, hence the river, as it
were, pushes the outer flood-bank before it when vigorously swinging
outwards, but leaves the inner bank isolated by deposit of sediment.
A second or inner bank then becomes necessary to carry the tow-path.
Again, if the natural swing of the river is tampered with, it
retaliates by readjusting its course below the point of interference.
Thus, although tamed, the river under certain conditions has its own
way, and never in more striking manner than when, overlapping its
flood-banks, it bursts its bonds and surges far and wide over the broad
Vale of Trent.[45]
THE FOREST OF SHERWOOD
BY REV. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
There is abundant evidence that the central and western parts of the
county of Nottingham was well wooded in the earliest historical times.
It was otherwise with the eastern or Clay division of the shire. Among
other evidences of this may be mentioned the place-names, a single
example of which may be here noticed. The terminal “field”--which is
usually spelt feld in olden times--signified a place where trees had
been felled, so as to make a clearing for cultivation. Such place-names
are invariably to be found in the western half of the shire, as at
Ashfield, Balkfield, Basingfield, Eastfield, Farnsfield, Haggonfield,
Highfield, Lynsfield, Mansfield, Northfield, Plumfield, Southfield,
Wilfield, and a score or two of others which will be found marked on
the larger ordnance maps. Such names are looked for in vain on the
eastern side of the county.
This well-timbered portion of Nottinghamshire probably served as a
great hunting district for the later Saxon kings, and is well known to
have been thus used in the earliest Norman days. It is, perhaps, hardly
necessary to emphasise the fact that the old term “forest” had no
particular connection with woods, great or small. The word was used for
many centuries to denote a wild district reserved for the hunting of
royalty, or of those specially licensed by the Crown, which was placed
under special legislation in order to preserve the deer. Such tracts of
country always included a certain amount of woodland or undergrowth,
which served as shelter or covert for the larger game; but it was
equally essential that there should be open glades and stretches of
moorland for the feeding and general sustenance of the deer. Neither
red nor fallow deer could possibly live in a district exclusively
woodland. Many of these royal forests had but a scanty amount of timber
of any kind, such as the western forests of Exmoor and Dartmoor, or the
central forest of the High Peak, where the red deer used to swarm in
almost fabulous numbers. Of all the royal forests of England, Sherwood,
on the contrary, seems to have been exceptionally abundant in timber,
and hence the red deer were not nearly so numerous at any time in her
history as in the wilder parts of Derbyshire. The Forest of Sherwood,
or Nottingham as it was sometimes called, probably gained its name of
Shirewode or Shirwood from the fact that a considerable length of the
forest boundary was also the boundary between the two shires of Derby
and Nottingham.
The Forest of Sherwood embraced at one time upwards of a fourth of the
whole county. The Doomsday Survey shows that not a few of the places
which were afterwards within the forest limits were members of the
King’s great manor of Mansfield; hence it became a comparatively easy
matter for the early Norman kings to extend this large amount of royal
demesne into a large forest. The first precise historic notice of the
forest occurs in the year 1154, when William Peverel the younger had it
in his control and held the profits under the Crown. On the forfeiture
of the Peverel estates, in the early days of Henry II., Sherwood
Forest lapsed to the King, and it was for some time administered by
the successive sheriffs of the joint counties of Nottingham and Derby.
In the days of Richard I., Sherwood was held by his brother John,
Earl of Morton. John made a charter grant of all the liberties and
custody of the Forest of Sherwood to Maud de Caux and her husband Ralph
Fitzstephen. This charter included permission to hunt hare, fox, wild
cat, and squirrel, with dogs and hounds; the right to all cablish or
wind-fallen wood; the valuable inner bark or bast of the lime trees;
a skep (basket) out of every cartload of salt passing through the
forest, and half a skep for a half load; the pannage dues for pigs; the
fees for unlawed dogs; and also all goods and chattels belonging to
“brybours” taken by them without the forest. Bribour was a mid-English
term for a robber or pickpocket. The charter also sanctioned the
holding of a park at Laxton by Ralph and Maud, wherein they might hunt
deer without molestation by the forest ministers.
This definite mention of robbers, whose presence was evidently not
uncommon within the dense thickets and woodlands of Sherwood towards
the close of the twelfth century, is instantly suggestive of the name
of the world-famous Robin Hood. Although this great ballad hero is
pretty closely associated in legend and tradition with the north of
Yorkshire and other parts of England, he is emphatically the outlawed
chieftain of the glades of Sherwood. There are but few English-speaking
youths who have not revelled in the tales of Robin Hood, with Little
John, Friar Tuck, Will Scarlet, and his other lawless associates, and
more particularly in their delightful adventures with the Sheriff of
Nottingham, and other purse-proud travellers. Although it is always
admitted that Robin Hood was an outlaw and a robber, the reason why he
has gained such well-merited fame is on account of the whole garland
of ballads always representing him as an advocate of humane though
socialistic principles and a protector of the oppressed. As Drayton
sings in his _Polyolbion_, at the close of the sixteenth century:--
“From wealthy abbots’ chests and churches’ abundant store
What oftentimes he took he shared among the poor;
No lordly bishop came in lusty Robin’s way,
To him, before he went, but for his pass must pay;
The widows in distress he graciously relieved,
And remedied the wrongs of many a virgin grieved.”
Up to the present no earlier mention of this hero has been found than
that which is contained in the _Vision of Piers Plowman_, written
about 1377, wherein the character of sloth is introduced saying:--
“I can noughte perfitly my paternoster, as the prest it syngeth;
But I can rymes of Robyn hood and Randolf erle of Chestre.”
In the next century the references are fairly numerous, the most
interesting of which is a petition to Parliament in 1439 complaining
that one Piers Venables of Derbyshire, after rescuing a prisoner, had
assembled unto him many misdoers and “in manure of insurrection weinte
into the wodes in that countrie like as it hadde be Robyn Hode and his
meyne.”
The ballads pertaining to Robin Hood were so esteemed by our
forefathers, that one of the earliest ventures of printing in England
was the issuing by Winken de Worde, about 1495, of a sheaf of these
rhymed stories under the title _A Lyttel Geste of Robyn Hode_.
A few learned pedants have ingeniously argued that Robin Hood was
but a visionary being, his very name, according to a German critic,
being but a corruption of Woden, whilst Mr. Sydney Lee has come to the
conclusion that he was but a “mythical forest elf.” Doubtless a variety
of legends of widely differing dates have centred round this Sherwood
hero which could not possibly pertain to the same individual, but it is
impossible to believe that there was not a real outlaw of this name who
gained this almost immortal celebrity. More or less ingenious attempts
have been made to identify him exactly with some particular epoch or
individual; but most of these attempts, such as that of Mr. Hunter in
1854, who thought that he had found him under the guise of a porter of
Nottingham Castle in the time of Edward II., are put forth regardless
of the fact that Hood was, as is now the case, a fairly common name,
and Robert (with its diminutive Robin) was about the third favourite
Christian name in all England. There is no room here to debate this
matter at any length, but on the whole the probabilities are strong
that the original Robin Hood flourished in the days of Richard Cœur de
Lion.
At all events, it is quite impossible to dissociate Sherwood from
thoughts of Robin Hood, and for our own part we feel satisfied that
the weight of evidence is strongly in favour of the reality of his
existence, although a modern poet says:--
“Sherwood in the twilight is Robin Hood awake?
Gray and ghostly shadows are gliding through the brake:
Shadows of the dappled deer dreaming of the morn,
Dreaming of the shadowy man that winds the shadowy horn.”
Those who make a careful study of the old royal forest districts of
England, should always refer to the details respecting the tremendous
storm that swept over England in the winter of 1222, which are to be
found in the Close and Patent Rolls of that date. Trees were overthrown
in every part of the kingdom in such vast numbers that the old
customs, whereby, for the most part, wind-fallen boughs or root-fallen
trees were the perquisites of forest ministers, were suspended, and
special writs were issued to the authorities directing the sale of all
this overthrown timber with a return of the proceeds. Writs to this
effect were forwarded to the verderers and foresters of the Forest
of Sherwood; to the like officials of the enclosures or parks within
Sherwood; to Maud de Caux, then a widow, as keeper of the Forest of
Sherwood and of Clay; and to Philip Marc, as “keeper of the parks of
Sherwood.” The title of “keeper of Sherwood and Clay” was a survival
of the time when the districts, under the then cruelly severe forest
laws, had been much extended by Henry II. and John. At that time a
considerable part of the Clay division in the north-east of the shire,
as well as in the northern part of Hatfield above Worksop, had been
declared forest; but the great Charter of John, and the forest charter
of the boy-king, Henry III., restored these parts to the common lord
of the land. The earliest extant perambulation of Sherwood, of the
year 1232, closely coincides with the still more precise perambulation
of the year 1300. The forest was at that time, roughly speaking,
twenty miles in length by eight in breadth. At the one extremity was
the county town of Nottingham, and at another was Mansfield, whilst
Worksop was close to the northern boundary. In other words, the forest
contained approximately 100,000 acres, or about a fifth of the whole
shire. These bounds were still maintained according to a perambulation
of 30 Henry VIII., but the forest began to be broken up before the
close of the sixteenth century.
Maud de Caux died in the year after the great storm, and as the office
of keeper was hereditary, according to the charter of the Earl of
Morton, she was succeeded by her son John de Birkin, and he in his
turn by his son Thomas de Birkin. In 1231 the office came to Robert
de Everingham, in right of his wife, Isabel, daughter and heiress of
Thomas. His grandson, Robert de Everingham the younger, forfeited
his keepership in 1286, owing to the grievous abuse of his position
as keeper of the King’s deer; he was imprisoned for some time in
Nottingham gaol for venison trespass. After his disgrace, the position
of chief forester or keeper of Sherwood was granted to various persons
of high position as a mark of royal favour, but it was no longer
hereditary and usually held at will.
Among the vast store of forest proceedings in the Public Record Office,
in Chancery Lane, is an exceptional amount pertaining to this important
Nottingham forest. Some attempts have been made at analysing this
information, and in occasionally setting forth certain details; but
the story of Sherwood Forest yet remains to be written, and if done in
any satisfactory fashion, might be readily extended to several volumes
of the size of the one in which this essay appears. It would not
be difficult to make such a record full of interesting and valuable
information from end to end.
The most fascinating of these records is the full story of the various
forest offences which came to light when the Forest Pleas or Eyres,
presided over by the King’s justices, were held at Nottingham. These
courts, originally supposed to be held every seven years, were in
reality summoned at much longer and fitful intervals. The earliest of
these of which details are extant was held in 1251, when the forest
was divided into three keepings or wards, each of which had their
own verderers, foresters and agisters, the last of whom regulated
the pasturage and the pannage of pigs permitted within the ward. At
the Eyre of 1267, several hundred vert offences were brought before
the court for damage to the growing timber. The most serious of
these presentments was with regard to the Abbot of Rufford, who was
charged with having felled four hundred and eighty-three oaks for
building purposes since the last Eyre; but the abbot was able to plead
successfully a charter of Henry II. as justifying his action. It does
not appear that the justices held another Forest Court until 1286–87.
It was then set forth that in the previous year there had been a
grievous outbreak of murrain amongst the deer, both red and fallow,
from which three hundred and fifty had perished. On this occasion Sir
William de Vescy and his two brother-justices laid down a variety of
special injunctions to be observed in the future administration of
Sherwood. Among these it may be mentioned that any dweller in the
forest felling a green tree was to be attached (summoned) for the next
attachment court, there to find bail till the next Eyre, and to pay the
price to the verderers; for a second offence he was to be dealt with
in a like manner, but for a third offence he was to be imprisoned at
Nottingham, and there be kept until delivered by the King or a justice
of the forest. Any one dwelling outside the forest cutting any kind of
green wood, was at once to be committed to prison until delivered by
the warrant of the King or forest justice; but for a third offence
he was also to forfeit his horses and cart, or his oxen and waggon.
[Illustration: SPECIMEN OF SHERWOOD FOREST ROLL.]
Among other injunctions, it was laid down that the verderers were
to assemble every forty days, in accordance with the charter of the
forest, to hold Attachment Courts for vert and venison, and other small
pleas. There is abundant evidence that this Forty-Day Court, also known
as the Attachment Court, and sometimes as a “Swaynmote,” was held by
the verderers with much regularity for a long period in Sherwood. These
courts were usually held at four different centres, viz., at Calverton,
Edwinstowe, Linby, and Mansfield, on successive days of the same week.
The Roll of 1292–93 shows that green oak was usually valued at 6d., a
dry oak at 4d., a sapling from 1d. to 3d., and a stubb, or dry trunk
of a pollarded tree at 2d. These local courts also took cognisance
of beast trespassing, the usual fine being 1d. for a straying cow or
stirk, and 3d. for five sheep.
The Close Rolls bear abundant evidence of the generosity of successive
sovereigns in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries with royal gifts
of both timber and venison from the stores of Sherwood. We may take as
an example of such royal gifts those made by Henry III. from different
parts of Sherwood between the years 1231 and 1234. The venison during
this period included three roes to Robert de Lexington; three bucks and
four does to the Earl of Huntingdon; five bucks and twenty does to the
Bishop of Carlisle for his park at Melbourne; three bucks to the Dean
of St. Martin’s, London; six bucks to Walter de Evermuth; two bucks
and eight does to Hugh Despenser; a buck to John, son of Geoffrey; two
harts to John de Stuteville; two bucks to Robert de Hareston; seven
bucks to the Bishop of Carlisle; five bucks to William of York; three
bucks to William Bardolph; five bucks and a hart to William de Albini;
and ten bucks to the Bishop of Lincoln.
During the same period the gifts of wood included five oaks to Gilbert
Spigurnel, to make a mill; five oaks and thirty tie-beams to the
chaplain of Hugh de Burgh; thirty oaks to the Priory of Lenton, for the
works of their church; twenty oaks to Brian de Insula; five lime trees
to the Franciscan Friars of Nottingham to make their stalls; thirty
oaks to the Dean of St. Martin’s, London, for timber for his chancel at
Elm; forty rafters to Brother Robert de Dyva; ten oaks to Robert Lupus;
and fifteen oaks to William de Albini, for making rafters.
In connection with timber, it may be mentioned that a great provision
of wood was made from Sherwood early in the year 1316, when the
Parliament was held at Lincoln. The Archbishop of York’s great wood at
Blidworth was at that time in the King’s hands, as the see was vacant,
and Edward II. ordered the forest-keeper to deliver to the sheriff
fifty leafless oaks out of that wood, to be used for making charcoal,
and for boards for trestle tables. Thirty oaks from parts of the forest
near the Trent were to be despatched to Nottingham for firewood in the
King’s hall against the ensuing Parliament, and thirty more for the
King’s chambers. It should always be remembered in connection with
woods in private ownership within royal forests, that there was no
power of felling timber or cutting wood, save for immediate personal
use, without a direct warrant. Thus, in 1316, it is entered on the
Close Rolls that Edward II. authorised Ralph de Crumbwell to fell and
sell as he pleased twenty acres of his wood at Lambley within Sherwood
Forest, as a compensation for his losses when engaged in the King’s
service in Scotland.
A particularly interesting and exceptional use of the excellent timber
of this forest occurs on the Close Rolls towards the end of the year
1323–24, when an expedition was about to be undertaken into the Duchy
of Aquitaine. The Sheriff of Nottingham and his carpenters were
instructed to procure as many oaks and other suitable trees out of the
forest, as were necessary for the construction of nine springalds and
a thousand quarels. Springalds were military engines of the catapult
kind, whilst quarels were a heavy form of arrows with iron heads which
these engines discharged.
Continuing a brief account of some of the more important circumstances
with regard to the timber of Sherwood, it may be mentioned that at the
Forest Pleas of 1334, the Roll of amercements of persons convicted of
vert trespass at the Attachment Courts at more than fourpence (which
could only be amerced at the Eyre), embraced upwards of seven hundred
and fifty trespassers, varying in value from sixpence for green boughs
or dry trunks, to two shillings for a single oak. These values had been
paid to the verderers at the time when the Attachment Court had been
held; the additional fines imposed by the justices varied from one to
two shillings. This list of vert trespasses is after all not a very
serious one, when it is remembered that it was about half a century
since the last Eyre had been held. In the following century the supreme
courts of the justices were held with almost equal rarity, and by the
time of Henry VII. the complaints as to the gradual destruction of the
oaks of Sherwood, both young and old, became numerous.
The general custom which prevailed in most of England’s royal forests,
of the tenants within the jurisdiction being permitted to use wood
for the repair or rebuilding of their houses, for the construction of
hedges, and for the purposes of fuel, obtained throughout Sherwood.
At the last regular Eyre, held in 1538, the justices made two special
orders affecting the forest timber, namely, that no hedgebote nor
firebote was to be taken by the tenants themselves, but only by the
deliverance of the woodward, nor any housebote without the deliverance
of the keeper as well as the woodward; and in the second place it was
ordered that no one was to fell any even of his own wood for any intent
“without the especiall lycense of the kynge his highnesse, or the
justice of the foreste, and that none from hencesforthe do take aine
woode for bleaching.”
An exact inventory of the trees of the most valuable part of this
forest was taken in the year 1609. There were at that time 21,009 oak
trees in Birkland, and 28,900 in Bilhagh; but the majority of them are
described as being past maturity. In August 1624 a most destructive
forest fire occurred, arising from some carelessness in the preparation
of charcoal. This fire spread rapidly over an area four miles in length
by one and a half in breadth. The abatement of the wind, and the
trenches dug by a whole army of men with spades, picks, and shovels,
happily checked the fire just as it was approaching the great wood
which then stretched from Mansfield to Nottingham.
Both trees and venison suffered severely during the disturbances
that preceded the establishment of the Commonwealth. During the days
of Oliver Cromwell, and with still greater frequency at subsequent
dates, a considerable number of Sherwood oaks were felled for the
navy. Various other grants for exceptional purposes on a large scale
contributed to the rapid reduction of the forest timber. Thus, in
1680, the inhabitants of Edwinstowe were permitted to fell 200 oaks
in Birkland and Bilhagh for the repair of their parish church, which
had been seriously damaged by the fall of the spire. In 1686, the oak
trees of this part of the forest, including a number that were hollow
or decayed, only totalled 37,316, and by 1790 they were still further
reduced to 10,117.
“From 1683 onwards, the area of the forest was being constantly
curtailed; and in that year 1270 acres out of the hays of Bilhagh and
the White Lodge, were sold to the Duke of Kingston to be enclosed
within his park of Thoresby. At the beginning of the next century,
about 3000 acres of the previous open forest were impaled to protect
the deer under the auspices of the Duke of Newcastle, who was their
keeper; this was called the New Park, and is now known as Clumber Park.
Between 1789 and 1796 inclusive, Acts were passed for the enclosure
of Arnold Forest, Basford Forest, Sutton in Ashfield Forest, Kirkby
in Ashfield Forest, and Lenton and Radford Forest, whereby 8248
acres were brought into cultivation. When Major Rooke published his
interesting _Sketch of the Ancient and Present State of Sherwood
Forest_ in 1799, the parts of the forest that still remained to the
Crown were the hays of Birkland and Bilhagh, which had a total extent
of 1487 acres.”[46]
A most notable use of the grand oaks of Sherwood occurred in the days
of Charles II., when the largest and most substantial of the beams used
in the construction of the new St. Paul’s, by Sir Christopher Wren,
came from this district. The papers at Welbeck Abbey include a letter
from the great architect, of April 4, 1695, addressed to the steward of
the Duke of Newcastle. Therein he states the measurements of the “great
Beames” which he then required. They were to be “47 ft. long, 13 inches
at the small end, of growing timber and as near as can be without sap.”
Though the glories of Sherwood as a vast open forest land have long
since passed away, there is still much fine timber to be noted on the
old forest stretches of Birkland and Bilhagh, as well as a few noble
groups of ancient oaks, as at Haywood, near Blidworth. Within, too,
the present five deer parks of the county, all of which were within
the forest confines in ancient days--namely, the parks of Thoresby,
Welbeck, Rufford, Wollaton, and Annesley--portions of the ancient
forest timber undoubtedly remain. In some cases the relics of the grand
old oaks are but shattered fragments of their original magnificence.
The Methuselah of the forest, the Greendale oak in Welbeck Park, would
have perished long ago had it not been for the extreme care taken
to prop and bind up its shattered members; but it still possesses
considerable vitality. In 1724 the great gap hollowed through its
centre by age and decay was cut away to such a height and width that
“a carriage and six, with cocked-hat coachman on the box, drove
through the tree with the bride of the noble owner; three horsemen
riding abreast were able to pass through, a feat which has been often
accomplished.” Several of the greater and more venerable oaks in
other parts of the forest have had fanciful names assigned to them,
perpetuated during recent years by means of picture postcards; but
these titles are for the most part of recent origin. Such are the Major
Oak, the Parliament Oak, and the Shambles Oak.
The deer of Sherwood were of three kinds--red, fallow, or roe. The
roe deer seem never to have been numerous, and they died out at a
comparatively early date, not finding sufficient quietude owing to
the nearness of Nottingham, Mansfield, and other fairly populous
places. These small timid deer require a considerable amount of
rarely-disturbed covert, and Sherwood, notwithstanding its extent, was
intersected by a frequency of roads and byroads. At the Eyre of 1288,
there was a single presentment for killing a roebuck.
The red deer were undoubtedly indigenous to this and other parts of
England, and roamed at large throughout the forest. The royal gifts of
Sherwood deer made by Henry III. and the first three Edwards, consisted
mainly of fallow deer; but it need not be considered from this that
the red deer were few or far between, because the fallow deer were so
much more easily killed or taken alive within the parks where they
were sustained. The majority of cases of venison, as recorded in the
presentments at the different Eyres, were also concerned with fallow
deer; but a fair number of venison transgressors, particularly in the
case of those of good position, were summoned for hunting the wild red
deer. Thus, in 1334, Lord John Grey was found running a herd of hinds
with six greyhounds at Bestwood, of which he killed two; and at the
same court Henry Curzon of Breadsall was fined for killing a hind at
Clipstone. At various different dates in the fourteenth century, royal
releases from prison were granted to offenders who had been caught
hunting the red deer. It may here be noted, as it is often forgotten,
that the terms for red deer are harts and hinds, whilst the fallow deer
are described as bucks and does. The survival at the present day in
this county of eleven public-houses which bear the sign of the White
Hart is an indirect evidence of the former number of the wild deer;
there is also a single instance of a White Hind. This may appear to be
a confusion of terms, but from the earliest days there were occasional
instances of white harts and hinds, as at the present time among red
deer.[47]
The fallow deer were as a rule kept within parks, though, of course,
they naturally strayed at times into the open parts of the forest. The
two oldest of the hays or parks of Sherwood were those of Clipstone and
Bestwood, and there were also those of Birkland, Linby, and Welby, as
early as the days of Henry III.
Among venison offenders it was not at all unusual to find the secular
clergy. Thus, at the Eyre of 1334, the rector of Annesley and the vicar
of Edwinstowe were among the culprits, and fully a score of other
beneficed offenders were presented at different dates. Popular notions,
encouraged by more or less scurrilous ballads, have long ago marked
down the monks and canons of the religious orders as prime offenders
in this respect; but the forest Rolls, which cannot lie, in Sherwood
as elsewhere, prove the very small basis upon which such charges rest.
“Throughout the length and breadth of England, in the extant forest
documents extending over several centuries, only four or five charges
of venison trespass against the religious have been found, and about
a like number for the receipt of venison, or the harbouring of forest
offenders. It is not to be understood that the examination has been
quite thorough, save of a certain number of forests; but it is highly
improbable that the charges against monks or canons regular, if the
search was exhaustive, could not be counted on the fingers of both
hands. And yet at the same time the charges against rectors, vicars, or
parochial chaplains, and the heavy fines, sometimes exceeding a whole
year’s income, are fairly common. No charges have been noticed against
the monks of Rufford or the canons of Newstead, though they were in the
very midst of Sherwood; and yet there was hardly a parish pertaining to
that forest whose vicar or rector was not, at some time, convicted of
deer-slaying with bow and arrows, or with greyhounds.”[48]
When the sixteenth century is reached, definite statistics can usually
be found as to the number of deer in the various royal forests of
England. Henry VIII. appointed a commission in 1531, to view and
certify the number of the deer in the forest and parks of Sherwood. The
red deer at that date numbered 4280, and the fallow deer 1131. The red
deer ranged throughout the forest, with the exception of some 200 in
Bestwood Park. The fallow deer were within the four parks of Bestwood,
Clipstone, Nottingham, and Thorney. Another less detailed return of
1538 of all the deer in the King’s forests and parks north of the
Trent, gives the number of red deer in Sherwood Forest as about 1000;
in Bestwood Park, 700 fallow and 140 red; in Clipstone, 60 fallow and
20 red; in Gringley, 150 fallow.
Queen Elizabeth, in 1599, granted the keepership of the forest district
of Thorneywood, to the north of Nottingham, to John Stanhope, with
licence to hunt, chase, and kill the deer, provided he always found a
hundred head for the use of the Queen.
A considerable amount of detailed information with regard to the
rapidly lessening area of Sherwood Forest, from this date down to 1793,
is to be found in the _Fourteenth Report of Woods and Forests_
which was issued at the latter date. In 1616, it was reported that
there were 1263 red deer in Sherwood Forest, in addition to those in
Thorneywood; another estimate of 1635 made the total 1367. A very
large number of the royal deer not unnaturally disappeared during the
Commonwealth days. In 1661, considerable expenses were incurred by the
transporting of both red and fallow deer from Germany to restock the
forests of Sherwood and Windsor.
Charles II., in 1662, did his best to revive the forest laws of
Sherwood, and appointed his faithful friend William, Earl of Mansfield
and Marquis of Newcastle (afterwards known as the loyal duke) to act
as Lord Chief Justice in Eyre. The business before this revived Forest
Court was so complicated, and required so much legal investigation,
that, though opened at Mansfield in February 1662–63, the proceedings
were not concluded until 1676; they provided a right royal harvest
for the lawyers and attorneys. Claims to special privileges were put
forward by a great variety of persons, including the Archbishop of York
and divers others, such as Sir George Savile of Rufford and Lord Byron
of Newstead, who had succeeded to properties wrenched from monastic
hands. Hosts of minor claimants came from all parts of the forest
and its surroundings, pleading privileges that pertained in old days
to particular townships or parishes. Some of these humbler folk were
unable to resist the attractions of the game as they traversed the old
forest grounds; thus one Thomas Cotton, a blacksmith of Edwinstowe, was
convicted of shooting a hart when actually journeying to attend this
court. He was fined 40s., and had to obtain a bondsman for £40 for his
good conduct during the twelve months.
In 1708 a strongly worded petition was drawn up at Rufford by
representative gentlemen of the north of the county, addressed to the
Crown, complaining of the grievous and almost intolerable burden under
which the landowners laboured by reason of the increase during late
years of the red deer in the Forest of Sherwood. They complained that
so many of the woods had been granted or given away by the Queen’s
predecessors, that but little harbour remained for the deer in the
forest, and that the deer in consequence were scattered about in the
county eating up corn and grass; that their tenants in severe weather
had often to watch all night to keep the deer off; that their servants
were terrified by new keepers, who threaten them if they so much as set
a little dog at the deer. At the same time another general petition to
the like effect obtained 400 influential signatures. It was therein
stated that the red deer had recently increased from 300 to 900, and
that their chief depredations were carried on “in the district called
Hatfield and the whole district of the Clay,” which were parts of the
county outside the forest limits. These petitions met with no favour
at the hands of the Crown; it was argued that to attempt to stint the
number of deer through Parliament would be detracting from the Queen’s
liberties and rights.
The forest, however, was far from being a source of profit during
Anne’s reign. There were four well-paid “forest keepers” and four
“deputy forest rangers”; the winter hay for the deer averaged £100 a
year; whilst £1000 a year was granted to maintain the deer and the new
park at Clumber, and to hunt with two horsemen, forty couple of hounds,
eleven horses, and four grooms.
Reports presented to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in 1793
showed that there were then no deer in the forest save in Thorney
Woods, of which Lord Chesterfield was keeper. But evidence was given to
the effect that there were a great many deer in Birkland and Bilhagh
until about 1770, when they were killed off, with the assistance of the
inhabitants, by the Dukes of Newcastle and Kingston, and in a short
time the value of the forest farms had materially increased, and the
wheat fields no longer needed to be guarded by horns in the daytime and
by fires at night.
Though the glories of Sherwood as a vast open forest district have long
since passed away, several noble parks occupy some of its choicest
portions. Five of these parks are stocked with deer--namely, Thoresby
(Earl Manvers), Welbeck (Duke of Portland), Rufford (Lord Savile),
Wollaton (Lord Middleton), and Annesley (J. P. Chaworth Musters, Esq.).
The first two of these have herds of red as well as of fallow deer.
It is quite possible that some of these may fairly claim to be the
descendants of those which used to roam at will through the woods and
glades of old Sherwood Forest in medieval days.
ROODS, SCREENS, AND LOFTS IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
BY AYMER VALLANCE
ARNOLD.--William Stretton, writing about 1820, noted:--“The Gothic
screen of oak is still remaining. The corbels and holes for the timbers
to support the rood-loft still remain, with the stone staircase in the
south-east angle.” The screen disappeared at the “restoration” in 1877.
The rood-stairs survive, concealed behind the pulpit.
ATTENBOROUGH.--The rood-stair, of which only a part remains, was
contained in the south pier of the chancel arch. The door intended
for issue onto the rood-loft is now blocked, but the entrance at the
bottom, with a cambered head, is situated in the north-east corner of
the south aisle.
AVERHAM (October 1911).--A somewhat plain example of a late-fourteenth
or early-fifteenth century screen, rectangular in construction, stands
in the chancel opening. Its total length is 16 ft. 9 in. by 9 ft. high.
It comprises thirteen compartments of average centring of 1 ft. 2½ in.,
_i.e._ five compartments on either hand of the doorway. The latter has
a clear opening of 3 ft. 5½] in., and comprises three compartments,
their two muntins being cut off by the horizontal door-head. The
wainscot is 4 ft. 1 in. high, with head-tracery to the depth of 9
inches, consisting of one continuous run supported by four vertical
mouldings, making five panels on each side of the doorway. The south
section of this tracery appears to be genuine, but the north section is
all modern except 14 inches’ length immediately north of the doorway.
All the flat panelling of the wainscot is modern. From the middle
rail to the cord-line measures 44 in., the tracery in the head of the
fenestration being 9 in. deep. This tracery is flat on the eastward
face. The ornament attached to the west front of the lintel is modern.
BALDERTON.--“A most beautiful, richly moulded Perpendicular oak screen
(_circa_ 1475), having a figure of a monk with his arms crossed,
and a globe below his foot, on the western face; and another of the
Virgin and Child on the eastern face.” The screen is rectangular in
construction, and comprises eight compartments, the two middle ones of
which go to form the doorway.
BEAUVALE (Carthusian Priory).--From the foundation of the monastery in
1343, the church kept its original plan, an aisleless parallelogram,
unchanged. The width of the nave, 27 ft., was, therefore, the length of
the transverse screens, which disappeared at, or after, the surrender
on 18th July 1539. “No trace of the pulpitum,” write Rev. A. Du Boulay
Hill and Mr. Harry Gill, “can be seen in the standing walls,” nor did
the excavations in 1908 disclose any pulpitum foundations.
BECKINGHAM.--The will of Robert Hall, dated 28th May 1529, contains the
clause: “_do et lego fabrice crucifixorii de_ Bekyngham,” 15s.; and
William Hall, by will dated 10th October 1538, bequeathed his “bodie
to bee buried in the churche of Bekyngham afore the rood-lofte.” Rev.
Dr. Cox writes (1911) to say that in the tower archway stands the
middle portion of the chancel screen, consisting of the doorway and two
more bays, or compartments, with very fine tracery, of late-fifteenth
century workmanship. The doorway (now blocked) which led from the
rood-stair onto the top of the rood-loft, is visible in the east wall
of the nave, to south of the chancel-arch.
BILSTHORPE.--The upper and lower doorways, square-headed, of the
rood-stairs, now walled up, are clearly perceptible in the north side
of the nave. Externally nothing of the old staircase remains.
BLYTH (October 1911).--The church of the Benedictine Priory (dissolved
in February 1535–36) and the parochial church were under the same
roof; but the screening arrangements are by no means clear. That the
wall which cuts off the first bay of the nave below the crossing was
built previously to the Reformation is evident from the fact that the
westward surface of the filling was painted, late in the fifteenth, or
in the early part of the sixteenth, century with the subject of the
Doom, many traces of which remain to this day. It may be that this
was the site of the pulpitum, in which case the walling simply meant
heightening the front of the pulpitum until the space was filled to the
roof. In the foot of the wall is a doorway (now blocked) 5 ft. 5 in.
wide by 6 ft. 6 in. high, with a cambered head. Presumably this door
was the former entrance of the pulpitum-passage into the quire.
[Illustration:
_Photo: Mr. Arthur Lineker._
BLYTH PRIORY CHURCH: SCREEN IN THE NAVE.]
The rood-screen and loft over appear to have stood between the second
pair of piers below the western crossing. Rev. John Raine, in his
_History and Antiquities of Blyth_ (1860), described this screen
as having fared very ill, for “with the exception of a fragment at the
corner of the private gallery of Blyth Hall[49] and the lower panels,
it has been destroyed; and ... these panels, all perfect though they
are, are daubed over with paint, so as completely to obliterate the
figures, except at the very base.” The screen, cleaned and “restored,”
is of oak and rectangular in construction. It measures 21 ft. 6 in.
long by 8 ft. 9 in. (exclusive of a modern lintel), with compartments
centring at 1 ft. 2½ in. and having Perpendicular tracery to the depth
of 12 in. in the head of the fenestration. The traceries are flat
at the back, and only three at the northern extremity are genuine.
They had been incorporated at one time in the Blyth Hall gallery. The
doorway, contrary to what one would expect, is in the middle, and it
has a clear opening of 3 ft. ½ in. The existing lintel rests in a
hole of about 13 in. square in the second pier of the south arcade.
The wainscot is 4 ft. 2 in. high and without tracery in the heads of
the panels. The screen has at one time been richly coloured; only
eleven, however, of the wainscot panels have paintings of saints, so
much worn and mutilated as to be barely recognisable. The backgrounds
are alternately green and deep purplish red. The subjects are as
follow from north to south:--1. St. George. 2. Female saint in red
robe, hands raised. 3. Archbishop in pontificals, chasuble red. 4.
Female saint in red robe under green cloak, hands raised. 5. Abbot,
or Abbess, in brown habit, crosier in hand. 6. Female saint in brown
habit, kneeling to left, and contemplating a vision of our Lord rising
out of the tomb or from clouds. Here is the doorway, having a clear
opening of 3 ft. ½ in. South of the doorway:--7. Female saint, hands
raised. 8. Saint in armour, with what looks like a hawk on his right
hand. ? St. Bavon. 9. Figure in red, with close-fitting hood of red
on the head, no nimbus, right hand holding what appears to be a boot;
in which case it would represent Master John Schorne. 10. Figure in
red, kneeling to right, and contemplating a vision. 11. Abbot, or
Abbess, in brown habit, crosier in hand. Some of these figures have
been identified respectively with Saints Boniface, Wilfrid, Edward,
and Bridget. The last named, at any rate, is likely enough to be
correct, seeing that among the lights of this church were one of St.
Bridget, as also one of St. Sitha (Zita), which proves both these
saints to have been objects of devotion in the place. Various chases
in the piers show that the two arches to west of the above-described
screen were both occupied by wooden parcloses. Across the south or
parochial aisle, about in line with the above-described screen across
the nave, stands another Perpendicular oak screen, authentic in the
main, though patched, repaired, and even, according to a note by C.
Clement Hodges in the _John of Gaunt Sketch Book_ (1880) having
some details restored in composition. This screen measures 23 ft. 7
in. long by 12 ft. 10 in. high (cresting included). It comprises five
bays centring at 4 ft. 5 in. to 4 ft. 6 in., of three lights each. The
cord-line, as also the springing level of the vaulting, is 4 ft. 6½ in.
above the middle rail. The tracery is 21 in. deep in the heads of the
fenestration, which takes the form of depressed two-centred arches. The
bases (9½ in. high) and the caps (8½ in. high) of the boutel-shafts
are polygonal. The vaulting is complete on both sides of the screen,
and the width across the top of the platform from front to back is 5
ft. 6 in. The breast-summer is deep, moulded, and has a hollow with
square pateras. The wainscot is 4 ft. 2½ in. high, with tracery in the
head of the panels to the depth of 9½ in. The panels, painted with
figures, were “brought to light in 1842 from the boards and matting of
pews, behind which they were concealed.” They may now, writes Raine in
1860, “be seen with sufficient distinctness, though with a few marks
of Puritanical violence; with the exception of that of St. Ursula,
which was found in such a state of decay as to justify its removal to a
place of safe preservation. Other figures on the panels of the parish
rood-screen have been cut away to make a road to the reading-desk and
pulpit.” Six painted panels survive, as follow, from left to right:--To
north of the doorway are: 1. St. Stephen in a red dalmatic; 2.? St.
Agatha stripped to the middle, her breasts transversely pierced by
a sword. 3. St. Edmund, crowned and holding a sceptre and arrows.
To south of the doorway (which has a clear opening of 4 ft. 6½ in.)
are: 4. St. Helen; 5. St. Barbara; and 6. St. Ursula. Five of these
paintings are figured in outline by J. G. Weightman in Rev. John
Raine’s work.
In the south arcade wall a passage from one loft to the other was
tunnelled through the spandrel over the pier. This passage is walled
up toward the north, but remains visible, with a hollow opening on the
south side of the arcade, over the top of the south aisle screen.
At right angles to the north end of the south aisle screen, and
enclosing the north side of the parochial chancel, is another oak
screen of Perpendicular date and rectangular construction. It measures
14 ft. long by 9 ft. 5 in. high. It comprises a doorway at the east
end and eight lights, only two compartments, centring at 3 ft. 10 in.
and consisting of three lights apiece, being complete. It originally
comprised at least four compartments, including the doorway. The
wainscot is 4 ft. 3 in. high, and the tracery in the fenestration heads
is 9½ in. deep. In the west part of the north aisle of the nave are two
runs of panelling, both of similar character but not quite identical
in design, one of them bearing distinct traces of ancient painting;
panelling which must have belonged to the parapets of the rood-loft.
There is no tracery, but the stiles are handsomely moulded. One run, 7
ft. 1½ in. long by 4 ft. high, comprises six panels centring at 1 ft.
1½ in., the hand-rail being 6¼ in. high. The other run, 9 ft. 3½ in.
long by 2 ft. 11½ in. high, comprises eight panels centring at about 14
in., the hand-rail being 5¾ in. high. Both hand-rails are elaborately
embattled, like alternate billet mouldings. Under the western tower are
three more fragments of similar hand-rail, respectively 2 ft. 3½ in., 2
ft. 4 in., and 2 ft. 5 in. long.
BRIDGFORD, WEST (October 1911).--Across the present south aisle, and on
the site of what was originally the east wall of the chancel previously
to the enlarging of the church, stands an oak screen (_circa_ 1380), of
rectangular construction. The character of the framework is that of a
stone screen carried out in wood, with mason joints. It comprises four
compartments, centring on an average at 1 ft. 5½ in., on either hand
of the central doorway, the divisions of the wainscot corresponding
with those of the fenestration. The doorway has a trefoil-cusped and
feathered head, springing 6 ft. 6½ in. from the ground; it centres at
4 ft. 2½ in. and has a clear opening of 3 ft. 9½ in. The wainscot, 3
ft. 7½ in. high, has tracery in the head of the panels to the depth of
8½ in., but only the northernmost tracery ornament is authentic. The
middle rail, embattled along the front edge, is flat upon the top, a
familiar feature in early screenwork. The cord-line is 4 ft. 1½ in.
above the middle rail and in the head of the fenestration the tracery
is 16 in. deep. This tracery is in two orders on the west face of the
screen, but the first order, with crocketed ogee ornament imposed, does
not occur on the east face. The treatment of the crockets is peculiar,
they being like rosettes at the points of cusping that radiates,
instead of leaves that run in an upward direction in the usual manner.
Moreover, the front surface of the tracery takes the form of a bead
instead of the more usual fillet. The total height of the screen is
9 ft. 10 in. The lintel, 17 ft. 7 in. long, and embattled along the
top, has a cavetto in which at intervals are pateras, all of floral
ornament except the northernmost one (which represents a dog, or cat,
with a rat in its mouth) and the pair surmounting the door-jambs.
These two are masks, the northern one of which is muzzled. The jambs
and the end-uprights are 5 in. wide, with mouldings in the lower part
and pinnacles in the upper part, all cut out of the solid. A chase, 2
in. wide, in the abacus of the easternmost respond of the south aisle
arcade shows that a wooden screen stood in the eastern arch of the
arcade opening into the south aisle.
[Illustration: WEST BRIDGFORD: OLD ROOD-SCREEN.
(Now in south aisle of enlarged church.)]
BUNNY (October 1911).--A much-mutilated oak screen, of rectangular
construction and fourteenth century date, stands across the
chancel-arch, which, however, on account of the abnormally uneven
spacing of the screen, can scarcely be its original position. There are
three compartments on the north side of the entrance and two on the
south, their centrings varying from 2 ft. 2 in. to 2 ft. 6 in. The five
openings of the fenestration have ogee tracery to the depth of from 10
to 10½ in. in the head. The entrance has a clear opening of 3 ft. 10
in. wide by 8 ft. 6 in. high to the apex of its two-centred arch. The
latter is formed by a pair of solid spandrels, springing at a depth of
2 ft. 8 in. below the lintel, and sculptured with conventional foliage,
in low relief, of lithic character. In fact, the whole screen except
its fenestration tracery, is mason’s work in wood. The jambs of the
doorway have remains of buttressing; and the muntins have conspicuous
stops at their junction with the middle rail. The latter has been
cruelly hacked about and retains only scanty remains of the original
battlementing along the front. The wainscot stands 4 ft. 3 in. high,
but is now a mere framework, having been robbed of its stiles and
panels. The tracery is flat at the back. Some remnants of the former
colouring may be discerned. The north portion of the screen is 7 ft.
1 in. long and the south portion 6 ft. 1 in. The total length is 17
ft., the height 8 ft. 11 in., or 9 ft. 10 in. including the lintel,
which is 19 ft. 4 in. long, and an incongruous addition, of eighteenth
century character. In the upper part of the chancel-arch was a boarded
tympanum, removed shortly before 1902. The stone of the east sweep of
the easternmost arch of the north arcade has been cut into, probably
for fitting the rood-loft into position.
CALVERTON.--By will dated 10th October 1499, Thomas Belfin left 13s.
4d. “_facture unius_ roode-lofte _in ecclesia de_ Calverton.” The
middle part of the abacus and astragal of the capital of the north
reveal of the chancel-arch has been cut through vertically for the
insertion of wooden screenwork.
CAR COLSTON.--In 1824 W. Stretton recorded that a rich screen,
separating the chancel from the nave, had been “lately taken down.”
But Mr. T. M. Blagg, F.S.A., thinks that Stretton must have attributed
the removal of the screen to too recent a date. All recollection of it
had long passed out of mind by 1846 or 1847, when, during the process
of cementing the middle alley of the nave (Mr. Blagg’s grandfather
then being churchwarden) some broken tracery of a pre-Reformation
screen was quite unexpectedly discovered beneath a floor-slab. By the
churchwarden’s orders, the remains of screenwork were left where they
had been found and the slab replaced over them. At the east end of
the south aisle (according to information supplied by Mr. Harry Gill,
M.S.A.) stands a dado formed of part of the screen-wainscot, measuring
4 ft. 3 in. long by 3 ft. 6½ in. high, inclusive of the middle rail,
itself 4½ in. high. It consists of vertical boarding, reeded at the
joints; its identity being established by the fact that it is pierced
with holes for elevation-squints. Two of the holes are round, while the
third is an elongated quatrefoil. Both reveals of the chancel-arch are
hollowed, at a level of 3 ft. 10 in. from the bottom, with a chase 5
in. by 4½ in. for the insertion of wooden screenwork; and at a level of
3 ft. 2 in. above the chase is another one, 6 in. square, immediately
below the necking of the chancel-arch. These chases are now patched
with new stone. Moreover, the abacus has a chase extending upwards into
the springer, for the lintel of the screen. The cutting away of part of
the mouldings on the east side of the chancel-arch indicates the site
of the eastern front of the rood-loft.
CLAYWORTH (October 1911).--Though all the upper portion of the
chancel-screen is only modern, the greater part of the wainscot is
genuine. It stands 4 ft. 1 in. high, with head-tracery 10 in. deep, and
of very doubtful authenticity. The back, or eastward, surface of the
panels is of feather-edge boarding. The chief feature of the screen is
the extraordinary massiveness of the middle rail, which measures 8 in.
high, is embattled along the top edge, and had square pateras along its
westward front on either hand of the doorway. The north section having
been curtailed, there are only two pateras on its rail and three panels
below; but the south section, which appears to be of approximately
the original dimensions, is 6 ft. 1 in. long, has three pateras along
the rail, and comprises four compartments. The uprights have massive
buttresses, square on plan. The rood-loft was approached from the
north. The entrance in the northward face of the north chancel-pier
is rectangular, 5 ft. 4 in. high by 1 ft. 7 in. wide. It is 1 ft. 3½
in. above the present floor level, and has a rebate, showing that the
door swung outward from the stair. Three stone steps inside remain,
but the rest of the stair is blocked. The issue naveward through the
east spandrel of the north arcade is walled up likewise. Marks in the
masonry indicate that there was formerly a parclose in the arch between
the chancel and the south chapel, that of St. Nicholas.
Across the south aisle, and in line with the chancel-arch, there stands
a stone screen-wall, 15 in. thick, 11 ft. 2 in. long, and about 10 ft.
6 in. high. It consists of three arched openings of obtuse two-centred
form, each being constructed of two blocks of stone with a joint at the
apex. The middle aperture 3 ft. 4 in. wide, with jambs measuring 9 in.
each from north to south, is open to the ground, forming a doorway;
but this does not look like the original plan, because the chamfer,
instead of being carried down to the floor, is returned on the line of
the fenestration-cill and has been abruptly cut through at the level of
the latter in order to make the doorway. The change, however, if change
it was, must have taken place previously to 1676, for a plan of the
building in the “Rector’s Book” of that date shows the central doorway
then in existence. The plinth is 11 in. high, and the wall sets on 2¾
in., back and front, except on the westward front of the south section.
From the ground to the fenestration-cill measures 4 ft. 7 in. high,
the latter having a stool for the mullions worked on it. From the cill
to the spring of the arches measures 3 ft. ½ in. The northern opening
is 4 ft. 1 in. high by 2 ft. 5½ in., the southern one 4 ft. 2 in. high
by 2 ft. 6 in. Both of them, like the upper part of the doorway, have
chamfered edges of fairly wide splay. There is no sculpture whatever,
but the surface of the stone shows abundant traces of red paint.
COLSTON BASSET.--W. Stretton noted on 25th October 1811:--“The
... Gothic screen is still standing and is chaste and handsome,” and
also that “the south transept has a fine Gothic screen still standing.”
The latter was in two parts, one occupying the arch between the nave
and the transept, the other the arch between the transept and south
aisle. The church itself having been wantonly dismantled and turned
into a ruin in 1892, the screens taken out of it were removed to Long
Whatton church, Leicestershire.
COSTOCK.--The church being without a chancel-arch, there was,
previously to the sadly drastic “restoration” in 1848, a boarded
partition, or tympanum, reaching to the roof from the top of the
rood-screen. The latter was ancient, and is described as having been in
a dilapidated state, and covered with whitewash.
COTGRAVE.--“The staircase to the rood-loft on the south side of the
chancel-arch is walled up.” (J. T. Godfrey, 1907.)
CROPWELL BISHOP.--In 1824 Stretton noted that the chancel was separated
from the nave by a screen, which, however, has now disappeared.
DRAYTON, EAST.--There is a good late-fifteenth century rood-screen
with handsome tracery. The coved top remains, but the lower panels are
wanting and their place is occupied by modern boarding. (Communicated
by Rev. Dr. Cox, 1911.)
ELTON.--Remains of fifteenth-century screenwork, incorporated in the
high pews, were noted by Rev. Dr. Cox in 1904.
FINNINGLEY.--When Stretton wrote, the east end of the north aisle was
still parted off by a Gothic screen, the enclosure being used as a
vestry.
GAMSTON.--At the north-east end of the nave are the rood-stairs,
encased in a turret rising above the roof.
GEDLING.--An oak screen of Perpendicular work enclosed the east end of
the north aisle until the “restoration” in 1871–72, when it was taken
down and a portion only, consisting of the central doorway and two side
compartments, preserved, and set up in the arch of the tower at the
west end of the north aisle.
GRANBY.--“The chancel-arch bears evidence of the former existence of a
screen.” (J. T. Godfrey, 1907.)
HAWTON (1906).--The oak rood-screen, standing under the western order
of the chancel-arch, dates from the latter half of the fifteenth
century. Rectangular in construction, the screen measures 17 ft. 6½ in.
long by 10 ft. 6½ in. high. It comprises five compartments, the two on
either hand of the doorway centring at 3 ft. 3½ in., and divided by
moulded muntins (3¾ in. wide from north to south) into three lights
apiece, opening 9 in. wide. The wainscot, 4 ft. 4 in. high, is divided
into rectangular panels, corresponding in spacing to the divisions of
the fenestration, and having no tracery in the head, but pierced in
the upper part, as though for elevation-squints, with little crosses
composed of five circles connected by straight slits, not unlike a
cross pommée in heraldry. The door-jambs and the greater muntins (5 in.
wide from north to south) are buttressed in the west with buttresses,
square on plan, with panelled fronts, moulded bases, and two set-offs
each. The middle rail, flat at the top, is 8 in. high. The fenestration
each side of the entrance is 5 ft. 6 in. high with Perpendicular
tracery in the head to the depth of 1 ft. 3½ in. An embattled transom
conspicuously runs through the tracery of the fifteen lights. The
doorway, which is without doors or gates, has a clear opening of 3 ft.
3 in. wide. The door-head is in the form of an arch with quatrefoil
pierced spandrels, and cusped and feathered underneath, springing,
at a level of 6 ft. 6½ in. from the bottom of the screen, under an
horizontal lintel. The latter (5¾ in. high) cuts off the minor muntins
above it at a distance of 1 ft. 4 in. below the cornice, itself 8½ in.
high, and, like the middle rail and the door-lintel, handsomely moulded
and embattled along the upper edge. The cornice is morticed along the
top for the ribs of the rood-loft coving. The mortices, about an inch
deep by 1¾ in. from east to west by 3 to 3½ in. long, centre on the
average at 15 in. The coving has unfortunately perished with the loft,
but, what is an extremely rare and notable feature, there remains,
embedded in the north wall of the nave, the end of the loft woodwork,
cut off flush with the plaster in the sixteenth century and eventually
brought to light through the flaying of the wall surface in modern
times. The profile of the breast-summer can be made out, but that of
the hand-rail is less clear. Enough, however, survives to show that the
level of the rood-loft platform was some 12 ft. 9 in. above the present
floor level, and that the front parapet measured 3 ft. 10½ in. high,
the top of the hand-rail being therefore 16 ft. 7½ in. from the floor.
A sketch elevation, with details and sections of the rood-screen, drawn
by J. Norton in 1871, is to be found in _The Spring Gardens Sketch
Book_, plates 43 and 44, vol. v. 1874.
[Illustration: Holme Church toward the South-east from the
Nave.]
HOLME (October 1911).--In this church are three screens in a sad state
of neglect and dilapidation--the rood-screen the worst. They are all
fifteenth-century work of timber and rectangular in construction. There
is no chancel-arch, but the rood-screen extends, 13 ft. 5 in. long by
9 ft. 6 in. high, from the north wall to the south-arcade wall. The
wainscot (exclusive of the ground-cill, which is not original) stands 3
ft. 8 in. high and has no head-tracery. Part of the wainscot boarding
itself is missing. The middle rail is moulded and measures 5¾ in. high.
The fenestration, centring from 2 ft. 3 in. to 2 ft. 5 in., is divided
into four lights on either hand of the doorway, which opens 3 ft. 3½
in. in the clear, and has neither doors nor gates. The cord-line is
3 ft. 5 in. above the middle rail. The fenestration tracery should
be 10 in. deep, but only one piece, that in the head of the light to
north of the doorway, is original. It is flat at the back. The rest of
the tracery 10½ in. deep and not corresponding with the original one
in design, nor in spacing with the framework of the screen itself,
does not belong. Indeed it is not screen-tracery at all, but has been
taken from the front of stall-desks and misapplied to the screen so
unintelligently that the flat hind part is actually turned round toward
the front. The lintel is of deal, with portions of old broken cresting
attached both to the east and west sides.
Some 3 ft. further west than the rood-screen, stands a parclose under
the arch between the nave’s south aisle and the south chapel. The
screen measures 15 ft. 5½ in. long by 8 ft. 11 in. It comprises five
compartments, centring at 2 ft. 1½ in., and divided into two lights
apiece. The wainscot, exclusive of the ground-cill, which is 5 in.
high, stands 3 ft. 9 in. high, with head-tracery to the depth of 11
in. The doorway has a clear opening of 3 ft. 2 in., and part of the
original door remains; a minor muntin, however, and the lower panels
wanting, though the head-traceries, 10¼ in. deep, are still preserved.
There remain also the old lock, hasp, and part of the sliding bolt. The
cord-line is 3 ft. 5 in. above the middle rail; and the fenestration
tracery, very like that of the rood-screen, is 11 in. deep. The lintel
is substantial, and well moulded, but has no cresting.
The third screen, of much the same date and character as the others,
is a parclose occupying part of the westernmost arch between the
chancel and the south chapel. It measures 7 ft. 5½ in. long by 8 ft. 1
in. high, and consists of four compartments centring at 1 ft. 9½ in.,
and divided each into two lights by minor muntins. There is a doorway
at the east end of the screen, the rebate showing that the door, now
lost, swung into the chapel. The wainscot, of which all the panels are
missing, stood 3 ft. 3 in. high; the cord-line is 3 ft. 4½ in. above
the middle rail, and the head-tracery of the fenestration is 11 in.
deep.
HOLME PIERREPONT.--On the north outside wall, in line with the
chancel-arch, is a semi-circular projection having an embattled
parapet level with the top of the wall. Though, owing to inside
plastering, there is now no visible means of access, there can be no
doubt that this was the rood-stair turret.
KELHAM (October 1911).--In the chancel-arch stands an oak rood-screen,
which has been repaired in places, but is, in the main, authentic
work of about 1475. Its total length is 10 ft. 4½ in., and its height
(exclusive of a poor, modern parody of brattishing) 9 ft. 7 in. It
consists of six bays, centring from 1 ft. 8½ in. to 1 ft. 9 in., the
two middle bays together forming the doorway, with a clear opening of
3 ft. 1 in. under a four-centred door-head. The doors are wanting.
The wainscot, including the ground-cill, is 4 ft. 3 in. high, with
tracery in the head of the panels (two panels to each bay) to the depth
of 7½ in. The two-centred arched openings above have head-tracery to
the depth of 2 ft. 1 in., originally supported on one central muntin,
which divided each bay of the fenestration into two lights, but has
been improperly removed to make the screen more open. The distance from
the middle rail to the cord-line is 3 ft.; the cord-line being 8½ in.
higher than the spring of the arch over the entrance. The latter once
had rich cusping underneath, of which nothing but mutilated stumps now
remain. The upper side of the arch has a row of crockets hollowed out
behind, and perforated and carved in the most refined manner. They are
now sadly broken. The tracery in the side openings is enriched with
an ogee, imposed in relief, with crockets and finial to correspond.
The east face of the screen is flat and plain compared with the west
face. The vaulting, now utterly perished, sprang, at a height of 13 in.
above the cord-line, from polygonal embattled caps, each resting, not
on a single boutel, but on a cluster of three small, engaged shafts. A
feature of the screen is the embattled transom which runs right through
the fenestration tracery on a line with the springing-caps. The latter
being very similar in design to the transom, the effect is unusually
coherent and satisfying.
The rood-stair turret, polygonal on plan, stands in the eastern
abutment at the end of the north arcade wall, and projects on either
hand, northwards into the aisle, and southwards into the nave. It is
continued within the building up to the aisle roof, above which it
rises as high as the nave, terminating in a plain horizontal parapet.
Stone steps inside turn on a cylindrical newel. The stair is entered
from the nave through a four-centred doorway, 5 ft. high by 1 ft. 7
in., the door swinging inward. The issue, in a direct line above the
entrance, is now blocked up, but the stone door-frame is visible, 1 ft.
5½ in. wide by 4 ft. 9 in. high, to the crown of its arched head, the
form of which may be described as segmental with rounded corners. The
threshold has been tampered with, but it is evident that the doorway
opened on to the loft at a height of 10 ft. 3½ in. above the present
nave floor level.
In the arch between the chancel of the south chapel stands an oak
parclose of about the year 1440. It is rectangular in construction,
10 ft. 2½ in. in length, and comprises four compartments, centring at
about 30 in. The wainscot is 4 ft. 5½ in. high, having tracery to the
depth of 12¼ in. in the head of each of the three panels with which
each compartment is divided. The fenestration correspondingly consists
of three lights to each compartment with tracery in the head to the
depth of 12½ in.; the height from the middle rail to the cord-line
being 23½ in. The second compartment from the east is the door. The
total height of the screen is 8 ft. including an embattled lintel of
modern work.
KEYWORTH.--The rood-loft was approached at the north end through the
east spandrel of the easternmost arch of the north arcade. Although the
apertures have been walled up, the jambs of the rood-stair entrance in
the north aisle and of the issue into the nave were visible until the
“restoration” in 1874, or even later, but they are now entirely hidden
by plastering. Cuts in the naveward corners of the abacus on each side
of the easternmost arch of the north arcade mark the place where a
timber parclose was formerly fixed. (October 1911.)
KINGSTON-ON-SOAR.--In 1819, Stretton noted that the screen was
standing, and that it had “plain tracery, but ... no appearance of a
rood-loft.” This apparently means that the screen was not vaulted, but
rectangular in construction. It has, unfortunately, been removed.
KNEESALL.--The latticed screen had already been taken down when
Stretton wrote, about 1820.
LAMBLEY.--There is no chancel-arch, but in the chancel opening stands
an oak screen to which Rev. Dr. Cox assigns the date 1377. It is of
Perpendicular work and rectangular form. It comprises five compartments
on either hand of the entrance, all with tracery in the head of
the fenestration. The screen is 11 ft. 2 in. high by 18 ft. long.
The central doorway is 4 ft. 2 in. wide, but no doors remain. “The
rood-loft was approached by a staircase on the north side.”
LANGAR.--In 1851, Andrew Esdaile remarked the original rood-loft
still standing, and kept with great care as a beautiful ornament and
one of extreme rarity, if not unique, in the neighbourhood. In 1864
the Associated Societies’ Reports observed that the screen, though
somewhat heavy, was “a fine specimen of carved work of its time, ...
the half-canopy” being “especially good.” A staircase within the screen
afforded “the sole access to the tower.” But by the time that J. T.
Godfrey wrote, in 1907, the rood-screen had “been swept away, except
the beam and jambs,” which were then fixed up at the west end of
the nave. There the relics of the screenwork, with tracery panelling
beneath a carved vine-trail, may still be seen. The north transept is
shut in by parcloses on the south and west; the south transept by a
parclose on the north only. These screens are of oak and have undergone
some restoration.
LAXTON.--The rood-screen which extends from side to side of the
nave, across the front of the chancel-arch, is a fine specimen of
Perpendicular, conjectured to have been erected by Bishop Rotherham
between 1480 and 1500. The head-ornament of the fenestration is of two
orders, the first consisting of a crocketed canopy on the face of the
tracery, the second the pierced tracery itself. The screen was moved
bodily one bay westwards of its original position when the church was
altered in 1860 by Mr. T. C. Hine. To adapt it to its new situation,
the screen was then lengthened by some additional work at one end. A
parclose in the north aisle embodies portions of ancient screenwork,
richly carved, and bearing the words of the angelic salutation and a
shield charged with the Five Wounds, _goutté de sang_ (mistaken by
Thoroton for “weeping eyes”). The donor’s name, Robert de Trafford,
and the date, 1532, are also inscribed upon this screen. There is,
moreover, a parclose in the south aisle.
LEVERTON, NORTH.--James Nightgale, by will dated 5th October 1545,
bequeathed his “bodie to bee buried in the churche ... of Northelewton
before the Rood-lofte.”
LEVERTON, SOUTH.--The chancel-screen was removed during the
“restoration” in 1897. Some portions are still stored in the belfry,
but it appears, according to Mr. Harry Gill, to have been but a poor
work, executed in deal. In that case it was certainly not a mediæval
structure.
LOWDHAM.--A bequest by Robert Peper, of Morton, on 9th May 1529, of
half a quarter of barley “to the roode off loodame” is believed to
refer to Lowdham.
MAPLEBECK.--The screen, described by Stretton as a “studded partition,”
is of seventeenth-century workmanship, with balustrades, but the lintel
is pronounced by Rev. Dr. Cox to be of the fifteenth century.
MARKHAM, EAST.--Christopher Saureby, Vicar, by will, 30th April 1439,
desired to be buried “before the chancel-door,” _i.e._ beneath the
foot of the Great Rood. In 1907, Rev. A. E. Briggs observed that the
rood-screen, “apparently cut down in Laudian days, was removed to its
present position in 1897.” The rood-stair entrance (blocked and turned
into a chimney in the early part of the nineteenth century) is situated
in the east wall of the nave, to south of the chancel-arch. In a direct
line above it, in the south spandrel of the chancel-arch, is the former
issue onto the rood-loft--a four-centred doorway, likewise blocked.
There is a rood-turret at the south-east corner of the nave.
MARKHAM CLINTON (otherwise West Markham).--In this church, now
abandoned to decay, are the scanty remains of a screen of late date.
They comprise a set of plain standards (the doorway opening 3 ft. 3 in.
wide) and some eighteenth-century panelling which fills the space above
the lintel.
MUSKHAM, NORTH (October 1911).--The fifteenth-century rood-screen,
having become dilapidated, was extensively restored, in the first
decade of the twentieth century, by Bowman, of Stamford. It measures
12 ft. 7 in. long and comprises six bays, centring from 2 ft. 1 in.
to 2 ft. 1½ in., the two midmost bays forming the entrance. The
wainscot, exclusive of the modern ground-cill, stands 3 ft. 11 in.
high, with tracery in the head of the panels to the depth of 9 in.,
two traceries only of the original surviving on the north side. Of the
skirting ornament, which is 8½ in. high, some parts on the north side
are authentic. The entrance has a clear opening of 3 ft. 9½ in., and
there are no gates. The cord-line is 3 ft. 4 in. above the middle rail,
and the tracery in the head of the fenestration is 31 in. deep. That
on the west face is of two orders, the first consisting of crocketed
ogees implanted. The tracery is less finished on the east face, solid
carved spandrels above it showing that the vaulting projected only
westward. The level of the springing of the groined vaults is 17 in.
above the cord-line. The boutel-caps for the springing of the ribs
are clustered groups of three each, with architectural carving. The
vaulting and the platform at the top of the screen are entirely new.
As recently as 1902--before the “restoration,” that is--the screen,
robbed of its original vaulting, stood surmounted by a cornice of
seventeenth-century work. The rood-loft was approached from the north;
the bottom entrance being situated in the north aisle in the east
abutment of the nave’s north arcade. It is secured by an ancient oak
door, fitted with two iron strap-hinges, and swinging back against
the east wall of the aisle. The threshold of the stair is 4 ft. 7 in.
above the nave floor, and the wooden door frame is rectangular (20½ in.
wide by 4 ft. 6 in. high), the southward underside of the lintel being
hollowed out to provide for the rise of the stair in the hollow of the
arcade-wall, which is 35 in. thick. Two original stone steps remain,
rising 20 in. altogether. The rest of the steps are entirely modern,
affording an ascent less steep than the original one was. A series
of eight oblong chases at regular intervals, under the western order
of the chancel-arch, shows where the vertical quarters of a boarded
tympanum were fixed; and a pair of chases, somewhat further toward the
east, mark the site of an horizontal timber, which held the tympanum
in place. A vertical chase through the east part of the label of the
easternmost arch of the south arcade marks where the front of the
rood-loft parapet projected in the nave. Another pair of chases, 8 in.
high, in the eastward order of the chancel-arch, shows the position of
the parapet of the rood-loft toward the chancel, and that the top of it
reached to a height of 16 ft. 5 in. above the present nave floor level.
Two runs of panelling from the fronts of pews, or chancel-stall desks,
are now set up in the south aisle in a deceptive fashion that suggests
the wainscot of a parclose screen cut down, which even a cursory
examination is enough to prove that they never could have been.
MUSKHAM, SOUTH.--If the screen was originally elaborate, it had at any
rate lost its ornament by 1859, in which year the upper part, then a
plain rectangular frame of oak, was levelled down to the middle rail.
The wainscot was spared for the time, but, being mistaken for deal,
it was ultimately removed at the “restoration,” 1873–82. The pieces
are said to have been treasured religiously by the old clerk, John
Fletcher; but the son who succeeded him being dead, and the home broken
up, all traces of the ancient screenwork have disappeared. (Information
kindly supplied by Miss M. B. Hull, of North Muskham.) Fortunately,
however, the building itself affords some indications of the ancient
arrangements. In the eastward order of the chancel-arch a square patch
of new stone--on the north side 10 in. high, and at a level of 13 in.
above the capital; on the south side 12 in. high and 10 in. above the
capital--probably marks the level of the screen lintel. The soffit of
the arch has been much scraped, but there are distinct traces of a
groove under the north sweep for fitting in the boarding of a tympanum;
and toward the west, just under the apex of the arch, are two sunk
spaces, where the top of a vertical timber was made to fit into the
stone. (October 1911.)
NEWARK.--Reference in a will in 1482 shows that at that date there
existed an altar of St. Crux in the church. The indenture, dated 21st
February 1531–32, of Thomas Magnus for the founding of a free Grammar
school and free Song school, ordained that the song-schoolmaster and
six children should nightly recite, after the antiphon of our Lady,
“another antempne of Jhesus ... afore the rode in the bodye of the
churche (_i.e._ in the nave); ... knelyng in the manner and forme as
... hath and ys usyd before the Roode of the north dore in ... Seynt
Paule in London and in the college of Wyndesore (St. George’s Chapel),
with lyke prostracions and devout maner.”
The general opinion is that, though the character of the work looks
ten or fifteen years earlier, the construction of the rood-screen and
loft was begun in 1492 and finished in 1508. This opinion rests on the
fact that there is preserved, among the papers of the Corporation, an
acquittance of the latter date, by which the churchwardens and others
acknowledge that a carver, Thomas Drawswerd, of York, has thoroughly
carried out his undertaking to make the “reredose.”
The Rev. J. F. Dimock, in 1855, appears to have been the first to
interpret the term “reredose” in this case to mean the rood-loft, and
subsequent writers on the subject have taken the identification for
granted, notwithstanding the word “rood-loft” was in familiar use at
the date in question, and there is no reason why it should not have
been employed in the acquittance, if it was really meant. In that
event, two bequests in 1509, viz., that of Thomas Pygg, who left 40s.
“to gild the picture of the reredos,” and that of Elizabeth Jenyn, who
left £3 for “giltyng of the reredos,” would refer to the decoration of
the screen and loft. Another bequest, that of John Philipote, who in
the same year, 1509, left a sum of money for “gilding the Rodehouse,”
though the precise meaning is obscure, does more certainly refer to
some part of the structure connected with the Rood.
[Illustration: NEWARK CHURCH: ROOD-SCREEN, FROM THE
NORTH-WEST.]
There is no question whatever that the Perpendicular oak rood-screen
is an exceedingly magnificent example of its kind. It stands, at a
distance of some 126 ft. from the west door, against the west face of
the piers of the eastern crossing. It must originally have extended,
or been designed to extend, across the chancel-aisles as well as the
chancel-opening. Its ends, however, are cut off abruptly, and furbished
with modern ornament, to give the truncation a specious appearance
of completeness. It now measures 36 ft. 6 in. long, and consists of
nineteen bays centring from 1 ft. 10 in. to 1 ft. 11½ in. The four
bays of either end are blind, and no doubt served as reredoses for
altars. Of the eleven bays with open fenestration, the three in the
middle are occupied by the four-centred doorway into the chancel. The
wainscot is 4 ft. 10 in. high, with tracery to the depth of 14 in. in
the head of each of the two panels into which each bay is divided. The
spandrels of this head-ornament are solid, and sculptured with a great
variety of forms--angels, masks, birds, beasts, and monsters. The doors
are complete, and measure 5 ft. 3 in. across when closed, the jambs
centring at 5 ft. 8 in. The fenestration has a lofty opening of 9 ft.
2 in. from the middle rail to the crown of its two-centred arches. The
distance from the middle rail to the cord-line of the fenestration
tracery is 45 in. So slight, however, is all the lower portion of the
head-ornament--simply a muntin, rising from the summit of a cusped arc,
and dividing the opening into two lights--that the virtual cord-line
is the springing-point, some 30 in. higher, of the arches of the twin
lights. Above their head the tracery, in two orders, has a first order
with a crocketed ogee running up to a finial. The vaulting toward the
east as well as toward the west springs, at a level of 4 ft. 1 in.
above the cord-line and 12 ft. 8 in. above the foot of the screen, from
moulded polygonal caps, resting each on a triple cluster of engaged
shafts. From each cap spring five ribs and two half-ribs, the latter
along the screen’s axial line, where each pair of half-ribs meets in
the apex of the arched opening. The extremities of the projecting ribs
are not embedded in a breast-summer, but, arching forward and downward,
produce a series of pendent arches along the front of the screen top.
The interstices of the groining have no cusping, but combine to form,
in the crown of each bay, as it were the four arms of a cross pointed,
composed of four hexagons, two of them more elongated than the others.
These hexagons again are sub-divided by mouldings into four circles or
vesicas (sixteen to the bay) in which are inserted leaden discs, cast
and gilt, of fine perforated tracery, in appearance not unlike the rose
ornament in the sound-hole of a guitar. The screen, exclusive of the
cresting, stands slightly over 16 ft. in height. The whole is raised
on a stone base, or stepped platform, 1 ft. above the nave level. The
screen was repaired in about 1815. In 1853 the paint was cleaned off
and the screen “restored with an almost incredible amount of labour,”
writes Cornelius Brown, “the greatest portion of the upper part of
the carved work being new.” The whole surface is now very dark, but
slight traces of scarlet here and there show that originally it was
gay with colour. The rood-stair, lighted by one pierced quatrefoil and
two plain rectangular loops, is contained in the south-east pier of
the crossing. It is entered from the east, in the south chancel-aisle,
through a four-centred doorway 1 ft. 10 in. wide. The steps averaging
1 ft. 11 in. wide, turn on a cylindrical newel. There are twenty stone
winders, culminating in two wooden steps which emerge westward through
a four-centred doorway onto the floor of the loft platform. The organ,
erected in 1804 in a west gallery and subsequently transferred to the
rood-loft, was removed on the recommendation of Sir Gilbert Scott
during the restoration 1853–55. Previously to that time there had been
a gallery front on the top of the screen, forming a complete loft,
with Gothic-like arcading and pinnacles, no earlier, probably, than
the date of the organ-case itself, which was of imitation Gothic. The
rood-loft parapets are now wanting. The platform, extending across the
chancel opening, measures 24 ft. 6 in. long at its shortest, between
the reveals of the chancel-arch, and 8 ft. 10 in. from front to back.
In the middle, however, over the entrance in the chancel, it projects
3 ft. 5 in. further eastward, forming, as it were, a porch over the
chancel gates. This projection is 7 ft. 1½ in. wide from north to
south, and 12 ft. 3 in. over all from east to west. The two westernmost
arches of the chancel arcades, north and south, are fenced by parcloses
of six bays apiece, having an average centring of 2 ft., and forming
a screen of twelve vaulted bays on each side, behind the stalls. The
canopies of the latter are, in fact, the overhanging vaults of the
screens; for, though the stone pier intervenes midway, the timber
groining is ingeniously contrived, branching outward, to embrace the
pier in such wise that the breast-summer of the two halves together
extends uninterruptedly both chancelwards and chancel-aislewards. There
is no apparent means of access, and perhaps never was, between the
rood-loft and the top of the side-screens, nor is there anything to
show whether the latter ever had any parapets. The middle rail of the
parcloses toward the chancel-aisles is embattled along its upper edge,
and along its face runs a band of tracery on a wave basis. The panels
beneath have head-tracery to the depth of 6¾ in. in the easternmost
sections on each side of the chancel, and 7¾ in. deep in the
westernmost sections, the latter having a somewhat higher level than
the others. The pierced metal ornaments in the rood-screen vaulting
are replaced, in the case of the side-screens, by similar ornaments
in wood. For the rest the design of the side-screens, though adapted,
is virtually identical with that of the rood-screen itself, the whole
series of screens together constituting a coeval and complete scheme.
(1906, and October 1911.)
NORMANTON-ON-TRENT.--The upper doorway of the rood-staircase remains on
the south side; also the corbels for the support of the rood-loft or
rood-beam. (E. L. Guilford.)
NORWELL.--The entrance to the rood-stair is in the north transept.
The doorway is 1 ft. 11 in. wide by 6 ft. 1½ in. The stair comprises
fifteen steps, of which three lead up from without to the newel-stair
within. The ascent is steep and narrow, and the stair emerges 10 ft. 8½
in. from the ground by an opening 1 ft. 7 in. wide.
NOTTINGHAM.--_Carmelite Friary Church._--“When Henry VIII. visited
Nottingham, in August 1511 ... he made an offering ... at the Rood of
the White Friars.” The surrender took place on 5th February 1539.
_St. Catherine’s Chapel_, in the Castle.--The Liberate Roll shows that,
in the year beginning 28th October 1251, Henry III. ordered the Sheriff
of Nottingham to cause “the judgment to be dreaded” to be painted “in
the gable of the ... chapel.” The meaning surely is that the subject of
the Doom was painted on a tympanum, or wall-space, above, or behind,
the Rood.
_St. Mary’s._--The report (among the Records of the Borough of
Nottingham) of an action, 10th February 1517–18, arising out of a
dispute as to the precise place of payment, shows that one of the
litigants, Ralph Palmer, had received 5s. “for a reward for painting
the rood-loft in St. Mary’s.” Alderman Heskey, making his will in 1558,
directed that his body should be buried in the middle alley of the
church, “before the picture of Christ Crucified,” _i.e._ in front of
the Rood.
It is evident that the existing building was planned from the outset
for a rood-loft, the spacing of the windows allowing blank abutments
for the presence of the pair of rood-turrets at the junction of the
outer lateral walls of the nave aisles with the west wall of the
transept. These octagonal turrets, with their eight-sided conical caps
above the transept roof, are conspicuous features of the exterior.
Within the church, at the east end of each outer wall of the nave
aisles, is a stone doorway now blocked, 2 ft. wide by 5 ft. 9 in.
high, which formerly gave access to the newel stairs in the turrets.
The door-frames have deep chamfers, stopped at the foot. The north
doorway is rectangular with rounded corners, and the south one is
similar, only its lintel is slightly cambered underneath. There is no
sign of an upper door on the north, but above the rood-stair entrance
on the south, at a level of 14 ft. from the floor, the place, walled
up with yellow stone, is clearly visible, where a doorway, of the same
width as that below, and apparently two-centred, emerged upon a loft
across the south aisle. There is nothing to show whether the rood-loft
gangway continued in one stretch of 67 ft. across nave and aisles at
the western crossing, or whether, spanning the aisles only at this
point, it returned eastwards across the transepts, to connect with a
loft across the structural chancel-arch. Anyhow, the transepts were
certainly screened off, in pre-Reformation days, to form chapels, that
of All Saints on the north, and that of the Samon chantry on the south.
(October 1911.)
_St. Peter’s._--From a bequest in February 1313–14, it is known that
there was at that date a chapel of the Holy Cross in the building.
Alice Dalby, by will dated 28th March 1459, left 20s. “_fabrice sancte
crucis in le_ rodeloft ... _et eidem cruci_ ... _duas lapides de
byrrall_” and 5s. “_in auro facto_.”
The rood-loft across the east end of the nave was approached from the
south, the stairs being built in the south pier and the staircase
projecting in a cant in the north-east angle of the south aisle, and
externally (all its masonry now refaced), in the re-entering angle
between the chancel and the south aisle of the nave. The entrance to
the stairs is at the extreme east end of the nave’s south wall, but
the doorway has been too much renovated to be worth measuring. The
steps within are about 2 ft. wide, and turn on a cylindrical stone
newel. The stair opens westwards, under an imperfect four-centred
arch, onto a small landing in the hollow of the wall, whence another
step or two led up northwards onto the loft itself, under an horizontal
lintel. The east end of the latter abuts against the head of the
four-centred arch just named, and is carried on a corbel sculptured to
represent the demi-figure of a man, crowned and bearded. The awkward
combination of these two doorways, in the south-east corner of the
nave, is most peculiar. Indeed it is clear that the uppermost doorway
cannot be in its original state, because its west side and jamb are
composed of a large stone slab set on end, the incised crosses on the
surface of which unmistakably testify to its having been a consecrated
altar-stone. As such it could not have been placed in its present
position until after the Reformation. (October 1911.)
NUTHALL.--Under the west side of the chancel-arch stands an oak screen
of five rectangular compartments, _i.e._ two narrower ones on either
hand of a wider compartment for the entrance. The ornament in the head
of the latter is modern work of the year 1884. The screen is 13 ft.
long by 8 ft. 4 in. high. The tracery in the fenestration-heads is
of two orders, the first consisting of crocketed ogee ornament. This
chancel-screen has obviously been reconstructed. The fact is that both
this and another screen (which occupies the arch at the east end of
the nave’s north aisle, and embodies some portions of original work),
were made up from a parclose that surrounded the Temple pew at the
east end of the north aisle and was taken down in 1884 “cleaned from
paint, restored and re-erected” in the present situations. Rev. Dr.
Cox, however, is of opinion that the Temple parclose itself had, at
some time after the Reformation, been constructed out of the ancient
rood-screen.
ORDSALL.--At the west end of the church stands a good screen, of
late-fifteenth century workmanship, retaining its coving complete and
comprising three bays on either hand of the entrance. Rev. Dr. Cox, on
the internal evidence of the screen itself, is disposed to discredit
the common tradition that it is a domestic work, brought hither from
Hayton Castle.
SCARLE, SOUTH.--The rood-screen, dating apparently from the time
of Henry VI., was removed in 1871, but has since been repaired and
refitted. It now stands at the chancel opening, and measures 12 ft.
5 in. long by 9 ft. 7 in. high. It comprises three bays of depressed
two-centred arches, of which the middle one, perceptibly narrower than
the others, forms the doorway, with a clear opening of 3 ft. 5 in. The
wainscot is 3 ft. 7 in. high, each bay of it divided into two panels,
corresponding to the two main lights of the fenestration, and having
head-tracery which reproduces on a smaller scale and of one order only
the fenestration tracery. The latter is of bold character, and in
two orders, the first of which consists of crocketed ogee ornament.
The finials have been displaced and incorrectly fixed just above the
springers of the perished vaulting. The ribs of the latter sprang from
polygonal moulded and embattled caps.
SHELFORD.--By the time that Stretton wrote, in 1818, the screen had
already “been taken down, except a part within the arch (? a tympanum)
bearing the King’s Arms of the time of George I.” Matthew Henry Barker,
author of _Walks Round Nottingham_, in 1835 wrote:--“On the skreen,
dividing the body of the church from the chancel, is the Royal Arms
flamingly painted, and the artist has left his name upon his work,
‘Charles Blunt, 1717.’ There are also the names of the churchwardens
for that year.” The corbels noted by J. T. Godfrey in May 1885,
projecting “from the walls of the nave, just above the capitals of the
piers of the chancel-arch,” were, without doubt, designed to carry the
rood-loft or rood-beam.
SIBTHORPE.--On 3rd December 1336 the founder of the Collegiate
establishment gave ample endowments for various religious purposes,
including the providing of a lamp to burn, on stated occasions, before
the rood.
SOUTHWELL.--The Minster, being a secular canons’ church, had not a
rood-screen in addition to the pulpitum, but the latter served both
purposes. There appears to be no evidence to show where the Norman
pulpitum stood; but that the present site, the eastern crossing,
was the position of the pulpitum at least from the beginning of the
thirteenth century, is proved by the existence of an early English
doorway giving access from the north-west part of the south quire-aisle
to the staircase leading to the top of the loft. This doorway, 2 ft. 6½
in. wide, opens onto the foot of the stairs at a level of about 5 ft. 6
in. from the floor, and is the only relic of the earlier pulpitum. That
which still happily survives is a magnificent specimen of stonework
dating from the early years of Edward III., while the eastward front of
it, the latest portion, was finished about the middle of the fourteenth
century. The pulpitum extends over the entire area between the eastern
crossing piers, its back part projecting considerably beyond the
eastern limit of the said piers. The total breadth covered from east
to west is 17 ft. 6 in. On plan the pulpitum at the east or back part
consists of two parallel walls 2 ft. 7 in. apart, while the west front
is an open arcade of three arches between two blind arches. The eastern
elevation is 21 ft. 1 in. high by 32 ft. 3 in. long, the western 21
ft. 6 in. high by 28 ft. 7 in. long. In the westward arcade the middle
arch, narrower than the others, has a clear opening of 4 ft. 10 in. and
centres at 6 ft. 7½ in. The northern arch is about half an inch wider
than the southern, but they have approximately a clear opening of 5 ft.
2½ in. each and centre at 7 ft. each. The arches spring at a level of
9 ft. 11 in., the height from the springing to the apex of the opening
being 4 ft. 11 in. The arches are two-centred and boldly cusped, the
cusps having a slight ogee curve at the crown of the foliations.
The space under the pulpitum is 21 ft. 9½ in. long from north to south
(or 20 ft. 7½ in. on the ground), and is 8 ft. 3 in. in the clear
from east to west between the keelmoulds of the reveals. Each end
wall within is beautifully panelled with blind tracery of flamboyant
character, having three lights, over a shallow recess, gabled above
and cusped beneath, as though for a tomb such as Bishop Gower’s,
which occupies a somewhat analogous situation under the pulpitum at
St. David’s Cathedral. The roof overhead is vaulted in three bays,
ranging from north to south, with open vaulting-ribs, under a flat
ceiling, with skeleton trefoils in their spandrels. (Skeleton vaulting
again occurs, for instance, under the fourteenth-century pulpita of
Lincoln and St. David’s cathedrals.) Of the two parallel walls at the
back part of Southwell pulpitum, the western one should perhaps be
more accurately described as a three-arch arcade, of which the north
and south arches are walled up to the height of 7 ft. 8 in. from the
ground. At the foot of each of these walls, as against a reredos, just
as in the similarly planned pulpitum at Chichester, it is probable
that an altar stood, until the Reformation. The spaces above the walls
to the apex of the arches were once protected, as numerous holes in
their stone framework testify, by metal grates, or by stanchions and
saddle-bars. The central archway affords the opening, 4 ft. 10 in.
wide, of the passage into the quire. On either hand of this passage,
between the two parallel walls, a flight of steps leads up to the top
of the pulpitum. According to a writer in the _Building News_, 28th
February 1887, neither of these flights of steps had been discovered
and opened out until some few years previously to that date. Until then
the only means in use to reach the top had been the original stair
which ascends from the south quire aisle. In either staircase opening
from the central passage hangs a door, set back 2 ft. 4 in. from the
passage, so as to swing forwards, and yet clear of, the latter. The
western parapet to the pulpitum is embattled above a band of pierced
tracery on a wave basis, the height of the parapet from the loft floor
level to the summit of the battlements being 4 ft. 5 in. The east
doorway from under the pulpitum into the quire has a clear opening of
4 ft. 10½ in., and is flanked on either hand by three canopied stalls
(the return-stalls of the quire) centring at 3 ft. 1½ in., all of stone
and integral structurally with the pulpitum itself--a most unusual, if
not indeed unique, arrangement. The springing of the canopies is at a
height of 8 ft. 9½ in. above the quire floor level. Above the stalls is
an upper tier of stone-tracery, blind except in the case of the panels
over the middle stall on each side. This pair of panels is pierced to
light the staircases within. Beyond the stalls each extremity of the
east façade of the pulpitum has a blind panel from top to bottom as
in the west front. The east front is of extraordinary delicacy and
elaboration, being without doubt, as above stated, later in date than
the other. It must, however, be acknowledged that much of the ornament
was renovated in composition, at the beginning of the nineteenth
century, by Berndsconi, an Italian, the same who “restored” the carved
work of York Minster pulpitum. As for the example at Southwell, Canon
J. F. Dimock, in 1853, observed that the feature of “double foliations
... does not occur in any original portion” of the pulpitum. Mr. H. H.
Statham considers it peculiar as “a pronounced example of the German”
device of interpenetrating mouldings. The mural “diaper-work on the
inner side of the screen,” he continues, is remarkable because, in the
“minute design dividing the wall-surface ... into small squares ...
every square is differently treated--a by no means usual refinement.”
[Illustration: SOUTHWELL MINSTER: PULPITUM, FROM THE
WEST.]
[Illustration:
_Photo: Mr. Arthur Lineker._
SOUTHWELL MINSTER: PULPITUM, FROM THE EAST.]
In the early part of the nineteenth century, plaster screens, the
work of Berndsconi, embodying portions of the originals, were erected
between the quire and its aisles. This plaster-work was removed on the
recommendation, in 1875, of Mr. Ewan Christian, endorsed by Mr. G. E.
Street, that “new screens of oak on the model of those which formerly
existed,” should be substituted. “Fragments were found still remaining
_in situ_; besides many loose pieces, which had been stored in the
roof of the chapter house,” and upon these the new screens were based.
They were finished by 1892, the carvers being Messrs. Cornish and
Gaymer, of North Walsham. If only the fragments of old work had been
preserved and incorporated, instead of being merely copied, in the new
work, the latter, as enshrining them, might have had some justification
for its existence. As it stands, however, it is absolutely commonplace
and devoid of interest. (October 1911.)
STAUNTON.--Across the chancel-arch is a screen which Rev. Dr. Cox
esteems one of the most interesting in the county, because it bears
both the date of execution and the donor’s name. The inscription,
sculptured in relief in black-letter along the middle-rail,
reads:--“(Pray) for the saule of Mayster Simon Yates, bachelor in Law,
living in Newark, Parson of this Church and of Beckingham, and official
of the Archdeaconry, (who) caused this Rood lofte and the Tabernacle of
our Lady to be made in the yere of our Lord MCCCCCXV, on whose saul God
have mercie.” The screen is fairly perfect, except that it has lost its
loft. “The Rector, the Rev. F. J. Ross, has himself taken the trouble
to remove the many coats of paint with which it was covered.”
STRELLEY (1907).--The oak rood-screen, a remarkably rich and handsome
specimen of Perpendicular (about 1490), and bearing a striking
resemblance to the parclose in the south transept at Chesterfield,
stands against the west side of the chancel-arch. It measures 16 ft.
4 in. long by 14 ft. 10 in. high over all on the west. It comprises
five bays vaulted towards the nave, the entrance having a clear opening
of 2 ft. 10¼ in., with doors complete, occupying the central bay.
The centring of the bays varies from 3 ft. 2½ in. to 3 ft. 4 in. The
wainscot stands 5 ft. ¼ in. high, this measure including a stone
plinth 7¾ in. high. The middle rail is ornamented along the front
with a band of tracery--a wave between quatrefoils. Each compartment
is divided into four panels corresponding to the lights of the
fenestration. The panels have cinquefoil-cusped ornament in the head
and a band of quatrefoils--two apiece to the panel--along the skirting.
The fenestration is four-centred arched, lofty, and divided by three
muntins (one central between two narrower muntins) in each bay into
four narrow lights, the opening of which varies from 5 in. to 5½ in.
only. The fenestration has very rich tracery with carved crockets and
finials to the depth of 2 ft. 5 in. in the head. This ornament, in
typical Midland fashion, is plain at the back, or east side. Two feet
below the cord-line of the head-tracery the screen (all but the middle
bay with the doors) is crossed by a transom of which the top edge (once
enriched with cresting, now perished) is 3 ft. 4½ in. above the middle
rail. In each light the under side of this transom has cinquefoil
cusped ornament, the cord-line of which is on a level with that of the
head-tracery in the screen doors. The doorway has a moulded, horizontal
lintel, crested along the top, above a four-centred arch, cusped and
feathered underneath, with solid carved spandrels, enclosing each a
Tudor rose. The boutel-shafts are clustered and have polygonal moulded
bases and caps. The springing level of the vaulting is some 11 ft.
6 in. from the bottom, and about 13 in. above the cord-line of the
fenestration tracery. On the west front the tierceron vaulting ribs,
with tracery between, are perfect but the solid panels behind the
tracery have unfortunately been removed, a mistake which gives the
vaulting a false and unsubstantial appearance. The breast-summer has a
trail of vine ornament. Seven massive joists, running east and west,
carried the rood-loft floor, now removed. The eastward projection,
protruding under the chancel-arch into the chancel, is some 9 or 10 in.
in excess of that of the vaulting on the west, the total width over all
from east to west at the top being 6 ft. 8 in. The extremities of the
breast-summer in the nave are cut off abruptly, a fact which seems
to indicate that the rood-loft extended continuously, 35 ft. 6 in.
long, across the whole interior, aisles as well as nave.
[Illustration: STRELLE CHURCH: ROOD-SCREEN]
STURTON-LE-STEEPLE.--The oak rood-screen, a fine example of
fifteenth-century work, perished in a grievously destructive fire in
1901.
SUTTON-ON-TRENT (28th October 1911).--In the arch between the south
aisle of the nave and the south, or Mering chapel, stand a small, but
handsome, oak screen and loft, dating between about 1505 and 1520. The
screen, 7 ft. 6 in. long by 7 ft. 3 in. high, comprises a door at the
north end and three rectangular compartments, centring at 1 ft. 1½ in.
on the south. The wainscot stands 4 ft. 4 in. high, with rich tracery
ornaments to the depth of 10 in. in its panel-heads. There is a trail
along the middle rail. The fenestration head-tracery is 11 in. deep.
The doorway has an opening 6 ft. 3 in. high by 2 ft. 9 in., under a
depressed arch formed by hollowing the under part of the lintel, which
is carved along the front, with a shield of the Mering arms (argent on
a chevron sable three escallops or) in the middle. The door is complete
and is divided into three panels centring from 9½ in. to 10½ in., the
openings above its middle rail being without tracery in the head. The
solid panel-work below rises to the same level as the wainscot, but the
head-tracery, 9½ in. to 10 in. deep, in its panels is of a different
design from the corresponding ornaments in the wainscot itself. The
middle rail of the door has a trail like the wainscot.
The screen, being of rectangular construction, is of course unvaulted;
but the underneath part, or soffit, of the westward overhanging loft
is divided by mouldings into twelve rectangular panels ranging in a
double row of six from north to south. The loft overhangs eastwards
also, but the soffit under the hinder part is not divided into panels.
Both eastern and western parapets measure 3 ft. 2 in. high within
the loft from the platform to the hand-rail top, the distance from
front to back between eastern and western hand-rails being 7 ft. 4
in. The western parapet extends 12 ft. 10 in. long from side to side
of the south aisle, and is fixed against the latter’s east wall, the
breast-summer being supported at either end, at a level of 7 ft. 8 in.
from the ground, on a massive stone corbel fixed in the said wall. The
breast-summer has the remains of an inverted brattishing along the
under edge, and a carved and pierced trail along its front. The parapet
comprises eleven plain panels centring from 1 ft. 2 in. to 1 ft. 3 in.
They are each 2 ft. 6 in. high, their plane being some 9 in. back from
the utmost projection of the breast-summer and hand-rail. The stiles,
almost as wide as the panels, are moulded along either edge and have
each a strip of tracery up the middle between a pair of narrow and very
shapely buttresses. The tops of the buttresses are cut away to enable a
trail, much like that on the breast-summer, to be inserted immediately
below the hand-rail. Above the latter, again, a long band of tracery
(consisting of a series of rosette-centred quatrefoils within circles),
set obliquely at an angle of 45, is fixed--possibly not its original
position. The height over all from the top to the floor is 11 ft. 5
in. The east front of the loft, 12 ft. 10 in. long by 3 ft. 10 in.
high, and 7 ft. 7 in. above the floor, was constructed as follows:--Two
tiers of panels (uniformly semicircular-headed, with solid carved
spandrels) ranging from end to end; four panels on the north, of which
the northernmost centres at 1 ft. 9 in., the three others at 1 ft. 2
in.; next, a projecting bay, and to south of it three panels centring
at 1 ft. 1½ in. There is an old bench for seats attached inside the
loft to this south-east section. The bay, projecting some 10 in. in
advance of the breast-summer, comprises three cants, the side cants 1
ft. 1½ in. wide at the bottom and diminishing to a point at the top,
the central cant, toward the east, 2 ft. ½ in. wide at the bottom and
widening upward to 3 ft. across at the level of the hand-rail; and
having a singular feature of an extra row of three more panels above
it, the three measuring 2 ft. 6¼ in. from north to south by 1 ft. 6½
in. high. It will be realised that on this plan the middle cant would
perceptibly tilt back westwards at the top; a defect satisfactorily
provided against by the fact that the top of the parapet leans forward
5 in. (reckoned inside the loft) out of the perpendicular.
Such the Mering loft continued to be until shortly before Easter 1911,
when, in respect of its most remarkable feature, it was wantonly
mutilated. The projecting bay was then sawn off flush with the straight
stretch of parapet on either hand of it, leaving an unsightly,
gaping void--and all for what? Merely for the caprice of planting a
huge, modern organ in the Mering chapel 10 in. more to the west than
would have been possible had the loft been preserved intact! That is
literally the sole advantage gained by sacrificing a monument of four
hundred years’ standing, a monument not only unique of its kind in
the county of Nottinghamshire, but exceedingly rare in any part of
England whatever. Whether authorised by a faculty or not, in any event
the proceeding reflects the utmost discredit on everybody concerned.
When I visited the church, six or seven months afterwards, I found the
dismembered parts of the bay left, like lumber, in the loft itself--or
rather some of the parts, for a portion of the embattled ornament
along the base of the bay, in continuation with the breast-summer
battlements, was already missing. What safeguard is there to hinder the
rest from disappearing in the same way?
For access to the rood-loft a polygonal turret staircase, cylindrical
within, the steps turning on a newel, was built in the re-entering
angle between the chancel and the nave’s south aisle. Subsequently,
in the sixteenth century, the Mering chapel was erected, but the
rood-turret was still retained and thus became internal. The entrance,
at the north-west of the chapel, is a four-centred doorway 1 ft. 8
in. wide by 5 ft. 4 in. The stair, the stone steps of which are much
worn, emerges upon the south loft platform at a height of 8 ft. 2 in.
from the chapel floor below. Two feet higher a rectangular passage,
5 ft. high by 2 ft. 2½ in. wide, under a timber horizontal lintel,
led through the hollow of the wall northwards onto the south end of
the rood-loft. The opening is now blocked, but its cill, about 31 in.
long, is still visible near the west end of the south wall of the
chancel; showing exactly where the passage issued at a level of 11
ft. 6 in. from the ground. No trace of the rood-loft itself remains,
except that in the east sweep of the easternmost arch of the nave’s
south arcade some of the stonework has been hacked away, presumably for
the accommodation of the rood-loft’s western parapet. A two-centred,
shallow recess in the north spandrel of the chancel arch has been a
niche, accessible from the rood-loft, but must not be confounded with
the door admitting to the latter from the rood-stair.
Rev. H. Hudson, Rector of Holy Trinity, Old Trafford, surmises that
the object referred to in the Thoroton Society’s _Proceedings_,
1902, as “the curious frontage of what may have been a small gallery
over the belfry, and an old clock-face” is more likely to have been
the mediæval celure, or canopy of honour over the great rood. The
object in question, 11 ft. long by 4 ft. 5½ in., consists of a panel,
3 ft. 6 in. high by 3 ft. wide, between two openings, each 3 ft. 2
in. wide. Mr. Hudson says that the most striking points about it are
these:--(1) The framework of the panels shows traces of red and green
in the hollow of the mouldings, whilst all over, in spite of a later
disguise of paint and varnish, there can be detected remains of ancient
colouring in black and white, beside the red and green; (2) a shallow
battlement along the top rail; and (3) a series of six mortice-holes,
all cut aslant, along the bottom rail, as though the panelling had once
been fixed anglewise to form a canopy over the rood, in which case the
so-called “clock-face” would be a nimbus of rays, and the aperture in
the middle, mistaken for the place of the spindle of the clock hand,
the hole for suspending the Lenten rood-veil or possibly the light
before the rood.
WILFORD.--A rood-stair turret, cylindrical on plan, occupies the
re-entering angle between the chancel and the north aisle. It is
surmounted by a plain horizontal parapet, level with those of the nave
and chancel.
WILLOUGHBY-ON-THE-WOLDS.--Part of the old oak screen remained in 1815
when Stretton wrote. It is now no more, but Rev. A. M. Y. Bayley, in
1902, stated his opinion that it was not until the “restoration” of the
chancel in 1891 that all traces of screenwork disappeared.
WINKBURN.--There is no structural chancel-arch, but marking the
division is an open quasi-screen of four lofty posts (seventeenth, or
possibly late-sixteenth century work). The pedimental space above, up
to the roof, is filled with a plaster tympanum, against which is a
painted representation of the Royal Arms, dated 1764.
WORKSOP (anciently Radford).--Priory of Austin Canons, surrendered 31st
October 1538, the nave becoming thenceforward exclusively parochial.
The churchwardens’ accounts furnish an interesting record of the
various changes effected in the screening arrangements. In the year
1546–47 occurred payments to one Thomas Rose for “makyng hols for the
parrtycyon at 5d. the day” for two days and a half; to one Elot for
three days and a half “at makyng vp of the partycyon at the same rate,”
and to one William Doncaster “at syche lyck warke.” The “parclose of
Jesus quere with the lawft (loft) wher they sange” were sold for 3s.
in the same year. During the reign of Edward VI. two carvers were
employed in setting up the new parclose and also in “settyng vp the old
parcloses and makyng a lytell voute” (vault); and a painter was paid
8d. for washing (_i.e._ whitewashing) the rood-loft. The rood-images
were first ill-treated by darkening their faces, and subsequently
taken down altogether. They were replaced under Queen Mary, and again
removed after Elizabeth had come to the throne (1559–60). In the
same year the rood-loft was white-washed once more; it was taken down
in 1564. In 1570, however, further items relating to the same were
entered in the accounts:--Workmen at the taking down of the rood-loft
received 2d.; the painter 8d. “for payntyng the rode-lofte before yt
was takyn downe.” The vicar purchased the timber of the loft for 6s.
8d. A subsequent expenditure of 3s. 2d. “for makyng of a creste for the
roode-lofte” in 1571 refers to the brattishing erected, according to
royal mandate, along the top of the screen in place of the demolished
rood-loft. And yet, still later, in 1637 a contractor covenanted to
take down part of the loft.
From the above extracts two things are clear: firstly, that the
rood-loft was of timber (the screen beneath it being most likely of
the same material); and secondly, that after the dissolution there
occurred a somewhat extensive rearrangement of the screens. Precisely
what this rearrangement involved is far from clear. An examination of
the exterior of the existing east end shows that the respond of the
western crossing arch which projects inward 5 in. on the north and
south alike, is cut away abruptly underneath at a height of some 8
ft. from the ground, affording a clear opening of 21 ft. across. That
this is no wanton mutilation, but the original scheme (1103–1170), is
proved by the fact that the attached angle-shaft is not carried down
to be cut through with the respond itself, but that it finishes, just
above the truncation, with a regular base, moulded and resting upon
the square quoin. The significance of this detail is that the ritual
quire, bounded by the pulpitum at the west, extended westwards at least
as far as the western crossing. It probably included the whole of the
first bay below the crossing, since the first arch of the arcade below
the crossing remained walled until the “restoration,” in 1846. What
appears to have happened, consequent upon the dissolution, is that the
canons’ pulpitum was removed bodily, and the whole of the three bays
below the crossing turned into the parochial chancel, the rood-screen
remaining where it had always stood, at the third pair of piers below
the crossing, but being adapted--as a solid stone screen could not,
but as this, a timber screen, could be--for the purposes of the parish
chancel screen. Moreover, below the crossing the second and third
arches of the nave arcades were then fitted with wooden parcloses to
form side enclosures for the chancel. Until the “restoration” of 1846 a
considerable part of these screens survived, at any rate, on the north
side. An upright timber remained against the first pier of the north
arcade below the crossing; while the next arch, the third below the
crossing, was occupied by a parclose then standing complete, according
to Rev. E. Trollope. Previously to the “restoration” there were evident
traces of the former presence of the rood-screen, “portions of the
capitals of the third pair of pillars having been cut away to admit of
its erection.” Screens crossed the aisles in line with the rood-screen,
the screen across the north aisle remaining complete until the
“restoration” of 1846. Richard Nicholson, the architect responsible,
writing in 1850, admits that, in the process of removing the galleries,
pews, and other eighteenth-century incumbrances from the nave, “a few
specimens of ancient oak ... screens were found in various parts of
the church, but little that was worth preserving, except as objects of
curiosity.” Thus everything was ruthlessly sacrificed, so that when
the sweeping “restoration” was finished, it not only left the building
denuded of its ancient fittings, but even obliterated such marks as
had until that time survived to testify to the former existence of the
fittings. A step, intersecting the nave floor, just to west of the
third bay below the crossing, now alone remains to indicate the site of
the rood-screen. (October 1911.)
WYSALL (October 1911).--There is no chancel-arch, but across the
chancel-opening stands an oak rood-screen dating from about 1440.
Rectangular in construction, it comprises a wide compartment, opening
3 ft. 11 in., fitted with gates, for the entrance, between two
compartments on either hand, centring from 2 ft. 6 in. to 2 ft. 6½ in.
and divided into two lights apiece. The middle rail is exceptionally
massive, being 9 in. high; and its moulding is reproduced at the same
level in the shape of returns to the standards, which appear to have
had similarly moulded bases, only those, however, of the doorway jambs
remaining. The standards are 6 in. wide by 7½ in. thick from front
to back. The wainscot, about 3 ft. 7 in. high, consists of plain
panels, without tracery, but the two southernmost ones are pierced
with elevation-squints. The panel immediately south of the doorway
has, near the south upper corner, a group of four chamfered round
holes, about ⅞ in. in diameter, arranged lozengewise. The southernmost
panel contains several holes, at different levels. On the left is a
single round hole, chamfered; next is a chamfered aperture, about 2½
in. high, of two overlapping circles, the upper one larger than the
lower; next, just under the rail, is a hole, measuring about 1½ in.
either way, rectangular at the bottom and semi-circular at the top;
and lastly, at the right-hand upper corner, is a group of three round
holes, two and one. The fenestration openings are 5 ft. 6½ in. high,
with Perpendicular tracery in the head to the depth of 2 ft. 3½ in. The
four-centred arch of the doorway springs 2 or 3 in. lower. The tracery,
plain and flat at the back, once consisted of two orders on its western
face. The first order, of trefoil-headed ogees, has perished from the
side openings, but part of it survives in the door-head in the shape
of a superimposed moulding to the four-centred arch, crocketed along
its upper edge. The lintel has a deep cavetto, filled at intervals by
seven square Gothic pateras, which seem all except one to be modern.
The screen was “restored” in 1873. The ground-cill has been wrongly
removed and the gates consequently rehung some 2 or 3 in. too high,
thus breaking the level of the middle-rail line and spoiling the
logical coherence of the design. The screen now stands 9 ft. 11 in.
high, and though the lintel extends 15 ft. 8 in. long from wall to
wall, the body of the screen is about 1 ft. too short for its place. In
the north wall of the nave, at a distance of 7 ft. 9 in. from where the
rood-screen now stands, is a chase (10 in. high by 4 in. wide) which
may have held the support of the rood-loft front at its north end. In
that case the opposite or south-west corner of the loft would have been
carried on a post from the ground. A boarded tympanum existed “till
quite lately”--so it was said in 1902. A ring in the ridge-piece of the
nave roof, about 3 ft. from the east end of the nave, probably served
for suspending the light before the Great Rood.
[Illustration:
_Photo: Mr. Aymer Vallance._
WYSALL CHURCH: ROOD-SCREEN.]
NOTE.--I regret that want of time and space compels me
to omit all notice of some important screenwork, _e.g._ at
Barton in Fabis and Tuxford.
In conclusion, I have to thank the Thoroton Society and
Miss Frere for their courteous permission to reproduce
the latter’s drawing of the south door of the pulpitum at
Southwell (permission of which, however, I have not been able
to take advantage); Mr. A. Lineker for kindly going to Blyth
to photograph one of the screens there expressly for this
work, and for permission to reproduce the same and also his
beautiful photograph of the east elevation of the pulpitum at
Southwell; to Messrs. Saunders & Saunders, architects, for
permission to reproduce their drawing of Holme church screens;
to Mr. Harry Gill and Mr. E. L. Guilford for photographs and
valuable notes, and the Rev. Dr. Cox, F.S.A., Rev. H. Hudson,
and Mr. T. M. Blagg, F.S.A., for much useful information; and
lastly, the clergy, who have kindly permitted me to take notes,
measurements, and photographs in a number of churches throughout
the county.
AYMER VALLANCE.
THE CIVIL WAR IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
BY EVERARD L. GUILFORD, M.A.
The Civil War has so unique a character that its study gives us a far
deeper insight into the thoughts and feelings of the average Englishman
than we should gain by turning our attention to any other outstanding
episode in the history of England.
Though the war was general throughout England, yet it was really
composed of a number of small local wars, which went on irrespective
of the general war, except when the tide of this greater drifted the
armies within the sphere of the less.
To understand clearly the nature of the Civil War in any one county,
it is necessary to grasp the basic characteristics of the war in
general, and to gauge the extent of local influences. There is a
great temptation to compare the Civil War with the French Revolution.
The ends were similar, in that both resulted in the execution of the
reigning monarch and the institution of a republic. And yet beyond this
there is little or no similarity. After studying the French Revolution,
we feel that the Civil War was merely playing at revolution, and when
we come to examine the facts more closely, we find that our Civil War
cannot be called a revolution at all. It is only a rebellion--a great
rebellion. Here were no downtrodden rebels fighting for the wealth of
the upper classes, but instead a body of intellectual and prosperous
men struggling for the retention of what they believed to be their
religious and political rights. It was not a war of classes. Without
the religious differences there would have been no war: for without
the religious fervour there could have been no Parliamentary force of
sufficient strength to combat the inborn and ingrained reverence for
the name of King. Elsewhere in Europe, where religion had been the
mainspring of war, brutality and cruelty had been ever to the front;
but this was not so in England, for, to quote Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, “two
minorities were fighting under critical inspection for the favour of
all England, and when rivals duel they take care not to wound their
mistress.”
Local jealousy might cause cruelty, but, as a rule, the war was as kind
and merciful as a war can be. Another point that needs emphasis is,
that it was a war between two minorities. The majority of Englishmen
took no active part in the struggle--at any rate at first--though later
the non-combatants found that they were plundered by both sides alike,
and consequently joined that which they believed would best protect
their homes. One class held aloof altogether. The hired labourer had
no interest either way. If he joined in the war, it was either because
of local influence or because he was forced into service by the
ever-present pressgang.
We have no space here to give an outline of the events preceding
the outbreak of the Civil War; nor indeed would such an account be
pertinent to the matter in hand.
Charles’s failure in foreign wars was followed by an inevitable desire
for money, which was not forthcoming by constitutional means. Forced
loans, free gifts, and ship-money were resorted to, with little
success. Much bitterness was caused, and soon there appeared a small
party of men who realised that if the liberty of England was to be
saved, Charles must be released from the chains thrown round him by
such counsellors as Strafford. This body of constitutionalists, as
they considered themselves, included men like the Earl of Essex, Pym,
Hampden, and others, who played prominent parts during the coming war.
Feelings gradually became more embittered, and when in March 1642
Parliament tried to deprive Charles of his command of the militia,
the quarrel became irreconcilable. Charles was in the North, and on
April 23 arrived at Hull, where a large store of munition was awaiting
transhipment to London. The Governor of the town, Sir John Hotham,
refused the King admission to the town, and Charles called on the
trained bands of the neighbouring counties to help him to force his way
into this rebellious seaport.
The impracticability of the whole question is well seen when, on June
2, the Parliament sent their Nineteen Propositions to the King. No
possible basis of discussion could result from so one-sided a document.
Negotiations of a kind were entered into, and Charles undertook to
make no further attempt to capture Hull until July 27. Meanwhile he
visited Doncaster, Newark, Nottingham, and Leicester. At Newark, where
he reviewed the county trained bands, he showed his trust in this loyal
borough--a trust which events proved was not misplaced. His speech to
the citizens of Newark was as follows:--
“Your honest resolutions and affections to me and your country,
for the defence of my person and the laws of the land, have
been and are so notable, that they have drawn me hither only
to thank you: I go to other places to confirm and undeceive my
subjects, but am come hither only to thank and encourage you:
you who have made the best judgment of happiness by relying on
that foundation which the experience of so many hundred years
hath given such proof of--the assurance and security of the law:
and assure yourselves when laws shall be altered by any other
authority than that by which they were made, your foundations
are destroyed, and though it seems at first but to take away my
power, it will quickly swallow all your interest. I ask nothing
of you (though your demeanour gives me good evidence that you
are not willing to deny), but to preserve your own affections to
the religion and laws established. I will justify and protect
those affections and will live and die with you in that quarrel.”
To obtain a clear understanding of this war, a few statistics are
necessary. The population of England was about five millions, of whom
six-sevenths lived south of the Trent, and out of this whole number
not more than 2½ per cent. took any part in the struggle. London, of
course, was the largest town, with 500,000 inhabitants, and Bristol and
Norwich were next, with some 30,000 each, while no town in the north
had half this number. Roughly stated, it may be said that the strength
of the King lay in the north and west, and that of the Parliament in
the south and east. Thus it will be seen that the predominance, as far
as population (and consequently commercial prosperity) went, was with
the Parliament. Do not let us imagine for one moment that the Houses
of Parliament were unanimous in their antagonism to the Royalists.
Professor Firth calculates that 30 peers supported the Parliament and
80 the King. Of the Lower House, 300 were Parliamentarians and 175
Royalists.
All through the struggle, the difficulty on both sides was to find
recruits for the army. There was no standing army and no regular
troops, with the exception of a few garrisons. The only forces were
the trained bands, and, except those in London, who were strongly
Parliamentarian, these took little or no share in the struggle,
refusing in most cases to leave the counties in which they had been
raised. Thus the party with the longest purse was sure to win. At
first the generosity of his adherents gave Charles a great financial
predominance, but in the end the steady flow of wealth from the
commercial centres threw the balance on to the other side.
Parliament tried to raise an army and pay for it by means of weekly
assessments on the counties. Nottinghamshire was assessed at £187,
10s., Leicestershire at the same figure, Derbyshire at £175, while
Lincolnshire had to find £812 and London £10,000. In Nottinghamshire
the raising of regiments was entrusted to Sir Francis Thornhaugh of
Fenton, near Sturton le Steeple; Sir Francis Molineux, who declined to
act; and Mr. Francis Pierrepont, son of the Earl of Kingston.
Before we go any further, it may not be amiss to give a list of the
gentry who sided with the King, and of those who were Parliamentarians.
_Royalists_: the Earl of Newcastle and his son, the Earl of
Kingston and his eldest son, Lord Chesterfield and all his family,
Lord Chaworth, Mr. Golding and other Catholic gentry, Sir John Byron
and all his brothers, Sir John Savile, Sir Gervase Eyre, Sir John
Digby, Sir Matthew Palmer, Sir Thomas Williamson, Sir Roger Cooper, Sir
W. Hickman, Sir Hugh Cartwright, Sir T. Willoughby, Sir Thomas Smith,
Sir Thomas Blackwell, and members of the following lesser families:
Markham, Parkyns (Thomas and his son Isham), Tevery, Pearce, Wood,
Staunton, Saunderson, Moore, Mellish, Butler, Rolleston, Lascelles,
Neville, Burnell, Holder, Wyld, Leek, Clay, Gilby, Lee, Shipman, North,
Apsley, Colley, Newport, Holland, Hacker, Holden, Pocklington, and
Green.
_Parliamentarians_: Mr. Sutton (afterwards Lord Lexington), Sir
Gervase Clifton (who became a royalist), Mr. William Pierrepont (who
did not serve in Nottinghamshire), Mr. Thomas Hutchinson and his sons
John and George, Mr. Henry Ireton, Mr. Edward Whalley, Mr. Gilbert
Millington, Mr. Francis Hacker, Sir Francis Thornhaugh and his son, Mr.
Pigott, Mr. Wright, Mr. Widmerpool, Mr. Scrimshire, and Mr. Acklom of
Wiseton Hall.
From this list it will readily be seen that Nottinghamshire was
strongly Royalist--so predominantly so, that it is difficult to account
for the fact that Charles’s summons to his supporters to meet him at
Nottingham was so scantily answered. This summons was issued from York
on August 12, and the meeting was to be on August 22, when the standard
would be raised.
At this point we are met by several problems which require
consideration. Why did Charles raise the standard of war before he was
ready to fight? Why did he choose Nottingham for that purpose? And why
was he so badly supported in this very Royalist county?
At no time during the war did Charles ever really want to fight.
He was the victim of circumstances: he was blind to facts, and he
under-estimated his opponents’ strength, as they did his. He thought,
doubtless, that such a direct challenge as the raising of the standard
would frighten the Houses into submission. The sacred name of King
would be a rallying point. Men might criticise, but they would not
fight against their King. The reverence for the person of the monarch,
which had reached its height during Elizabeth’s reign, was still great,
notwithstanding a steady decline, and there is no doubt that many men
were influenced by this feeling. They agreed with the theory of the
Parliament’s demands; but when it came to practice, they would fight
for their King, even against their better judgment. Charles hoped that
the challenge would prove a lifebelt in the sea of his difficulties; he
found that it was a millstone. But this does not explain why he raised
the standard before he had an army. He felt that many places, and
especially the seaports, were slipping away from him, and he hoped to
save them by this step. His hope was false, and before long the fleet
and all the great seaports were in the hands of his enemies. Charles’s
choice of Nottingham was probably due, in the first place, to his
belief in the loyalty of the gentry in the county, and, in the second
place, he had doubtless heard that Nottingham was a strong military
position, with its Castle standing high above the Trent, which was only
to be crossed at the Hethbeth Bridge--a position easily defended--and
possibly also at Wilford. He must have been very disappointed to find
that the river was very low, and was easily fordable at various points
close to the town. Of the ruinous condition of the Castle and town
defences he must have been aware, for he was no stranger to the town.
The reason for the bad support accorded him is difficult to discover.
Perhaps most of the gentry were already at Nottingham, but if so, they
had brought few followers; probably many wished to remain neutral,
though later events caused them to throw in their lot with Charles.
Much has been written of the raising of the standard, and here, since
space is limited, we must not go into details. The King arrived at
Nottingham on August 19, and almost immediately was compelled to set
out for Coventry, which, he heard, was in danger of capture. His
journey was futile, and he returned crestfallen on August 22. That
evening the standard was raised, probably on a slight eminence in a
field to the north of the Castle, now in the grounds of the General
Hospital, and after the ceremony it was carried into the Castle, this
procedure being repeated every day till the 25th.
Charles’s position was not enviable. He had thrown down the formal
challenge, and was now finding, when too late, that he had not the
forces at his back to uphold such a challenge. The general feeling of
most Englishmen at this time was truly expressed by Lord Savile when he
wrote: “I would not have the King trample on the Parliament, nor the
Parliament lessen him so much as to make a way for the people to rule
us all.”
A Parliamentary army of 20,000 men was stationed at Northampton,
heavily outnumbering the forces assembled at Nottingham. Prince Rupert
was stationed at Queensborough, between Leicester and Melton Mowbray,
with his cavalry. Unable to fight, Charles fell back upon negotiations.
Though he had little hope of any success by this means, he recognised
that by forcing the Parliament to refuse offers of peace, he would
bring over to his side many who viewed the prospect of open war with
horror. The first message left Nottingham on August 25, in the hands
of the Earls of Southampton and Dorset, Sir John Culpepper, and Sir
William Uvedale. Even before any answer was received, Charles had
issued some “Instructions to his Commissioners of Array,” which show
what he thought would be the result of the deputation. The expected
happened. The Houses sent an unfavourable answer, and further messages
were sent, though all this time both sides were preparing for war. At
first Charles would not avail himself of the services of the Roman
Catholics, who were only too willing to lend him aid and money. This
was a wise step, for Catholics were looked upon with considerable
hatred, and their adhesion would result in the alienation of many.
Eventually, however, the King gave way, for Catholic money was as good
as any other, besides being more plentiful in this time of scarcity.
The leading Catholic in this district was Mr. Golding, who held large
estates at Colston Bassett.
On September 10 the Earl of Essex joined the Parliamentarian forces at
Northampton, and, had he marched at once on Nottingham, it is difficult
to see how Charles could have avoided capture. But Essex dallied for
some unknown reason, and the golden opportunity to end the war at one
stroke passed by and never came again. Charles saw his danger, and
recognised the fact that Nottingham was no longer a safe shelter. On
September 13 he marched to Derby and thence to Shrewsbury, where he was
able to collect such forces as placed him more nearly on an equality,
numerically, with his opponents.
Freed from the presence of the King, Nottingham was open to occupation
by either party. The citizens were divided in their opinions, and
neither party was yet strong enough to take possession of the town.
Thus matters continued until the Battle of Edgehill, after which Sir
John Digby, the High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, made an attempt to
secure the county for the King. A meeting was called at Newark, at
which all the gentry were requested to be present. Though the best
interests of the county were the ostensible object of this meeting,
the Parliamentarian gentry grew suspicious and absented themselves,
and it was as well for them that they did so, for it was the intention
of Sir John Digby to capture all those who were likely to oppose him.
Gradually John Hutchinson had come to the front, and henceforward
he took over the command of affairs locally in the interests of the
Parliament, aided by a committee with whom he was not always in
agreement. His family lived at Owthorpe, and those who wish to see him
through the idealising eyes of his wife cannot do better than refer to
the famous memoirs. Recognising the fruitlessness of all negotiations,
Hutchinson summoned all those well affected to the cause of Parliament
to come to him at Nottingham. By Christmas 1642 a sufficient number
were assembled for the fortification of the town to be pushed on apace.
New gates replaced those which had fallen down, and Nottingham was made
as strong as the shortage of time and men permitted. Hutchinson with a
small force occupied the Castle.
Meanwhile the Royalists were occupying and strengthening Newark, which
was in better repair than Nottingham. The Duke of Newcastle garrisoned
it with a force under the leadership of Sir John Henderson. This
occupation of Newark by the Royalists was of paramount importance, for
there were but three regular fords on the Trent, one at Nottingham,
one at Newark, and the third at “Wilden Ferry,” in Derbyshire, where
the Cavendish Bridge is now, and further, Newark served to divide the
parliamentary forces in South Lincolnshire from those in Yorkshire
under Lord Fairfax, besides acting as an ever-present thorn in the
side of the Parliamentary garrison at Nottingham. Soon after Newark
was garrisoned, an attack was made on it by the Lincolnshire forces,
but this was beaten off. This attack was followed by another, planned
on a larger scale, which came within an ace of being successful. It
was decided to make an assault on Newark from all sides at Candlemas
1643. Forces from Nottingham and Derby, under the command of Colonel
John Hutchinson and Sir John Gell respectively, were to attack the
town on the western side, while the Lincolnshire forces, under one
Ballard, were to attack on the east. Ballard was to be commander of
the whole force. This soldier was a man whose days of prosperity were
behind him, and who, having many friends among the Newarkers, was
unwilling to be the cause of their undoing. He took up his position on
Beacon Hill, and began to bombard the town at a distance too great to
effect any appreciable damage. However, matters were going well for
the attackers: a street had been captured on the east, and on the
west the townsmen had been driven from their position. At this point
Ballard hesitated, and refused to move. The Newarkers were quick to
profit by his weakness, and the enemy were driven off. But this narrow
escape served as a warning to the Cavaliers, who began immediately to
strengthen the defences of Newark. Shelford Manor and Wiverton Hall
were fortified, and Sir Roger Cooper and the Duke of Newcastle put
their houses, at Thurgarton and Welbeck respectively, into a state of
defence; while about the same time Newstead Priory, Felley Priory, and
Kirkby Hardwick were occupied by the Royalists. In May of this year
Oliver Cromwell first appears in this district. His forces and those
of Lincolnshire were allied, and in the several skirmishes that took
place, the Newarkers appear always to be the losers. Cromwell’s force
numbered 2000 men, and we find there the beginnings of that discipline
and uprightness which was to be later so important a factor in the
organisation of the army of the eastern association and the new model.
_The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer_, referring to this force,
says: “No man swears, but he pays his 12d.; if he be drunk, he is
set in the stocks; or worse, if one calls the other ‘Roundhead,’ he
is cashiered, in so much that the countries where they come leap for
joy of them, and come in and join with them.” What a contrast this is
to the irregularities practised in many of the Royalist camps, where
debauchees like Goring were in command! There were many earnest men
who withheld their hands from their swords rather than serve in a
force commanded by such creatures as these. Nor was this looseness
the only weakness in the Royalist army. The King was unwilling to
entrust the whole command to any one man, and so, while making Lindsey
general-in-chief, he had left the cavalry in the hands of Prince
Rupert. Concerted action was impossible, jealousies were prevalent, and
distrust and disorder resulted. It was about this time that the Queen
arrived from abroad with help for the King. In June she was at Newark,
whence she sent the following letter:--
“MY DEAREST HEART,--I received just now your letter by
my Lord Saville, who found me ready to go away, staying but for
one thing, for which you will pardon two days’ stop, it is to
have Hull and Lincoln. Young Hotham having been put in prison
by order of the Parliament, is escaped, and hath sent to 260
(the Earl of Newcastle?) that he would cast himself into his
arms, and that Hull and Lincoln should be rendered. He is gone
to his father, and 260 writes for your answer; so that I think
I shall go home Friday or Saturday, and shall go lie at Werton
(Wiverton), and from thence to Ashby, where we will resolve
which way to take; and I will stay there a day, because that the
march of the day before will have been somewhat great, and also
to know how the enemy march, all their forces at Nottingham,
at present, being gone to Leicester and Derby, which makes us
believe it is to intercept our passage. As soon as we have
arrived I will send you word. At this present I think it right
to let you know the state in which we march, and what I leave
behind for the safety of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. I
leave two thousand foot and wherewithal to arm five hundred
more; twenty companies of horse, all to be under the command
of Charles Cavendish, whom the gentlemen of the country have
desired me not to carry with me against his will, for he desired
extremely not to go. The enemy have left within Nottingham one
thousand. I carry with me three thousand foot, thirty companies
of horse and dragoons, six pieces of cannon, and two mortars.
Harry Germyn commands the forces that go with me, as colonel of
my guard; and Sir Alexander Lesly the foot under him, and Gerard
the horse, and Robert Legge the artillery, and her she majesty
generalissimo over all and extremely diligent, with one hundred
and fifty waggons of baggage to govern. In case of battle have
a care that no troop of Essex’s army incommode us: for the
rest I hope that I shall be strong enough, for we have had the
experience at Nottingham, one of our troops having beaten six of
theirs, and made them fly. I have received your proclamation,
or declaration, which I wish you had not made, being extremely
disadvantageous for you, for you show too much fear, and do
not what you had resolved upon. Farewell, my dear heart. From
Newark, 27th June 1643.”
Meanwhile Colonel Hutchinson at Nottingham was becoming apprehensive
for the safety of the town, which was now surrounded by Royalist
garrisons. Moreover, the energetic Newarkers were always ready to
take advantage of any weakness Nottingham might show. In these
circumstances, Colonel Hutchinson was despatched to London to inform
Parliament of the danger, with the result that Cromwell, Hubbard,
Lord Grey, and Sir John Gell were ordered to unite their forces
at Nottingham. Besides the strengthening of the town, this order
had another object. It was known that the Queen would pass close by
Nottingham in her attempt to join the King, and it was hoped that she
might be intercepted. With this object in view, the force of some 5000
men, now in Nottingham, were divided as stated in the Queen’s letter,
some being stationed at Derby, and others at Leicester. All these
precautions proved futile, for after waiting two days at Southwell,
in doubt whether to attack Nottingham or not, the Queen passed on to
Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
The Queen’s escape was followed by the departure of the troops
concentrated at Nottingham.
The Newarkers were by no means content to wait to be attacked. They
preferred to fill in their time by annoying their opponents as far as
lay in their power. During May an escort had been sent to Oxford to
convoy some arms, and this force, some 2000 in number, on its return
made an unsuccessful attack on Northampton. Later in the year a night
march to Melton Mowbray resulted in the capture of the Parliamentary
Committee of Leicester, who were there with the object of raising money.
About the middle of 1643 two changes of leaders took place. Sir John
Meldrum superseded Lord Grey, and Sir John Henderson surrendered the
governorship of Newark to Sir Richard Byron. On July 20 Lord Willoughby
of Parham had taken Gainsborough by surprise from the Royalists, and
on the 25th Meldrum and Cromwell were ordered to go to his assistance,
for he was menaced by a force of Newarkers under Charles Cavendish,
the Royalist commander in Notts and Lincolnshire. Gainsborough was an
important place, for, to quote Mr. Gardiner: “It stood in the way of an
attack by the Royalists on Lincoln or of an attempt to help Newark.”
Mr. Gardiner continues: “Cromwell and Meldrum joined hands at Grantham,
and a body of troops met them from Lincoln at North Scarle. On the 28th
they arrived at Gainsborough, and the battle was fought to the S.E.
of the town, and resulted in the defeat of the Royalists and relief of
Gainsborough.
“A Royalist force is reported, and Cromwell advances to meet it.
He finds it is the army under Newcastle, and has to retire to
Gainsborough, which he leaves to its fate, and on the 30th it
capitulates. This battle was the turning point of the war, for it
showed the Parliament where to look for cavalry and a great leader.”
During this battle Charles Cavendish was slain, a great loss to the
Royalists.
After this Sir John Meldrum joins the main army and leaves
Lieut.-Colonel Hutchinson in command at Nottingham, which was neglected
by Parliament and left to its own devices, for even troops commanded
by such local men as Henry Ireton and Whalley are taken from this
neighbourhood.
Before proceeding to detail the events at Nottingham, it may be as well
to give a description of the condition of the Castle at this time,
which Bailey quotes in his _Annals of Nottinghamshire_:--
“The castle was built upon a rock, and nature had made it
capable of very strong fortification; but the buildings were
very ruinous and uninhabitable, neither affording room to lodge
soldiers nor provisions. The castle stands at one end of the
town, upon such an eminence as commands the chief streets.
There had been enlargements made to this castle after the first
building of it. There was a strong tower, which they called
the old tower, built upon the top of all the rock.... In the
midway to the top of this tower, there is a little piece of
rock on which a dovecote has been built; but the Governor took
down the roof of it, and made it a platform for two or three
pieces of ordnance, which commanded some streets and all the
meadows better than the higher tower. Under that tower, which
was the old castle, there was a larger castle, where there
had been several towers, and many noble houses, but the most
of them were down, only it was situated upon an ascent of the
rock, and so stood a pretty height above the streets. And there
were the ruins of an old pair of gates, with turrets on each
side. Before the castle, the town was on one side of a close
(Standard Hill and parts adjacent), which commanded the fields
approaching the town; which close the Governor afterwards made a
platform. Behind it was a place called the Park, that belonged
to the castle, but then had neither deer nor trees in it.... In
the whole rock, there were many large caverns, where a great
magazine and many hundred soldiers might have been disposed,
if they had been cleansed and prepared for it, and might have
been kept secure from any danger of firing the magazines by
any mortar pieces shot against the castle. It was not flanked,
and there were no works about it, when Mr. Hutchinson undertook
it, but only a little breastwork before the outmost gate. It
was as ill provided as fortified, there being but 10 barrels of
powder, 1150 pounds of butter and as much cheese, 11 quarters of
bread corn, 7 beeves, 214 flitches of bacon, 560 fishes, and 15
hogsheads of beer.”
The position of the town was critical. Girded with fortifications which
could only be sufficiently defended by 3000 men, Nottingham was riddled
through and through by jealousies and dissensions. Hutchinson was not
popular, and many Parliamentarians disapproved of his carrying the
cannons up into the Castle. Eventually a meeting of the townspeople was
held, at which Colonel Pierrepont propounded these three alternatives:
(1) To leave the town and go to other garrisons; (2) to stay in the
Castle; (3) to stay in the town works and have their throats cut. Many
left the town, and but 300 joined Hutchinson in the Castle. These were
all good men, and when the place had been provisioned, the position was
one of no little strength. The town defences were left in the hands
of the municipality. Of the garrison in the castle two-thirds were
quartered in the town.
Before long Newcastle sent Major Cartwright with a summons to
surrender. He was met with a refusal, and a similar answer was carried
back by Mr. Ayscough, whom Sir Richard Byron sent with the offer of a
bribe to the Governor.
Meanwhile hostilities had been continuing round Gainsborough, with the
result that the Royalists suffered a severe loss by the deaths of the
Earl of Kingston and Colonel Thomas Markham of Ollerton.
On the morning of September 19, Nottingham Castle narrowly escaped
capture. During the night a force of 600 Newarkers, led by Sir Richard
Byron, had gained access to the town, surprised the 200 of the garrison
who were quartered outside the Castle, and either captured or drove
them off. Thus Hutchinson found his garrison reduced to 100, and the
enemy at his gates. For five days the town was plundered and the
Castle fired at from the tower of St. Nicholas’s Church. On September
23 the invaders withdrew, and at the same time help arrived from Derby
and Leicester, but the Royalists and their prisoners were allowed to
depart, leaving Captain Hacker[50] with a small force to hold the newly
erected fort at the Trent Bridge. The menace of this force annoyed the
Governor, who planned its dispersal. Acting contrary to the advice
of the commander of the Derby forces, Hutchinson began to lay siege
to this bridge fort, and after five days he was so far successful
that Hacker withdrew to Newark, after breaking down two arches of the
bridge behind him. But Hutchinson’s troubles were by no means at an
end. Unpopular, and at odds with the Committee, he was called upon,
in January 1644, to face another attack upon the Castle. This time
the attack was made by some 3000 troops, 1000 of whom entered the
town, with intent to occupy it, another 1000 remained outside to guard
against any attack by neighbouring Roundhead troops, while the third
body, recruited largely from the garrisons of Belvoir and Wiverton,
were to gain possession of the all-important passage over the Trent.
The town force, led by Sir Charles Lucas, was surprised in the streets
of the town by a fierce attack of the garrison, and fled without making
much attempt to fight. A month later the Newarkers made an attempt to
gain possession of the Trent Bridge by entering in the disguise of
market women. Their ruse failed, and more than half of this heroic
force of nine were slain.
But this state of affairs could not go on. It was incredible that the
Parliament would allow themselves to be the butt of frequent attacks
without making some reprisals. Early in 1644 the Committee of both
kingdoms made up their minds to deal severely with Newark. Sir John
Meldrum, a Scotsman, was placed in command of the expedition, and
the forces of Nottingham and Derby were to co-operate with him. The
condition of the garrison was not enviable. Reduced in numbers by the
departure of several expeditionary forces, it was composed largely of
the townspeople and neighbouring gentry, while in addition to their
fewness of numbers, the capture of a food convoy rendered it likely
that soon they would be in want of provisions. The besieging army
numbered about 8500 men; but for all this the Newarkers were not going
to await their fate without doing all in their power to annoy the
enemy, for early in March a sudden sortie proved very disastrous to the
besiegers. But notwithstanding this, Sir John Meldrum expected almost
daily to gain possession of the town. But it was fated otherwise, and
the minister of fate was Prince Rupert, whom the King sent to do his
utmost to save the loyal borough. That he was not expected by the
Parliamentarians is evident, for his rapid cavalry attack delivered
from Coddington was successful, and the siege was raised before Sir
John Meldrum had time to find out the size of the force opposed to him.
The disputed ownership of Newark settled, Prince Rupert turned his
attention to Nottingham, and sent a demand for the surrender of that
town. The answer was a direct refusal; and evidently the Royalists
did not consider themselves strong enough, for though they advanced
to within three miles of that town, they changed their course and
journeyed to Oxford. But the Parliament had received a severe scare,
for when it was thought that Rupert might arrive at Nottingham
any minute, the Parliamentarians set to work to strengthen the
fortifications with the utmost haste. The meadows were flooded, and
even on Sunday no pause was permitted. But the moral effect of the
relief of Newark was so great, that even Mrs. Hutchinson, who saw
little good even in the majority of the supporters of the Parliament
and none at all in the Royalists, wrote: “Such a blow was given to the
Parliament interest, in all these parts, that it might well discourage
the ill-affected, when even the most zealous were cast down, and gave
up all for lost.”
The Newarkers were wise. They were not buoyed up with any false opinion
of their future security. The Parliament was still as determined as
ever, and in July, the Earl of Manchester was quartered at Retford
watching Newark. Mr. Cornelius Brown quotes the following letter from
one Will Goode in the army of the Earl. It refers to events which took
place between July 27 and August 16, 1644:--
“On Monday morning came an alarm to our quarters (at Retford)
from Tuxford that our horse there were beaten up with great
loss to us, whereupon Lieutenant-General Cromwell speedily
rode thitherwards to prove the truth, whereupon he found that
Newark, by obscure ways through the forest, unknown to our horse
guards, being two troops which stood two miles from Tuxford
towards Newark, had fallen suddenly into Tuxford upon our three
troops, of whom they killed a lieutenant and a quartermaster
and took with them eight prisoners and some horse, and so
speedily retreated to Newark. On Monday, his Lordship advanced
from Retford to Gainsborough, and then rode to Lincoln, where
he yet remains, having sent 2000 horse and 150 foot to lie at
Beckingham and Claypole, and some troops within two or three
miles of Newark to hold them in.... Our horse lies between
Newark and Belvoir, and will prevent all relief on this side of
the Trent to that town. Newark now expects a siege.”
The first of the Royalist garrisons in the valley of the Trent which
fell into the Parliament’s hands was Thurgarton Hall, the residence
of Sir Roger Cooper, which was carried by assault by the force under
Colonel Thornhaugh, which had assembled at Mansfield and marched
by way of Thurgarton to assist in the watching of Newark.[51] This
Royalist disaster occurred at the end of 1644. In Nottingham itself
the quarrel between Hutchinson and the Committee had by the beginning
of 1645 become so acute that in April we find both parties in London
pleading their cause at headquarters. Hutchinson’s visit was cut short
by the receipt of the news that the Newarkers had captured the fort at
Trent Bridge. One who signs himself T. H., writing to the _Weekly
Account_, April 16–23, 1645, says:--
“I doubt not but you have heard of the sad condition of these
parts; the King’s Forces from Newark of late have been more
active than ever, and their opposition as little. They have
plundered us of our Goods and Cattle on this (the south) side of
the River, and on Saturday last a Partee of the Newark Horse and
Dragoons, when it was not yet duske, fell on Nottingham Bridge,
which is not many furlongs from the Town, cut off the Centinell,
and surprised the whole Guard, except 3 men which narrowly
escaped; the whole Guard consisted of 33 Persons, those that
got not away were most inhumanly cut to pieces, notwithstanding
desire of Quarter, &c., and it may please God that some of those
which committed this massacre, may be met with in the like
Hands.”
This was a serious matter, for the loss of this fort closed the road
for all provisions into Nottingham from the south. Accordingly, Colonel
Rossiter was sent with a force of nearly 2000 men to recapture the
position. No fight was necessary, for the Newarkers, recognising the
numerical superiority of the enemy, and hearing that the Scotch army
would shortly arrive at Nottingham, retreated home.
The _Weekly Account_, May 4, 1645, states: “The Scots will keep
their rendezvous at Nottingham to-morrow”; but it seems doubtful
whether they did, for it is the middle of June when _The Kingdomes
Weekly Intelligence_ announces: “The Scots are come to Nottingham
with 7000 foot, and 4000 horse, expecting command of their removal.” As
a matter of fact, they appear to have left on July 1.
Meanwhile the King and Prince Rupert had determined to capture
Leicester, the most important Parliamentary position in the Midlands.
A large force was collected, among them the celebrated regiment of
Newark cavalry led by Colonel Page, and by the beginning of June the
town was in Royalist hands. But their triumph was short-lived, for on
June 14 the battle of Naseby proved that the time of the Parliament
had come, and that the question now was how long the few isolated
Royalist garrisons could hold out. Of these towns Newark was the most
important, and the numbers of its garrison were swelled by the arrival
of many fugitives from Naseby. With increased strength came greater
activity, and the raids of the Newarkers became even more galling
to the Parliament than they had hitherto been. The energetic forces
dashed in all directions, turning up where they were least expected
and leaving before any concerted attack could be made upon them.
Among their exploits at this time was the capture of Welbeck House,
together with 200 prisoners. Each month saw special efforts being made
to capture this energetic town, which received fresh encouragement on
August 22 from a short visit of the King, who passed through on his way
to Huntingdon. The town was now governed by Sir Richard Willis, who
had succeeded to the post in 1644. Under his leadership the raids on
the surrounding country were continued until October, when on the 4th
the arrival of the King gave a new turn to affairs. Charles’s object
appears to have been to make his enemies leave the Welsh border and
compel them to attack him in a strong position from which he could
escape whenever he might wish to do so. That the Parliament did not
look on the matter in the same light, is evident from the following
extract from _The Diary, or an Exact Journal_, October 23–30:--
“Major General Poyntz hath blocked up Newark on the North side
of it; and to make his men more circumspect and eager in the
siege thereof, hee is certainly assured that the King is there,
and with him the two German Princes Rupert and Maurice: the
London Brigade, under the Command of Colonel Man Waring is now
there with him, with whom are joyned the Horse and Foot of
Nottinghamshire under the Command of Colonell Thornehaugh. On
the South Side of the Towne Colonell Rossiter is quartered with
his owne Regiment; and he hath with him the Northampton Horse
under the Command of Colonell Lidcot, so that it is conceived,
it is altogether impossible for the king to escape through them
either by force or stealth, for hee hath not with him above
800 Horse, the Truth of which may easily be collected by the
strength which he brought with him into Newarke, which were at
the most not above 1800 horse, sixteen hundred whereof were so
sorely shaken at Sherbourne, that it is thought very few of
them returned to Newarke, to bring the sadde tydings of their
overthrow, so that he hath now but 200 remaining with him, which
being put to the troopes of the Garrison, which are but nine
troopes, and are 3 score in every troope doe make up just 800.”
But dissension was about to appear in the little garrison of Newark.
Prince Rupert had lost Bristol, and had, on this score, been abused.
Contrary to the King’s wishes, he came to Newark to explain his side
of the question. The position was further complicated by the King
choosing this time to supplant Sir Richard Willis in the governorship
of the town, and to put in his place Lord Belasyse. This, taken with
other private jealousies, brought matters to a climax. The Princes,
Rupert and Maurice, sided with Willis when at a feast given by Lord
Belasyse the quarrel became open. “Thereupon they all drew in the
King’s presence, and within an hour the Princes, Genl. Willis, and many
others cald to Horse, and went away that night on the South side of the
Town (to Wiverton Hall). Colonell Rossiter lyeing on that side must
needs know of their action. Bellasis is made Governor of Newarke, the
onely creature of note with his Majesty.
“Newark is full of discontent, and most of the gentry wavering, desire
their liberty.”
The sequel of this quarrel was that the discontented Royalists applied
to Parliament for passes to leave the country, promising not to take
any further part in the war. Their request was granted, yet not
all seem to have taken advantage of it, for some at any rate were
reconciled to the King. Prince Rupert, however, passes altogether from
the local stage.
At the end of October, Poyntz undertook the suppression of the Royalist
garrisons at Shelford and Wiverton. Shelford, commanded by Lord
Stanhope, son of the Earl of Chesterfield, refused to surrender. A
bloody struggle was the result, and it was not until their general was
slain that the plucky defenders capitulated. Within a week Wiverton and
Welbeck, awed by the fate of Shelford, surrendered without waiting to
be stormed. Thus was Newark becoming gradually surrounded by hostile
garrisons, and now Belvoir Castle alone remained in Royalist hands.
The King realised that if he wished to escape before the net was drawn
quite tightly round Newark he must delay no longer, and on November
6, Colonel-General Poyntz had to report “that the King was come from
Newarke and gotten by him.”
Siege was laid to Belvoir Castle, its outworks were captured, and
its water-supply almost cut off, yet it appears to have held out for
two months, until December 30, when the Governor, Sir Gervase Lucas,
surrendered.
Meanwhile a formal siege had been laid to Newark, and the town was
all but surrounded; for now that the Earl of Montrose was defeated in
Scotland, and the Royalists in the west of England dispersed, all that
remained to be done was to capture the King and his towns of Oxford and
Newark.
Mr. Cornelius Brown, in his _History of Newark_, draws attention
to the fact that while the King was at Newark he was in communication
with the Scottish leaders--a fact to be noticed in view of the course
events afterwards took.
This last siege of Newark was a much more serious affair than either
of the others had been. A large army was collected for the purpose,
and an attempt was made to surround the town and establish a blockade,
with the object of preventing the introduction of provisions into
it. The arrangement of the besieging forces can be well seen from
the contemporary plan. Colonel Rossiter at Balderton, and General
Poyntz at Farndon, were watched by the Newarkers established in the
Queen’s Sconce, of which notable remains can still be seen. Colonel
Theo. Gray at Coddington, and Colonel Henry Gray at Winthorpe, were,
in their turn, watched by the garrison of the King’s Sconce, now
unfortunately destroyed. It had been arranged that the Scots, when they
arrived, should take up their position at Kelham, and by occupying
the island from Kelham to Muskham Bridge they would complete the ring
of besiegers. At the beginning of December the Scots arrived, and
immediately a council of war was held by the English and Scottish
generals. As a result Muskham Bridge was stormed and a sconce near it
captured. It is difficult to point to the exact place where the Scots
had their main camp, called Edinburgh. Undoubtedly it was a very large
enclosure, and one would expect it to have been defended by some
kind of earthworks; yet a careful search of this part of the island
has failed to reveal more than a few isolated banks and ditches,
insufficient to give us any idea of the shape or extent of this camp.
[Illustration: SIEGE PLAN OF NEWARK.]
Notwithstanding the arrival of the Scots, the circuit would not seem
to have been complete, for the Newarkers still continued to carry
provisions into the town, and not infrequently they would sally forth
and fiercely attack one or other of the enemy. The following graphic
account from the _Cities Weekly Post_, January 6–13, 1646, must
serve to describe one of these frequent sallies:--
“Major Generall Poyntz continues his Quarters at Stoake; the
Nottingham forces did keep their Guards in the Church, where
unfortunately happened so great a fire, which took hold of the
straw, that they could not quench it until it had devoured
all that was combustible by the fire, and nothing on the
next morning but the walls remaining, a sad spectacle to the
beholders; whether this gave any encouragement to the Enemy in
Newarke we cannot tell; but not long afterwards, the Nottingham
forces being many of them gone to Nottingham upon some business
(as wee heare) of publicke concernment, the Enemy sallyed forth
from Newarke, being about 800 Horse and betwixt 200 or 300 Foot,
and were making up to Major Gen. Poyntz his quarters at Stoak,
which they did with so much fury and eager speed, that his Horse
Guard began to flye, and were in that disorder, that two Horses
fell down as they were passing through the turn Pike, by which
means the more neare approaches of the Enemy and the Allarum
they did give us could not so perfectly bee apprehended until
they had entered into our Quarters, and Major Gen. Poyntz his
own Chamber, which they made hast to plunder. In the meantime
Major Gen. Poyntz using all dilligence to re-colect his men, did
deport himselfe with so much resolution, that many of the Enemy
were killed, nine prisoners taken, and about fifty wounded. In
this service, it is said, we had not above three slaine, and
seven hurt. The Enemy retyred in disorder to Newark, and the
rather because they heard that Collonel Rossiter with a new body
of 1000 Horse and foot was cumming down from Claypoole towards
them, but perceiving that the Enemy had notice of their cumming,
and were got into Newark, he onely gave an alarum to their
Garrison, and returned safe to his own quarters.”
Even the turning of the river out of its course was not able to break
down the defences of the gallant town, and so matters went on, until in
May the end came suddenly and dramatically.
Negotiations between Charles and the Scotch Commissioners appear
to have been in progress for some time, the intermediary being
Montreuil, a Frenchman in the King’s confidence. There is a certain
amount of mystery attached to the whole affair, but at any rate
Charles thought that he could not do better for his cause than join
the Scotch army. How far the negotiations had gone, and how far the
Scotch generals were privy to these negotiations, is not clear, but
at any rate when the King suddenly appeared at Kelham on May 5, 1646,
General Leslie professed complete astonishment and embarrassment.
But it is instructive to inquire how Charles reached Kelham, for
considerable uncertainty exists as to the course he took after entering
Nottinghamshire at the south. We hear that the King reached Stamford
in disguise, accompanied by Dr. Hudson and John Ashburnham, on May 3,
and left again on the 4th, travelling all night. The only detail of
his journey to Southwell, where he arrived early on the 5th, that we
have been able to meet with, is that he crossed the Trent near Gotham.
This statement is confusing rather than otherwise, for the Trent does
not pass within two miles of this isolated village. The reason why it
was necessary to cross the river to the west of Nottingham would be
that the country between Nottingham and Newark was quite unsafe for
Royalists, while there was quite a possibility of a safe circuit round
Nottingham by the north, and so by forest roads to Southwell. But the
exact spot where the Trent was crossed still remains to seek. Arrived
at the King’s Arms (now the Saracen’s Head), Southwell, Montreuil’s
headquarters, Charles rested for a short time, and after dinner marched
on to Kelham. Though seemingly embarrassed by their royal prisoner, the
Scots had no intention of letting him escape. He was closely guarded
at Kelham Hall--so closely, indeed, that no one could correspond with
him. No sooner was he at Kelham than Charles set about to arrange for
the surrender of Newark. The Newarkers begged that they might hold
out as long as they could, but Charles insisted on their surrender,
and Belasyse had to make the best terms he could. The terms were
favourable, for the garrison marched out with all the honours of war.
The arrangements for the surrender of the town were made “neere Maj.
Gen. Poyntz headquarters.” The _Perfect Occurrences of both Houses
of Parliament, Week ending May 8th_, gives the following list of
treators:--
“Treators for the Parliament are Col. Alex. Popham, Col. Fras.
Thornhaugh, Col. John Hutchinson, Col. Henry Gray, Col. Richard
Thornton, Maj. Phil. Twisleton, and Maj. John Archer--English;
Col. Walter Scott, Lieut.-Col. Gil. Carre, Maj. Archib.
Douglas--Scots.
“Sir Thos. Ingram, Sir Bry. Balmes, Sir. Ger. Nevile, Mr.
Robt. Sutton (not allowed to be a lord), Sir Simon Fanshaw,
Maj.-Gen. Eyre, Col. Gilsby, Col. Darcy, Col. Atkins, Alderman
Standish--for Newark.
“The clerks are Mr. Thos. Bristoe for us, and Mr. Coudy for
them.”
On May 8 the Governor of Newark marched out, and on the same day the
Scotch army and the King went northwards, spending the first night at
Markham. With the surrender of Newark an order came from Parliament for
the pulling down of all strong places in Nottinghamshire, including
Southwell Palace and the Minster. The Palace was already in a ruinous
condition, but Mr. Cludd managed to save the Minster, while Nottingham
Castle was spared till 1651, on account of its steady adhesion to
Parliament. But Newark Castle was “slighted,” and by the end of July
was such a ruin as we see to-day.
Little more remains to be said with regard to the struggle in Notts. In
July 1648 a rising of Notts and Lincolnshire Royalists was led by Sir
Gilbert Byron. A skirmish was fought near Willoughby on the Wolds, and
the Royalists were totally routed by Colonel Rossiter. Early in 1649
the King was brought to trial before a court of sixty-seven members.
Five names connected with our county are prominent: Whalley, Ireton,
Hutchinson, Millington, and Goffe; while to Colonel Francis Hacker was
given the task of seeing that the sentence was carried out.
With the death of the King it is fitting that this short sketch of
the Civil War should cease. It has not been possible to go into any
details, and in order to preserve the due proportion it has been
necessary to omit much that might have proved interesting. England
passed through a severe crisis in her history--a crisis which was
almost sure to occur at one time or another--and though its course
might have been less bloody had the ruler of England been a stronger
man, yet it doubtless served a good purpose in providing a wide outlet
for all the seething schisms engendered by Puritanism.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POETS
BY JOHN RUSSELL, M.A.
The appreciation of poetry would appear to be as various and uncertain
as its definition. For while, on the one hand, the cynic, confusing
cause with effect, has defined it as a “disease of the intestines,”
on the other, a great critic, himself an excellent poet, has written:
“Poetry is nothing less than the most perfect speech of man, that in
which he comes nearest to being able to utter the truth. It is no small
thing, therefore, to succeed eminently in poetry”; and again, “The
noble and profound application of ideas to life is the most essential
part of poetic greatness”: so that when a poet has established his
claim to real glory, “that real glory is good and wholesome for mankind
at large, good and wholesome for the nation which produced the poet
crowned with it.”
The county of Nottingham cannot claim the credit of having produced
many such glorious poets. Only three of her poetic children stand out
very conspicuously--Byron, Kirke White, and Philip James Bailey. But
she can claim a fair number of minor poets, with whom this paper will
more especially deal. It might, indeed, have been expected that the
county and the county town would be prolific in poetic achievement.
For they have had a remarkable history and have been the scene of many
stirring incidents in the great drama of the nation’s life. Some,
indeed, may say that the inhabitants have been men of action rather
than of words.
As for the scenery of the county, though it may seem tame to the
dwellers in the Lake District or the Peak, or amid the combes and
moors of the south-west, yet Sherwood Forest, Clifton Grove, and
the long reaches of the Trent have a peculiar beauty of their own,
and the homely charm of fields and hedgerows appeals strongly to
Nottinghamshire men, so that amid grander scenes they can feel as
Ulysses of old felt:--
“Non dubia est Ithaci sapientia, sed tamen optat
Fumum de patriis posse videre focis.”
This pleasure in their home has found plentiful and apt expression in
the county poets. Kirke White sings:--
“In woods and glens I love to roam,
When the tired hedger hies him home;
Or by the woodland pool to rest,
When pale the star looks on its breast.”
He does but express in verse what any sensitive mind would feel in
walking, while the early autumn twilight is fading into dark, say along
the field path between Thoroton and Orston. The scope of this article
forbids any detailed account of the lives of the several writers and
their works, or lengthy criticism; it must be enough to relate a few
facts about each, mention their chief writings, and occasionally, where
it seems desirable, add a few lines of illustrative quotation.
HENRY CONSTABLE.--The first to claim our attention is Henry Constable
[1562–1613]. Anthony Wood says of him “that he was born (or at least
descended from a family of the name of Constable) in Yorkshire.” It
seems, however, to be accepted now that he was born at Newark, and
was the son of Sir Robert Constable, Lieutenant of the Ordnance to
Queen Elizabeth. He was educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge, a
fact with which it is somewhat difficult to reconcile Wood’s statement
“that he spent some time among the Oxonian muses.” He became a Roman
Catholic at an early age, and his zeal for the cause of his religion
brought him many difficulties and made him an exile for many years of
his life. He died at Liège. His poetical ability was fully recognised
by his contemporaries. In a letter from abroad he is described as “One
Constable, a fine poetical wit, who resides in Paris”; and in the same
letter he is said “to have had in his head a plot to draw the Queen to
be a Catholic.” Wood eulogizes him as “a great master of the English
tongue,” and adds that “there was no gentleman of our nation had a
more pure, quick, and higher delivery of conceit than he.” Sonnets
of conceits, that is, quaint or humorous fancies elaborately wrought
out till they were exhausted of suggestion, were a favourite form of
composition at that time, and with Constable’s work may be compared
Drayton’s _Idea_, Daniel’s _Delia_, and other similar collections. In
1584 appeared _Diana, or the Excellent Conceitful Sonnets of H. C.
Augmented with divers quatorzains of honourable and learned personages.
Divided into VIII. Decades._ And in 1592 was issued a small quarto
volume entitled _Diana, the Praises of his Mistress in certain Sweete
Sonnets by H. C._ In illustration of his style may be quoted:--
“My Lady’s presence makes the roses red,
Because to see her lips they blush for shame.
The Lily’s leaves, for envy, pale became;
And her white hands in them this envy bred.
The Marigold the leaves abroad doth spread;
Because the sun’s and her power is the same.
The Violet of purple colour came,
Dyed in the blood she made my heart to shed.
In brief, All flowers from her their virtue take;
From her sweet breath, their sweet smells do proceed;
The living heat which her eyebeams doth make
Warmeth the ground, and quickeneth the seed.
The rain, wherewith she watereth the flowers,
Falls from mine eyes, which she dissolves in showers.”
Michael Drayton’s _Idea_ appears in 1619. Though he was a Warwickshire
man, he perhaps deserves a passing mention here because of his praises
of “the Crystal Trent, for fords and fish renowned,” and the “silver
Trent near to which Sirena dwelleth, she to whom Nature lent all that
excelleth.”
“Tagus and Pactolus
Are to thee debtor,
Not for their gold to us
Are they the better;
Hence forth of all the rest,
Be thou the river,
Which as the daintiest
Puts them down ever.
For as my precious one
O’er thee doth travel,
She to pearl paragon
Turneth thy gravel.”
GERVASE MARKHAM [1568–1637], a member of a very distinguished
Nottinghamshire family, was the son of Sir Robert Markham of Cotham.
After serving as a soldier in the Low Countries and with the Earl of
Essex in Ireland, he applied himself to writing, for which he was
well qualified, being a scholar and knowing four or five languages.
He had a practical knowledge of agriculture and horse-breeding, on
which subjects he wrote several treatises. In association with William
Sampson he published in 1622 a drama, _The True Tragedy of Herod and
Antipater_, and in 1633 he produced another, _The Dumbe Knight_. His
poem, _The Most Honourable Tragedie of Sir Richard Grenvile, Knight_,
should be noticed because it probably gave suggestions to Tennyson in
writing his ballad of _The Revenge_. In point of length there is a
considerable difference between these works of the two poets. Markham
also wrote some religious poems.
WILLIAM SAMPSON, about whom very little is known, was probably born
at South Leverton near Retford, at the end of the sixteenth century.
On the title page of the play which was written by him in conjunction
with Gervase Markham, he is described as a “Gentleman.” It is said that
he was a retainer in the family of Sir Henry Willoughby of Risley. In
support of this it may be mentioned that he dedicated one of his plays,
_The Vow Breaker, or the Faire Maide of Clifton_, to “The Worshipfull
and most vertuous Gentlewoman Mistress Anne Willoughby Daughter of the
Right Worshipfull and ever to be Honoured Henry Willoughby of Risley in
the County of Derby, Baronet.”
In his volume of poems, many of which are of the nature of epitaphs
or elegies, he gives some anagrams. Making of these was “then the
fashionable amusement of the wittiest and most learned,” as Disraeli
says. From “William Cavendish,” Sampson makes “All my will is Heaven”;
from “John Curson” or “Cursone,” “So I ranne on,” and “Honour is sure,”
“Which Anagrammized thus, ’tis cleere and pure,
So hee ranne on. His honour now is sure.”
Among the subjects of his verse may be noted the Countess of Shrewsbury
(“Bess of Hardwick”), “ould Sir John Byron of Newstead Abbey,” Sir
George Perkins of Bunny, Henry Lord Stanhope, and “the right Honourable
Henry Peirpoint,” father of the first Earl of Kingston.
THOMAS SHIPMAN [1632–1680] was the eldest son of William Shipman of
Scarrington, by his second wife, Sara, daughter of Alderman Parker
of Nottingham. Thoroton speaks of him as “a good Poet, and one of
the Captains of the Trained Bands of this County.” His father was an
enthusiastic Royalist. In spite of this partisanship, Thomas succeeded
in “saving a small estate amid the calamities of the last rebellion,”
which indicates shrewdness and capacity in business. His wife, daughter
of John Trafford, brought him an estate at Bulcote. Their son William
was high sheriff of Notts in 1730. Among his literary associates were
Denham and Oldham.
He published a rhymed tragedy, _Henry the Third of France, stabbed by
a Fryer, with the Fall of Guise_, and a volume of Loyal Poems called
_Carolina_. He made grateful acknowledgments to his friend Abraham
Cowley, and was a poetical friend of the third Lord Byron.
An address to the reader by Thomas Flatman, in 1682, describes him
as “a man every way accomplished: To the advantages of his birth,
his education had added whatsoever was necessary to fit him for
conversation, and render him (as he was) desirable by the best wits of
the age.” Some of his writings were not free from the moral blemishes
which disfigure much of the writing of that period.
JOHN OLDHAM [1653–1683], though born in Gloucestershire, is often
numbered among Nottinghamshire writers because of his connexion with
the Earl of Kingston, who was his patron and gave him a home for a time
at Holme Pierrepoint.
In the church of that village there is a tablet to the poet’s memory.
That he was a man of distinction among his literary contemporaries
is clear from the fact that both Waller and Dryden paid tribute
to him at his death: and his work seems to have had considerable
influence upon Pope and other eighteenth-century poets. He is called
in the introduction to the _Ode on St. Cecilia’s Day_, “the late
ingenious Mr. John Oldham,” and in a Dictionary published in 1694
in London he is described as “The darling of the Muses, a pithy,
sententious, elegant, and smooth Writer.”
He wrote Satires and Pindaric Odes, and based his work largely on
imitation of such classical authors as Horace and Juvenal.
His appreciation of the schoolmaster’s calling was not very high--
“A Dancing-Master shall be better paid,
Though he instructs the Heels, and you the Head.”
Oldham’s works do not allow much satisfactory quotation; but these
lines may be given as a specimen of him:--
“’T has ever been the top of my Desires,
The utmost height of which my wish aspires,
That Heaven would bless me with a small estate,
Where I might find a close obscure retreat;
There, free from noise and all ambitious ends,
Enjoy a few choice books, and fewer friends;
Lord of myself, accountable to none,
But to my conscience and my God alone:
There live unthought of, and unheard of die,
And grudge mankind my very memory.
But since the blessing is, I find, too great
For me to wish for, or expect of Fate:
Yet maugre all the spite of destiny,
My thoughts and actions are, and shall be free.”
From the Pindaric Ode to the memory of Mr. Charles Morwent may be
cited:--
“Thy soul within such silent pomp did keep,
As if humanity were lulled asleep,
So gentle was thy pilgrimage beneath
Time’s unheard feet scarce make less noise,
Or the soft journey which a planet goes.
Life seemed all calm as its last breath;
A still tranquillity so husht thy breast,
As if some Halcyon were its guest,
And there had built her nest:
It hardly now enjoys a greater rest.”
The life of ROBERT DODSLEY [1703–1764], publisher and poet, has in it a
touch of romance in that, by ability, perseverance, and integrity, he
raised himself from the comparatively servile position of a footman to
be the friend and helper of many of the greatest men of his age, men
distinguished by high birth and position or by genius, or by all three
combined; and it will appear from what follows that he played no small
or insignificant part in the literary life of the eighteenth century.
Dodsley was born on the 13th February 1703. The date of his birth is
not recorded in the Mansfield register, but has just been discovered
in an old memorandum book kept by the parish clerk, John Lodes. The
omission of his birth entry from the registers suggests that his
parents were perhaps Dissenters.
He is said to have been apprenticed at first to a stocking-weaver,
but, disliking the trade or the conditions in which he had to work,
he gave it up and became a footman. At this period of his life he
published a volume of verse entitled _The Muse in Livery_. He
received encouragement and support from his employer and her friends.
Ultimately, with the help of £100 from Pope, who befriended him also in
other ways, he set up a bookseller’s shop in Pall Mall, and from the
profits of this business and his writings he was able to retire towards
the close of his life with a comfortable competence. He died at Durham
and was buried there.
That Dodsley held a respectable position in the world of letters is
evident from the fact that Pope patronised his play of _The Toyshop_,
which was put on the stage in 1735; while of his tragedy of _Cleon_
Johnson says, “if Otway had written this play, no other of his pieces
would have been remembered,” praise which even Dodsley himself thought
rather above the merit of his work.
As a bookseller and publisher he succeeded well. It was Dodsley who
discerned the merit of Johnson’s _London_ for which he paid the author
ten guineas. Later on he paid fifteen guineas for _The Vanity of Human
Wishes_, and he was one of the publishers who bought _Rasselas_.
Johnson alludes to him affectionately as “Doddy my patron,” and says
“Dodsley first mentioned to me the scheme of an English Dictionary.”
To Dodsley’s enterprise the _Annual Register_, which is continued to
this day, owed its origin. This is not the place to give a full list of
his works, but mention must not be omitted of his two plays, _The King
and the Miller of Mansfield_, and _Sir John Cockle at Court_, which
show shrewd observation of men and affairs. Dodsley’s character seems
to have been very agreeable and estimable. He is described by Boswell
as “worthy, modest, and ingenious,” and we have it on the testimony of
Johnson and Walpole that he had the manly merit of not being ashamed to
recall “the limits of his narrower fate.” He honoured the memory of his
friend Shenstone the poet by publishing an edition in two volumes of
his works, both prose and verse.
[Illustration:
_Photo: Mr Emery Walker._
ROBERT DODSLEY.
_By kind permission of_ YATES THOMPSON, Esq.]
One or two quotations must serve to illustrate his manner of thought
and diction. In the _Miller of Mansfield_ he says: “Why we are all
of us lost in the dark every day of our lives, knaves keep us in the
dark by their cunning, and fools by their ignorance. Divines lose us in
dark mysteries, lawyers in dark cases, and statesmen in dark intrigues.
Nay, the light of reason, which we so much boast of, what is it but a
dark lanthorn, which just serves to prevent us from running our nose
against a post perhaps, but is no more able to lead us out of the dark
mists of error and ignorance, in which we are lost, than an ignis
fatuus would be to conduct us out of this wood.”
In the same play the countryman describes London:--
“O! ’tis a fine place! I have seen large houses with small
hospitality, great men do little actions, and fine ladies do
nothing at all. I have seen the honest lawyers of Westminster,
and the virtuous inhabitants of Change Alley; the politic madmen
of coffee-houses, and the wise statesmen of Bedlam. I have seen
merry tragedies, and sad comedies; devotion at an opera, and
mirth at a sermon; I have seen fine clothes at St. James’s,
and long bills at Ludgate Hill. I have seen poor grandeur and
rich poverty; high honours and low flattery; great pride and no
merit. In short, I have seen a fool with a title, a knave with a
pension, and an honest man with a thread-bare coat.”
He wrote several songs, one of the best known of which is “The Parting
Kiss.”
Dodsley sat for his portrait to Sir Joshua Reynolds in 1760. From the
interesting life of Dodsley, recently written by Mr. Ralph Straus,
it is abundantly clear that the bookseller was a remarkable and very
worthy man, and that English literature is greatly indebted to him in
many ways. It is indeed a cause for surprise that his life has not
been more fully written before. He not only had a keen discernment
of the literary merit of work submitted to his judgment, but he had
an equally keen discernment of what the public taste required at the
moment. He therefore very seldom failed in his publishing ventures. He
had also a high conception of the dignity of literature, and of his
responsibility as author and publisher. His conduct in respect of his
partnership in the _London Chronicle_ is deserving of the highest
praise, and his letter announcing his intention of relinquishing
his share in that periodical is worthy, for its manly sincerity and
straightforwardness, to be compared with the famous letter of Dr.
Johnson to Lord Chesterfield. Says Dodsley: “However, as I am but a
single person, I desire you will take the sense of the Partners on all
I have said, only assuring you that if the Paper cannot be carried on
without giving any of these cause of offence, I shall desire to dispose
of my share, being determined not to sacrifice my character to other
people’s indiscretions, nor to any lucrative consideration whatsoever.”
From the few private letters given in Mr. Straus’s book, we get a
pleasing glimpse of his good nature and humour in the relations of
ordinary family life, and can quite easily understand that he was
popular and much esteemed by his friends. Shenstone said of him, “Of
his simplicity, benevolence, humanity, and true politeness, I have
had repeated and particular experience.” Though Dodsley had not the
advantage of a good early education, yet, in the words of Mr. Straus,
“a long life spent in the society of literary and artistic people, and
much reading, had educated him more surely than a five years’ course at
one of the universities might have done. The education that comes to
the man in love with life is of far more importance than the forced, if
polite, education that is given to the boy.” With the exception of his
early want of opportunity, his life was singularly full and complete.
ERASMUS DARWIN [1731–1802], the bearer of a name which his illustrious
grandson has made for ever famous in the history of scientific
speculation, was himself a man of distinction, “the worthy grandfather
of a far more eminent contributor to human knowledge.” He was born
at Elston, near Newark, educated at Chesterfield and St. John’s
College, Cambridge, and finished his medical education at Edinburgh.
He practised in Lichfield and at Derby. His book, _The Botanic
Garden_, appeared in 1781, and consists of two parts, the “Economy
of Vegetation,” and “Loves of the Plants.” His work is full of
classical allusions, and he may be looked upon as one of the last
exponents of the classical tradition in English verse. As Ovid, in his
_Metamorphoses_, had set forth the change of human beings into plants
and animals, Darwin, reversing the process, undertook to “restore some
of them to their original animality, after having remained prisoners so
long in their vegetable mansions.” In other words, he personified and
allegorised the forms and natural properties of plants. The effects,
for instance, of a decoction of laurel or Laura, are represented in a
figure of Nightmare.
One quotation from his lengthy poems must suffice:--
“Press’d by the ponderous air the Piston falls
Resistless, sliding through its iron walls;
Quick moves the balanced beam, of giant birth,
Wields his large limbs, and nodding shakes the earth ...
Soon shall thy arm, Unconquered Steam! afar
Drag the slow barge, or drive the rapid car;
Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear
The flying chariot through the fields of air.
Fair crews triumphant, leaning from above,
Shall wave their fluttering kerchiefs as they move,
Or warrior bands alarm the gaping crowd,
And armies shrink beneath the shadowy cloud.”
Mention should also be made of his _Song to May_.
The close of the eighteenth century brings us to the age of Byron and
Kirke White, who were born within a year or two of each other.
GEORGE GORDON NOEL, LORD BYRON [1788–1824] is a man whose life and
writings are so well known to educated Englishmen, and have been the
theme of so much criticism and controversy, that it seems superfluous
to set down many details in this short notice. He was born in London,
educated at Aberdeen Grammar School, at Harrow, and at Trinity College,
Cambridge. He lived some time at the family home of Newstead, and after
a life of much dissipation, disappointment, and varied travel, he
died at Missolonghi, in Greece, while rendering chivalrous help to the
Greeks in their struggle to recover what they had lost--the freedom
which their forefathers had been able to preserve against seemingly
overwhelming odds so many centuries before. It was fitting that his
life should end in a country and amid a people for whose scenery and
history he had so great an affection.
It cannot be said that he has been enthusiastically honoured in his
own county. At Nottingham there is now a fine bronze bust of him
at the entrance to the Castle Art Museum; but otherwise there is
no conspicuous memorial, such as a statue or public building, to
perpetuate openly his fame. Yet by the quality and boldness of his
thought and the splendour of his diction he stands in the front rank
of our national poets; and his genius is recognised and acclaimed far
beyond the limits of his own island and Europe.
For this neglect he has perhaps mainly himself to blame. The
irregularities of his life, and his disregard of conventional morality,
so offended soberer minds and puritan instincts that the imperfections
of his character have been allowed by many to overshadow the greatness
of his poetic achievement. This is a pity. Where shall we find a finer
poem than _Childe Harold_, impressive alike by the truth and beauty of
its descriptions and the pathos of its reflexions?
Byron’s excesses and eccentricities were a not unnatural consequence
from his ancestry and bringing up. His was a nature that needed from
the very first wise guidance and discipline if it was to be nurtured
to self-control and regulated usefulness. Such discipline he seems
not to have had. Of his ancestry and inherited characteristics it is
well said in _English Men of Letters_: “Burns had only the fire of
his race: the same is true of Byron, whose genius, in some respects
less genuine, was indefinitely and inevitably wider. His intensely
susceptible nature took a dye from every scene, city, and society
through which he passed; but to the last he bore with him the marks of
a descendant of the sea-kings, and of the mad Gordons in whose domains
he had first learned to listen to the sound of the two ‘mighty voices’
that haunted and inspired him through life.” He loved “the mountain’s
shaggy side and sought the rocks where billows roll.” This love is
connected with his passion for liberty. It will be remembered that
he pleaded the cause in Parliament of the Luddite frame-breakers. It
is dangerous to argue, in the case of a great poet or novelist, from
their works to their personality. By their imagination they can realise
adequately situations and characters of which they may have had no
personal experience. Like the skilled anatomist they can construct
the whole from a small part. Still it is possible that the gloom and
self-abandonment and vivid pictures of remorse which we find in parts
of Byron, may have been partly due to a remorseful feeling he was too
proud to own except indirectly. Scott says:--
“High minds of native pride and force
Most deeply feel thy pangs, Remorse.
Fear for their scourge mean villains have:
Thou art the torturer of the brave.”
Byron also says:--
“Full many a stoic eye and aspect stern
Mask hearts where grief hath little left to learn;
And many a withering thought lies hid, not lost,
In smiles that least befit who wear them most.”
“None are all evil,” and whatever Byron’s faults may have been and
their cause, the fact remains that he has enriched his country’s
literature with noble poetry, and invested the ancestral home of
Newstead with undying fame. He was not afraid that he would be
forgotten:--
“But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and time, and breathe when I expire.”
Pollok’s estimate of his powers, given in _The Course of Time_, not
inadequately sums up his wayward genius:--
“All passions of all men,
The wild and tame, the gentle and severe;
All thoughts, all maxims, sacred and profane;
All creeds, all seasons, Time, Eternity;
All that was hated, and all that was dear;
All that was hoped, all that was feared by man,
He tossed about, as tempest-withered leaves,
Then smiling, looked upon the wreck he made.
With terror now he froze the cowering blood,
And now dissolved the heart in tenderness:
Yet would not tremble, would not weep himself;
But back into his soul retired, alone,
Dark, sullen, proud, gazing contemptuously
On hearts and passions prostrate at his feet.”
In a paper written for a book on Nottinghamshire, it is not
inappropriate to add that plates to illustrate Murray’s edition of
_Childe Harold_ were taken from sketches supplied by Sir Charles
Fellows, the Lycian traveller, and a member of a well-known Nottingham
family.
After Byron we may take HENRY KIRKE (or KIRK) WHITE [1785–1806], the
son of a butcher, afterwards articled to a firm of solicitors, and
for the last year of his short life a student at St. John’s College,
Cambridge. He fell a victim to consumption, aggravated, it is thought,
if not actually brought on, by premature and excessive devotion to his
studies. Hence Byron’s beautiful and pathetic lines on him:--
“Unhappy White! while life was in its spring,
And thy young muse just waved her joyous wing,
The spoiler came; and all thy promise fair
Has sought the grave, to sleep for ever there.”
In one of his letters White says of himself: “My mind is of a very
peculiar cast. I began to think too early; and the indulgence of
certain trains of thought, and too free an exercise of the imagination,
have superinduced a morbid kind of sensibility; which is to the
mind what excessive irritability is to the body.” Gray’s lines are
particularly applicable to White:--
“Fair Science frowned not on his humble birth,
And Melancholy marked him for her own.”
Matthew Arnold remarks that “much good poetry is profoundly
melancholy,” that condition of mind being natural to a sensitive and
poetic temperament in contact with the difficulties and disappointments
of life. “The eternal note of sadness” strikes too keenly on such a
mind in view of the “turbid ebb and flow of human misery.”
But White’s melancholy is often due mainly to the depression of
illness. This makes all the more admirable the spirit of resignation
with which he faced his end:--
“God of the Just, Thou gavest the bitter cup;
I bow to Thy behest, and drink it up.”
Speculations upon the “might have been” of a writer dying long before
his prime are a somewhat useless exercise of the imagination, and it
is impossible to say what White would have produced had his mind been
filled, expanded, and matured by more reading, by travel and experience.
Keats, with whom White was “equalled in fate,” if not in renown, has
left us an example of what genius can accomplish in even a short span
of years; but his life was prolonged some four years longer than
White’s, a not inconsiderable period in the years of growth, and he
was happier in his early opportunities. White was barely past the time
of imitative work, and shows many traces of the influence of Milton
and Gray. He has, however, left enough to show that he was not a mere
writer of pretty verse, but was capable of conceiving and sustaining
a higher flight. His _Clifton Grove_, and _Christiad_ fragment will
illustrate this statement. And he will always have a charm for
Nottingham readers, because his inspiration, when not religious, was
mainly derived from the sights and sounds and association of his own
country side; he was a home-bred poet.
A poem “To an early primrose,” written, he says, at the age of
thirteen, seems a natural outcome of his feelings and circumstances.
The flower--
“Mild offspring of a dark and sullen sire!
Whose modest form, so delicately fine,
Was nurs’d in whirling storms,
And cradled in the winds,”
is taken as symbolical of virtue hardened by “chill adversity.”
When his age and circumstances are duly considered, the extent and
maturity of his production fully entitle White to be called a genius.
His letters are well worth reading for their sound sense, and for the
light they throw on his thoughtful regard for the best interests of his
family.
The first half of the nineteenth century was remarkable for its output
of local writings. In Wylie’s _Old and New Nottingham_, to which this
paper is much indebted for information and suggestions, it is said:
“Fifteen years ago, _i.e._ in 1838, Nottingham was the residence of a
more brilliant literary circle than was probably ever drawn together
in a town of the like extent.” Perhaps Norwich may be fitly compared
with it in this respect, and it is singular that the migration thence
of several families established what was in literary matters perhaps
partially causal, a connexion between the two cities.
This literary activity need cause no great surprise. Men were living
“mid the stir of the forces whence issued” the modern world. The French
Revolution, the rise and fall of Napoleon, the struggle for religious
and political emancipation, scientific discoveries and inventions,
the diffusion of cheap literature, were all having their effect upon
the more thoughtful minds of the time. And there was less distraction
of amusement and multitudinous publication. Men had to be content
with fewer books; they made them, however, their own by study and
quiet reflexion; life was less diffuse and “scrappy.” It is evident
from the history of many of the writers that the literary life of
Nottingham was much helped and stimulated by such papers as _Dearden’s
Miscellany_, _Sutton’s Review_, and the _Nottingham Journal_, to the
pages of which many fugitive pieces were contributed, as well as others
which have survived in book form. Not much of the verse is of the type
usually known as religious, though some of the writers handle religious
topics. The ordinary religious poem is not difficult to write, dealing
as it does with a stock-in-trade of emotions common to the race handed
down through the ages, and to a large extent realized in each man’s
personal experience, having besides a form of expression of the finest
kind familiar to every Englishman from childhood. But to adapt by
strenuous thought and long reflexion the old faith to new conditions,
to state its eternal verities in terms of fresh science and advancing
ideas is another and a more difficult matter; and such adaptation is
what several of our local writers have attempted after the manner of
Clough and Matthew Arnold.
A remarkable thing about many of the writers is the largeness of their
conceptions, the ambitious scale on which they essayed to write.
Another noteworthy fact is that many of them were of humble origin,
and did their literary work in circumstances which might well have
smothered their nascent aspirations. Millhouse, Ragg, and Miller are
all examples of this pursuit of knowledge under difficulties. They
“broke their birth’s invidious bar,” and of them may be truly said what
Millhouse said of Richard Booker--
“In yonder humble grave there lies a Man.”
Chief of these nineteenth-century poets is Bailey, the son of
Thomas Bailey [1785–1856], who was himself an industrious writer
and journalist. Besides poems Thomas Bailey wrote the _Annals of
Nottinghamshire_. Among his poems are _Ireton_, dedicated to Lord John
Russell; the _Carnival of Death_; _What is Life?_ In business he was
first in the stocking-trade, and afterwards a wine merchant.
PHILIP JAMES BAILEY [1816–1902], the author of _Festus_, was fortunate
in having a father whose literary interests enabled and induced him to
sympathize with the poetic aspirations of his son, and the poem is very
appropriately dedicated by the son to the father:--
“My Father! unto thee to whom I owe
All that I am, all that I have and can;
Who madest me in thyself the sum of man
In all his generous aims and powers to know,
These first fruits bring I.”
Bailey studied for the bar, and was called, but did not practise. His
education at the University of Glasgow was perhaps a better training
for his future career than residence at the old English universities
might have been; it was wider and less purely classical. He is
remarkable for having deliberately resolved to be a poet, for having
prepared himself most scrupulously to rise to “the height of his great
argument,” and for having refused to court popularity by following a
lower aim in his verse. Such a work as _Festus_ can not be popular; it
is too long and difficult for that. It does not lend itself readily
to quotation, but must be read and studied as a whole. The lines most
commonly cited from it are these:--
“Life’s more than breath and the quick round of blood:
It is a great spirit and a busy heart,
The coward and small in soul scarce live.
One generous feeling; one great thought; one deed
Of good, ere night, would make life longer seem
Than if each year might number a thousand days,
Spent as is this by nations of mankind.
We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths;
In feelings, not in figures on a dial.
We should count time by heart-throbs. He most lives
Who thinks most; feels the noblest; acts the best.
And he whose heart beats quickest lives the longest,
Lives in one hour more than in years do some
Whose fat blood sleeps as it slips along their veins.
Life is but a means unto an end; that end,
Beginning, mean and end to all things--God.”
[Illustration: PHILIP JAMES BAILEY. “FESTUS.”
_By kind permission of_ MISS CAREY.]
We may note also for its quiet humour--
“He sleeps! The fate of many a gracious moral
This to be stranded on a drowsy ear;”
and this, as indicating Bailey’s aim as a writer--
“Write to the mind and heart, and let the ear
Glean after what it can. The voice of great
Or graceful thoughts is sweeter far than all
Word-music; and great thoughts, like great deeds, need
No trumpet. Never be in haste in writing.
Let that thou utterest be of nature’s flow,
Not Art’s; a fountain’s, not a pump’s.”
Bailey’s work has hitherto been more appreciated in America than in
England. On the death of Tennyson, in 1892, it was suggested that he
should be made Poet Laureate; and he was one of the distinguished men
on whom the University of Glasgow conferred an honorary degree at its
Jubilee Celebration in 1901.
In 1901 Mr. James Ward, of Nottingham, published a pamphlet entitled
_Recollections of Philip James Bailey_, in which was published for the
first time a poem called “Liberty, a Poetical Protocol,” which begins:--
“Time was when Liberty came down
From the high seat
Where, by God’s feet,
With Law, she claims one same and sacred crown;
And to the dominant nations of the earth,
Massed in the West,
Where most her votaries dwell, who own her worth,
And love her best
These words addressed:--”
Of criticism _Festus_ has had plenty. Tennyson said, “I can scarcely
trust myself to say how much I admire it, for fear of falling into
extravagance.” Gilfillan says “Shelley’s _Prometheus_ is the argument
of _Faust_ extended from man the individual to man the species; while
_Festus_ is the argument of Job applied in the like manner to the whole
human family; _Festus_ is to the one as Job to the other, a type of the
fall and recovery of all men. The scene of Faust and Prometheus is on
earth; that of Job and of Festus is (essentially) in eternity.”
LUKE BOOKER [1762–1835] and THOMAS RAGG [1808–1881] may be mentioned
together with Spencer T. Hall as friends and helpers of the weaver
poet, Robert Millhouse [1788–1839], whom they assisted by writing on
his behalf and in other ways.
Booker was vicar of Dudley, and besides his poems (“Sacred, Moral, and
Entertaining”), wrote a didactic poem called _The Hop Garden_, and a
Descriptive and Historical Account of Dudley Castle; this was published
in 1825, and is described as “a good piece of work.”
Ragg, after being in his father’s printing office and then apprentice
to a hosier, became a bookseller’s assistant, and finally, having
attracted by his Christian apologetics the attention of some Church
dignitaries, took orders. He died vicar of Lawley, in Shropshire. Among
those interested in him were James Montgomery, Isaac Taylor, and Robert
Southey. His poem, _The Deity_, in twelve books, appeared in 1834, and
was called in the _Times_ “a very remarkable production.” In 1855 he
produced _Creation’s Testimony to its God, the Accordance of Science,
Philosophy and Revelation_. Ragg has been termed “the adopted poet of
the Evangelic Muse.”
SPENCER TIMOTHY HALL [1812–1885], “the Sherwood Forester,” had a
remarkable history, and was--
“A man so various that he seemed to be
Not one, but all the world’s epitome.”
He said of himself that he “could dig, plough, reap, stack, thresh, and
winnow, make a stocking and a shoe, write a book and print and bind it,
or give a lecture, or take stock of a man’s body and mind and furnish
him with an inventory of the same!” He gave exhibitions of mesmerism,
helped to edit a newspaper, was once a postmaster, was secretary to the
Society for Abolishing Capital Punishment, and a poet to crown it all!
In his steady determined struggle upwards from obscurity and
uncongenial occupations to literary recognition and success he
resembled his great exemplar Benjamin Franklin, and his versatility
recalls his fellow-townsman Samuel Parrott the painter, whose boast it
was that he could do three things well--build a tall factory chimney,
play the violin, and paint an Academy picture. Among Hall’s writings
were, _The Forester’s Offering_, _The Upland Hamlet, and other Poems_,
and _The Peak and the Plain_. He was born at Sutton-in-Ashfield, and
died at Blackpool. His epitaph on Robert Millhouse will bear quoting
again:--
“When Trent shall flow no more, and Blossoms fail
On Sherwood’s plains to scent the spring tide gale,
When the Lark’s lay shall lack its thrilling charm,
And song forget the Patriot’s soul to warm--
When Love o’er youthful hearts hath lost all sway;
His fame may pass, but not till then away:
For Nature taught, and Freedom fired his Rhyme,
And Virtue dedicated it to Time.”
WILLIAM HOWITT [1792–1879], MARY HOWITT [1799–1888], and RICHARD
HOWITT [1799–1869] were a remarkable trio, who among them produced a
considerable amount of work of various kinds.
It seems unnecessary to say much in detail of William and Mary Howitt.
What child is not familiar with _The Spider and the Fly_ and _The
Ant and the Cricket_? They published together in 1821 the _Forest
Minstrel_, and in their literary activity they were as indefatigable
as Southey. Among William’s works were _Homes and Haunts of British
Poets_, the _Ruined Abbeys and Castles of Great Britain_, a _Popular
History of England_, and a _History of Priestcraft_, the last of which
dragged the writer into politics as an advocate of popular liberty,
and caused him to be made an alderman of Nottingham. Mary Howitt
dedicated her _Ballads and other Poems_, published in 1847, to “My
best counsellor and teacher, my literary associate for a quarter of a
century, my husband and my friend.” In the light of this dedication
the bronze plaque at the Nottingham Castle Museum is invested with
peculiar interest. On it husband and wife are represented as poring
together over the pages of an open book, and there is a moving pathetic
tenderness in the artist’s work. Mary Howitt’s reception at the
close of her life into the Church of Rome suggests that she had been
“voyaging through strange seas of thought alone.”
Richard Howitt published in 1840 _The Gipsy King and other Poems_, and
in 1868 _Wasp’s Honey: or Poetic Gold and Gems of Poetic Thought_.
These contain much beautiful verse. The _Athenæum_ said of him, “He
is healthfully English in his composition,” while Tennyson said,
“Nature has been bountiful to you.” He won also the appreciation of
Wordsworth, Leigh Hunt, and Christopher North. A characteristic poem
showing his delight in simple nature is _On a Daisy_, first seen by
him in Australia. He died at Edingley, near Southwell. Interesting
illustrative quotations from the works of the Howitts, Robert
Millhouse, and other writers may be found in Wylie’s book already
mentioned. Millhouse has been called “the Burns of Nottinghamshire,”
and his sonnets have a simplicity and directness that indicate strength.
EDWARD HAWKSLEY published in 1829 some poems entitled _Colonel
Hutchinson and other Poems_. In a poem on the Trent he makes special
mention of Thomas Bailey--
“Last, Bailey tuned his sedgy reed,
And gave thee, rolling Trent, thy meed.”
In 1825 MARY ANN CURSHAM produced a long poem on _Martin Luther_,
in three parts, containing altogether well over two thousand lines;
and from Southwell, in 1844, came _The Eastern Princess_ and a drama
entitled _Walberg, or Temptation_, by SOPHIA MARY SMITH. The publisher
was W. Bunny. HENRY HOGG’S verses, published in 1852, have a pleasant
smoothness and melody due to a close imitation of his poetic master,
Tennyson, who at that time was evidently influencing considerably the
local writers. In Tennyson’s Memoir it is recorded: “Towards the end of
the year (1855) an unknown Nottingham artisan came to call. My father
asked him to dinner, and at his request read _Maud_.” This artisan, it
appears, had sent Tennyson his poems beforehand to read.
In illustration of Hogg’s style may be quoted these lines:--
“Till Knowledge from the statelier ranks
Shall come down unto earth, and lend
The faith to look beyond those banks
That skirt the life which has no end.
Whence some who look see nought but night,
And some feel nought but idle fears;
And grope in darkness for the light,
And waste a useless life in tears.
And some see lights that burn afar,
And hear a still voice wisely teach;
And live, and grasp their better star,
And rise on stronger wings, and reach
Unto the foremost fruits of time
Where Wisdom walketh, gathering Grace,
And swelling heaven-ward.”
EDWIN ATHERSTONE [1788–1872] was a voluminous writer. Among his
works were the _Fall of Nineveh_ in thirty books; _Israel in Egypt_,
containing nearly twenty thousand lines; and the _Last Days of
Herculaneum_. He was a friend of John Martin the painter. He died at
Bath, being at the time of his death in receipt of a pension of £100 a
year.
In 1859 JOSEPH TRUMAN published a volume of verse “inscribed to the
author of _Festus_ by his friend J. T.” The poems are pleasant reading
and the work of a thoughtful man.
In some lines on Fox How we have:--
“Reverential earnest Arnold,
Warmly human, wisely good;
O! for more of Arnold-spirit,
In our age’s feverish blood!
More of conscience in the Nation,
More of Manhood in the Man,
Statutes in a fairer fashion,
Churches on a broader plan!”
And these lines give the spirit of the writer’s creed:--
“Sooner or later all souls shall be saved,
Else God’s love is defeated, or not rich
Like God’s, and still the pleading Christ must stand
In human earnest raising unto Him
Pathetic eyes dim with eternal tears.
For life is like a circle drawn by God,
And closes in the place it came from--heaven.”
Did space allow, many beautiful thoughts might be set down here from
the poems of H. SEPTIMUS SUTTON [1825–1901], who has left behind him
a volume of verse distinguished by delicate sentiment and much beauty
of diction. He was educated at first for the medical profession, but
finding some of the work incidental to it distasteful, he became a
journalist and devoted himself to the cause of temperance, being editor
of the _Alliance News_ for more than forty years. He was intimate with
most of the writers of the “Sherwood Forest School,” and has left
slight sketches of some of those writers in his _Clifton Grove Garland_.
The “modest” White--
“A youth, slow pacing, unawares impelled
By blind thought,”
who
“Lifted from the grass his meditative eyes”;
Philip James Bailey, who
“Came down the grove, dark-haired, deep-eyed,
And groundward looking; but I will be bound,
Not seeing aught he looked at on the ground”;
Miller, “the basket-maker”; Hall “with many a merry smile.”
Sutton’s poems won the appreciation of such judges as Francis William
Newman, Frances Power Cobbe, Christina Rossetti, and George Macdonald.
One of his most exquisite productions is _Rose’s Diary_. What can be
more beautiful than these lines?--
“SORROW
“The flowers live by the tears that fall
From the sad face of the skies,
And life would have no joys at all
Were there no watery eyes.
Love thou thy sorrow; grief shall bring
Its own excuse in after years;
The rainbow!--see how fair a thing
God hath built up from tears.”
And to the question, “Is life worth living?” hear Sutton’s answer:--
“How beautiful it is to be alive!
To wake each morn as if the Maker’s grace
Did us afresh from nothingness derive
That we might sing ‘How happy is our case!
How beautiful it is to be alive!’
To read in God’s great book, until we feel
Love for the love that gave it: then to kneel
Close unto Him Whose truth our souls will shrive,
While every moment’s joy doth more reveal
How beautiful it is to be alive.
Rather to go without what might increase
Our worldly standing, than our souls deprive
Of frequent speech with God, or than to cease
To feel, through having wasted health or peace,
How beautiful it is to be alive.
Not to forget, when pain and grief draw nigh,
Into the ocean of time past to dive
For memories of God’s mercies, or to try
To bear all sweetly, hoping still to cry
‘How beautiful it is to be alive!’
Thus ever towards man’s height of nobleness
Strive still some new progression to contrive;
Till, just as any other friend’s, we press
Death’s hand; and, having died, feel none the less
How beautiful it is to be alive.”
WILLIAM FRANK SMITH [1836–1876]. In 1864 a small volume was published
by Smith, Elder & Co., _Poems by William Frank Smith_. It is dated
from The Park, Nottingham, July 1864, and is dedicated to “W. W. Gull,
Esq., M.D.,” the author being led to dedicate it thus “by a sense of
gratitude for this, that among the hours of your laborious life you
found time to encourage and appreciate my efforts when encouragement
was indeed of great price to me.”
Smith was educated at Bromsgrove School. He became a doctor, and held
the post of physician to the Sheffield Infirmary. His health broke
down, and he died at the early age of forty.
The poems are sixteen in all, the most important being a
trilogy--_Saint Bruno the Believer_, _Spinoza the Thinker_, and
_Meister Cornelius the Worker_. They are evidently the production of
a cultivated man with refined tastes and feelings, sensitive to the
charms and varying moods of nature, and brooding, perhaps unhealthily,
over the unsolved “riddle of this painful earth.”
There is in them much vividness of conception and beauty of
description. The writer seems to have drawn his inspiration largely
from the Ancient Classics and the Bible, from Tennyson, and mediæval
speculations and pageantry.
A second edition of the poems appeared in 1879, with a memoir of
the author by Dr. Pye Smith, and additional poems, including some
translations from the Classics. To illustrate the style and spirit of
the work, we quote from _Saint Bruno_:--
“But soon the music filled my thirsting ears
With richer harmonies,
The movement swifter grew, and then I saw
A curtain rise.
With sound of tinkling anklet bells there came
A train of laughing girls,
Dark-eyed, their braided raven tresses twined
With wreaths of pearls;
The silken rustling folds of Eastern robes
Half hid the glancing white
Of limbs divinely moulded; noiselessly
As flakes of light
From boughs in sunlight waved, their arching feet
Beat on the velvet ground
In time to that enchanted melody
That breathed around.
And sweetly chimed the silver anklet bells
While hand in hand they came,
Now bending towards me, now retiring poised
Like waving flame;
But still their dark enticing eyes were fixed
On mine unceasingly,
I might not turn away, I could not shun
Their witchery.”
As his death draws near, Spinoza soliloquises:--
“The polyp dies, his coral house remains,
The fragile ocean creatures melt away,
Their hollow spiral shells remain, perchance
For cycles hidden down beneath the earth.
I also pass away, and men no more
Shall hear my voice, but still my work remains.
In ages yet to come, high souls shall dwell
Within my palace, echoing my name
With reverence,
As one that draweth near
A fall of mighty waters in a pass,
What time the vale becomes a sunless chasm,
The overhanging rocks around him close,
He hears the awful thunder-voice more loud
Each step; even so, while now I draw more near
The awful presence, all my human life
Grows dark and narrow, all my soul is weak
With solemn awe,--with awe, but not with fear.”
The end of Meister Cornelius is impressively told. Perhaps these lines
from a sonnet on the death of T. W. Buckle indicate Smith’s outlook
upon life:--
“The strong right hand hath fallen from the standard,
To him, a man, was given to see the long
And dark world drama with unclouded eyes
Even as a God. Through centuries of wrong,
And sounding wars, and splendid tyrannies,
He saw the growth of thought august and strong,
The slow advance to mightier destinies.”
Of Thomas Miller a good notice appeared in the literary supplement of
the _Nottingham Daily Guardian_ of the date December 18, 1906. Only
passing mention can be made of John Hicklin, editor and part proprietor
of the _Nottingham Journal_; of Ann Taylor, afterwards Mrs. Gilbert, of
Ongar [1782–1866], a well-known writer of hymns and poems for children;
of Samuel Collinson, whose _Autumn Leaves_, a small volume published in
1867, deserves mention if only for its graceful lines of dedication; of
F. R. Goodyer, who wrote to the local journals many amusing parodies
and comic verses on passing events, and was besides associated with
William Bradbury in the production of a burlesque acted at Nottingham,
_Ye Faire Maide of Clifton_.
Among translators are Gilbert Wakefield the Scholar [1756–1801],
who made translations from Juvenal, Horace, and Virgil, and wrote
metrical versions of one or two of the Psalms: and Ichabod Charles
Wright [1795–1871], the translator of Homer and Dante. Wakefield’s
translations are not very remarkable, and in his Horace renderings he
does not attempt to reproduce the original metres. His Tenth Satire of
Juvenal ends thus:--
“One blessing on ourselves we may bestow:
’Tis peace: and Virtue is our peace below:
No power hast thou where Wisdom’s altars rise;
We, Fortune! build thee shrines, we station in the skies.”
It seems strange that for one of the exercises of his muse he should
have chosen a Psalm the last verse of which in his translation is:--
“Thrice blest the man, whose ruthless ears
Heed not the struggling mother’s moans:
Who from the breast her infant tears,
And dashes on the bleeding stones.”
GEORGE HICKLING, of Cotgrave [1827–1909], is better known perhaps
to Nottinghamshire readers by his pen-name of “Rusticus.” Of lowly
origin and circumstances and practically self-educated, he attained a
respectable position in the local world of letters, and, if he did
not achieve greatness, he produced work which showed that he had a
sensitive and observant mind, and that he had by perseverance won a
most creditable victory over limited opportunities. Much of his verse
was contributed to the Nottingham newspapers, to which, towards the
close of his life, he sent also communications in prose on agricultural
and meteorological matters. Two collected volumes of his verse were
published: _The Pleasures of Life, and other Poems_, which appeared
in 1861. It was dedicated to the Duke of Newcastle, and has some
introductory lines signed H. B., M.A., and dated Nottingham Park,
September 22, 1859. The other, _Echoes from Nature; or the Song of the
Woodland Muse, a Poem for the People_, is dated 1863, and dedicated
to Frederick Webster, Esq. They consist largely of descriptive and
reflective pieces, suggested by the village and its neighbourhood in
which his life was spent. They contain also patriotic verse called
forth by the current events of his time. There are in some of these
poems, naturally, unconscious echoes of more illustrious writers, such
as Goldsmith. This does not mean a charge of plagiarism; far from it:
the thoughts of “Rusticus” were his own, and he clearly endeavoured to
express them in his own simple words. But he would be as profoundly
influenced by the books he read in his early days as boys are by the
personal teaching of a vigorous and stimulating master. Characteristic
quotation from him is not easy. Perhaps the following lines will give a
fair idea of his style and thought. But his poems should be read whole
and one with another.
“WHAT IS LOVE?
“Ah, What is love? No mortal tongue can tell:
It is the power that saves the earth from hell!
It is the spring of many a noble deed,
It shines refulgent in the Christian’s creed;
It smiles in every bursting bud and flower,
It has a voice in every passing hour;
It compasses the whole creation round,
And by its tendrils hearts to hearts are bound.
’Tis the pulsation of the universe,
It counteracts the evils of the curse;
The golden cord that pendent hangs from heaven;
The mystic ladder-way to mortals given;
It is the breath of blessed spirit throngs
When round the earth they breathe eternal songs.”
The _Nottingham Athenæum_ said of him that “he was the truest poet in
our locality, and his present volume bears us out in our assertion”;
and the _London Athenæum_: “Some of Mr. Hickling’s poems are excellent,
and show great poetic power”; while the _Telegraph_ describes the verse
as a pearl “as pure and priceless as any of the glittering gems that
Nottingham genius has hitherto offered.”
In 1859 James Blackwood, of Paternoster Row, published a small volume
of poems entitled, _The Flirting Page, a Legend of Normandy, and other
Poems_, by Charles Dranfield and George Denham Halifax. “Charles
Dranfield” was the pen-name of RICHARD FOSTER SKETCHLEY, who was born
at Newark on 23rd July 1826. He was of far-reaching Newark ancestry,
and was educated at the Magnus Grammar School, from which he proceeded
to Exeter College, Oxford. In 1864 he was appointed Assistant-Keeper
of the Science and Art Department of the Victoria and Albert Museum
at South Kensington, and held that post for thirty years. He was on
the staff of _Punch_ for many years. A memorial notice of him was
contributed to the _Magnus Magazine_ by Mr. T. M. Blagg, another
old Magnus boy. It is clear from the testimony of his friends that
Sketchley was a man of great charm of manner and singular modesty; his
serious poems show that he had a cultured mind, refined and sensitive;
that he had no common gift for humorous writing is evident from his
connexion with such a paper as _Punch_, He died at Seaford in Sussex,
and was buried there.
His chief poem in the volume mentioned above is _The Flirting Page_, in
the style of the _Ingoldsby Legends_. It is amusing and well written,
with a great command of rhyme, and shows that the writer had an
extensive acquaintance with men and things. The more serious poems deal
with incidents in the Crimean War, or with feelings aroused by memories
of the far-off days of happy youth. Quotation is not easy; the poems
should be read as wholes. These lines, from the Introduction to _The
Flirting Page_, will illustrate the author’s gift of rhyme:--
“Leave business, and bullion, and British Bank bubbles
For woods and plantations, for fallows and stubbles:
Leave barracks and chambers, the clubs, and ‘the House’
For the mountains and moor, for the deer and the grouse,
For jungles and prairies, and lonely savannahs,
With rifles and pale ale, and lots of ‘Havanahs’;
Leave the porter of Barclay, the water of Thames,
For vin ordinaire and the waters of Ems:
Leave station and bridges, by railway and steamer,
For Keswick or Conway, for Antwerp or Lima;
For the Rhine or the Rhone,
Or the winding Saone:
For the valley of Chamouni, bent on pic-nicing
On the top of Mont Blanc with champagne and chicken;
For Rome to buy bronzes and gaze at the Pope;
For Naples whose king’s not so good as its soap;
For the Dove or the Danube, for Malvern or Mecca;
For the banks of the Wye, or the banks of the Neckar.”
And as specimen of the shorter poems, we may take to illustrate the
writer’s sympathetic insight, two contrasted verses from “Peace and War
(Sunday, November 5, 1854)”:--
“In the carved chancel stalls
Knelt a maiden in the sun;
And the marble on the walls
Told of fields her fathers won:
She was pleading in her love
That her lover might not die:
And the angels wept above
For they heard his dying cry.
* * * * *
Underneath the pollard oaks,
Clustered on a grassy knoll
Where the woodman’s ringing strokes
Never slash the slender bole;
Meeting death among his men,
Grasping still his father’s sword,
Never more to charge again,
Lay the loved one on the sward.”
It is clear that Sketchley’s work is too good to pass over without
remark. He had the gift of rousing the emotions and kindling the
imagination by a skilful touch of scenic colour, as when he speaks of
“the grange beyond the wold” (perhaps a recollection of Tennyson’s “old
mill across the wold”), and again,
“Where the rectory roses cluster, where the whitened cottage peers,
In the old manorial mansion, eyes were filled with thankful tears.”
The mention of Newark calls up the names of several writers whose works
were published in that town when it was a publishing centre. For a
more detailed account of these authors and their works the reader is
referred to Mr. T. M. Blagg’s chapter on “Newark as a Publishing Town,”
in his little book of Newark history.
In 1810, _Besthorpe, a Descriptive Poem by a Young Native_, was printed
by Hage. Charles Snart, solicitor, angler, and poet, brought out a
_Selection of Poems_, containing several pieces by himself. They have
many allusions to the Trent and the writer’s love of the rod and line.
In 1823 John Atkin, of North Muskham, published _Jonah Tink_, the title
being an anagrammatic transposition of the letters of the writer’s
name. In 1830 appeared _Cambria, Raymond, and other Poems_, by a
Lady; and in the same year _The Power of Gold_, by H. N. Bousfield,
undergraduate of Queen’s College, Cambridge; and in 1862 _Sonnets_, by
Thomas Lester, a schoolmaster at Ossington. At an earlier date (1793)
Allen and Ridge had produced _Miscellaneous Poems_, by R. P. Shilton.
_Jonah Tink_ has no claim to the title of poetry as the elegant
expression of subtle or deep feeling, and the idealized description
of nature, character, and action; it is merely a rhymed and not
over-grammatical account of the rise of an industrious and
well-conducted farm-servant to wealth and an influential position; it
is a kind of rhymed commentary on Hogarth’s Industrious Apprentice. Its
value lies in its descriptive touches of the life of a certain section
of society at the time it was written, and its incidental allusions
to social abuses and customs. From the preface it appears that Atkin
was originally a carpenter and joiner by trade, and afterwards became
master of the Free School in his native village. He mentions a visit
to a “personally unknown bard,” Mr. Benjamin Kemp, of Farnsfield. He
had his full share of pedagogic authoritativeness, and it is amusing
to read that he “disbelieved the theory” of Sir Isaac Newton as to
gravitation. He makes a disparaging reference to Southey,
“I should ’tis sure
Like S--th--y gain a sinecure,”
adding in a note, “In the year 1818 no fewer than four Marriages of the
Royals took place, which formerly would have caused the Laureate to
invoke the Sackbut, but not a line had been produced by the State Poet.”
Bousfield’s _Power of Gold_ is more literary in its form. It deals
with the warping and corrupting influence of wealth on naturally
good dispositions, and is religious in tone, as are many others of
Bousfield’s poems. Among the subscribers to the book were Michael
Thomas Sadler, M.P.; Dr. Sleath, Master of Repton; and Henry
Willoughby, M.P. One line in the poem on wealth, “To temper earth
with antepast of heaven,” suggests by its archaism that the writer
was familiar with the earlier writers of verse. It is perhaps not
without interest to mention that, as the scientific imagination of
Erasmus Darwin anticipated the invention of aeroplanes, so John Atkin
foreshadowed the era of the bicycle and motor car by his allusion to
the actual use in his time of the “velocipede”--a beast which “wanted
neither corn nor hay.”
Other local verse-writers who in this paper must be only names
are:--Matthew Unwin [1755–1786], Sidney Giles [1814–1846], Charles
Hooton [1810–1847], Edward Hind, Lucy Joynes [1781–1851], William
Calvert, John Wright, Frank Browne, Mary Ann Carter, William Powers
Smith, E. G. Pickering, Samuel Mullen, and H. Bradbury Mellors. Nor
should we forget David Love [1750–1827], packman and ballad-monger. He
was a Scotchman by birth. Two portraits of him were exhibited by the
Thoroton Society at the conversazione held in 1900.
A cursory glance at the work of our local poets will make it plain
that they reflect the dominant literary tendencies of various epochs,
“the spacious times of great Elizabeth,” when sonnets expressed the
amours and gallantries of the Queen’s Court; the dramatic impulse
and fantastic compositions of the early Stuart period; the satirical
poems of the age of Dryden; the simplicity, fondness for nature, and
reflective poetry of Wordsworth and Browning. There do not appear any
clear traces of the influence of Keats and Shelley.
It may be objected that much of the verse spoken about is not poetry
at all. But the objection is scarcely valid. Great gifts of vivid
imagination and creative genius, with the power of apt, vigorous, and
melodious expression, are granted to few. Minor writers can, however,
act the part of the ancient pædagogos by leading us on to the great
masters of thought and song; or, to vary the figure, they dig from the
deep mines of thought gems to polish and set for daily use by busy,
practical, unlearned men. They change the pure gold into current coin.
And though Spedding speaks “of the tricks of these versifying times
(about 1842) born of superficial sensibility to beauty and a turn
for setting to music the current doctrines and fashionable feelings
of the day,” it will be found that, with few exceptions, our writers
are honourably distinguished for their independence of thought, and
truthful spontaneous naturalness.
In conclusion, this paper lays no claim to exhaustive treatment of
its subject, either in respect of the writers enumerated or the
short notices of some of them. Time, space, and opportunity have been
against both the one and the other. The writer has done his work amid
a pressure of other occupations; and he craves the indulgence which is
usually shown towards errors or omissions--
“Quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura.”
If his work should be another step onwards towards a complete anthology
of the native verse, and should lead Nottinghamshire men to a fuller
knowledge and keener appreciation of their county writers, it will have
its full reward.
NOTTINGHAM
BY W. P. W. PHILLIMORE
The first historical reference to Nottingham which we possess is but a
little more than a thousand years ago, and though it is likely enough
that there were at a very much earlier date some few dwellings along
the southern slopes of the hills upon which the city stands, or cave
dwellings hewn out of the soft sandstone rock, it is unlikely that
it had become of any importance before the Saxon period, to which
it is obvious that its name, anciently Snotingaham, belongs. It is
apparently tribal in its origin, indicating the home or dwelling of
the descendants of Snod; possibly the early form of our modern surname
of Snow. There are but few other places in England whose names may
have a similar origin. In Kent we find Snode Bridge and Snodland, in
Dorset is Nottington, and in Hampshire, a few miles west of Andover,
is an obscure hamlet called Snottington. Snenton, now an integral part
of Nottingham, is said to have the same derivation, and the local
historians identify it with the Notintone of Domesday. Medieval writers
have ascribed a much greater antiquity to Nottingham, and have given
it the strange name of Tiguocobauc, said to mean a place of caves.
The tradition of King Ebranc and of the slaughter of the Britons here
points to a belief in medieval days in the great antiquity of the town.
But beyond the existence of cave dwellings, which after all may be
quite modern in origin, and the discovery of a few bronze implements,
we have no tangible evidence of any higher antiquity, and the physical
characteristics of the site further militate against the claim. With
the forest coming near the town on the north, and the alluvial marsh
lands on the south, the site must in early times have been very
inaccessible, a fact which doubtless attracted those who first selected
the Castle rock as a military stronghold. The Castle and St. Mary’s and
Snenton churches form the ends of a double horseshoe. Between them lies
the town facing the south, with the rock dwellings of Snenton Hermitage
at one end, and those under the Castle rock, known in later times
as the Papist Holes, at the other end. Until destroyed by the Great
Northern Railway extensions in recent years, the rock dwellings at the
foot of the rock at Snenton, on which stands St. Stephen’s Church, were
an interesting characteristic of the village.
The Danish invasion of Mercia brought Nottingham into prominence.
It became one of the five principal towns of the Danelagh--Derby,
Leicester, Lincoln, and Stamford, being the other four--and though the
Danish dominion was not of long duration, it left a very permanent
mark on the town. The gateways in the town walls were known as “Bars,”
instead of “Gates” as in the south of England, and the last of these,
Chapel Bar, pulled down in the eighteenth century, still survives in
name, forming a familiar part of the great western outlet of the town.
The other trace of the Danish occupation is the almost universal use
of “Gate” instead of “Street.” Two hundred years ago the only streets
were Stoney Street and Pepper Street, the other principal thoroughfares
being known as Gates or Rows, while the lesser ones were called Lanes.
Wheeler Gate, Goose Gate, Peter Gate, Mary Gate, Long Row, Smithy Row,
and Friar Lane are familiar to all Nottingham people, and within the
last half century we still had Sheep Lane and Chandlers’ Lane. These
last have given place to Market Street and Victoria Street, just as in
the previous century Sadler Gate, the continuation of Bridlesmith Gate,
very inappropriately became High Street, and Cow Lane and Girdlesmith
Gate were renamed Clumber Street and Pelham Street.
Although there was right in the centre of the town one of the largest
market-places in the kingdom, the ways out in every direction were
remarkably narrow, and even within recent years two carts could not
pass one another in Pelham Street, the principal eastern exit. The
widening of Cow Lane, now Clumber Street, in the eighteenth century,
followed by the demolition of Chapel Bar, improving the ways out on the
north and west, were the earliest attempts at town improvement. The
latter half of the nineteenth century saw the construction of Albert
Street and the widening of Lister Gate on the south, the conversion of
Chandlers’ Lane into Victoria Street, and the change in Sheep Lane by
widening it so as to form Market Street. King Street and the widening
of Wheeler Gate are the most recent of the street improvements in the
centre of the town.
As a military post in early times, Nottingham was of considerable
importance. The great rock, upon which stood the Castle, with its
natural means of defence, was obviously well suited for a military
stronghold. The Castle, built or rebuilt by William the Conqueror, was
guarded by William Peverel, and somewhat more than a hundred years
later it became the stronghold of John, when Earl of Mortein, in his
rebellion against his brother, King Richard I, by whom it was besieged
in 1194. It was at Nottingham Castle, in 1330, that Edward III struck
the blow which ended the usurpation of Isabella and Mortimer, through
the help of Eland, the Governor, who revealed to him the existence of
the secret passage down into the valley of the Leen, which ever since
has borne the name of Mortimer’s Hole, now so familiar to Nottingham
people. Throughout his reign Edward III was often at Nottingham Castle,
and held some of his Parliaments here. It continued to be a royal
fortress and residence, but after the Wars of the Roses was allowed
to fall into decay. From the description which Leland the antiquary
gives of it in the reign of Henry VIII, the buildings must have been
of great extent and importance, but no illustrations of it have been
preserved, and there now only remains the entrance gateway of this
famous fortress as an indication of its former greatness. A plan of it
is given in the local histories, upon which the late Mr. T. C. Hine
based an imaginative picture of it. In the reign of James I it was
granted to the Earl of Rutland, and so became private property. It was
then so ruinous that that King, on his visit to Nottingham, could find
no suitable lodging in it, and was obliged to stay in the town itself.
Only once again was Nottingham Castle concerned with military matters,
and that was in 1642, when King Charles I here raised his standard
against the Parliament. The next year it fell into the possession
of the Parliament, and was held by the famous Colonel Hutchinson,
who defended it against royalist attacks. Of the siege we have the
well-known narrative related by Mrs. Hutchinson in the _Life_
of her husband, which she wrote. After the Civil War the Castle was
dismantled, and its military history ended. It was afterwards bought
by the Duke of Newcastle, who demolished the remains, and in 1674
commenced the erection of the present stately building, which was
completed by his son in 1679, but was occupied as a residence by the
Newcastle family for hardly a hundred years, being afterwards let to
tenants. At the time of the Reform Riots in 1832, it was burnt down by
the mob, and remained a blackened ruin until, in 1878, it was acquired
on a long lease by the Corporation of Nottingham, and converted into an
art museum.
One remarkable feature continued in Nottingham right into the
eighteenth century, and that was the division of the town into the
English and French boroughs. The English part of the town was that
surrounding the mother church of St. Mary; the French, or the new town,
comprised the districts now forming the parishes of St. Peter and St.
Nicholas. For the two divisions of the borough, between which the
market-place was divided, it was customary to elect separate juries.
Indeed, the custom of electing two sheriffs and two coroners, which
prevailed until the Municipal Reform Act of 1835, has been thought to
have a similar origin.
In the middle ages Nottingham was a place of military rather than
of ecclesiastical importance. Town and county until the nineteenth
century owed allegiance to the far-off cathedral of St. Peter at
York. The Grey Friars and the White Friars, as well as the Knights of
St. John of Jerusalem, had houses here, but of these establishments
all traces save street names have long since disappeared. And of the
great priory at Lenton, founded by Peverel, there are left only the
fragments of two Norman pillars to indicate the strength and majesty
of that building. Until the last century there were but three parish
churches in the town. St. Peter’s structurally is the most ancient,
for parts of it appear to date from the twelfth century, and it may be
regarded in some respects as more interesting than the more important
church of St. Mary’s. St. Nicholas, the smallest of the three ancient
churches, demolished for military reasons in 1647, was rebuilt some
thirty years later, and is notable as being one of the comparatively
few examples there are of late seventeenth century church work built in
the pointed style. But the glory of Nottingham is the great church of
St. Mary built in the middle of the ancient English borough, its tower
rivalling in prominence the castle at the other end of the town. From
an architectural point of view this splendid cruciform church has the
advantage that, with the exception of the chancel, which was built at a
somewhat later date, the whole of it belongs to the best period of the
Perpendicular style. Its present internal characteristic, lightness,
was noted by the antiquary John Leland, in Henry VIII’s time, who
described it as having “so many fair windows that no artificer could
imagine to set more.”
In the early nineteenth century began the building of additional
churches necessitated by the growth of the town, and of these the
first was St. James on Standard Hill, which in its name commemorates
an ancient chapel that had long before disappeared. Of the many new
churches which have been built in the past century, or of the efforts
of the various nonconformist bodies who similarly have sought to supply
the religious requirements of the town, it is impossible here to do
more than allude.
The great increase of Nottingham during the past hundred years has been
due to the trade of the place, but this is no mere modern development.
In the middle ages the “little smith of Nottingham who doth the work
that no man can,” was as famous as his successors at the present day
upon whose skill depend the great staple trades of lace and hosiery.
Smithy Row, Bridlesmith Gate, Girdlesmith Gate, Bellar Gate, and
Bellfounders’ Yard point out to us where the ancient craftsmen in metal
carried on their industries. Many other trades have been carried on
from time to time, and one of these, dyeing, left us a picturesque
reminder in the fields of saffron which, in springtime and in autumn,
were, until the great extension of building on the southern side of the
town, so conspicuous a feature of the Nottingham Meadows.
Until the middle of the nineteenth century the growth and prosperity
of the town was greatly restricted by the commonable lands surrounding
it which could not be built upon; but in 1845, under an Inclosure Act,
the commonable rights were extinguished, thus permitting the needful
extension of the town. So long ago as 1787 the need of inclosure was
realised, but steadily and persistently opposed by the Corporation,
whose past action largely contributed to the creation of insanitary
areas, which in recent years have in some measure been swept away at a
vast expense, partly by railway extensions without cost to the town,
partly under improvement schemes at the expense of the ratepayer.
The population of Nottingham, less than 25,000 at the end of the
eighteenth century, has increased at least tenfold in the past hundred
years. An ancient borough by prescription, now a titular city, it
has a series of charters from the time of Henry II, and for more
than 600 years has had a mayor and the right of returning members to
Parliament. It is also a county in itself, though through the supposed
exigencies of the case the site of the Shire Hall in the middle of
the town belongs to the county. The Corporation is a very wealthy
body, possessed of large estates producing more than £30,000 a year,
besides the revenue which it draws from the profits of its commercial
undertakings, such as the trams, the gasworks, and the waterworks,
not to mention the contributions of the ratepayers, whose burdens,
despite the Corporation estates, are not less than those of other
towns. In 1877 the area of the borough was extended by the inclusion
of the neighbouring parishes of Snenton, Lenton, Radford, Basford, and
Bulwell, and in 1897 it was by royal charter created a city.
Some reference may properly be made to the individual activity of
Nottingham citizens. The religious work of the town is mainly dependent
upon voluntary contributions, and in medical matters the various
hospitals of the town form a striking testimony to this principle;
while voluntary education is well represented by the High School and
the Blue Coat School. Even the University College owes its origin to
the anonymous gift of £10,000, and it is a matter of common knowledge
that the great religious and social organisation known as the Salvation
Army, which is based wholly upon volunteer work, was founded by a
native of Nottingham. The literary activity of the town has not been
small. In the middle of the eighteenth century, Dr. Standfast, the
rector of Clifton, founded the professional library known by his name,
which is merged in Bromley House Library, established in 1816. But
even in much humbler ranks of life the value of books was recognised.
Few perhaps realise what the working classes of Nottingham did before
rate-supported libraries were started. Seventy years ago there were
at least six operatives’ libraries supported by the weekly pence of
working men, and the remarkable point about them--surprising perhaps to
modern philanthropists--is, that they were situated at obscure taverns
in some of the poorest parts of the town. That at the Rancliffe Arms,
founded in 1835, had 2200 volumes; another at the Seven Stars owned
about 1800 volumes, and the one at the Alderman Wood possessed 2150
volumes, while the Oddfellows’ Library had 2300. There was another at
the People’s Hall, and in 1836 was founded the Mechanics’ Institution,
which, with its library, lectures, and classes, has done such valuable
work for the intellectual advancement of the town, and is a centre of
great literary activity. Even the rate-supported Public Library was
based upon the old Artisans’ Library, which was founded as long ago as
1824.
At Nottingham is one of the ancient crossing places of the river
Trent, the history of which dates back about a thousand years, for the
building of a bridge here has been ascribed to Edward the Elder. The
large expanse of alluvial land between the town and the present bed of
the Trent necessitated in fact more than one bridge, as is hinted at
in the colloquial plural form, not perhaps yet obsolete, of the Trent
bridges, instead of merely Trent bridge. Passing the meadows from the
foot of St. Mary’s rock, a series of bridges carried the London road
to the narrow stone bridge of eighteen or twenty arches, which, forty
years ago, was superseded by the present bridge of stone and iron.
Medieval records have much to tell us of the building of the Trent
bridge. Then, as now, the maintenance of the bridge was provided for
without calling upon the townsmen for enforced contributions in the
shape of rates. Seven hundred years ago the care and maintenance of
the bridge was undertaken by the Hospital of St. John, in Nottingham,
and in 1231 we have the record of “indulgences” of thirteen days
given to those aiding in the building of the bridge of Hoybel at
Nottingham--doubtless the structure known in later times as the
Hethbeth bridge, a name of which the origin has not been satisfactorily
determined.
Bridges, then, were largely maintained with ecclesiastical support by
voluntary gifts, as is shown by various episcopal records granting
“indulgences” for their benefit. A chapel was commonly associated
with a bridge, and the Trent bridge, with the chapel of St. Mary at
the north end, was no exception to the rule. In 1303 John le Paumer
of Nottingham, and Alice his wife, settled property in Nottingham
amounting to the substantial annual value of £6, 13s. 5d. for the
endowment of two chaplains for a daily service in the chapel of St.
Mary at Hethbeth bridge, “for the souls of them, their ancestors,
and all Christians who assign their goods or part of them for the
maintenance of the bridge.” John le Paumer died within the next few
years, but his widow, Alice le Paumer, continued the good work, and in
1311 she obtained a grant of pontage, or the right of levying tolls on
wares brought over the bridge, in order to provide the necessary funds,
and provision was made for auditing the proceeds and the expenditure
which she incurred. For fifteen or sixteen years the work seems to
have continued under her care, for there exists in the Patent Rolls
record of various grants to this lady in connection with the bridges.
In 1314 occurs the specific statement that she was then building the
bridge of Hethbeth, and four years later that the right to take pontage
is extended for a further period of four years to provide also for
the repair of any bridge to be built between Hethbeth bridge and the
land towards “Gameleston,” now Gamston. This second bridge seems to
have been built within the space of two years, for in July 1321 it was
still spoken of as “to be built,” and in November 1323 it is stated
to be “newly built.” In 1324 Alice le Paumer received a further grant
of pontage for three years for the repair of Hethbeth bridge and “the
bridge of the new breach by the said bridge.”
It is not altogether easy to determine what these two bridges were.
Between our modern Trent bridge and the land towards Gamston there
could not have been any bridge, and the situation of the two bridges
must be sought for somewhere in the London road between the town
and West Bridgford. The Hethbeth bridge has been assumed to be, and
probably correctly, the southern part of that series of arches which
carry the roadway over the meadows to the south of the Leen. From the
alluvial conformation of the land it is not unlikely that the Trent may
have altered its course, or that it may have become divided here. If
so the old stone bridge demolished some forty years ago would be that
built by Alice le Paumer about 1321–1323, and described as the bridge
of the “new breach,” an expression perhaps indicative of some new
course then made by the Trent.
The ancient stone bridge, which the older inhabitants of the city well
remember, stood a little to the west of the present iron structure.
One or two of the arches at the southern end have been left standing,
and they indicate its width, or perhaps one might rather say its
narrowness, in medieval times, though at some later period the bridge
was widened, but not sufficiently to permit of a footpath on either
side, and the only refuge from the traffic available for pedestrians
was to be found in the angular recesses which surmounted the
buttresses. Most of the arches of the bridge were pointed and narrow,
dating probably from the time of Alice le Paumer, but those at the
northern end had been rebuilt in the seventeenth century in a wider
and rounded style. It was a picturesque and interesting structure,
and as far as traffic was concerned at the time of its demolition,
amply sufficed for the needs of the district. Only on market days
was the foot passenger troubled by the traffic across the bridge--a
great contrast to the present time, when the bridge has to serve the
requirements of the populous suburb which has taken the place of the
little country village of West Bridgford. It was in 1870 that the
present Trent bridge was opened to traffic, and shortly after the
ancient structure, which for so many centuries had served the needs of
the men of Nottingham, was removed, all save the arches, which serve as
the entrance to the riverside walk to Wilford. Those who are curious
about relics of the past may like to know that some of the stonework of
the old Trent bridge was utilised in building a new aisle to Plumtree
Church.
The Trent bridge is richly endowed, and out of the revenues of the
bridge estate were provided the funds needed to build the present
structure, without recourse to the ratepayer. These endowments are
of ancient standing, and in an extension of this system of voluntary
endowment followed by our ancestors may yet be found the way to relieve
the ratepayer of the ever-increasing burden of local taxation.
Half a century ago there were in the county but two bridges across
the Trent--at Nottingham and Newark. Now we have in addition those at
Wilford and Gunthorpe, besides the two railway bridges at Nottingham.
As against this must be set the recent discontinuance of the
ancient ferry which from Roman times or even earlier had existed at
Littleborough.
This sketch of the history and character of a great city is imperfect,
as such attempts must be when limited to the space of a few pages.
Perhaps it will suffice to show that Nottingham is no mean city, but
one of which the inhabitants are rightly proud. Those who have settled
there by choice, and those who are natives of the town, alike pride
themselves upon it with good reason.
SOUTHWELL
BY W. E. HODGSON,
_Priest-Vicar of Wells Cathedral, and late Assistant-Curate of
Southwell Minster_
Hidden in a hollow amidst the undulating downs which skirt the vale of
Trent, Southwell has escaped the notice which it deserves from both
the antiquary and the historian. Its annals are not wildly exciting,
for the streets of the little township have not often resounded to
the clash of arms, nor its halls been the scene of statesmen’s high
debate; but its history is really interesting to the serious student,
for in some ways it is unique. And above all, the lover of our
church architecture finds in the stones of the Minster a majesty of
conception, mixed with an extreme delicacy of detail, which it is not
easy to excel.
The best way to approach Southwell is to travel by the road from
Nottingham which passes through Thurgarton, the low road the natives
call it, for when the pilgrim has breasted Brackenhurst Hill, he is
greeted by a truly artistic view: the sight of Southwell Minster
nestling in the valley below, framed in a plentiful surrounding of
trees, and banked with a pleasing profusion of red-tiled roofs. It is
the south side of the church which is thus seen, and the picture of the
cathedral standing in the midst of green fields, once the Archbishop
of York’s park, seems the very ideal of peace and tranquillity. It is
indeed a true epitome of the whole story of the church and town.
The history of Southwell is known to reach back to the year 956, but
like many other places whose origins are uncertain, that history has
been extended still further back into the past, till it rests on the
very weakest of foundations. The mistake arose partly, no doubt, from
a desire to attach to the church the well-known name of some pioneer
of Christianity in this land, and partly from the mistaken identity of
the locality of Tiovulfingacester, the place near which, so Bede tells
us, Paulinus baptized large numbers of converts in the Trent. Camden,
who is followed by all the local historians, describes Paulinus as the
founder of the first church at Southwell, but there is no real evidence
to support this assertion, and we must be content to admit that the
origin of the place is unknown. The locality, however, was inhabited
during the Roman occupation of Britain, for undoubted Roman remains
have been discovered. A piece of pavement can be seen beneath some old
wooden stalls in the south limb of the transept of the Minster, and
when some digging was in progress a few years ago in the garden of the
Residence House, to the east of the Minster, the remains of a Roman
wall were discovered. These remains were photographed before they were
covered up again, and it is quite possible in the summer to trace the
course of the masonry beneath the lawn by the lighter shade of green
which it causes the grass above it to assume. Experts, to whom the
fragments of pottery and other things which have been dug up in the
garden have been shown, are convinced of their genuineness. Whether
the Roman occupation took the form of a villa or an encampment we
cannot tell; but the sheltered hollow in which Southwell lies is one
that would have taken the fancy of some magnate seeking a site for his
country house, for it would have been easily accessible from the Trent,
and was also within a few miles of the Fosse way. But this is all
conjecture, and though at any time the spade may reveal direct evidence
of earlier history, yet at present we can only start with certainty at
the year 956 A.D.
There is no direct evidence to show in what diocese Southwell lay
before 956, for it is uncertain whether that part of Nottinghamshire
belonged to Lindsey or Mercia. If the boundary lay to the west
of Southwell, then it was in Lindsey and in the diocese of
Sidnaceaster,[52] and the province of York, but if to the east, it
was in Mercia, and so in the diocese of Lichfield and the province
of Canterbury. Nottingham itself was in Mercia,[53] but Newark seems
always to have belonged to the Archbishops of York, and so was
probably in Lindsey.[54] There is ample evidence to suppose that the
boundary lay between Southwell and Newark, a supposition to which the
connection of the former with St. Eadburg lends weight. This connection
of St. Eadburg is unfortunately not at all clear. In a tractate on
the burial-places of English saints, which was apparently a kind of
pilgrims’ guide to famous shrines (the oldest extant copy is assigned
to the year 1015), there is the following entry: “There resteth St.
Eadburg in the Minster near the water which is called Trent.” St.
Eadburg, abbess of the monastery of Repton, died at the beginning of
the eighth century; she was a lady of Mercian royal descent, and the
friend of St. Guthlac, the founder of Croyland, to whom on one occasion
she sent a coffin and a winding-sheet, with a request that he should
use them when the proper time arrived. These strange gifts St. Guthlac
is said to have ordered to be used after his death.[55]
St. Eadburg of Repton is generally considered to be the saint of that
name whose shrine was mentioned in the pilgrims’ guide as being at
Southwell. But why was she buried at Southwell? It has been conjectured
that she founded a monastery there; but there is no evidence of this,
and as far as we have any certain knowledge there does not seem to have
ever been a time when any regular Order was established at Southwell.
Tradition also is silent on the point. Before 956 Southwell was
probably a royal estate, and perhaps one of the least disturbed parts
of Mercia. Besides, in those days, the peregrinations of the bones of
saints were not infrequent, and St. Eadburg’s must have been moved to
Southwell some time after her death, as it appears that St. Eadburg’s
body lay at the Monastery of Limming or Lyminge in Kent for over 150
years. For there are references to her in two charters in Birch’s
_Cartularium Saxonicum_.
(1) A grant of land in Canterbury, A.D. 804, by Coenulph, King
of the Mercians, and Cuthred, King of the Cantuarii, to Selethryth,
Abbess of the Convent at Limming, “ubi pausat corpus beatæ Eadburgæ.”
(B.C.S. 317, Cod. Dip. 188.)
(2) A grant by Athelstan to the church of St. Mary, Lyminge, of land at
Vlaham or Elham in Kent, A.D. 964. In this charter Lyminge is
described as the place “ubi sepulta est sancta Eadburga.” (B.C.S. 1126.)
If these charters are genuine, an interesting question is raised.
What was the connection of St. Eadburg with Lyminge, and why was her
body moved, so long after her death, to Southwell? A possible answer
to the second question is that her bones were moved to Southwell by
order of King Edgar, to enhance by their presence, the gift of land at
Southwell, which King Eadwig had made to Oskytel of York in 956.[56]
If this was so, the body was probably moved to Southwell very shortly
after 964. This grant of land by King Eadwig to Archbishop Oskytel of
York, in 956, is the first real fact in the history of Southwell. The
genuineness of the charter which embodies this gift has been called
in question, but the balance of evidence seems distinctly in favour of
its authenticity. The extent of the lands granted to the archbishop, as
far as can be made out from the charter,[57] corresponds roughly to the
territory now belonging to the two parishes of Southwell, St. Mary and
Holy Trinity.[58]
It is not meant to infer that there was no church at Southwell before
956, but that up till then it had most probably been one of the
numerous minsters or parochial churches distributed over the county.
Some people still think, because the church at Southwell is called “the
Minster,” that it was once served by monks. Such was not the case, and
it is a noticeable fact that the churches to which this name has clung
were none of them monastic--York, Lincoln, Beverley, and Southwell. The
word “Monasterium,” the Bishop of Bristol[59] says, “is used in the
Middle Ages for a parish church in the country. ‘Minster’ has always
been a special Yorkshire word, York Minster, Beverley Minster.”
An interesting fact about this grant of land by Eadwig to Oskytel
is that it seems to be the first recorded instance of a grant of
private jurisdiction, the archbishop being given sac and soc over his
new estate. Oskytel did not, in all probability, leave the church
purely parochial, but established a college of Secular Canons there,
whose duty it was to serve the Minster, and also to look after the
neighbouring churches. If he founded the college he would also most
likely rebuild and enlarge the church to make it more worthy of its
higher position. Though at this period the history of Southwell seems
to consist only of probabilities, yet we do know for certain that
by the Norman Conquest there was a College of Canons there who were
prebendaries, for Domesday Book, in speaking of the lands which the
archbishop possessed at Southwell, describes two bovates as being “in a
prebend.” This is very interesting, for very few, if any, other canons
held their land as prebendaries before the Conquest, those of the great
church at York not reaching that status till the episcopate of Thomas
of Bayeux[60] (1070–1100). Also Archbishop Ealdred (1060–1070) is
recorded as having bought land to “found prebends” at Southwell.
This College of Secular Canons had a remarkable career. At the time
of the Conquest they were seven in number, and by the end of the
thirteenth century they had grown to sixteen, at which number they
remained until the dissolution of the Chapter seventy years ago. The
history of this college may not be exciting, but its career is most
interesting, for it lasted from before the eleventh century until the
year 1840. No other ecclesiastical corporation in the country had such
a long existence, surviving the storms of the Reformation to be swept
away by the almost fanatical wave of reform which raged over England
during the second quarter of the nineteenth century.
But we must return to earlier days. Even after the first real fact of
956 the history of Southwell remains very incomplete, nothing but a
few scraps of information rewarding the most diligent search, and the
reader must bear in mind that the meagre scraps that are to be picked
up are almost entirely ecclesiastical, for the history of Southwell
consists simply of the history of the Chapter and their church.
Ælfric Puttoc, Archbishop of York (1023–1050), is said, like many of
his successors, to have lived at Southwell, and to have died there. He
was a very worldly-minded prelate and bears a bad reputation, though
he is said to have been a great benefactor to Southwell; which is
quite likely as he particularly favoured the great secular churches of
his diocese, and among other things organised the College of Canons
at Beverley. He was, however, a magnificent patron of the abbey of
Peterborough where he was buried. His successor Kinsi (1050–1060),
gave some large bells to Southwell, and Ealdred, who succeeded him,
bought lands to found prebends there, and also built, both at Southwell
and York, a refectory.[61] Ealdred was fated to be the last Saxon
archbishop, and he seems to link the Saxon and Norman races together
by the fact that he crowned both Harold and William the Conqueror. We
know of little intercourse between Thomas of Bayeux, the first Norman
Archbishop of York, and Southwell, but his successor Gerard, a man of
great learning, and one who played a curious part in the political
and ecclesiastical life of William II.’s reign, is supposed to have
rebuilt the palace. He is a man who has not had justice done him in
contemporary history. He held very advanced views on Church matters,
and was in great disfavour because his studies were far too secular for
those days, being devoted to mathematics and astronomy. His zeal for
these subjects only drew down on him the suspicion of dabbling in magic
and evil practices, and he was verily believed to have sold himself to
the devil for the sake of forbidden knowledge.[62] Gerard spent much
time at Southwell, where he died, and the story of his death is worth
recording. On May 21, 1108, the archbishop had been dining and went for
a walk in the garden “near the dormitory.” Lying down to rest on a bank
with his head on a cushion he not unnaturally fell asleep, but it was,
in the words of the chronicler,[63] “a fatal sleep,” for he never woke
again. His end was regarded as most shocking, not so much for the way
of his death, but because underneath the cushion on which his head had
rested was found a book by Julius Firmicus, a writer on mathematics
and astrology. His last moments had thus been given to the study of
the black arts, and his sudden end was regarded as the righteous
judgment of Heaven for indulging in such a sin. His body was carried
from Southwell to York by an “unfrequented road,” and on its arrival
was not met, as was usual, by the citizens and clergy of the cathedral,
but by noisy boys who irreverently pelted the bier with stones. He was
buried outside the cathedral without any funeral rites, and it was left
to his successor to transfer his body from this unhallowed grave to a
more fitting resting-place within the Minster church. Perhaps it was
not only his secular studies and untimely end that caused the canons of
York to treat his body with such disrespect, for it is probable that
they bore him no good will because he had zealously tried to reform
their morals and discipline, which were very lax. Another reason why
Gerard’s body was treated with such indignity, and which made his
contemporaries feel so sure that his life beyond the grave would be
anything but happy, was the fact that he had died without making a
will, and so had made no bequests to the Church or to the poor which
might have atoned for his evil life.
Gerard was succeeded by another Thomas, nephew to Thomas of Bayeux, who
had been made by his uncle the first Provost of the College of Canons
at Beverley. He is of no importance in history except for the not very
noble part he played in the long dispute between the sees of Canterbury
and York concerning the right of allegiance which the former demanded
from the latter. But for our purpose Thomas of Beverley is famous, “for
he may be regarded as the builder of the present nave of Southwell
Minster.”[64] Though Thomas, who died in 1114, would not have seen his
church rise much above the ground, yet to him is due the initiation of
the scheme which other men carried through, the result of which we of
these latter days still wonder at and enjoy. Forty years at least would
such a church take in building, and it was probably not half completed
when the troubles of Stephen’s reign began. A chance entry in the
continuation by John of Hexham of the _Historia Regum_ of Symeon
of Durham helps us to suggest a date by which the church was almost
if not quite finished. Under the year 1143 is the following remark:
“William Painel, commander of the troops in Nottingham, moved a band
of soldiers to Southwell, wishing to break down the wall by which the
precincts (_consepta_) of the church of St. Mary were protected,
in order to pillage. A number of the inhabitants who had gathered in
the neighbourhood of the place manfully defended it.” This entry is
interesting, for it not only tells us that even the peace of Southwell
was disturbed by the upheavals of the Civil War, and that the common
people were zealous to defend their church, but it also gives us reason
to believe that the church itself was probably finished by then, for
it is not likely that time would be spent in building a wall capable
of being defended round the precincts until the church inside was
completed, for it was not till the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
that the corporate bodies which controlled our greater churches looked
to their own homes first and largely left the houses of God, which were
under their charge, to look after themselves.
We may also note an incident recorded in the continuation of the
Chronicle of Florence of Worcester (_sub anno_ 1137), for it
is interesting as being a case of the miraculous. “At Southwell, an
archiepiscopal town, while a grave was being prepared for interment,
the relics of some saints and a glass vessel containing some very
clear water, supported on uprights, which apparently protected it from
being broken, were found; this being given to the sick and taken by
them, they were restored to health.” Perhaps these were the relics of
St. Eadburg which, after the Conquest, may have been removed from the
church and buried in an unknown grave, for the Normans did all they
could, for political reasons, to discourage the veneration of the Saxon
saints.
But to return to Thomas of Beverley and the Minster he set a-building.
We can imagine, then, that the first part to be constructed was the
choir and the lower stages of the central tower, and as much of the
nave and transepts as would be required to give abutment to the tower
arches;[65] and experts tell us that the western part of the nave is
distinctly later in character. Mr. J. Bilson attributes the aisle
vaults of the nave to _c._ 1130, and also gives as his opinion
that the Norman choir of the Minster did not have a square east end,
but that what has been taken for traces of such an end probably
indicate a broad sleeper wall across the chord of the apse, as at
St. Mary’s, York, and Selby Abbey.[66] Of this church the nave and
transepts remain to-day as a fitting memorial to Thomas of Beverley.
The choir of the Norman church which was pulled down to make room for
the present one consisted probably only of three bays, and would, in
fact, form but the presbytery and sanctuary of the church, the ritual
choir being extended westwards as far as the first or second bay of
the nave. Our authority for saying that Thomas of Beverley was the
archbishop who started building the Norman Minster depends on a letter
which is preserved in the _Liber Albus_ of Southwell--the oldest
manuscript book preserved in the library. The commencement of the
compilation of the White Book dates from about the beginning of the
fourteenth century, but it contains copies of documents dating back as
far as the beginning of the twelfth century. The White Book consists
of Papal Bulls, Royal and Episcopal Letters, and charters and other
documents connected with the privileges and property of the collegiate
church. The letter in question runs, when translated into English,
thus: “Thomas, by the grace of God (Archbishop of York) to all his
parishioners of Nottinghamshire, greeting in the blessing of God. We
pray you, as most beloved sons, that for the forgiveness of your sins
you will help, by the blessing of your alms towards the building of
the church of St. Mary of Southwell. And whosoever, even in the least
degree, shall give the smallest assistance shall be to the end of
time a participator in all the prayers and benefactions that shall be
done in that and all our other churches. And this ye ought to do more
willingly that we release you from the need of visiting each year the
church of York, as all our other parishioners do, but instead (you
shall visit) the church of Southwell, and there have the same pardon
that ye have at York.”
It will be noticed that the letter does not say which Thomas is
the author, but all the evidence we can gather, and the style of
the Minster itself, make it certain that it was Thomas of Beverley
(1108–1114). This letter also tells us of something else that Thomas
did for Southwell. He made that church a pro-cathedral for the county
of Nottingham by allowing the parishes to send their representatives
there instead of to York Minster, on the annual pilgrimage to fetch
the chrism required by each parish for the year, and also to pay at
the same time their accustomed dues. The chrism, which as a rule was
consecrated by the bishop in his cathedral on Easter Eve, was used
in baptism, confirmation, and extreme unction. It was consecrated at
York, and a portion sufficient for the parishes of Nottinghamshire was
sent to Southwell, and distributed on the morrow of Whitsunday to the
representatives of the parishes who had journeyed there. Thus it was
called the Whitsuntide procession. To be the goal of the Whitsuntide
procession was a great privilege, for it brought honour and profit
to the church and town. This custom continued down till the time of
Archbishop Drummond, towards the close of the eighteenth century,
by whose mere fiat it was abolished, though, of course, through the
changes in the value of money the dues then paid were of no material
advantage. The chrism, needless to say, had not been distributed
subsequent to the Reformation. The church of York had at one time
tried to take the Pentecostal offerings away from Southwell, and a
warm dispute ensued, which was only terminated by Pope Innocent III.
This Whitsuntide procession, which was started by Thomas of Beverley
to encourage the county of Nottingham to help in building the church,
became the great event of the year in the little country town. Shilton,
in his _History of Southwell_ (published in 1818), quoting from
an older book, tells us that the Mayor and Corporation of Nottingham,
with the Justices of the Peace, till quite recent times kept up the
custom of riding to Southwell on Whit Monday, all decked in their
best clothes, and bringing with them their “Pentecostals” or “Whitsun
farthings.” Apparently the Mayor was allowed a certain discretion,
and sometimes did not come “because of the foulness of the way or
destemperance of the weder.” The money used to be paid in the north
porch of the Minster, and even after the procession was given up for a
long time the Chapter clerk attended for form’s sake in the porch on
Monday in Whit Week, although the money was collected by the apparitor
at the Chapter’s visitation in the county. The payment of this money
long before it was given up had become a mere form, so trifling were
the amounts--Nottingham itself only paying 13s. 4d. and Southwell
5s.--yet at one time this must have meant a large sum of money and
have been a great help towards the upkeep of the fabric of the church.
Southwell was very gay on Whit Monday with the representatives of two
hundred and five odd parishes riding into the little town. Whit Week
was long regarded as Southwell Feast week, when merry village sports
and other pastimes made a welcome break in the peaceful progress of the
year. The greatest attractions were the donkey and pony races from
Burgage Green to the top of Hockerton Hill and back. Nothing is left
of all these enjoyments now, and the whole feast has degenerated into
Southwell Races, which are held at Rolleston.
It must have been a real blessing for the inhabitants of
Nottinghamshire to have been excused the tiresome journey to York once
a year; yet irksome as that duty was we can well believe that in those
days it was regarded as a sacred obligation and as such was faithfully
fulfilled. Yet the hearts of Nottingham men must have swelled with
gladness when they heard the letter read which gave them leave to go to
Southwell instead, and they blessed the goodness of Thomas of Beverley.
Besides this, Thomas is thought to have added two more to the number
of prebends, and altogether he may be counted as one of the greatest
benefactors the church of Southwell ever had.
In the few pages allotted to the history of Southwell in this volume
it is impossible to give a complete or consecutive account of even the
little that we know about the place. We must therefore be content with
an item here and there, remembering that much interesting matter has
had to be omitted for want of space.
The Minster was enlarged and made more beautiful as time went on, and
the Chapter was increased by successive archbishops and its privileges
multiplied, but it never became a very wealthy body, and at times
we hear of complaints of poverty, and even of inability to keep up
the style of worship expected in so great a church. Statutes were
given to the church by Archbishops Walter de Grey (1216–1256), John
le Romeyne (1286–1296), and Thomas de Corbridge (1300–1304) either
to reform abuses or to make better provision for the service of God
and the welfare of the church and its ministers. By the days of le
Romeyne the Chapter reached the number (16) at which it remained till
its dissolution. The canons were all technically equal, for there was
no dean, except apparently for a short time in the days of Walter de
Grey, who perhaps tried the experiment of appointing one in order to
improve the discipline of the college. Several charters in the White
Book are signed by “Hugh, Dean,” who generally, though not always,
put his name first. There is also one signature of a “Henry, Dean,”
but this is most likely a mistake, because if Walter de Grey did once
appoint a dean there seems little evidence that the experiment was
repeated, and it is doubtful if the one appointed was able to exercise
much authority. So the college remained a corporate body of sixteen
canons, all equal in rank, though the Prebendary of Normanton (near
Southwell) seems to have had more privileges than the others, as he
appointed the parish vicar of Southwell, and as chancellor had the
appointment of the mastership of the grammar schools throughout the
county. Besides the sixteen canons, there were sixteen vicars, mostly
in priests’ orders, connected with the Minster, one being presented
for institution to the Chapter by each canon. These vicars were the
representatives of the canons in the Minster, and they were needed,
as the evil of non-residence was felt at a very early date, and none
of the steps taken to check it had any permanent effect. Besides the
vicars there grew up in time a large college of chantry priests, and
at the time of the Reformation the number of clergy attached to the
church was quite fifty. The vicars had lodgings in the Vicars’ Close,
and a common hall where the present Residence House stands, which was
taken from the vicars about the beginning of the seventeenth century.
The vicars of Southwell, though a numerous body, with their own rights
and privileges, never became so numerous or important and independent a
body as the college of vicars at Wells.
On rare occasions Southwell creeps into the history of the nation,
only, however, to retire once more into seclusion amidst the peace of
its undulating hills. At the end of August 1189 the town witnessed an
ecclesiastical function of some importance. Geoffrey Plantagenet, the
natural and only faithful son of Henry II., had been appointed by
his brother, Richard I., to the see of York at the great council held
at Pipewell, in Northamptonshire, about a week before. But Baldwin,
Archbishop of Canterbury, claimed the right of consecrating him, and
forbade him either to receive priests’ orders or consecration from
anybody but himself, and appealed to the Pope to support his rights,
reminding the King and Court of the old dispute between Canterbury
and York, which had continued so long in the days of the first three
Norman kings. Geoffrey had meanwhile got into trouble with the King,
who cancelled his appointment to York. Nothing daunted, Geoffrey set
out for Southwell, the nearest church of importance in the diocese of
York, taking with him John, Bishop of Whithern, his suffragan, who
himself had only been consecrated at the recent council at Pipewell
by John, Archbishop of Dublin. At Southwell, on August 29th, the
Bishop of Whithern ordained Geoffrey priest.[67] Though Geoffrey was
soon reconciled to the King, yet Richard had no intention of allowing
him to be consecrated, and insisted on his promising to remain out
of England while the King went on a crusade. Poor Geoffrey is one of
the most pitiable characters of this period. Misfortune seemed to dog
his footsteps, while he had the unfortunate knack of quarrelling with
every one with whom he had to deal. In 1190 Richard sent Hugh, Bishop
of Durham, back to England with letters in which he appointed him
Justiciary north of the Humber. Hugh met William of Ely, the Chancellor
and Regent of the kingdom, at Ely, and showed him the letters. The
Chancellor said he was willing to obey the King’s orders, and in a
friendly way travelled with Hugh as far as Southwell, where he suddenly
arrested him, and kept him in custody till he had surrendered to
him the castle of Windsor and made other concessions.[68] On April
4, 1194, the Monday in Holy week, a more distinguished pair met at
Southwell--Richard of England and William of Scotland--and there
debated on the differences between them, departing together the next
day to Melton.[69] But these were isolated events, and the comings
and goings of kings and rulers did not often disturb the peace of the
little town. Besides the doings at Whitsuntide, the visits of the
different archbishops would be the greatest excitement, for when in
England they would spend, no doubt, some part of each year at their
manor of Southwell, for it was commodious and near to London; besides,
in those days it was customary for great men to travel from manor to
manor, and stay long enough to consume the provisions and stores laid
up, for it was not possible for one manor to support a great dignitary
and all his retinue for more than three weeks or a month at a time.
The old Norman choir in which Geoffrey had been ordained was not
destined to stand much longer, for about the year 1220 or 1230 Walter
de Grey started to build the present choir. We know for certain that in
1233 he issued an indulgence of thirty days to all who should help by
their alms towards the completion of this new work. For the description
of the choir, as of the other parts of the building, the reader must
refer to the excellent guide-books to the Minster; yet we may say
here that the choir is as good an example of thirteenth-century work
as can be found. Its lightness and elegance, in contrast to the heavy
if majestic solidity of the nave, is most pleasing. Next in order of
time comes the chapel in the east side of the north transept of the
nave, now used as the vestry. This chapel formerly contained two altars
of different chantries, but has since been put to various uses; even
becoming a song school before the abolition of the chantries. In later
years it was the vicar’s vestry, then it became the library until the
books were moved to their present home above the chapel in question.
The next addition to the Minster was the vestibule to the Chapter
House, which was at one time an open cloister; and though the closing
up of its eastern side may have added to the comfort not only of the
vestibule but of the whole church, it certainly has not improved its
appearance. This vestibule leads to the goal of all lovers of Gothic
art who visit Southwell--the Chapter House, with its incomparable
doorway, which has often been described in words of unstinted praise,
and indeed it would be impossible for such praise to be exaggerated.
The present writer will not attempt to describe this building, but
will quote the words of Mr. G. E. Street, who says: “What either
Cologne Cathedral, or Ratisbon, or Weisen Kirche are to Germany, Amiens
Cathedral and the Sainte Chapelle are to France, the Scalegere in
Verona to Italy, are the Choir of Westminster and the Chapter House
at Southwell to England.”[70] Mr. A. F. Leach is of the same opinion
when he says: “It is the most perfect work of the most perfect style
of Gothic architecture.” It is not only the doorway with its exquisite
carving, but the beautiful proportions of the whole Chapter House, and
the extreme lightness and delicacy of all its parts and details, that
arouses the enthusiasm of the most casual visitor, and holds the expert
spell-bound with its charm.
Archbishop John le Romeyne (1286–1296) is the man who set on foot this
work. He it was who initiated the rebuilding of the nave and Chapter
House at York. For the same man to have started three such beautiful
examples of Gothic architecture as the Chapter Houses at Southwell and
York, and the nave at York, is indeed to lay posterity under a debt
which can never be paid. But his interests were not only architectural.
His first care was the moral and spiritual discipline and welfare of
the great churches in his diocese. He established, among other things,
his right of visitation over his cathedral Chapter, and gave statutes
to Southwell which he based on those of York. The next addition of
importance to the Minster was the choir screen or pulpitum. Here,
again, it does not seem an exaggeration to say that in this feature
also Southwell is very hard to beat; for though, unfortunately, the
greater number of the carved heads are not the original ones at all,
yet as a whole the pulpitum stands unrivalled for its beauty and
elegance of design. It was built towards the end of the first half of
the fourteenth century. In the White Book there is a copy of a licence
granted by Edward III., in 1337, to the Chapter, allowing them the free
transit of stone from Mansfield through Sherwood Forest. This licence,
which was granted as a result of complaints made by the Chapter that
their carts had been unduly made to pay toll by the King’s foresters,
is generally supposed to refer to the cartage of material required
for building the screen. And therefore the screen has been dated from
the year of this licence, 1337; but the present writer is bound to
confess that, from an impartial reading of the licence in question, it
does not seem to infer that any special work was in progress, but only
refers to the stone that would be continually needed for the repair and
support of such a fabric as the Minster, and of all the buildings and
houses depending on it. Southwell, it must be remembered, had to fetch
all its stone from Mansfield, no durable material being found in the
neighbourhood. The screen is built in the fully developed Decorated
style, and must have been erected somewhere about this time, yet this
licence is not nearly explicit enough to warrant any one taking its
date as the precise date of the screen itself. The sedilia, remarkable
both for their beauty and for the unusual number of seats--five--were
built a little later than the screen, and are the last addition of
importance which can be entirely praised.
As regards the great west window, which is fifteenth-century work, much
as it is needed for the illumination of what would otherwise have been
a very dark interior, one cannot help feeling that it is out of keeping
with its surroundings, and does not harmonise with the rest of the
nave.
So uneventful was life at Southwell during the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries that a recent student of the Chapter records of the later
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries could find nothing else to
publish, except the peccadilloes and moral lapses of the vicars-choral
and chantry priests which came up before the Chapter for punishment. It
is, of course, no excuse to say that the clergy at Southwell were no
worse than other like bodies, and it must be admitted that many things
happened that ought not to have occurred.
In 1530 a very important person came to Southwell. Cardinal Wolsey had
never visited this house of his during the years of his greatness,
but after his fall he spent the summer of 1530 there. In Passion Week
he travelled from London to Peterborough, and “upon Easter Day in the
morning he rode to the resurrection, and that day he went in procession
in his vesture cardinal, with his hat and hood upon his head, and he
himself sang the high mass there very devoutly; and granted clean
remission to all the hearers.”[71] He stayed at Peterborough till the
Thursday in Easter Week when he removed to the house, near the town,
belonging to Sir William Fitzwilliam, an old friend of his. Here he
remained a few days, and then went north, staying nights at Stamford,
Grantham, and Newark, and reaching Southwell in the middle of the
week after Low Sunday. He could not go to the palace for it wanted
repairing, so he lodged in the house of an absent prebendary, removing
to the palace about Whitsuntide.
Mr. Dimock, in his book quoted above, gives an extract from a pamphlet,
published about fifteen years ago, which starts as follows: “Who was
less beloved in the north than my Lord Cardinal before he was amongst
them? Who better beloved after he had been there awhile? He gave
bishops a right good example how they might win men’s hearts.” On the
eve of Corpus Christi he decided to sing high mass in the Minster on
the following day, and ordered Cavendish to make all due preparations.
Nor was he prevented of his purpose by the fact that during the night
two gentlemen arrived from the King, and caused him to be roused,
and after some private speech made him sign some paper. At the close
of the summer, “at the latter end of grease time,” so Cavendish puts
it, he removed to Scrooby, and by departing in the middle of the
night disappointed many gentlemen lodging in Southwell, who came to
accompany him on his journey through the forest, intending “to lodge
a great stag or twain for him by the way.” But he dare not indulge in
such honours, for he feared what his enemies would make of such doings
with the King, and so departed by night to Welbeck abbey, and was in
his bed continuing his night’s rest before his disappointed admirers
at Southwell were awake. Greatly grieved were the people of Southwell
when the Cardinal left them, for they had received nothing but kindness
from him, as did all the people of the places in his dioceses where he
stayed from that time till his arrest. From his behaviour during these
few weeks it is abundantly evident what a good and wise bishop Wolsey
would have made if he had served his God as well as he served his King.
It was not to be expected that the Reformation and the church
spoliation indulged in by Henry VIII. and Cromwell would leave
Southwell unharmed. The Chapter, perhaps wisely, surrendered their
church and estates to the King in 1540. They possessed a kind friend
in Cranmer, who was a Nottinghamshire man, and no doubt mainly through
his influence Henry refounded the Chapter in 1541. Southwell also was
mentioned as one of the fifteen new sees which Henry professed his
desire to create out of the spoils of the monasteries and one of the
prebendaries--a certain Dr. Cox--was even named as the first bishop.
But Henry’s cupidity got the better of his zeal, and the fifteen new
dioceses dwindled down to six, and Southwell was not among the chosen
few.
But the restored Chapter did not enjoy uninterrupted peace, for at
the end of the White Book are copies of three letters from Sir Edward
North, Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, in which he accuses
the Chapter of disposing of some of their plate and ornaments, and
after rebuking them for so doing, orders them to surrender the goods
in question, and despatch them at once to London for the use of the
King. Mr. A. F. Leach thinks these letters probably belong to the
year 1546.[72] Southwell does not seem to have been affected by the
first passing of the Chantries and Colleges Act. Mr. Dimock says: “The
Court of Augmentations, to which was entrusted the alienation of the
different estates, left Southwell alone, as the list of 1547 shows
that the prebendaries and other clergy were in full enjoyment of their
benefices.”[73] But this Act was renewed at the beginning of the reign
of Edward VI., and the Chapter ceased to exist. “On the petition of
the parishioners, the Minster was continued as the parish church;
and the sacrist prebendary, John Adams, was made vicar of Southwell
at a stipend of £20 a year, with his vicar-choral Matthew Fort, and
the old parish vicar, Robert Salwyne, as ‘assistants to the cure,’
with £5 a year each.”[74] The lands of the Chapter, after changing
hands once or twice, eventually remained in the possession of John
Dudley, duke of Northumberland, and at his attainder lapsed to the
Crown. This gave Queen Mary the opportunity she did not often get of
restoring church lands to their original owners, and the Chapter was
reinstated. No doubt the cause of the Chapter was greatly helped by the
influence of Heath, archbishop of York, whom the Queen had appointed
on the deprivation of Holgate.[75] But the position of the Chapter
was still legally uncertain, because the Act of Suppression had not
been repealed. But it was safe during Mary’s reign, and was left in
possession by Elizabeth, who granted new statutes for the governance
of the college which remained the foundation of its organisation until
its dissolution in 1840. It was left to James I. to put the Chapter
on a firm legal footing, during whose reign it was argued that the
Chapter of St. Mary’s, Southwell, is vested in the Crown by statute of
I Edward VI., “thus enabling James I. in 1604 to make the magnanimous
grant and confirmation to the Chapter of the collegiate church of
Southwell of the site and precinct of the church, and the possessions
belonging thereto.”[76] James I.’s interest in the place may have been
influenced by the fact that he passed through Southwell on his way to
London to take possession of the throne. He was struck with surprise,
we are told, at seeing such a church in so small a town. And when some
of his Court remarked that York and Durham were far more magnificent
structures, James replied rather peevishly in his Scotch accent, “Vare
wele, vare wele, but, by my blude, this kirk shall justle with York or
Durham, or ony kirk in Christendom.”
Once more the Chapter started on its quiet course, and again its
history is for the most part a peaceful blank. We get just a glimpse
of the condition of things in 1635 from some odd papers of answers to
the visitation articles of the archbishop in that year. The old faults
are prominent; canons neglect to keep their residence and let their
houses fall into disrepair, and the due amount of sermons and lectures
do not seem to have been delivered. One canon in his answers complains
that the organist is very negligent in his duties and especially in the
management of the choristers, often only correcting them in service
time to the great disturbance of the worshippers. “And besides all
this,” he goes on, “he is a great lyer as yr lordship knows if you
please to remember him ... and as soon as he has made a boy fit for
the quire he sells him to some gentleman and soe by this means the
quire is impoverished.” The selling and even kidnapping of solo boys
seems to have been not uncommon at this time. The same prebendary
says that the church needs a “paire of good organs which I wish your
Grace would be pleased to contribute something towards and divers
other gentlemen would be ready to follow in so good a worke.” He
also says that the chimes and clock are much neglected. Another says
that he believes “Copes and a decent Corporall and a Bason for the
offertory are required” and that “there have been writings taken out
of the Treasury.” A third tells the archbishop that in the Treasury
“are divers writings, but so laid up that they are in danger of wette,
by raine or snowe, if the leads should happen to be faulty, and so
confused that it will be hard to finde what the church may stand
suddenly in need of. The letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, King James,
the authentique copy of the statutes, with divers other evidences
and muniments of the church are not there but in the keeping of the
Residentiaries. How they were taken out, or what caution taken for the
returning of them, he knoweth not.” After reading here how little care
was taken for the preservation of the documents of the church it is a
cause for thankfulness that as many remain as do.[77] This negligence
amply accounts for the great losses the library has sustained, and
there is no need to put the blame of their removal or destruction on
the shoulders of Cromwell and his Ironsides, as is so commonly done, as
if their shoulders had not enough to carry already. The Treasury was
described in one of the papers of visitation answers, mentioned above,
as “by the Chapter House,” and was probably the room now used as the
library.
During the Civil War Southwell was the scene of much activity. King
Charles stayed there on his way to hoist his standard at Nottingham,
and he also spent some hours at “The Saracen’s Head” before he gave
himself up to the Scottish Commissioners at Kelham. On one occasion he
lodged at the palace, but it had been much damaged, for it had been
occupied by the troops of both sides. The townspeople mostly favoured
the Puritans. This may have been partly due to the fact that Mr. Edward
Cludd, the most prominent layman in the town, was a great supporter of
Cromwell. After the dispossession of the church he bought Norwood Park,
close to Southwell, which had belonged to the archbishop, and built
himself a house there. As a magistrate, it was his duty to perform
marriages under the new regime, and there was a big oak in the park
which was famous as the place where he had tied many couples together.
Shilton, who published his history of Southwell in 1818, says the tree
was still pointed out and was called Cludd’s Oak. After the Restoration
Cludd continued to live at Norwood, leasing the property from the
archbishop. Posterity owes a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Cludd, for
it is said to have been due to his influence with Cromwell that the
latter did not damage the Church nor pull down the nave, which he
certainly intended to do, as he thought the choir large enough for the
needs of the parish.
A quotation from Thoroton’s _Nottinghamshire_ is interesting. It
refers to a visit of King Charles I. to the town, which took place
during the period between the battle of Naseby and his subsequent
residence at Oxford. “The King with a few faithful followers took
refuge at Southwell. The day after his arrival he walked about the town
not known, and entered the shop of a shoemaker, whose name was Lee, who
was a fanatic of the day. His Majesty, after some conversation with
this man, bid him take measure for a pair of shoes. Lee, on taking
the King’s foot in his hand and looking at him attentively, refused
to proceed. The King, astonished at the man’s behaviour, desired him
to do what he had requested; but the shoemaker actually refused,
giving the reason that the King was the customer he had been warned
against in a dream the night before, in which he (the customer) was
doomed to destruction, and those who worked for him would never thrive.
The forlorn monarch, whose misfortunes had opened his mind to the
impressions of superstitions, uttered an ejaculation expressive of his
resignation to the will of providence, and returned to the palace,
which was the place of his abode.”[78]
There is also a story that during the Civil War a lady took refuge
in the room over the north porch, and that during the time of her
concealment she gave birth to a child. It is said that all the time she
was hiding from the Puritans, a body of these men were camping in the
church, and her terror at being discovered was not lessened by hearing
their shouts and ribaldry so near at hand. She was kept alive by an
old friend who crept in every night to bring her food and render her
what other assistance was possible in her terrible predicament. The
Commonwealth soldiers stayed for some time in Southwell, especially
during the siege of Newark, and many skirmishes are reported to have
taken place in the neighbourhood, but there seems to be no truth
in the tradition that Cromwell bombarded the palace, although the
so-called trenches which were made for his guns are pointed out on the
neighbouring hill to the south. The unfortunate part of the story is
that these trenches, which are really gravel pits, are situated at a
much greater distance from the palace than any cannon of that period
could carry; and also that part of the palace which faces these very
pits is to-day the best preserved part of the ruins.
It may also be added that it would have been a marvellous thing that
the church should have escaped if any considerable bombardment had
taken place.
After the troubles of the Commonwealth a more profound peace than ever
enveloped Southwell. Matters, of course, had to be put straight again,
and there are extant two letters of Charles II. written just after the
Restoration, one of which orders the Chapter to provide a sufficient
maintenance for the ministers who officiate in the parochial churches
appropriated to the Chapter, implying that the Chapter had rather
starved such livings, and ordering them to increase the emoluments up
to the value of £80 a year. The other letter is addressed to certain
gentlemen directing them to “seize and secure into safe hands and
places all the rents and revenues,” together with all the woods and
other property belonging to the Chapter in Nottinghamshire.
Nothing much of interest happened during the last 180 years of the
Chapter’s existence. On November 5, 1711, a fire, caused by lightning,
broke out in the south-west tower of the nave and the flames destroyed
the roof of the nave and the organ and melted the bells in the central
tower. At the end of the eighteenth century the houses in the Vicars’
Court had grown so old and dilapidated that they had to be pulled down
and the present ones were erected in their stead. At the beginning of
the nineteenth century fears, quite unfounded, were felt as to the
safety of the spires on the western towers, and so the towers were
literally beheaded and the tops battlemented instead. The spires were
restored about thirty years ago, but after comparing them with old
pictures of the former ones they do not seem nearly so shapely, and are
even thought to be grotesque by some people.
The Chapter Decree Books, which from 1661–1840 are fairly complete,
contain nothing of great moment. There are mentions of organ repairs
and the duties of the ringing men, the prohibition of fives playing
against the walls of the church, the regular entry of a decree “that
the Dogg-whipper shall have a new coat as usual.” This official was
doubtless the man who wielded the dog-tongs, though such an instrument
is not mentioned. His office is continued to this day in a certain
verger who is on duty on Sundays and any special occasions, and marks
his descent from the old dog-whipper by always carrying a long wand.
In 1798 there is an entry that the tradesmen shall be paid £61, 9s.
2d. for putting up a new bed in the Residence House, which certainly
seems a large sum for such an article. In 1820 it is decreed that an
alteration be made in the wine cellars of the Residence House so as
to furnish room for the accommodation of each prebendary. There were
sixteen prebendaries supposed to keep a residence of three months each
in turn, and it looks as if some of them did not wish their wines to
get mixed up with those of their less fastidious colleagues. In 1805
the Chapter accepted the gift of the Brass-Eagle lectern, now in the
choir, which had belonged to Newstead abbey, and had lain for more than
200 years at the bottom of the lake at Newstead, where it had been
hidden by the monks at the dissolution of the monasteries.
There is one curious entry of which no explanation is given. On June
23, 1806, it is “decreed that the last seat in the South Side be
allotted to the Prior of Thurgarton.” What this means it is impossible
to say; this seat had always been given by courtesy to the Prior of
Thurgarton, while such a dignitary existed, because he was head of the
nearest important religious house.
In the history of the town itself there is nothing much to relate.
Southwell seems to have been quite a gay little place at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. There were archery meetings and
a flourishing bachelors’ club and numerous dances--the Assembly Rooms
being built in 1808 for this purpose--a theatre was built in 1816,
and there was a billiard-room as well. Lord Byron, who lived with his
mother during his school and college days in Burgage Manor House,
described the place as being very pleasant and possessing “a very
genteel society.”
At the accession of Queen Victoria the Chapter still continued, but the
end was near. In 1835 a Royal Commission was appointed to look into
the affairs of the church, for there was a general demand that the
whole body ecclesiastical needed rousing to life. Reform was active
in other branches of public life, and it was not possible, nor indeed
desirable, that the church should go on in her old way and not stir
herself to meet the changing needs of the ever-moving life around
her. It was felt that there was a great waste of time and money, and
especially was this the case among cathedral and collegiate bodies.
The Chapter of Southwell did not escape the keen scrutiny that was
fixed on all such bodies; it was not any more effete or lazy than other
capitular bodies, and it was by no means as wealthy as some Chapters
were at that time, but there seemed little need for it, and it appeared
to fulfil no useful purpose in the Church at large, for Southwell was
not a cathedral city nor was it the centre of a large population, and
as there was nothing for its canons, as such, to do, it was thought
that its revenues ought to be diverted into some more useful channel.
We need here only mention the recommendations of the Commissioners so
far as they affected Southwell. In 1837 Nottinghamshire, except the
Peculiar of the Chapter of Southwell, was transferred from the diocese
of York to that of Lincoln. For three years longer the Chapter was
suffered to remain, but “in 1840 a clause or two in a bill (3 and 4
Vict. c. 113), supplemented the next year by a special Act (4 and 5
Vict. c. 30), destroyed the Chapter, after making allowance for vested
interests, as a useless waste of ecclesiastical revenues. The canonries
as vacancies occurred were not filled up, the minor canons were to be
reduced to two (eventually to none at all), and the property was to
go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to help in founding Ripon and
Manchester, although these two dioceses were quite wealthy enough to
endow their own bishoprics.”[79] It is interesting to remember that
Mr. Gladstone, then the young Tory member of Parliament for Newark
(in which division Southwell lay), spoke very strongly in the House
against the destruction of the Chapter.
In time Southwell became a simple rectory, with the Residence House
as the official residence of the incumbent. The Commissioners pay
the rector and two assistant curates, the organist, choir, and other
officials of the church, and keep the fabric in repair.
The Chapter was not dissolved at once, the canons being allowed to
keep their stalls and their incomes as long as they lived, but they
were to have no successors; one of their number was to be appointed by
themselves as perpetual residentiary. The Chapter thus died a lingering
death. The policy which destroyed it was short-sighted, for it was
evident that Nottinghamshire could not long remain in the diocese of
Lincoln, for it was a district with a rapidly increasing population
owing to the development of the coal trade. Indeed, the last prebendary
of the old foundation was not dead before a project was on foot to make
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire a separate diocese in themselves. And
that same last prebendary had scarcely been in his grave ten years when
this project was carried out--the new see being constituted in 1884.
But nothing had been done to stop the transference of the patronage
of the old Chapter to the Bishops of Ripon and Manchester, to whom it
was allotted by the Act of 1840. The last prebendary, the Rev. T. H.
Shepherd, had exercised all the patronage until his death in 1873,
and then each living as it became vacant went in turn to the Bishops
of Ripon and Manchester. It was in vain that the first Bishop of
Southwell, Dr. Ridding, tried to secure this patronage, which consists
chiefly of livings just round Southwell.
It was principally due to Bishop Wordsworth, of Lincoln, that Southwell
Minster was chosen as the cathedral of the new diocese, and he was also
one of the largest subscribers to the funds needed to found the new
bishopric, parting even with some of his official income. The Minster
was a building worthy of the honour, and though by the foolishness
and short-sighted policy of the previous generation the bishop found
no Chapter at his cathedral church, yet this church possessed the
advantage and privilege of two choral services daily, of the kind
that rightly are expected to be found in cathedral churches, for the
Commissioners had not discontinued the revenues which supported the
choral services, which had thus been sung daily in the church from
time immemorial under the regime or the old College of Canons. It was
left to the present bishop of Southwell to make the Palace, which the
archbishop never used after the Great Rebellion, owing to its ruinous
condition, once more the home of a bishop, and a place of generous
hospitality to all who are concerned in the affairs of the Church.
There is now a chapter of twenty-four honorary canons, of which body
there is nothing to say except that perhaps its members are more
honorary than is usually the case; sixteen of them have taken the
names of the old prebends for their stalls, and the other eight are
called after places in the diocese. It seems a pity, perhaps, that the
old names have been taken, for there is really no connection whatever
between the old body and the new.
The little town does not grow very fast, but it is in no sense
old-fashioned, the advent twenty years ago of a lace factory giving
the place a modern appearance and helping to keep it up to date. There
is also a silk mill and a flour mill and large nursery gardens to give
employment to the people.
It is impossible to close this chapter without one word of regret
that Southwell, and indeed all Nottinghamshire, remain divorced from
the ancient ties with the archbishopric of York. When the present
archbishop visited Southwell, in June 1909, on the occasion of the
commemoration of the 800th anniversary of the building of the nave,
he expressed the same regret; for, as he said, in the very place
where his long line of predecessors had worshipped and ruled and
dwelt, he was himself only present by the sufferance, willingly
granted, it was true, of his brother of Canterbury. He hoped that
some day he would come again in his own right and not as a stranger,
but as a metropolitan visiting one of the dioceses which formed part
of the province over which he ruled. It is to be hoped that when
Nottinghamshire is made into a separate diocese, as the needs of the
Church will soon demand, that it will be restored to its old province
of York and once more acknowledge the overlordship of the archbishop of
the northern see.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE SPIRES
BY HARRY GILL
“And O, ye swelling hills and spacious plains!
Besprent from shore to shore with steeple towers,
And spires whose silent finger points to heaven;”
--WORDSWORTH.
The word steeple is generally applied to a lofty tower intended to
contain a peal of bells, and especially to a tower surmounted by a
spire.
The origin of the word spire is obscure; presumably it is a survival of
the Anglo-Saxon word “spir,” a spike or stalk, and it is now used to
denote the upper portion of a steeple when it shoots up to a point.
It would be presumption to claim any special distinction for the spires
of Nottinghamshire. They are not to be compared in size or grandeur
with those of the neighbouring county of Lincoln, or with the beautiful
spires to be found in the Nene valley, where the “tower roof” is
said to have originated. Still they are not devoid of interest, and
one example (Newark) is held to be one of the finest spires in the
kingdom, while in no other district of equal area can the development
from one type to another be traced more easily than in the hundred of
Rushcliffe, in the south of the county.
The existence of a spire pre-supposes two important conditions:
(1) A well-trained band of masons; (2) a local supply of suitable
stone; for in the Middle Ages the architecture of a district was
influenced greatly by its geology; and, at any rate while the art of
spire-building was in its infancy, we may almost add that a third
condition was essential--the existence of a tower large enough and
strong enough to support a superimposed spire, for in many of the early
examples the tower is much older than the spire.
If we take a map of the county and place a mark wherever a steeple
was built, we shall see how sporadic the art of spire-building was.
Where stone of a suitable kind was to be obtained, there we shall find
spires; an extensive cluster in the south, with a trail northward along
the outcrop of the Keuper marl; a group of five spires in the magnesian
limestone district around Mansfield; isolated examples along the banks
of the Trent and Soar, where river-borne stone could be obtained; while
the hundred of Bassetlaw, comprising large tracts of flat marshy land
in the north of the county, may fairly be said to have been spireless,
for only two medieval spires stand to the north of Tuxford, and both of
these belong to a late period of architecture.
The blue lias limestone of the county, sometimes used for rubble
walling in towers, was quite unsuitable for spire-building, and
therefore the earliest spires are to be found on the skerry belt,
wherever “water-stones” of good quality could be obtained; Tuxford,
Maplebeck and Gedling were the principal quarries, while fairly good
stone was obtained from the bank in the vicinity of Bunny and Gotham.
As facilities for transport increased, we find that the millstone grit
from Castle Donnington and south Derbyshire was used in the southern
portion of the county, and Lincolnshire oolite in the eastern portion.
The tradition of river-borne stone having been used still lingers in
Trentside villages; and even as late as 1742 one of our local artists
shows the method of haulage then in vogue, where five men are seen on
the towing-path, harnessed to a small boat.[80] (Horse haulage was
not sanctioned by Act of Parliament until the middle of the eighteenth
century.)
[Illustration: Fig. 1.]
It is difficult to determine when spire-building first started in this
country, for lightning, storm, and fire have destroyed every trace of
the timber and shingle spires which prevailed before stone was adopted
as the more suitable material.[81]
The origin of the spire grew out of the necessity for roofing the
tower in some form. The simplest and most natural kinds of roof were
the “pyramid” and “saddle-back.” The early Saxon churches, especially
in districts exposed to the attacks of the Danes, each had a strong
tower for defensive purposes, and this was invariably crowned with
a pyramid. This type of tower roof was continued during the Norman
period. The ancient towers at Halam, Flintham, and Fledborough still
retain the original form of pyramidal roof, although in each instance
they are modern restorations; and this applies also to the western
towers at Southwell Minster. The ivy-mantled tower at Walesby is the
only ancient tower in the county with a saddle-back roof; but this,
again, is not the original work. Sometimes the pyramidal roof was set
diagonally, thus forming a four-sided gable spire. We have only one
example of this type remaining in England, at Sompting in Sussex,
although it is still quite common in the Rhenish provinces.
[Illustration: Fig. 2.]
As time went on, the churches were gradually enlarged to meet
increasing needs; chancels were extended, aisles were thrown out
necessitating the introduction of clerestories, and thus the tower,
once the dominant feature, was dwarfed and made to look quite
inadequate. It was natural, therefore, that the tower should be raised,
when it not infrequently happened that the old roof was discarded,
and a new type of “tower-roof,” a tall, tapering spire, was erected
in its place, not only to keep out the weather, but designed as an
ornamental feature to give dignity and importance to the whole fabric.
At Bradmore, for instance, where only the steeple remains,[82] and that
in a ruinous condition, the building periods are quite clearly marked.
The lower stage of the tower, built of local blue lias limestone with
skerry dressings, is the original steeple; this was raised by the
addition of another stage, of a superior kind of workmanship, built of
cleansed ashlar in large and regular courses of millstone grit, and
this stage was eventually finished with a parapet surmounted by a plain
octagonal spire of fourteenth century type.
[Illustration: Fig. 3.]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.]
The _stone_ spire first made its appearance late in the twelfth
century, and became fully developed by the end of the fourteenth
century. At first it took the same form as the discarded timber
structures;[83] a stone corbel-table took the place of the dripping
eaves, and from this rose a plain octagonal pyramid, the oblique
faces being brought out to the square at the base with a plain
splay. There is only one example of this non-lithic form of spire in
Nottinghamshire--that at Gotham. To facilitate comparison, I have made
a sketch of it side by side with a typical spire of timber and shingle.
An Early English tower, 18 feet square, in three diminishing stages,
without buttresses of any kind, stands at the west end of the nave.
The walls are 3½ feet thick, finished with a corbel-table, from which
a spire springs without the intervention of parapet or pinnacles. The
spire is square on plan to begin with, but quickly assumes an octagonal
form, the oblique faces being brought out with a plain splay above the
squinches, which consist of well-formed pointed arches of one order.
There are two tiers of lucarnes or spire lights in each cardinal face,
with an orb and weather-cock as a finial at the summit. About twelve
years ago the masonry was repaired and pointed, the upper portion of
the spire, from just above the splays to the summit, being taken down
and rebuilt in its original form. A peculiarity of this spire is that
the stonework is left rough and irregular within, probably due in part
to the fact that the local skerry or waterstone, of which the whole
steeple is built, is very tough and difficult to work, and in part to
the inexperience of the early builders. Speaking generally, spire walls
are as truly worked within as without, and as the skill of the masons
increased, the thickness of the masonry was reduced on account of the
weight, until the utmost limit was reached. The beautiful spire at
Louth (Lincs.), which rises to a height of 294 feet from the ground,
is only 10 inches thick in the lower portion and 5 inches thick in the
upper portion.
Kirkby-in-Ashfield has a spire similar to the one at Gotham, but it is
modern, having been entirely rebuilt fifty years ago.
All through the thirteenth century and well on into the fourteenth
century the broach spire was common. Instead of a splay, the angle
between the square of the tower and the octagon of the spire was
covered by a hood in shape a half-pyramid, now popularly called a
_broach_, although originally that term was applied to the whole
spire, and not to a part of it only. Whereas the earlier spires
exhibited the constructive principles of the carpenter, this was
essentially the mason’s method of covering the squinches; and so
characteristic of masoncraft is it that to this day, whenever the
broach form is used to stop a plain chamfer, either in woodwork or
stonework, it is always called a “mason stop.”
[Illustration:
BURTON JOYCE. NORMANTON-ON-SOAR.
WOLLATON. EDWINSTOWE.
_From photographs_ by Mr. H. GILL.]
One of the finest specimens of a broach spire in the county is at
Normanton-on-Soar. It has a bold corbel-table in place of the plain
dripping eaves, carved knots at the apices of the broaches, two tiers
of lucarnes, and a distinct, though not too pronounced, entasis--all
characteristic of the thirteenth century type. The tower belongs
to the Early English period, and is built of rubble (blue lias
limestone), with dressings of local skerry. The spire also is built
of local skerry, but it is a later addition. It rises direct from the
corbel-table, and assumes a graceful outline as it soars above the
crossing of what once was a fine cruciform church, now, alas, despoiled
of some of its original character, but still forming a very pleasing
picture, especially when viewed from the opposite bank of the river
Soar.
[Illustration:
NORMANTON =ON= SOAR
Fig. 5.]
At Ratcliffe-on-Soar a further development in the evolution of spire
design may be seen. An Early English tower (_c._ 1200) was
surmounted a century later by a broach spire of similar construction
and material to the one at Normanton-on-Soar, but with this
difference, that here an attempt was made to overcome that sense of
bareness and weakness which is so apparent in an ordinary broach spire.
This was accomplished by carrying up each angle of the tower above
the springing of the broaches, so as to form a base for an octagonal
pinnacle; and it is interesting to notice that each pinnacle is a
miniature of the spire which rises in the midst.
This innovation was intended not only to give weight and strength at
the angles, but to overcome the abrupt appearance caused by the change
from the square form of the tower to the octagonal form of the spire,
and it is an interesting example in the transition from the “pathless”
spire to the fully developed type having a pathway all round, with
parapets between the pinnacles to mask the junction of the spire and
tower.
[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Ratcliffe-on-Soar.]
The three spires--Gotham, Normanton-on-Soar, and
Ratcliffe-on-Soar--standing in close proximity to each other, thus form
an interesting study in the development of spire design.
Before proceeding to the consideration of spires with parapets, it may
be well to give a brief enumeration of the remaining broach spires in
the county.
_Willoughby-on-the-Wolds._--Similar in all respects to
Normanton-on-Soar. Recently restored.
_Burton Joyce_, (_c._ 1300) is a typical illustration of a broach
spire. The tower, 17 feet square, well buttressed in the lower stage,
stands in the usual position at the west end of the nave, surmounted
by a spire of good proportions with well-designed dormers on each
cardinal face just above the dripping eaves, and lucarnes near the
summit. Each angle of the spire was emphasised just above the broaches
by a boldly carved knot of foliage--the forerunner of the crockets
of a later style--but these are now damaged and worn, and the spire
has in consequence lost much of its beauty. It nevertheless stands as
a pleasing example of a steeple suitable for a village church. The
building material was obtained from the quarries at Gedling, close by.
_Maplebeck._--A very good bed of skerry was quarried here. It is not
surprising, therefore, to find that the church has a spire. This is
similar to the one at Burton Joyce.
[Illustration: Fig. 7.]
_Mansfield Woodhouse._--This steeple was built to replace a timber
spire which was burnt down in 1304. A curious effect is produced by a
cluster of unpierced gablets which form a corona near the summit of the
spire. The dormers, which stand out boldly from the dripping eaves on
each cardinal face of the spire, are well designed and characteristic
of the period.
_Holme_ (_Newark_) has a small, stumpy steeple, built of Lincolnshire
oolite, in the fifteenth century, with broaches and spire lights after
the manner of an earlier period.
_Edwinstowe._--This steeple, which forms a conspicuous landmark
for miles around, has been the subject of much controversy regarding
its design and its antiquity. Obviously, to make a good polygonal
spire, the tower top from which it springs should be four-square; but
in this instance, as in many others where the spire has been built upon
a tower which was not originally intended to receive it, the width of
the tower from east to west is greater than the breadth from north
to south, and consequently the spire becomes an irregular polygon.
The spire at Edwinstowe was built in the latter half of the fifteenth
century upon a tower of twelfth or very early thirteenth century work.
At first sight the spire appears to belong to the same period as the
tower; the angle shafts in the peculiar arrangement of square pinnacles
which are set upon the broaches may easily be mistaken for Early
English work, but a more careful scrutiny reveals the fact that the
merlons in the quasi-parapets have the mouldings mitred and returned
on the sides as well as on the top--a sure indication of a later date.
There are dormers at the springing to correspond with the pinnacles,
the upper portion of the spire being quite plain, excepting that each
cardinal face is pierced with a quatrefoil near the summit--a further
indication of late date. Judging by the character of the work, I think
it is probable that the spire was commenced after the completion of
the north aisle, late in the fifteenth century, but it did not survive
completion long, for in 1679 the parishioners sent a petition to King
Charles II. asking for “£200 or 200 decayed oaks which are unfit for
ship timber,” from the royal forest of Sherwood towards the cost
(£300) of repairing “the Body of the Church,” which was “extremely
shaken and in a very ruinous condition,” occasioned by the fall of the
steeple, which about seven years ago “was beaten down by thunder.” The
upper portion of the steeple at any rate, probably from the pinnacles
upward, thus appears to be seventeenth century work. The blind arcades
in the upper stage of the tower are the original belfry windows, which
were built up when the spire was added. The oak beams of the old
tower roof are still in position, and appear to have been utilised
for hoisting up materials. The structural expedient for spanning the
corners of the tower to suit the shape of the spire, and known as
“squinches,” consist of concentric pointed arches in two orders, with a
corbel stone and lintel in addition. All the masonry, both inside and
outside the spire, is magnesian limestone most carefully worked. A very
tall lancet window in the west face of the lowest stage of the tower
is probably unique in that it is divided almost equally in height by a
transom. The spire was struck by lightning forty years ago, which once
more necessitated the rebuilding of the top portion.
[Illustration: Fig. 8.
SQUINCHES
EDWINSTOWE]
_Misterton._--This steeple is sometimes described as belonging to the
Early English period, but the statement is incorrect, as the spire
has no claim to antiquity. The porch at the extreme west end of the
south aisle gives entrance to the church through the tower--a very
unusual arrangement. The tower and other parts of the church are built
of fine grained magnesian limestone from the Roche Abbey district. The
lower part of the tower formed the steeple to an earlier church. It
was raised in the Decorated period to a high tower with parapet and
pinnacles. The upper portion of the tower was damaged by lightning, and
when it was rebuilt (1847–48) a broach spire of inelegant proportions
was added. The ancient appearance of this spire is due to the fact that
it is built of brown Yorkshire stone, in contrast with the white Roche
Abbey stone used in the construction of the tower.
_Gedling._--This steeple is one of the earliest examples we have of a
tower and spire of the same date. It was built about 1320, and although
it now has battlements and a pathway all round, I think it should be
classed with the broach spires. It is probably unique by reason of the
remarkable entasis, which is not an “almost imperceptible swelling,” as
the dictionaries have it, but a swelling so pronounced as to be almost
a distortion. The builders of old understood the value of an entasis
for correcting optical illusion, and either made the sloping sides of
their spires slightly convex or, at a later time, produced the same
effect by running crockets up the angles and making them larger, or of
greater projection, in the centre and diminishing them as they neared
the base and the summit (as at Louth); but here we have a divergence
from the straight line of 24 inches, and what is more remarkable still,
the cardinal faces of the tower _buttresses_ have also a similar curve.
This is not due to settlement or defective building, for the whole
structure stands as true and firm to-day as it did nearly 600 years ago.
[Illustration: GEDLING.]
[Illustration: WEST RETFORD.]
[Illustration: Fig. 9.--Gedling.]
In design and workmanship Gedling differs from any other church in
the county, and I can only suggest that it is the work, not of local
masons, but of craftsmen from some other part of the country, probably
the Nene valley. The whole of the stone was obtained from the local
quarry, which lies about three-quarters of a mile to the north of
the church--now a tree-grown hollow on the western side of the lane
leading up to Mapperley Plains. The stone, which is very tough, has
been used in blocks of enormous size. The tower, 24 feet square,
stands to the north-west of the church, and is only engaged in part
with the north aisle. This unusual position, which has the advantage
of enabling the tower to be well seen to its full height, is due to
the fact that the road passes close to the south-west angle of the
church in an oblique line and trends away to the north-west. The
walls of the tower, 5 feet thick, are carried up in three stages to a
height of 90 feet and heavily buttressed. A newel staircase, 2 feet
4 inches wide, occupies the north-west angle. It is worthy of note
that this staircase stops at an internal platform before the leads are
reached, and gives access to the bells only. To reach the pathway, it
is necessary to cross the bell frames and pass through a small doorway
on the north side. This fact alone is not conclusive, but it should
be further noticed that the parapet is not continuous, as we should
expect if it was coeval with the tower, but embattled; the merlons are
low and thin, the pathway very narrow, and the appearance altogether
is very unusual and suggestive of the work of a later period. A
careful examination of the work at the base of the spire, which rises
to a height of 180 feet from the ground, leads me to think that this
steeple was originally a pathless one, and that the cardinal faces
sprang from the top of a corbel table; but for some reason--perhaps for
purposes of observation or to facilitate repairs--the lower part of the
broaches and the sloping faces were afterwards cut away and parapets
introduced. A horizontal moulding runs round the spire 8½ feet above
the leads. The workmanship below this moulding is inferior, and the
angles of the spire, which are beautifully moulded, do not “line” with
the work above, in some cases by inches, which proves clearly to my
mind that an alteration of some kind has taken place since the spire
was built. There are no pinnacles to emphasise the corners, although
the appearance of the steeple would be greatly improved by them.
Tradition says that pinnacles were once in evidence, but they could
only have been small and insignificant, judging by the smallness of
the stools. There are canopied niches at the apices of the broaches,
each designed to contain a sculptured figure in the attitude of prayer.
The north-east niche is now tenantless. The north-west figure is worn
beyond recognition; that on the south-west represents a lady, and that
on the south-east a warrior. In consequence of exposure to the weather
for 600 years, nearly every trace that might lead to the identification
of these figures has been obliterated. It is still possible, however,
to discern indications of chain mail on the armour of the warrior, and
this is quite in harmony with the suggested date of erection.
[Illustration: NEWARK.]
[Illustration: BINGHAM.]
Spire-building reached its highest perfection in this county in the
middle of the fourteenth century, when the steeple of the parish church
at _Newark_ was completed (_c._ 1356). The lower portion of the tower
was built about 1230, but it was left unfinished until a century
later, when a celebrated school of masons, who had done much good work
in the neighbourhood, after completing the church at Grantham, came
to Newark and carried the tower up to its full height, enriched with
niches and sculptures and crowned with a lofty spire having moulded
angles, four tiers of spire lights, slender broaches with carved knots
at the apices, and a continuous perforated parapet between lofty
angle pinnacles, which are pierced to allow for a pathway all round
the base of the spire. Rickman says: “This spire deserves peculiar
attention.... On the whole, perhaps, there are no specimens superior in
composition and execution, and few equal.” It is built of Lincolnshire
oolite, and stands engaged at the west end of the church, which comes
close up to the pavement and can best be seen in its full height as
it closes the vista down one of the narrow streets of the town. But
whether viewed from this point or from the market-place, or from the
surrounding fields and lanes, it cannot fail to charm the beholder by
its gracefulness and beauty.
_Bingham._--Although this steeple is not so graceful as the one at
Newark, it impresses by its solidity and strength, and is worthy of
very careful study. It stands at the west end of the church, and
consists of an Early English tower, having walls 5½ feet thick, chiefly
built of local skerry, surmounted by a decorated broach spire of
pleasing outline, having a pronounced entasis and three tiers of spire
lights. The upper stage of the tower is pierced on each face with two
two-light windows, having deeply recessed mouldings, arched heads, and
finished with a corbel table, constructed in such a way as to suggest
that a perforated parapet (probably similar to those at Newark and
Thoroton) was anticipated, although it was never put on. The corbel
table consists of masks with ball-flower ornaments, and carved foliage
between them. The ball-flower predominates, and it is interesting to
notice the irregularity in the width of the spaces between the corbels;
in most cases two flowers suffice, while in others three are barely
sufficient. Two of the pinnacles are mutilated sculptures of bishops
in eucharistic vestments; they stand out conspicuously against the
sky at the north-west and south-west angles of the massive tower. It
is probable that in their original state the pinnacles were intended
to represent the four Evangelists, but those at the north-east and
south-east have been replaced by finials of Decorated types of foliage.
The lancet window in the buttress on the western face of the tower is
a very effective feature when seen through the tower arch from within,
being recessed with splays more than 8 feet deep.[84]
_Whatton-in-the-Vale._--This steeple differs from its neighbour
at Bingham, in that it stands above the crossing of a cruciform
church.[85] In all other respects there is a great similarity. It
was rebuilt in 1870–71, as nearly as possible on the original lines,
and with the original material. The foundation is Norman work; the
tower Early English, with plain parapet and pinnacles; the spire is
Decorated, but obviously it is not high enough to be quite effective,
in comparison with the broad tower on which it stands.
_Thoroton._--This church was struck by lightning on 27th April 1868,
and the tower and spire was thoroughly restored the same year. The
tower consists of three stages, and is finished with a continuous
parapet of open quatrefoils, supported on a bold corbel table. The
faces on the corbels are all awry, as though they were distorted with
pain. This has led to the facetious remark that the figures represent
the Ryemouth family, but I think it is more probable that, if any
meaning were intended, they are a memento of the Black Death, which had
decimated the county only a short time before this steeple was built.
Within the parapet a graceful spire rises, with three tiers of spire
lights arranged in a pleasing manner on alternate faces of the spire.
On the western side of the tower there is a fine ogee canopied niche,
with fragmentary remains of the sculptures it once contained--a very
unusual feature in this district. The steeple belongs to the Decorated
period. It is built with rubble willing, of blue lias limestone, and
dressings of skerry in the older parts, mixed with Lincolnshire oolite.
With the advent of the fifteenth century, the art of spire-building
became more general. As the knowledge of constructive principles
increased, spires were made lighter in appearance; the springing was
hidden behind a parapet, lucarnes were sparingly used or omitted
altogether, and thus was evolved the plain tapering spire of slender
proportions so familiar in villages, not only in this county, but
scattered all over the land, and apparently all built from one design.
_Wollaton_ may be taken as an example of this type. The church is
built with large blocks of sandstone of a rich yellow tint, quarried
in the neighbouring parish of Trowell, the only place in the county
where carboniferous limestone was obtained. The steeple is carried
on arches on the north and south sides, though the reason for this
is not now apparent. As the western face of the tower abuts upon the
roadway, it is possible that the public footpath once went underneath
the tower, or it may have been that the arches were made to admit of
processions round the church without going outside the consecrated
area. The steeple belongs to the late Decorated period. The tower is
finished with an embattled parapet, which projects slightly beyond the
wall line. The spire is slender, and springs well within the parapet,
having only one tier of small spire lights, which scarcely break the
sloping lines of the spire. Unlike all other spires in the county, with
the exception of Keyworth and Car Colston, the finial in this case is a
weather vane, and not the familiar weather-cock.
The following is a complete list of similar spires:--
_Attenborough._--Early fifteenth century. Steeple built of
millstone grit.
_Barton._--Early fifteenth century. Steeple built of
millstone grit.
_Cotgrave._--Early fifteenth century. Plain octagonal spire
without lucarnes, built of millstone grit.
_East Leake._--Fifteenth century spire on Early English
tower. Built of millstone grit.
_Epperstone._--Fourteenth or early fifteenth century
steeple, built of local waterstone. The top portion of the spire
was renewed in 1820 with Mansfield stone.
_Holme Pierrepont._--Fifteenth century. Built of Gedling
stone.
_Lowdham._--Late twelfth century tower, originally
detached; fourteenth century spire.
_Mansfield_ (St. Peter’s).--Norman tower (two stages).
Belfry stage and parapets fourteenth century; spire later.
Magnesian limestone.
_Stapleford._--Tower, _c._ 1250. Parapets and spire
fifteenth century. Local skerry.
_Sutton-in-Ashfield._--Steeple commenced in 1390–91,
completed 1399 by the donor, John de Sutton, Mayor and Member of
Parliament for Lincoln. Local magnesian limestone.
_Sutton Bonington_ (St. Michael’s).--Steeple fifteenth
century. Castle Donnington stone.
_Tuxford._--Early English tower in lower part, upper
portion and spire _c._ 1357. Skerry.
_Weston._--Repaired 1910.
_Wysall._--The tower is built of local lias limestone, mixed with
bands of skerry. The walls are nearly four feet thick, with buttresses
at the angles. The battlements and spire are of cleansed ashlar. The
spire, carried on corbelled squinches set low down in the tower, looks
very weak and dilapidated, and this is accentuated by the pierced
spire lights fixed high up on the sloping sides, and by the battered
weather-cock at the summit. There is no staircase, the belfry being
reached by a climbing ladder fixed within the tower. The striving after
plainness and lightness had reached its limit when this spire was built.
_Nottingham_ (St. Peter’s, _c._ 1400) might well have been included in
the foregoing list, if the spire, as it now stands, was in its original
condition, but unfortunately it has been denuded of the crockets which
were once a conspicuous feature. These crockets were cut off by a
man named Wooton, of Kegworth, who was engaged to repair the spire
in or about 1825.[86] The father of the man who committed this gross
vandalism was not only a noted spire builder and repairer, but he was
also a crank, for when he had finished his task of restoring the spire
at Kegworth, “resting on his airy perch at the summit, he played some
tunes on the French horn, while the villagers looked up in awe and
listened to the music of the spheres.”
_Bunny_ has a steeple similar to St. Peter’s at Nottingham, built
of millstone grit with crockets at the angles. These crockets are too
small to be really effective, and those near the top and on the exposed
angles to the north and east have perished to a considerable extent.
_Balderton._--The upper part of the tower and spire was added in the
fourteenth or early fifteenth century. It is evident that the work here
was influenced by the beautiful work at Claypole, just over the border,
in Lincolnshire. The crockets on the spire give it quite a Lincolnshire
appearance, while the tower is of the usual Nottinghamshire type, with
embattled parapets and corner pinnacles.
_West Retford._--This crocketed spire of beautiful design and
proportions was built of skerry (locally called Tuxford stone) during
the latter half of the fifteenth century. It will be noticed that the
upper part of the belfry stage assumes an octagonal form immediately
above the louvres, the angle buttresses being carried up vertically
so as to form pinnacles with gabled and crocketed heads. Behind each
main pinnacle a small bar of stone is carried over in the form of a
flying buttress until it reaches the face of the spire, whence it
is again carried up vertically in the form of a slender buttress or
inner pinnacle, and enriched with crockets. This treatment is very
characteristic of the period, and although it produces a graceful
effect it is quite useless from a constructional point of view, and
indicates that the decline in Gothic architecture was at hand.
_Scrooby._--A spire similar in outline and principle to that at West
Retford, but without the crockets, was built at Scrooby of stone from
Roche Abbey. These two spires form a class by themselves. They are the
only medieval spires in the northern part of the county, and appear to
have been built at the same period and by the same band of masons.
[Illustration:
THOROTON. KEYWORTH.
CAR COLSTON. UPTON.]
_Keyworth._--A steeple unique in design and construction still
remains to be noticed. It is a well-known fact that a steeple was
sometimes used as a beacon for the guidance of travellers by land or
sea. For instance, Boston “Stump” has long been a landmark for mariners
on Boston Deeps and for travellers on the broad fens. Keyworth has
a steeple traditionally said to have been used as a beacon to guide
parishioners home over the trackless lands (enclosed since 1797).
Standing on a crest of the Wolds, it is certainly a conspicuous object
for miles around, and it may well have been used on occasion for the
display of signals in time of national peril; but a careful examination
has failed to disclose any trace of a beacon fire or light ever having
been used, and probably the term “lantern” tower which is now generally
applied to it is solely due to the peculiarity of the design. The tower
was built at the west end of the church, the walls on the north and
south sides being carried on pointed arches. The subsequent extension
of the north and south aisles so as to enclose the tower thus enabled
the whole of the west end of the church to be used as a schoolroom,
and it was so used until 1820. The tower is 17 feet square at the
base, with flat buttresses at each corner, panelled and gabled in a
manner quite unusual in this district. There are indications that the
parapet was originally embattled, but the merlons and pinnacles were
removed some time during the past century. Within the parapet rises
a smaller tower 11 feet square, with a stone pathway all round it 2½
feet wide, composed of large “through” stones, laid across the top of
the main walls. (No lead is used.) These “through” stones project over
the walls, and are long enough to form a corbel table outside and an
over-sailing course inside to carry the walls of the lantern. About
six feet above the pathway the lantern takes an octagonal form, the
squinches consisting of two plain over-sailing courses in each angle,
covered with a stone which may originally have been a low broach, but
it is now worn almost level by exposure to the weather. The octagonal
lantern is finished with gargoyles and an embattled parapet, and
surmounted by a short stone spire. Each cardinal face of the lantern is
pierced with two louvred openings, 3 feet high by 9 inches wide in the
octagonal part, and four openings 3 feet high by 11 inches wide in the
lower part, the pathway round the spire being reached from the belfry
through one of these on the north side. The openings are very unusual
in character, being plain rectangles without mouldings or cusps, but as
they occur just above the bells, and are louvred, they were undoubtedly
intended to let out the sound. The walls are built of millstone grit
from the Castle Donnington district, backed in with local rubble,
blue lias limestone, skerry, and in some places with brick. It is
difficult to determine the date of erection. The detail of the upper
portion seems to indicate an earlier period than the lower portion,
which obviously could not be the case, and the whole fabric suggests a
French origin. Probably 1400 is an approximate date.
_Car Colston._--The lower stage of this tower was built in the Early
English period with rubble walls of lias limestone and dressings of
local skerry. In the fifteenth century it was raised to be a lofty
tower with parapets and pinnacles, and surmounted by a low octagonal
roof or spire of Ancaster stone of very unusual form, and unlike any
other spire in the county.
_Upton._--At Upton there is a fifteenth century tower with a cluster of
eight pinnacles round the parapet, and a large crocketed pinnacle--an
incipient spire--set in their midst on the crown of the stone barrel
vault which forms the roof of the belfry. The effect of this is
peculiar rather than graceful, and the method of construction is
unsound in principle, for, as might have been expected, the great
weight of the spirelet has caused the vaulting to spread and push the
tower walls out of the perpendicular.
There is a diminutive steeple at Cossall of the ordinary fifteenth
century type. This church was entirely rebuilt in 1842.
The spire at Scarrington was rebuilt and the tower restored in 1896.
The description given by Sir Stephen R. Glynne in 1866 still applies:
“The tower is Decorated, rather heavy, and has flat buttresses which
may be Early English.... The belfry windows are large but mutilated.
The parapet is plain, the spire octagonal without ribs, having two
tiers of spire lights set in the same sides.”
Several ancient steeples have been entirely destroyed, and only
records remain. The old church at Hoveringham had a parapeted spire.
Radcliffe-on-Trent had a Decorated tower and a tall, graceful,
crocketed spire. The crocketed spire of old St. Nicholas’ church,
Nottingham, was destroyed during the Parliamentary wars. The
original parish church at Flawford had a handsome spire steeple
which was demolished in 1773. Ruddington church, which was once a
chapel to Flawford, was rebuilt in 1887, the stones of the old
spire being re-used. Kingston-on-Soar had a small spire previous to
rebuilding, when it was replaced with a square tower. The steeples at
Carlton-on-Trent and Grove are modern erections.
VANES.
“Lo, on the top of each aerial spire,
What seems a star by day, so high and bright,
It quivers from afar in golden light;
But ’tis a form of earth, though touched with fire
Celestial, raised in other days to tell
How, when they tired of prayer, apostles fell.”
--_Lyra Apostolica._
The summit of the spire was generally finished with a vane of the
familiar chanticleer form--emblem of vigilance, watchfulness, and
prayer. In only three instances in the county has this custom been
departed from. Wollaton, Car Colston, and Keyworth have weather vanes
in the form of an arrow. The one at Keyworth has only quite recently
supplanted the original weather-cock, which is still retained in the
church. It was formed out of two sheets of copper cut to shape and
riveted together. It is no unusual thing to find an inscription or date
engraved on the brass or copper plates of which the vane is composed
and the hollow body of the bird filled with corn.
[Illustration: Fig. 10.--Bradmore.]
* * * * *
It may perhaps seem strange to mention botany and ornithology in
connection with church steeples; yet strange as it may appear, some
splendid botanical specimens have made the church steeple their
home--not only mosses and lichens, but wild flowers in profusion. The
rue fern flourishes on the steeple at Holme; a cluster of very fine
harebells adorns the steeple at Gedling; the ivy-leaved toadflax,
wallflowers, polypody fern, and many other small specimens may be found
growing on the sunny side of many an ancient steeple; while at Wysall
large elderberry trees are actually growing all round the spire.
In addition to flocks of starlings, pigeons, jackdaws, swifts, and
other familiar birds that live upon the church, a cormorant once chose
to make its nest at the summit of Newark spire, and during the same
summer (1893) a crow found a nesting-place in the iron corona at the
top of a turret in Nottingham. At Upton a chamber in the upper part of
the tower has been used as a dovecote. The ledges and nesting-holes all
round the walls are still in perfect condition, and give a good idea of
the interior of a medieval columbarium.
THE LOW SIDE WINDOWS OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
BY HARRY GILL
The term “low side windows” is now generally used to denote the
peculiar openings which are to be found in the walls of ancient
churches, generally, but not always, in the chancel; sometimes on the
north side, more frequently on the south side, and occasionally on both
sides, commonly known by the name of “leper windows.”
The popular idea concerning them is that they were made to enable
persons stricken with the dreadful disease of leprosy--painfully
prevalent in England when these windows were first introduced--to
attend the service of the Mass and to receive the solace of Holy
Communion at the hands of the priest without entering the church. Apart
from the fact that the leper was looked upon as a dead man and never
allowed to mingle with his fellows, a very cursory examination of the
openings will prove that they were utterly unsuited for such a purpose.
The height above the ground in some cases, and the great thickness of
the wall in almost all cases, would have made it very difficult for
the priest to administer the sacrament in this way; nor would it be
possible for any one standing outside the church to see through them
to the altar, to the images on the rood-loft, or to any essential
feature within the church. There is only one instance in the county (at
Laxton) where the altar might possibly be seen through the opening.
In this case the window is near the east end of the south wall of the
chancel. The reason for this position is obvious. When the chancel was
rebuilt (_c._ 1400), aisles were thrown out on either side to form
sepulchral chapels for the lords of Laxton: the south side was for the
superior lords--the Everinghams, and the north side for the Lexingtons.
These chapels extend to within 7½ feet of the extreme east end, and in
the middle of this space the wall has been pierced by a small window 18
inches high, 3½ inches wide, which looks straight towards the end of
the altar; but as the opening is rebated for a shutter and the sill is
5½ feet above the ground, it is not likely that it was intended for the
view.
A systematic survey of all the low side windows in the county has led
me to the conclusion that they were not all made for one and the same
purpose, and in order to determine their use it will be necessary to
notice their position and size, and especially the section of the
jambs, which in some cases have a wide rebate which indicates that the
openings were originally fitted with an oak shutter, while in other
cases they were rebated for glass in the ordinary way; and further,
the shuttered openings will be found to be plain rectangles, while the
glazed openings are arched and cusped. The fact that the shuttered
openings have all been “stoned up,” points to the fact that they were
used in connection with some ceremony which went out of use at the
Reformation; while the glazed openings were intended simply to give
light, and therefore remain unaltered. It will be convenient to deal
with them under two separate headings: (_a_) shuttered openings;
(_b_) glazed openings.
[Illustration: LAXTON.]
[Illustration:
COSTOCK. HAUGHTON.
_From photographs by_ Mr. H. GILL.]
(_a_) _Shuttered Openings._--The earliest examples I have
noticed in the county belong to the thirteenth century. In some
instances the string moulding beneath the window sills was “stepped”
so as to allow the sill at the west end of the chancel to be brought
down to a lower level; the lower portion of this elongated window was
divided from the upper portion by a transom, thus forming a rectangular
opening (Flintham). In other instances the string moulding and sill
are carried through level and a small independent opening formed in
the wall space immediately below the window (Stanford-on-Soar).
In either case the opening was fitted with a shutter made to open
inwards and hung with iron bands and hooks. In many instances the hinge
hooks and catches are still _in situ_, notably at Costock, where,
until sixty years ago, the shutter was intact. It is certain that
these shuttered openings were not introduced for the purpose of giving
light; it is equally certain also that they were not intended either
for lychnoscopes or hagioscopes, for it is impossible for the Easter
sepulchre or the altar to be seen through any of them, except the one
at Laxton before referred to. So far as I know, the only documentary
evidence which throws any light on the question is contained in a
letter written by Richard Bedyll to Thomas Cromwell in the reign of
Henry VIII.: “and we think it best that the place, wher thes frires
have been wont to hire uttward confessions of al commers at certen
tymes of the yere, be walled up for ever.” This quotation may seem on
the face of it to favour the confessional theory, but we must remember
that it was specially written concerning a monastic church, and only
bears upon the question, so far as parish churches are concerned, in
that it tells of the way they had in those days of dealing with an
object for which there was no further use; it was “walled up” and “that
use foredoen for ever.”
An example of the openings to which this letter would apply may be seen
in the Galilee porch at the west end of the large cruciform church
at Melton Mowbray (Leicestershire), partly built (1300–1325) and
controlled by the Cluniac monks attached to the great priory of Lewes,
who had a cell here; while fourteen chantry priests were installed only
two miles away at the rectory close by the leper hospital at Burton
Lazars. With such a supply of priests at hand, it may well be that this
porch, containing four shuttered openings, all conveniently placed
as regards height and position, was used “for uttward confessions
of al commers at certen tymes of the yere,” _i.e._ at Easter,
Whitsuntide, Christmas, and during the patronal and dedication
festivals.
But these special openings bear no relation to, and must not be
confused with, the openings in parish churches. If they were actually
used as confessionals, they only prove that the medieval workman knew
how to meet the necessities of a case in the most convenient way, and
it would be a libel on his intelligence to suppose that the openings
to be found in parish churches were the best means he could devise for
communicating lepers or confessing penitents.
The fact that the shuttered openings were all built up with stone,
proves that they were used for some purpose that was discontinued when
the Reformation was completed; not confession, for that did not cease
at once, but something in connection with the office of the Mass.
If we look through the inventories of church goods made in the reign
of Edward VI. (1552), we shall find in almost every case an account of
bells that were used for various purposes.
Hucknall--It. ij hand bells, j sacring bell.
Itm in the stepell, iij small bells.
Bingham--It. iiij belles and ij hande belles.
Whatton in the Vale--Itm iiij belles in ye styple.
Itm ij hand belles.
Itm one lytle saunce bell.
Sometimes the position of the bell is given:--“j little bell in the
churche called the Saints bell, the sacringe bell in the hie chancell.”
Regarding the use of these bells, the “instructions” issued by the
bishops are very precise:--
“At the Elevation of the Eucharist, when it is lifted up, let
the little bell first be rung.”--Bishop of Lichfield, 1237;
Bishop of Worcester, 1240.
“The parishioners shall not irreverently incline at the
Elevation of the Body of Christ, but adore with all devotion and
reverence; wherefore let them be first warned by ringing the
little bell, and at the Elevation let the great bell be thrice
knolled.”--Bishop of Exeter, 1280–1292.
I am disposed to think that all the shuttered openings in parish
churches were made for the purpose of ringing the sacring bell, and I
would like to draw attention at this point to two facts which help to
confirm this opinion:--
(1) Corroboration of dates.
(_a_) At a time when the Church, as a result of
the Pope’s interdict (1208–1214), lay dormant,
neglected, and moribund, the Friars
came (1222–1224), and by their zeal and
influence kindled a revival which lasted
until the Black Death (1349) decimated
their ranks, when the tone of the clergy
began to decline. 1222–1349
(_b_) All the shuttered openings in the county were
made between 1225–1350
(_c_) The instructions as to ringing the sacring
bell in the chancel were all issued between 1224–1300
(2) A peculiar example.
Beneath the sill of a large two-light fourteenth century window in
the chancel at Dersingham, Norfolk, there is a panel, 24 inches
by 22 inches, and 43 inches from floor to sill, pierced with four
quatrefoils. It certainly was never intended for light; nothing
can be viewed through it, and the detail is much too intricate for
any substance to be passed through the apertures. Any one familiar
with the “sound holes” which are so characteristic of East Anglian
belfries, cannot fail to be struck with the similarity between them
and the little panel in question, which I suggest is also a “sound
hole,” intended to indicate the place of the tinkling bell in the “hie
chancell,” just as the larger panels indicate the place of the tolling
bell in the high tower.
The wide internal splays to all the shuttered openings now under
consideration, is evidence that the intention was for sound to go
out rather than to enable any one to look in, either to watch the
lights upon the altar (the church doors were always open save during
divine service), or for any other purpose; nor can they have been for
the purpose of showing a light to scare evil spirits away, for the
medieval mind always imagined that evil spirits came out of the north,
and by far the larger portion of the openings are on the south side;
while the dial markings, so frequently found on the jamb between the
priest’s door and the low side window, and said to be connected with
it, will prove upon examination to be more recent in date, and to be
dial markings and nothing else. I have found them on the south side of
all ancient churches that are built of soft grained stone, but seldom
on the harder and coarser grit stones.
It may fairly be asked why, if the purpose of these openings was to
enable the sacring bell to be rung effectively, are they not to be
found in every ancient chancel. The church at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, for
instance, has no low side window, while the church at Flintham, only
a little earlier in date, has one on either side of the chancel. The
explanation is that the purpose could be achieved in various ways.
Early in the fourteenth century when screen building set in vigorously,
the rood-loft offered a convenient alternative position for a ringer
with a little hand bell.[87] A bell cote or turret at the junction of
the roofs of the nave and chancel, or near the porch, a bracket or beam
projecting from the wall of the tower on which a bell was suspended,
were all expedients variously adopted, the only essential being that
the ringer, wherever he was stationed, should have an uninterrupted
view of the high altar; and I think it will be found that not all
the hagioscopes were made to allow an exalted personage to view the
elevation of the host without the necessity of leaving his private pew,
but in most cases they were made to enable the bell-ringer to see the
altar and give the signal. Wherever a low side window and a bell cote
are found in the same church, it will invariably be discovered that the
bell cote is a later addition, and superseded the window.
Shuttered openings may be seen at the following churches:--
Barnby-in-the-Willows c. 1300 Both sides.
(_a_) Basford 13th cent. S.W.
Burton Joyce 14th cent. S.W.
South Collingham. 14th cent. S.W.
Costock 14th cent. S.W.
Flintham 13th cent. Both sides.
Gedling 13th cent. S.W.
(_a_) Halam 14th cent. N.W.
Haughton Chapel ruined S.W.
Keyworth 13th cent. S.W.
Laxton 14th cent. S.E.
Low Marnham 14th cent. S.W.
Normanton-on-Soar 13th cent. S.W.
(_a_) Nuthall 14th cent. S.W.
Orston 13th cent. S.W.
Stanford-on-Soar 14th cent. S.W.
Trowell 13th cent. N.W.
(_a_) These are built up, thus making classification somewhat
uncertain.
(_b_) _Glazed Openings._--Early in the fourteenth century the
screen developed into an imposing and extensive structure. Surmounting
it were the images of Christ, Mary the Mother, and John. A loft about
five feet wide was necessary to give access to the lamps which were
kept burning before the images, to the row of lights placed along the
top of the hand-rail at the great festivals, and for the purpose of
veiling the images during Lent. The projection of the loft generally
formed a canopy for the two altars which stood on the west side of the
screen, but there is evidence that in some instances the projection
was eastwards, _i.e._ into the chancel, thus necessitating a
special arrangement of the fenestration, in order to get light either
for general purposes, or to enable the priest to read his hours at the
desk, which otherwise would be dark when thus placed under the soffit
of the loft.[88]
With these facts in mind, let us examine the work at Car Colston, one
of a series of beautiful churches built by a peripatetic band of masons
known as the York School, and the only chancel in Nottinghamshire
built by them which contains a low side window. It is evident that the
rood-loft in this case projected eastwards, for the eastern face of the
chancel arch is quite plain, and the mouldings on the responds are not
returned, but cut off square and flush with the walling. No trace of
a staircase or door for entering the loft can be found. A comparison
between the work here and the chancel at Arnold--built about thirty
years earlier by the same school--where a stone newel staircase leading
to the rood-loft is worked in the south pier of the chancel arch, well
lighted by a small aperture in the angle, leads me to conclude that
a similar arrangement was adopted here, but probably the stairs in
this case were formed in wood instead of stone. It would therefore be
necessary to get light at this point, and the skill of the builders is
manifest in the introduction of this small but beautiful window of two
lights, each 7½ inches wide and 36 inches high to the springing, and
6½ feet from ground to sill. It has a sloping sill to throw the light
downwards, while the absence of a rear arch and the substitution of a
flat soffit indicates that it came up quite close to the floor of the
rood-loft. A quadrant splay to the westward distributed the light and
gave access to the rood stairs, and there was a square reveal to the
eastward, because the window was separated from the priest’s doorway by
a jamb only 8½ inches wide.
Wherever the rood-loft projected far into the chancel, it was necessary
to obtain light beneath it; and where the original fenestration did not
admit of this, a small special window was introduced for the purpose.
I think it will be found that in all cases where the jambs were not
originally rebated for shutters, the low side window has been inserted
after the introduction of the rood-loft for lighting purposes. During
the first half of the thirteenth century the lighting of churches
received but little consideration. Narrow lancets with sills high above
the floor were deemed sufficient, while the north wall was often built
without any windows at all. When the friars came, they were supposed
to know the service by heart, and manuscript sermons were unknown.
But as time went on, the desire for more light was felt, and it was
first met by setting the lancets in pairs, and later in triplets; and
not unfrequently the small east window was taken out and fixed at
the west end of the south wall of the chancel, and a new and larger
east window provided (Sutton St. Ann’s). At Kneesall portions of the
original lancets may still be seen in the south wall blocked up with
masonry, and in their stead two beautiful three-light, square-headed
windows were introduced when the chancel was extended eastwards in the
fifteenth century; and a similar thing occurred at East Leake, where a
portion of the lancets still remain, though now superseded by larger
windows. At Burton Joyce, in addition to the shuttered opening in the
chancel, there is a small lancet fixed low down in the centre of the
north aisle wall. This does not command any essential feature within
the church. The probability is that it was introduced to light the
priest’s desk in a chantry chapel which occupied a large space on this
side of the church, and contained the tombs of the dominant owners.
At a later date builders did not hesitate to insert large windows
in the walls in place of the original lancets wherever light
was needed for any special purpose, and in many instances the
original shuttered openings were altered and converted into lights
(Barnby-in-the-Willows). In some cases where chancels were entirely
rebuilt, the S.W. window of the chancel was made with a low sill and a
transom--an obvious development of the earlier shuttered window--but
never intended for any other purpose than to give light, for both on
the outside and inside the jambs are widely splayed and beautifully
moulded (Wilford). In other cases the S.W. window has been kept low
in conformity with ancient custom, and also probably because the S.E.
window has had to be kept high up to clear the sedilia (Plumtree).
Examples of windows for lighting purposes may be found at:--
Balderton 15th cent. insertion in 13th cent. South side.
Barton-in-Fabis 14th cent. S.W.
Car Colston 14th cent. S.W.
Cropwell Bishop 13th cent. N.W.
East Bridgeford 13th cent. S.W.
East Leake 13th cent. S.W.
Kneesall 15th cent. insertion in 13th cent. S.W.
Laneham 15th cent. insertion in 12th cent. S.W.
Lowdham 13th cent. S.W.
Normanton-on-Trent 14th cent. S.W.
Oxton Late insertion in 12th cent. work S.W.
Plumtree 15th cent. S.W.
South Muskham Late insertion in 13th cent. work S.W.
Sutton Bonington St. Ann’s 14th cent. S.W.
Upton 14th cent. S.W.
West Leake 14th cent. S.W.
Wilford 15th cent. S.W.
Plumtree may be taken as a typical example of a dozen or more
fifteenth century chancels having the sill of the S.W. window at
a lower level than the others.
There are two examples in the county that call for special treatment,
as they do not belong to either of the foregoing classes--Mansfield and
Linby.
At Mansfield side chapels were added in the fifteenth century on either
side of the chancel. Near to the east end of the wall on the south a
narrow opening has been formed 4½ feet above the floor level, which
has been described as a “leper window.” One side of this squint is
formed with an ancient incised slab, and several stones with the Norman
chevron moulding have been used. It does not appear ever to have been
external, and in my opinion it was cut through the old wall after the
chapel was built, in order to give a view between the two altars.
[Illustration: CAR COLSTON.]
[Illustration: LINBY.
_From photographs by_ Mr. H. GILL.]
At Linby there is a small squint at the east side of the doorway
of the north porch which has given rise to much controversy. I am of
opinion that it was made to enable the ringer in the belfry under the
tower at the west end of the church to see to the Top Cross in the
village street, which may have been used in the elaborate service
of Palm Sunday, when, after the palm branches had been blessed and
distributed, the priest bearing the Blessed Sacrament went out with
his attendants and took up his station at the Palm Cross. Then the
choir and people came out of the church in procession with their
palms to meet him at the cross and accompanied him back to the church
with the singing of “Hosannas” and other appropriate anthems, in
memory of our Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This porch is
always said to have been built in 1548, but the style of architecture
indicates an earlier date; and the shields on the gable and buttresses,
Strelley, Hunt, and Savage, lead me to think that it is the work of the
grand-daughter and heiress of Thomas Hunt (died in 1427, seized on a
moiety of the manor of Linby), who was married first to John Strelley
(died 1487), and the year afterwards to James Savage.
While making this survey, I took particular notice of the relative
positions of the manor-house, parsonage, and village, in relation to
the church, and also the direction and lie of the main roads; but I
found that none of these had any effect upon the low side window. The
date of erection and the internal arrangement of the church appear to
have been the sole determining factors.
THE NOTTINGHAM MINT
BY FRANK E. BURTON, F.R.N.S., J.P.
In contributing a paper upon the coins and tokens either relating to or
struck in the city of Nottingham, or in the county of Nottingham, it
is quite impossible for me to give a complete history or even a brief
description of each coin or token, or to describe all the different
dies from which they were struck in the space kindly allotted to me by
the editor; but the illustrations taken from amongst those specimens in
my possession should, I hope, give the reader a very good idea of what
these coins and tokens are like, and although there are many varieties,
these in most cases only differ in detail in wording and dates; in
fact, generally some small alterations in the die.
_The Nottingham Mint._--In Saxon and Norman times this mint must
have been an important one, considering that we know of eleven kings
who coined silver pennies here. No coins were struck above the value
of one penny, and the coinage of the whole kingdom at this period
practically consisted of silver pennies.
In 924 Edward the Elder captured the town from the Danes, and
afterwards rebuilt it, but we do not know if he established a mint, as
no coins of his are known to have been struck at Nottingham; but the
mint was in operation in the reign of his successor, Athelstan, 925–940.
According to Domesday Book there were two moneyers in Nottingham in
the days of Edward the Confessor, and they paid to the King the sum of
forty shillings.
This amount had been increased to ten pounds by the Conqueror when
Domesday Book was written, thus showing that the Nottingham Mint was
then a royal one.
One pound sterling was understood to be a pound weight of silver coined
into about 240 pennies. One penny would, in Saxon times, more than pay
a workman for his day’s labour, so that ten pounds was a large sum of
money in those days.
When we consider that the yield from this mint and these moneyers had
increased from two pounds to ten pounds, I think we may rightly assume
that they were looked upon as a considerable source of income by the
Exchequer.
Accepting this and knowing that such a large number of varieties of
coins were struck during the long period of about 230 years, in which
this mint is known to have existed, it is rather strange that these
early coins should be so seldom met with, and that some should be so
excessively rare. I know of no coins struck in Nottingham by any king
after the reign of Stephen.
_The Newark Mint._--As far as is known, only one Saxon King is
supposed to have struck money here, and only two Kings of later periods.
The first coin said to have been struck at Newark is that of King
Edwy, 955–959. Although the British Museum describes it as Newark,
Northamptonshire, there is little doubt that it was struck at Newark,
Notts, as Newark, Notts, is the only Newark mentioned in Domesday Book.
The next two Kings who were supposed to have issued pennies were Henry
I., 1100–1135, and Henry II., 1154–1189, and the place of minting Ne,
short for Newark. It is questionable if any coins were struck at Newark
in the reign of Henry I. It is probable that Henry I. granted a charter
to the Bishop of Lincoln to coin money at Newark, as we know a charter
to this effect was confirmed by Stephen, and coins of Stephen’s reign
struck at Newark are known to exist.
Henry II.--It is extremely doubtful if any coins of this reign were
struck at Newark.
_The Torksey Mint._--Ethelred II. (979–1016) is supposed to have
struck money here, but opinions differ upon this question. Turc being
short for Torksey, I am very much of opinion that these coins were
struck at Torksey, for in Saxon times Torksey was probably the most
important town between Nottingham and the Humber.
_The Shelford Mint._--Earl Sitric, who was killed in the battle of
Ashdown, A.D. 870, is understood to have struck coins here.
The first coin illustrated is that of Athelstan, 925–940. (No. 1.)
_Obverse._ Edelnod on Snotenceham.
_Reverse._ Edelnod on Snotenceham.
There is a coin of this reign in the British Museum with this same
reading on the reverse, and on the obverse--Edelstan re Saxorum.
This coin is rare and extremely interesting. It does not bear the
King’s name or any of his titles. Edelnod is the moneyer’s name, and
he was the moneyer for Nottingham and also for Derby. It has the same
reading on both sides, which is exceptional, and it is the first
authenticated coin struck at Nottingham, and the only coin having the
full reading Snotenceham; in all other Saxon or Norman coins struck in
Nottingham by any other Kings, the name of the city is abbreviated.
This abbreviation of the name of the city often occurred in deeds of
the period; in fact, we find it as late as in the charter granted by
Henry II., 1155, to Nottingham, and where the name reads “Noting” and
“Notingh.”
The “S” in the name of Nottingham was first dropped in the foundation
charter of Lenton Priory about the year 1108.
[Illustration: COINS: ATHELSTAN TO STEPHEN.
_From photographs by_ Mr. S. BARLOW VINES.]
Athelstan was the first monarch who paid any considerable attention
to his coinage, and it is from his laws that we first obtain any
authentic information about the mints.
In 928 he held a grand synod, at which Wulfhelme, Archbishop of
Canterbury, and all the great and powerful men of the kingdom were
assembled. They decided that the whole coinage of the realm should
be alike, and should bear the King’s portrait only, withdrawing the
privilege from the bishops, abbots, barons, &c., of having their
portraits struck upon the coins.
They also agreed that money should only be minted in a town, and
decided that each burg was entitled to one moneyer, but certain
places, on account of their importance, were entitled to two or more.
Nottingham had two, London eight, Canterbury seven, Winchester six, and
Rochester three. The penalty for establishing a private mint was death.
Considering that in these days Nottingham was divided into two burgs,
it is extremely probable that there were two mints--one for each burg.
The names of sixty different towns are known where money was minted.
From the fact that the coin illustrated has no portrait upon it, it
leads one to suppose it was struck in the early part of Athelstan’s
reign before the above law was enacted.
ETHELRED II., 979–1016, issued money from Nottingham.
The sceptre first appeared on the coins of Ethelred in front of the
profile, and this usage in subsequent reigns became general.
CANUTE, 1016–1035.
_Obverse._ Cnut recx. Head crowned to left with sceptre.
_Reverse._ Blamiam O Sno. (No. 2.)
_Obverse._ Cnut recx a. Head to left having on a conical helmet,
with sceptre.
_Reverse._ Bruninc on Snoti. (No. 3.)
_Obverse._ Cnut recx a. Head to left with sceptre; on head is a
conical helmet.
_Reverse._ Blacaman on Sno. (No. 4.)
All the coins of this reign have the place of mintage and the moneyer’s
name mentioned. The moneyer was responsible for the purity of the coins
and their just weight, under various penalties--firstly, his hand was
cut off, secondly, death; but in some few cases fines were imposed, as
instanced in the case of Swein, who was a moneyer at Nottingham during
the reign of Henry I. and Stephen. He was fined 100 shillings.
Numerous varieties of this coin are known, of which the three
illustrated show two different dies and three different moneyers. It is
not surprising to find coins of this monarch struck at Nottingham, as
his coins bear the names of more places of mintage than those of any
other reign.
HAROLD I., 1035–1040.
Two coins of this reign are known with the reading: Harold Rex and the
Moneyer Blacaman or Sacgrim. The abbreviated name was Sn.
HARDICANUTE, 1040–1042.
Although this King is mostly styled Harthacnut or Harthecnut, Re or
Rex, with the mint and moneyer always mentioned, in a known example
struck at Nottingham the reading is “Hardacn” and on the reverse,
“Plunod on Snot.”
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, 1042–1066.
_Obverse._ Edpard Re.
_Reverse._ Blaceh on snotine. (No. 5.)
On all coins the Saxon “P” is used for “W” with one or two rare
exceptions.
His coins are very varied. On some of them the head is bearded. They
vary exceedingly in size and weight, but all appear to have had the
same nominal value.
Considering that eight different varieties of coins exist, which were
struck at Nottingham, with the place of minting Sn., Sno., Snoti.,
Snotih, and Znot, it seems strange that they should be so seldom met
with. During this reign halfpennies and farthings were first formed by
cutting the pennies in two or four parts, but none are known relating
to Nottingham.
HAROLD II., 1066.
_Obverse._ Harold Rex angl. Bust to left with sceptre.
_Reverse._ Forna on Snotn, and Pax between two beaded parallel
lines (No. 6).
Several varieties of these coins are known, but they are uncommon.
WILLIAM I., 1066–1087.
When the rule of England changed from Saxon to Norman there was no
alteration in the style of the coinage, and silver pennies continued to
be the sole current coin of the realm.
WILLIAM I., 1066–1087.
WILLIAM II., 1087–1100.
_Obverse._ Pillelm Rex.
_Reverse._ Iitsere on Snotin. (No. 7.)
_Obverse._ Pillelm Rex.
_Reverse._ Mana on Snoti. (No. 8.)
In the reigns of the two Williams the number of moneyers increased
considerably and at least ten are known, and the following abbreviated
readings of Nottingham are found on the coins:--Sn, Sno, Snot, Snoti,
Snotin, Snotig, Snotine, Snotinc, Snotinge, Snotigne.
Many varieties of coins were struck, but it is somewhat difficult to
assign the coins to their respective issuers.
HENRY I., 1100–1135.
_Obverse._ Henricus R. Front face with sceptre; at the side
of the neck is a cross of four pellets.
_Reverse._ Aldene on Sno. Quatrefoil inclosing cross of
pellets with a star in the centre. Fleur de lis in
the angles. (No. 9.)
STEPHEN, 1135–1154.
The coins of this reign are of very great interest, and more is known
about them since two hoards were found--one in 1867 at the old Hall at
Sheldon, near Bakewell, the other in 1880 in Rose Yard, Bridlesmith
Gate, Nottingham; a large portion being of the reign of Stephen and of
the Nottingham Mint, amongst them some few not previously known. During
this reign money is supposed to have been much debased, but none of
these debased specimens exist.
_Obverse._ Stiefne.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snot. (No. 10.)
_Obverse._ Stiefne: Re.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snot. (No. 11.)
_Obverse._ Stiefne: Re.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snot. (No. 12.)
Swein was the moneyer, the Saxon “P” being used for “W.”
It will be noticed that the obverse of each is defaced with a small
cross over the King’s face.
In Nos. 11 and 12, which are from the Nottingham find, we have, in
addition to the cross, a small pellet and a line cut in the die, and so
almost obliterating the King’s head.
It is now a very generally accepted fact that the partisans of
Matilda, having no dies except Stephen’s, used his dies, but did not
wish to acknowledge his title, and so cut a cross in the die to deface
the King’s head.
Probably these coins were issued by William Peverel II. of Nottingham
during Stephen’s captivity in 1141. Peverel, being Governor of
Nottingham and holding the Castle, would no doubt have control of the
mint during this troublous time. Examples exist with larger shaped
crosses and different from the above.
_Obverse._ Stiefner.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snot. (No. 13.)
_Obverse._ Stiefne: R.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snot. (No. 14.)
_Obverse._ Stiefne: Rex.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snot. (No. 15.)
_Obverse._ Stiefne.
_Reverse._ Spein on Snotig. (No. 16.)
Nos. 13, 14, 15 are from the Nottingham find, and have very fine large
profile busts, and are exceptionally fine specimens for coins of
Stephen. In No. 16, though the lettering is somewhat worn, the portrait
is good, but quite different from the others, it being struck in the
early part of his reign. It has the rare name of the place of minting
“Snotig.”
Other varieties exist struck at Nottingham, also cut halfpennies.
_Newark Siege Pieces._--During the years 1645 and 1646, the
Royalist party held Newark and set up a mint.
Many Royalist supporters gave their silver and silver gilt cups,
flagons, dishes, and family plate for the Royalist cause; others sold
their family plate for so much per ounce to be coined into money. This
coining down of thousands of ounces of silver plate belonging to the
nobility and gentry of the surrounding districts must have caused a
barbarous destruction of many ancient, rare, and valuable relics of
the highest interest to the towns of Nottingham and Newark.
_Extract from the Kings Proclamation at York._
“And such of our subjects as shall come to us--either to our
said town of Nottingham or to any other place where we shall
happen to encamp--and whosoever shall in this our danger and
necessity supply us either by gift or loan of money or plate.”
_From the circular letter of Loan which was sent about and delivered
by Troopers_:--
“... desire you forthwith to lend us the sum of Twenty Pounds
or the value thereof in Plate, touched Plate at five shillings,
untouched Plate at four shillings and fourpence per ounce ...
which we promise to repay as soon as God shall enable us.”
Charles I. was quite an old and experienced hand at borrowing money
as instanced in the private instructions sent to the Commissioners of
Nottingham some years previous to the siege of Newark:--
“That in your treating with your neighbours, about this
businesse, yee shew your own discretions and affections, by
making choice of such to begin with, who are likely to give the
best examples; and when yee have a competente number of hands
to the roll or liste of the lenders, that yee shew the same to
others as they come before yee, to lead them to lend in like
manner.”
In the Memoirs of Hampden we read:--
“The Midland Counties of England, however, undertook with great
alacrity to bear this charge. They voluntarily subscribed their
money and their plate. The Cities of London and Westminster were
forward and liberal in their contributions. The women brought in
their rings and jewels; the goldsmiths and silversmiths their
stock.”
In 1642 the King when at Nottingham, just about the breaking out of the
Civil War, received as a loan from the Universities nearly all their
plate, which was to be repaid at so much per ounce for white silver and
so much extra for the gilt silver. Most of this silver was minted at
York, but some was paid out in its original form to be sold for the
pay of the troops.
[Illustration: NEWARK SIEGE PIECES: HALF-CROWNS AND
SHILLINGS.
_From photographs by_ Mr. S. BARLOW VINES.]
In 1644 Parliament ordered all the King’s plate to be melted down and
coined, notwithstanding a remonstrance from the Lords alleging that the
curious workmanship of these ancient pieces of silver made them worth
more than the metal.
To such dire necessity were the Royalist party put for money, that
even at Newark some “regal” service of plate was used. These pieces of
money were roughly cut and curiously shaped. The city being besieged,
there would no doubt be an urgent demand for money, and the Royalists,
not having any dies or skilled workmen who could make them, they made
the best they could; for even if a man could not cut the likeness of
the King, he might not have much difficulty in cutting a crown, a few
letters, and figures. They were all struck upon lozenge-shaped flans,
which flans were cut direct from the silver plate.
The coins were of the value of 2s. 6d., 1s., 9d., and 6d., and must
have been struck from various dies, as several varieties exist dated
1645/1646. Numerous specimens are found gilt, showing they must have
been cut from services of gilt plate.
The general design of these coins is the same, namely:--
_Obverse._ C.R. (Carolus Rex) with a crown between, with
value expressed beneath in Roman numerals all within a single
pearled border.
_Reverse._ Obs. (Obsidium-Siege) Newark, with date beneath
in Arabic figures.
The two half-crowns, Nos. 17 and 18, show differently designed crowns.
On No. 18 may be seen marks of the pattern of the cup or salver from
which it was hastily cut.
The four shillings, numbered 19, 20, 21, and 22, show four distinct
crowns. On No. 19 a double pearled border may be traced.
On the reverse of No. 20, part of the Royal Arms may be seen;
undoubtedly this silver at one time formed part of some regal service
of plate. This is an extremely uncommon and interesting piece.
No. 21 has the letter “L” beneath the date 1645, which appears to be
a silversmith’s private stamp indicating the source from whence it
originally came.
On Nos. 19 and 22 the reading is “Newarke.”
The four ninepences, numbered 23, 24, 25, and 26, show three different
crowns, Nos. 25 and 26 being replicas. On the obverse of No. 25 there
are two “K’s” at the end of the word “Newarke,” showing this coin was
doubly struck.
The sixpences, numbered 27 and 28, are alike.
_Tokens._--During the seventeenth century money continued to be
extremely scarce, especially that of small denomination, probably
owing to the exactions made for the wars and to the poverty of the
inhabitants, and tokens--chiefly halfpennies and farthings of copper
or brass--were struck by corporate bodies, chamberlains, and all
descriptions of tradesmen with the names of the owners thereon to
facilitate easy purchase and ready settlement. These tokens were
superseded, after 1672, by the coinage of the realm.
A token in money is understood to be a coin issued by a private
individual or firm above its real value, but intrinsically a guarantee
of good faith of the issuer that he will pay the nominal value when
demanded.
The first mention of tokens is by Ruding. He quotes from the writer of
the _History of Allchester_ in 1622:--“King Edward, 1272–1307, his
leathern money bearing his name, stamp, and picture, which he used in
the building of Carnarvon, Beaumarish, and Conway Castles.”
[Illustration: NEWARK SIEGE PIECES: NINEPENCES AND
SIXPENCES.
_From photograph by_ Mr. S. BARLOW VINES.]
In Nottinghamshire 121 tokens are known representing halfpennies and
farthings, all of which were issued between the years 1650 to 1670. I
only illustrate a few:--
_Nottingham._
_Obverse._ Nottingham halfe penny chainged by ye
Chamberlain 1669.
_Reverse._ Arms of the Town of Nottingham. (No. 29.)
_Obverse._ Thomas Burrowes. A rose with Sm above.
_Reverse._ In Nottingham. A. Castle. (No. 30.) ½
_Obverse._ John Blunt at the Weeke. A man on horseback with
panniers.
_Reverse._ Day Cross of Nottingham Baker his halfpenny.
(No. 31.)
_Obverse._ Roger Hawksley 1666. Merchant Tailors’ Arms.
_Reverse._ in Nottingham. His halfpenny. (No. 32.)
_Obverse._ George Borzowes 1669. In Nottingham.
_Reverse._ Salathyell Groves. ½ under three goats’ heads.
(No. 33.)
_Bingham._
_Obverse._ Thomas Markham Chandler 1669.
_Reverse._ in Bingham his halfepenny. (No. 34.)
_Collingham._
_Obverse._ Thomas Ridge his halfpenny. The Grocers’ Arms.
_Reverse._ of Collingham Mercer 1664. The Mercers’ Arms
T.R. (No. 35.)
_Mansfield._
_Obverse._ Samuel Haulton. A pair of scales hanging from
chief wavy part of the Bakers’ Arms.
_Reverse._ of Mansfield 1664. His halfpenny. (No. 36.)
_Newark._
_Obverse._ Joshua Clarke Mercer in. Grocers’ Arms.
_Reverse._ Newark his halfpenny 1666. The Mercers’ Arms
I.C. (No. 37.)
_Retford._
_Obverse._ William Hall. His halfpenny.
_Reverse._ of Rettforde 1668--W.A.H. (No. 38.)
_Southwell._
_Obverse._ Gregory Silvester. Southwell.
_Reverse._ William Leaver 1664. G.S. W.L. (No. 39.) ½
_Worksop._
_Obverse._ Thomas Lee 1666. The Grocers’ Arms.
_Reverse._ in Wourksop--T.F.L. (No. 40.) ¼
During the latter part of the eighteenth century the coinage of copper
and silver money by the Government was totally inadequate for the
nation’s needs. This caused the revival of tokens. They were again
issued in very large numbers by all kinds of tradesmen, manufacturers,
and banks. The Bank of England alone in 1811 and 1812 issued no less
than fourteen million silver tokens of the value of 3s. and 1s. 6d.
Sir Edward Thomason, in his Memoirs, states:--
“The copper and silver change became so extremely scarce that
the demand for the manufacture of tokens to enable the masters
to pay their workmen their weekly wage was so great that I
had endless applications for both. I manufactured during this
year silver and copper tokens for Wales, Brecon, Gainsborough,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, and for many different establishments. In
1811 I manufactured above two million copper tokens for Samuel
Fereday, the great ironmaster, who employed 5000 people.”
Perhaps the most interesting tokens of this period were those of
the firm of Messrs. Robert Davison & John Hawksley of Arnold. Both
belonged to old Nottingham families; they were important business men
and well-known philanthropists, Mr. Hawksley being presented with the
freedom of the town of Nottingham.
[Illustration: TOKENS.
_From photograph by_ Mr. S. BARLOW VINES.]
The Hawksleys were maltsters, the Davisons hosiery manufacturers.
Mr. Davison gave up the hosiery business and joined Mr. Hawksley in
building a factory near Leen Side, Nottingham, for worsted spinning.
This factory was burned down in January 1791. They at once commenced
building new works at Arnold. These works were running before the end
of the year. They were situated near the site of Arnot Hill House
in which Mr. Hawksley lived. They did not prove a success, and the
machinery was sold and the factory demolished.
Mr. Hawksley died in 1815 and Mr. Davison in 1807.
The issuing of these tokens of such high value in copper wherewith to
pay their workpeople was exceptional.
It is strange that, although they issued these tokens in Arnold, I know
of none being issued from their Nottingham works. They were of the
value of 5s., 2s. 6d., 1s., and 6d., and all copper, but I have some
of the tokens plated in silver and in gilt. The crowns and half-crowns
are the most rare of all the Nottinghamshire tokens of this period. The
shillings and sixpences are not uncommon.
_Obverse._ Davison and Hawksley, and fleece suspended from
a tree.
_Reverse._ The Roman Fasces with the axe, spear, and a cap
of liberty in saltire, Arnold works. A. crown 1791.
(No. 41.)
The 2s. 6d., 1s., and 6d. pieces are similar, except in size and value.
A token for 5s. was issued from East Retford. This token was
countermarked on a Spanish dollar.
The Treasury and many firms throughout the Kingdom countermarked these
Spanish dollars and enormous numbers were in circulation, but this is
the only Nottinghamshire one known.
Messrs. Bolton & Whatt at their Soho Mint, Birmingham, countermarked
over three millions previous to 1804.
On one occasion forty tons of dollars were taken from two Spanish
frigates captured by the British fleet. This specie was taken to
Plymouth and then forwarded on to the Bank of England.
A silver token for 1s. was issued by the timekeepers.
_Obverse._ A griffin, with wings displayed, gorged, issuant
from a ducal coronet; legend, one shilling token
sterling silver.
_Reverse._ For the use of the inns at Derby, Ashbourne,
Chesterfield, Nottingham, Leicester, Lichfield,
Burton, &c.
H. Morgan issued shillings and sixpences:--
_Obverse._ The arms of Leicester, vert, a cinquefoil,
between two sprigs of olive. One shilling silver
tokens.
_Reverse._ Notts, Derby, Leicester, Northampton, and
Rutland shilling silver tokens. The outer
legend--Morgan, licensed manufacturer, 12 Rathbone
Place, London. (No. 42.)
Messrs. Donald & Co. issued a halfpenny token:--
_Obverse._ Donald & Co., stocking manufacturers, wholesale
and retail. Promissory halfpenny, payable Notting^m, or
_Reverse._ A beehive with bees, No. 29 Hull Street,
Birmingham, 1792. (No. 43.)
There are five or six varieties of these copper tokens. When the
first die was made it was found that the word “promissory” was spelt
“promissary.” This error was rectified by cutting “o” over the “a.”
Afterwards fresh dies were made with the word spelt correctly.
[Illustration: TOKENS.
_From photographs by_ Mr. S. BARLOW VINES.]
The Newstead Abbey token for one penny:--
_Obverse._ A view of Newstead Abbey. The words Newstead Abbey,
and on the raised outer circle “Nottinghamshire,” and
in small letters the name of the engraver Jacobs.
_Reverse._ Two palm branches and the letters “T.G.”, and on
the raised outer border “British Penny” and the date
1797. Round the edge of the coin is impressed the
words--“I promise to pay on demand the bearer one
penny.” (No. 44.)
In 1811 silver tokens were issued at Newark, value 1s. There are four
varieties of these. Probably the issuing of these pieces by a number of
tradesmen was done in order to share the cost of the die and to procure
a quantity of tokens at a cheaper rate, and also to inspire confidence.
_Obverse._ A view of the Town Hall with inscription--“Town
Hall, 1811.” Newark silver token for one shilling.
_Reverse._ The current value payable in cash notes. T.
Stansall, Cha^s Moore, Rich^d Fisher, W^m Fillingham,
W^m Readitt, and T. Wilson. (No. 45.)
Thomas Stansall was a grocer, Charles Moore a chemist, Richard Fisher
and William Fillingham drapers, William Readitt a grocer, Thomas Wilson
a brazier.
Copper tokens for one penny were also issued in 1811, of which three
varieties exist:--
_Obverse._ A view of Newark Castle and the river, with date
1811. “Newark token for one penny.”
_Reverse._ The current value payable in cash notes. T.
Stansall, Charles Moore, Rich^d Fisher, W^m Fillingham,
W^m Readitt, T. Wilson. (No. 46.)
J. M. Fellows & Co., bankers, of Bridlesmith Gate, issued penny tokens,
of which there are five varieties, dated 1812 and 1813:--
_Obverse._ A view of Nottingham Castle. One penny token, 1812.
_Reverse._ The arms of the borough in a circle, payable by
J. M. Fellows, a pound note for 240. (No. 47.)
Mansfield silver shillings:--
_Obverse._ Beehive and bees, C. & G. Stanton, Hancock;
Wakefield & Co., and W^m Ellis, Mansfield.
_Reverse._ Female seated on a bale with scales and
cornucopia. One shilling silver token, 1812.
(No. 48.)
Two varieties of this exist. Messrs. Stanton, Hancock, and Wakefield
& Co. were cotton manufacturers; William Ellis a draper and woollen
salesman.
In 1813, W. Baker, hosier, of Fletcher Gate, issued penny tokens:--
_Obverse._ W^m Baker, Nottingham, an ornament between Baker
and Nottingham. Legend--a pound note for 240 tokens,
1813.
_Reverse._ One penny token within a wreath of oak and
laurel. (No. 49.)
THE CLOCKMAKERS OF NEWARK-ON-TRENT,
WITH NOTES ON SOME OF THEIR
CONTEMPORARIES
BY H. COOK
Among the many inanimate things which invite us to reflect on bygone
days and the life and activities associated with them, none are more
insistent in their invitations than the sober faces and steady tickings
of the clocks which measured out the time for our grandfathers, and
often enough for our great-grandfathers. None are more reticent of the
doings of the days that are gone; yet the very tickings are akin to a
pulsation of energy and life which seem to invite us to search out the
men who made, owned, or took pleasure in them in generations past. Nor
is the invitation unheeded by some of those whose lot is cast among
clocks and have the daily handling of them, and I will try, as one
humble manipulator, to place on record a few of the most interesting
characteristics of the makers of Newark-on-Trent, and incidentally of
some of the village makers of Nottinghamshire.
The task of putting into order the whole of the makers of
Nottinghamshire would be too large an undertaking for one individual;
but in my many years’ experience of the “Grandfather” type of clock,
I have found much of interest in the work of the Newark makers, and
of others from the county which has come my way. At the outset, I am
obliged to admit the meagre nature of the information to hand, as far
as the early makers are concerned, for I find that Nottinghamshire, in
common with the provinces generally, had, in early days of domestic
clocks, to draw on the London makers, at any rate for its best clocks;
especially was this the case as early as the latter part of the
seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, and I have found
in the neighbourhood at least one clock by Tompion, one by Etherington,
one by Knibb, one by George Graham, and one by Daniel Quare.[89]
These odd clocks, surviving from the seventeenth century to the
present time, are sufficient to indicate the way Nottinghamshire men
of those days were compelled to import from London the much-prized
“Grandfather,” or cased clock, with the newly invented royal pendulum
(the application of Galileo’s invention). But, however much this was
the case, it soon came about that the towns in the county, and very
soon a great many of the villages even, had their own clockmakers, and
it is with these we are concerned for the present.
Any clock work earlier than the typical cased clock is very rare
indeed around Newark, and I am not aware of any example of the table
clock, and of only one example of the lantern variety. Considering
that public clocks must have been in use before these days, it is a
matter for wonder that there are few or none of earlier types coming to
light, notwithstanding all our researches and bargain hunting. I have
advertised personally, in likely quarters, and kept a sharp look-out
for the last twenty-five years without success, although various pieces
of supposed early work have come to me.
Beginning with Newark, I find that William Gascoigne is the earliest
maker of the “Grandfather” clock we have, and Plate 1 shows the style
of work he turned out in the early part of the eighteenth century.
He was a maker of eight-day clocks of the usual quality of his day,
when all work was good, but the illustration shows only a thirty-hour
clock; for although I have an illustration of an eight-day clock, I
selected this because of its unusual features; for it should be noted
that, although only a one-day clock, it has a seconds dial and hand
all complete, as though it were an eight-day timepiece. The quality
of the work in the corner-pieces, which are nicely cut up and carved
after the casting, and in the hands, which show a bit of finely drilled
and pierced iron work, and in the solidity of the dial plate and hour
circle with the pretty numbering in vogue in those days, make it of
rather greater interest than the eight-day clocks by the same maker.
William Gascoigne bore the name of an old Newark family which for
generations had mixed in the life and affairs of the town. He appears
to have been in business as late as 1728, for W. Stukeley, in his
_Itinerarium Curiosum_ (vol. i. p. 106, 1776), tells how he
was informed by Mr. T. Hurst of Grantham, that he had seen at Mr.
Gascoigne’s, a goldsmith in Newark, a large gold ring, weighing 42s.,
lately brought him by a countryman who had found it upon the Fosse Way,
and he afterwards makes comment that it was supposed to show a wolf
upon it, but he found it was a fox beneath a tree, and he bought the
ring. To the name of Gascoigne also belongs, I believe, the distinction
of the mention of the earliest domestic clock in our Newark annals.
In 1678, March 11th, John Gascoigne, the glover, gave by his will to
William Cook, “The Clock and the Jack,” an interesting note, as any
allusion to domestic clocks at this date is very rare, and it gives an
idea of their value and the esteem in which they were held. I have seen
one at least of these early jacks, a wooden pillar on a heavy foot,
carrying a gear work on the top propelled by a weight running down the
back of the pillar and spinning the joint in front of a tray of metal
which covers and protects both joint and jack.
But surprises come when least expected in clock research. Having
heard of a marquetry-cased clock of Gascoigne of Newark far away
in Devonshire, I was anxious to procure it, expecting to find the
well-accredited “William” on the dial, but much to my surprise the dial
bore the inscription “Owin” Gascoigne, in Newark, and this was the
first and last of the Owin Gascoigne clocks I had seen, or ever expect
to see. I may add that it was a very early and undeniably good month
clock, and is now doing good service in a mansion in Lincolnshire.
But the puzzle of how to explain the fact that William Gascoigne is
well known, while Owin Gascoigne suddenly appears on the scene, is a
mystery, unless we solve it by the conjecture that Owin was a relation
of William, and had ordered the clock from him, a possible solution,
when we remember that the family were well established in Newark,
and were most likely well provided with this world’s goods. William
Gascoigne seems to have flourished in the town from about 1700 to 1740,
when there is a record of his death on the 23rd February.
A worthy competitor and contemporary of Gascoigne was Nicholas Goddard,
and Plate 1 shows an eight-day clock of his which is in most details
very like those made by his compeer Gascoigne, though he also made some
arched dials, of whose manufacture by Gascoigne I have no evidence. The
clock dials of both were similar, indicating that there were fashions
as well as variations to tickle the popular palate in those days as
much as in our times. The name of Goddard is even more impressed on
our local history than that of Gascoigne, for we have a record of
one Nicholas Goddard, who married in 1558, and the name runs through
our history for 150 years. In 1659 “Henrie” Goddard was paid by the
churchwardens for mending the chimes and for other work about the
church, and, for 209 lbs. of iron for the steeple stairs, the sum of
£4, 19s. 2d.
[Illustration: PLATE 1.
CLOCKS BY
WILLIAM GASCOYNE. NICHOLAS GODDARD.]
[Illustration: PLATE 2.
CLOCKS BY
WILLIAM BARNARD. EDWARD SMITH.]
Though Nicholas seems to have been the family Christian name for many
generations, the clockmaker Nicholas has left his name behind him more
frequently than any of his forbears, and there are a good many of
his clocks still to be seen ticking away with their brass faces beaming
out from dark oak cases. As far as we can tell from the little evidence
we have, his death occurred in 1741. His work was fine and artistic as
well as substantial.
About this time we hear of William Marshall, whose clocks are all of
a rather less costly make and usually “thirty hours.” One peculiar
feature in all his dials is the printing in Roman capitals of the name
between the hours 7 and 5, in the usual place, but with the “William”
one side of the 6, all in proper order, while the name “Marshall” was
so cramped into the space between the 6 and 5 that the last two letters
were always placed on the top of the “sha,” a peculiar habit, to say
the least of it. His work was not so artistic as either Gascoigne’s or
Goddard’s. They all made cast dial-plates and corner-pieces, but, in
Marshall’s case, these were not so well carved, and there was little or
no ornamental cutting on the plate or circle.
After Nicholas Goddard and William Marshall comes William Barnard, by
far the most prolific of our local makers. Barnard had a peculiarity
not known so far as I am aware in the work of any other maker: he
was sufficiently bold to place a number on all his clocks, whether
they were one-handed one-day clocks, eight-day clocks with the usual
square dials, or even a moon-arched top dial. On some of his dials
he put a round number and name-plate under the hour 12, in others he
put the name in the place usual at the period--between the hours of 7
and 5--and the number inside the seconds dial space; or, in the case
of the moon dial, the name was placed round one hemisphere and his
number round the other. These small details are a pleasing feature,
pointing us to the fact that he was not in the habit of making clocks
for other people to sell, but was what we should prefer him to be--the
maker-seller, and consequently the individual who had an interest in
the future behaviour of clocks bearing his name. He also made one
or two very unusual movements, one of which, an eight-inch dial with
alarm works, now in the Friary House at Newark, is illustrated here
(Plate 2). This is a pretty little dial, and the hand shows the alarm
hour through its tail, extended for the purpose, while the cherub
corners are like some I have seen on Gascoigne’s hood clocks, and the
number is not very far advanced, for some of his dials are numbered
as high as 1200, while some approach 1300, but I suspect that he did
not begin at 1. Only on one of his clocks have I seen the dial without
the name and number, and here they are both cut into the back of the
movement. Though by no means certain, it is very probable that Barnard
succeeded to Goddard’s business and largely added to it, for there is a
similarity in the details of the mechanical portions of their work.
The sequence of numbers on the dials has given scope for fun on many
occasions. I remember well a deaf old gentleman coming into my shop
and announcing that he had the oldest clock in Newark--made in 1050.
After much loud questioning, I ascertained that Barnard was the maker,
and when I had brought down from the workshop a similar dial, with the
number 1215 on it, he was quite a long time before he realised what age
Barnard must have been when he made the second of these two specimens,
and I had much difficulty in persuading him that the number was only
a number and not a date. Barnard flourished from 1740 to 1780, about
which date William Unwin appears with work (Plate 3) very similar to
that of Barnard’s later years. While all Gascoigne’s cases were of oak
or veneered walnut, and Barnard’s were of oak only, Unwin introduced
us to the mahogany case. Unwin’s shop was in Kirk Gate, opposite the
famous stage-coaching house of Gilstrap’s, at the northern end of
the Nottingham and Notts Bank premises, with a door into the passage
leading down the adjacent Wheat Sheaf yard. It was here he afterwards
conducted a partnership with Holt, whom we shall note later, and there
is presumptive evidence that Barnard occupied the same premises,
which have thus been a clockmaker’s shop for a century. Before it was
pulled down it presented a very old-fashioned appearance with its bow
window of many small panes, and the half-doors with the top portion
filled with bull’s-eye glass. Unwin was in business here in 1780, in
which year we find him a voter at the election. In 1791 he subscribed
five shillings to the fund for lighting the town by lamps. I have also
evidence of his being there in 1801 from a watch bearing his name and
the date letter of that year which came into my hands. Unwin lived at
the time of the transition from the brass dials to the cheaper iron
painted ones. Occasionally on the back of these latter we find the
little painted label used by the painters to indicate the style in
which the dial was to be finished, a detail which shows us that the
later practice of keeping dials on hand from Birmingham had not yet
begun. The dial plate was made and fitted, the label stuck on at the
back, and the portions printed on it which were not required were
struck off, and the painter worked from the remainder. So in examining
Unwin’s work we see fine brass dials, an odd but equally fine brass
silvered dial, and many painted ones, and in all varieties of faces the
well-worked iron hands remained. The cases, however, began to change,
the long door of the earlier makers became shorter, and rather more
detail appeared, but on the whole the plain school predominated.
We must now consider another old maker of importance, who, like
Gascoigne and Goddard, possessed an old Newark name. Solomon
Bettinson’s (so spelled for many generations, though afterwards changed
to Bettison), name appears in the 1780 and 1796 election poll books,
and on a particularly interesting clock (Plate 3) now in the Chantry
House, with a plain oak case with cushion top, a 14-inch circular brass
and silvered dial, centre seconds hand, centre day of the month hand,
and a well-engraved dial whereon is inscribed his own name, Solomon
Bettison, Newark, and above it, crowded in among the numbers of the
days of the month, is the name of Sarah Flear, for whom Bettison
originally made the clock. This Sarah Flear was married at Flintham to
Richard Greene, on 4th June 1792. Richard Greene and Sarah, his wife,
had a daughter, to whom the clock eventually belonged, and it was her
nephew, an old man of some eighty years of age, told me how Sarah Flear
had had this clock made when she was about to be married and set up
a house of her own. The Flintham register supports these statements,
and thus gives us the date, 1792, for the manufacture of this clock.
Bettison made square dials to his clocks as well as round ones, and he
seems to have been partial to those with engraved centres instead of
the usual matted and lacquered ones.
But I am neglecting some of the contemporaries of Bettison and Barnard,
who did good work in both square and round dial clocks. About this
time, 1780, there was on both square and round a pattern much in vogue,
which may be best described as the pagoda style of cutting. Some of
the round dials made by Edward Crampton, Barnard’s apprentice, and by
Stacey of Farnsfield, were fine examples of the engraver’s art. The
centres of the square dials are, at this period, treated in the same
way for the most part. Unwin, Bettison, Crampton, together with John
Crampern and Edward Smith, who are described in the marriage registers,
under the years 1773 and 1775 respectively, as watchmakers, were all
contemporaries, and followed the fashion of the time. I am afraid it
is a mistake on the part of the registers to call Crampern and Smith
watchmakers; it ought to have been clockmakers, for I have never met
with any watch of Newark make at this early date. Although not of
the particular pattern alluded to above, the clock by Edward Smith
(Plate 2), now at Ossington Hall, has a very good engraved and filled
black and silvered centre dial. Though not a bit better than other
contemporary work of this period (about 1780), Smith’s clock shows the
fashion of the time in the preference of the graver for the matting
tool. Such clocks look very well indeed in their plain oak cases,
with cushion tops and well-proportioned trunks and bases. One dial by
Crampern has a very interesting appearance. It is 12 inches square, and
the silvered centre shows a village inn, the Chequers, on one side,
while on the other is a summer-house with latticed shelter and a table
on which stands a foaming tankard. Seated are two figures, one male and
one female, each smoking a clay pipe.
The dials made by Thomas Stacey of Farnsfield are worth illustrating,
but space forbids. Stacey was married to Margaret Gamble on 5th June
1774, and the family went to live at Southwell, finding it most likely
a better centre for their business. They are to be found there until
nearly the middle of the nineteenth century.
At this point it would be well to consider one or two other places
in the neighbourhood which were as well provided with clockmakers as
Newark.
At the time Barnard and his contemporaries were flourishing at Newark,
there was at Sutton in Ashfield a family named Boot, who made clocks
in many respects similar to those of Barnard. The first of the name,
John Boot, had his own peculiar fancy as to dials. Many of his one-day
clocks had, like Barnard’s, only one hand--a cheap economy. There
was a round number and name-plate under the hour of 12, and drilled
through the dial, in line with the centre hole, were two holes nicely
decorated with turned rings, while the rest of the centre of the dial
was chased with wild roses--a very effective and distinctive treatment.
This particular dial was peculiar to him, I believe, though he made
other varieties, such as eight-day clocks similar to those of Marshall
and Barnard at Newark. Next comes John Boot, junior, who adhered to
the square dial-plates, and to many of the family peculiarities. He
was followed by John and William Boot, whose work was done about the
year 1780. About the same time we have a flat engraved dial with arched
top, centre seconds hand, and calendar work similar to that (Plate 3)
illustrating Bettison’s work, inscribed with the name, Elizabeth Boot.
I have, however, seen very few with the lady’s name on them. The very
fact of their being a clockmaking family is a rare occurrence, and can
only be paralleled in Newark in later years by the Westons.
At this period we find several makers of note in Nottingham, of whom
the earliest seems to be John Wyld. Mansfield, too, had a Glazebrook,
whose work was of the same style; but with the makers of these towns I
am not very familiar, and must leave them to more competent treatment.
Another interesting phase of the subject now invites attention. Plate 4
shows a very marked and artistic piece of work by Humphry Wainwright of
Bunny. The clock plays a tune every three hours, and on the arch of the
dial is depicted a music school of a primitive kind, with the closed
music scroll lying on the table, the fiddlers large and and small,
the horns and clarinets, the spinnet and the conductor, all make up a
very droll picture. This clock, the property of E. F. Milthorp, Esq.,
has a 14-inch square dial, and a beautifully designed mahogany case, a
vivid contrast to some of the cruder bits of work, such as that shown
in Plate 4. Wainwright seems to have devoted some attention to church
clocks, and one of his make can still be seen in the neighbourhood.
One Wainwright is found working at Nottingham in 1797, and this may be
Humphry, or perhaps John.
[Illustration: PLATE 3.
CLOCKS BY
2 1 3
S. BETTISON. W. BARNARD. W. UNWIN.]
[Illustration: PLATE 4.
CLOCKS BY
HUMPHREY WAINWRIGHT OF BUNNY. WILL. FOSTER OF MARNHAM.]
We must now just pause to note what may fairly be called some oddments
of the clock trade. Single specimens of brass dials by local makers
are found, such as that with the name, “F. Witton, Norwell,” or one
bearing an old Newark name, Samuel Callis, or the one illustrated
(Plate 4) by Will. Foster of Marnham. These must all be regarded with
doubt and reserve, from the fact that they are isolated specimens. Many
clocks were made by amateurs, and perhaps these may be thus accounted
for; or perhaps they were made to order by clockmakers, and the
purchaser’s name put on the dial. That there were makers in these
villages who made clocks for trade purposes, we have seen at Bunny
and Sutton in Ashfield. The specimen by Will. Foster of Marnham was
probably the work of an amateur, for its dial cutting is unequally
divided and poorly cut, the open work of its hands is of poor design,
the wheel work is very crude, and the teeth slots are of various
depths, the teeth points are variously shaped; in fact, the whole is
suggestive more of the file than of the turner’s cutting tools. The
case, too, is most primitive, with its long narrow door all painted and
grained; yet, notwithstanding all its deficiencies, it is still ticking
away and marking the hours. The clocks by Callis and Francis Witton are
both creditable examples of work and denote professional skill.
A very unusual clock, by William Simpson of Southwell, is now at
Brackenhurst Hall. It has a fine mahogany case, silvered dial, and
quarter-chime movement. Simpson was an ingenious mechanic, who has
left behind him, among other things, a curious thirty-hour “virgule”
escapement. He, like Wainwright and the Burrells, who are mentioned
later, was concerned with the manufacture of turret clocks. He seems to
have been in business at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
We have now come to a parting of the ways. Brass dials give place
to painted ones, and the clockmaker becomes subservient to the
cabinetmaker. Birmingham dial makers are more and more employed, with
the result that we see quite a number of similar dials. We must say
farewell to the plain oak cases, with their long doors; and view the
more recent plain oak cases with mahogany pillars, the mahogany cases,
with flat, silvered dials, such as Unwin and Holt in particular made,
the oak cases polished to a lighter colour, with mahogany facings, and
the mahogany scroll top cases with satin-wood decorations.
Unwin is the first of the new school which was to rule for the next
fifty years, and make brass dials a thing of the past. After Holt
joined him (as Unwin & Holt), we never find another of his clocks with
a brass dial, and this partnership in 1805 sees the last of the old
style.
The competition for the premier place lay between Richard Herring,
William Weston, and Richard Holt, and it was to the latter that the
honour fell. Weston was in business in 1790 and 1825, and all his
clocks had the painted dials. Both he and Herring were subscribers to
the 1791 lamp fund for lighting the streets of Newark, and in 1804 both
were volunteers. Weston was succeeded by his son James, of whom we have
evidence in 1839, and then the names of James and John appear on the
dials, and finally the general description, “Westons Newark.”
Holt applied his skill and energy to the business, which, after Unwin’s
retirement, became very large. His name occurs on some gold and silver
watches, which there is every reason to believe were made either in
London or Birmingham. It is also to be found on the dials of bronzed
brass bracket clocks, which may or may not be his own work, but there
is no doubt about the maker of his clocks of the “Grandfather” type.
Some good bracket clocks in mahogany cases also bear his name, and it
was through him and his contemporaries that these were brought to the
notice of local buyers. To this list may be added the short fall and
spring dial and drop dial clocks, though these latter were soon being
imported from Birmingham.
He continued in business until 1845, but though many of his clocks have
pretty mahogany cases and interesting dials, they no longer concern us,
since these had become ready made. Though he taught his sons the trade,
they did not succeed, though one, Richard, started in opposition to his
father, but the name died out. Holt’s contemporary was Henry Goodwin,
who was in every way his equal. Other rivals were William Weaver,
Richard Hardy, Hardy and Son, George Ganter, and John and James Priest.
William Weaver was very fond of a style of dial representing a ship
in full sail on a painted ocean, the vessel rising and falling with
the swinging of the pendulum. Ganter came to Newark as a Dutch clock
pedlar, and settled there. James Priest made clocks in the old style,
and saw the art die out as a local industry. At his death, in 1889, he
left a cellar full of his earlier efforts, together with one or two
finished items, which must have been standing in the shop for fully
forty years.
About 1840 a lamentable, though not unexpected, event happened.
The cabinetmakers in Newark became tired of making cases for the
clockmaker, and the practice began of the clockmaker making movements
for their cases, and though in itself a regrettable feature, the
result has left us some really beautiful cases of this period, notably
by Cawthorn, Dalman, and Barber. The man who seems to have made
movements for them was John Baker (who worked at one time for Holt),
who cut his name and a number on the plate at the back of the dial.
In contradistinction to this procedure, we have to note R. Wade, of
Staythorpe, a village four miles from Newark, who combined the two
operations. A clock-case maker by trade, he went to London to work in
the piano-case trade and clock-case making, and there he conceived a
fancy for the mechanical side of clock making.[90] After some years he
returned to Staythorpe, and set up as a maker of both clock and case.
His work was of a very creditable character, and quite a number of
his clocks are in good working order in the neighbourhood. He was an
eccentric character, and left his mark in many little details about
the premises which he occupied at Staythorpe until his death.
No account of the local village clockmakers would be complete without
some mention of the Burrells of Collingham, a family who worked there
till about 1860 and then migrated to Sheffield, where they became
firmly established. However, the attraction of the mechanical side of
the trade was too strong for the mercantile side, and they embarked on
a system of time synchronisation which brought them ill fortune. Their
initials are stamped upon an old clock, probably made about 1800, at
Sutton-on-Trent church, showing that they did large as well as small
work.
Andrew Esdaile of Bingham is another notable character of the period
1830–1850. Though his clocks are not plentiful, the stories of him
and of his poetic inclinations are numerous. From the fact that he
eventually turned author, we may perhaps conclude that he paid more
attention to literature than to horology.
I have kept a careful watch for any effect Pitt’s Act of Parliament
may have had on our local industry, but I have not been able to trace
any at all, for our local products seem to be the same at that time
(1797–98) as before and after, and no Act of Parliament clock of local
origin has ever been under my notice, so we may conclude that the scare
which shook the trade was not felt here very severely. I have also
never seen a lacquered case with local works inside it, and, no doubt,
the choicer kinds of cases were not made by our local artists. When we
come to think that nearly all our early marquetry was done by the Dutch
inlay workers who followed William III. to England, and that probably
the lacquer decorated cases became, after a very few years, their work
also, we are compelled to conclude that these arts were not general in
the provinces, so that we must not expect to see them applied in the
case of the Newark clocks, much less in that of the rural specimens,
though there are some fine mahogany cases which are exceptions to this.
The list of Newark makers that follows shows the division of--(1) those
who made brass dials only; (2) those who made both brass and painted
dials; and (3) those who made clocks with painted dials only.
This delegation of the brass dials to a secondary position must be
attributed to their cost when compared with that of the painted dials.
The makers of this last popular style also made the shortfall and
mantle clocks.
In the last period the cases were doubtless made by Cawthorn, or
Dalman, or Fletcher, or Parlby, but in the earlier ones the case
makers are quite as unknown as the clock work would be were it not
for the names inscribed and the incentive thus given to learn more
about them. The later makers are identified by such details as the
dates on watch-case papers (some of them worth illustrating), by the
hall-markings of the cases of their watches, by scraps in the form of
receipts for work done, and by leaves from tradesmen’s old ledgers; but
for our knowledge of the earlier makers we have to go further afield,
and help in this direction is gratefully acknowledged.
The date of a clock may be gauged fairly accurately by noting first the
plainness of outline of the cases and the length of the door, which
in early times was very pronounced. There was usually a bottle glass
panel in the door. In a few years plainness gave way to cross-banded
ornament, and this in its turn to veneering with mahogany, or, in the
better cases, to mahogany with veneered facings. These styles were
ousted by the ornate cases in light oak, with very short doors and
mahogany decorations in veneer and line inlay. As a general rule,
however, the earlier the work the better it is, both as to case and
clock, especially the latter.
My own connection with the clockmakers of Newark has only been of a
secondary character, although I have spent many happy days among their
work. Yet I remember that I am the last apprentice of the late John
Harvey (who died in 1886), who was himself the last apprentice of
Thomas Hardy, the survivor of Hardy & Son, who are mentioned above.
(1) William Gascoigne 1700–1740
Nicholas Goddard 1700–1741
William Marshall 1730–1770
William Barnard 1740–1780
Edward Smith. 1770–1790
Solomon Bettison 1750–1795
Edward Crampton 1760–1790
(2) John Crampern 1770–1800
William Unwin 1780–1805
(3) William Weston 1790–1820
Richard Herring 1790–1810
Unwin & Holt 1805–1810
Richard Holt 1810–1845
James Weston 1825–1840
Henry Goodwin 1815–1840
Henry Goodwin, junior 1842–1850
Richard Hardy 1820–1830
Thomas Hardy & Son 1830–1850
Richard Holt, junior 1840–1850
William Weaver 1835–1850
James Priest 1840–1888
George Ganter 1840–1850
INDEX
Abbess of Godstow, 66
Abbey, Rufford, 54–56
---- Shelforde, 100
---- Welbeck, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 117, 177, 184, 186, 187
Abbot Doncaster of Rufford, 57, 112
---- of Combe, 66
Acklom of Wiseton Hall, 172
Act of Parliament clock, 336
Adbolton, 100
Adulterine castles dismantled, 8
Alabaster monuments, 49, 50
Albini, William de, 113, 114
Alms, obligatory, 59
Almshouses, or hospitals, 55
Ancaster, 84
---- quarries, 13
---- stone, 292
Anlaf Guthfrithson, 7
_Annals of Nottinghamshire_, quoted, 180, 181, 209
Anne, 77
---- of Denmark at Newstead Priory, 69
Annesley park, 117, 119, 123
_Antiquities of Nottinghamshire_, quoted, Thoroton’s, 53, 262, 263,
272
Archbishop Cranmer, 10, 67
---- Drummond, 250
---- Ealdred, 244, 245
---- Geoffrey de Ludham, 63
---- Gerard, 245, 246
---- John le Romeyne, 36, 38, 41, 251, 255
---- Kinsi, 245
---- Lawrence Booth, 48
---- Oskytel, 242
---- Roger, 33
---- Romanus, 64
---- Thomas de Corbridge, 251
---- Walter de Gray, 33, 41, 63, 251, 252, 254
---- Wickwaine, 64
Archbishop of York, Thomas II., 22
Architecture, Cistercian, 34
---- mediæval church, 12–53
---- of Blyth Priory Church, 20–22, 23
---- of Southwell Minster, 22–25
Army, struggle to find recruits for the, 171
---- weekly assessment of Notts for the Parliamentary, 171
Arnold chancel, 41, 42
---- Forest, 116
---- Gothic screen, 124
---- Matthew, 207, 209
“Array,” Charles’s “Instructions to Commissioners of,” 174
Ashburnham, John, 190
Ashdown, battle of, 308
Ashfield, 106
Assessment of Notts for the Parliamentary army, weekly, 171
Athelstan, 242, 306, 308
Atherstone, Edwin, 215
Atkin of North Muskham, John, 224, 225
Attachment Courts, 113, 115
Attempt to gain possession of Trent Bridge, 182
Attenborough, 96
---- rood-stair, 124
---- sculptured arcade at, 27
---- spire, 51, 288
Augustinian canons, 32
Averham, 96, 105
---- Church, herring-bone work in, 19
---- screen, 124, 125
Babington chantry chapel at Kingston-on-Soar, 50
Bailey, Philip James, 193, 210–212, 216
---- Thomas, 180, 209
Baker, John, 335
Balderton, 26, 188
---- Church, 30
---- screen, 125
---- tower, 289
Balkfield, 106
Ballard attacks Newark, 176, 177
Balliol, Henry, 61
Barber, 335
Bardolph, William, 113
Barker, Matthew Henry, 153
Barnard, William, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 338
Barnby-in-the-Willows, 303
---- ---- spire, 37, 38
“Bars,” Nottingham, 229
Barton, John, 48
---- steeple, 288
Barton-in-Fabis screen, 167
Basford, 234
---- Forest, 116
Basingfield, 106
Bassetlaw, wapentake of, 28, 271
Battle of Edgehill, 175
Battle of the Idle, 6
Bawtry, 55
Bayley, A. M. Y., 163
Beacon Hill, 176
Beauvale Priory, 54, 55, 58, 125
---- ---- screens, 125
Beckingham, 38, 157
---- Church, 28
---- screen, 125, 126
---- tower, 52
Bede, 240
Belasyse, Lord, 187, 191
Belfin, Thomas, 131
Belgæ, 4
Bellar Gate, 233
Bellcotes, 300
Bellfounders’ Yard, 233
Belvoir Castle, 187, 188
---- Vale of, 13
Benedictine nuns, Wallingwells, 54
---- Priory, Blyth, 54, 55, 56, 58
Bernesconi renovates ornament, Southwell pulpitum, 156
Besthorpe, 97, 98, 104
Bestwood Park, 60, 118, 119, 120
Bettinson, Solomon, 329, 330, 338
Bilhaugh, 116, 117, 122
Bilsthorpe rood stairs, 126
Bingham, 36, 37, 298
---- steeple, 285, 286
---- token, 317
Binham Church, 35
Birkin, John de, 111
Birkin, Thomas de, 111
Birkland, 116, 117, 119, 122
Bishop of Southwell, Dr. Ridding, 267
---- Rotherham, 142
---- Walter Langton, 41
Black or Austin priories, 54
Blackwell, Sir Thomas, 172
Blagg, T. M., 132, 167, 222, 224
Blake, Prior Robert, 66
Blidworth, 70, 114, 117
Blown Sands, 97–98
Blunt, Charles, 153
Blyth Hall gallery, 127
---- Priory Church, 12, 20–23, 25, 28, 34–36, 54–56, 58
---- ---- obligatory alms, 59
---- ---- screens, 126–129, 167
---- ---- tower, 52
Bole, 102, 103, 104
---- Church, 16
---- tower, 52
Bones of extinct mammalia found in the valley deposits, 91
Booker, Luke, 212
---- Richard, 209
Boot, John, 331
---- William, 331
Booth, Archbishop Lawrence, 48
Bore, Trent, 103
Bosworth fight, 9
Boundary between North and South England, Trent the, 3
Bousfield, H. N., 224, 225
Bowman of Stamford, 143
Boxgrove, La Warre chapel at, 50
Brackenhurst Hill, 239
Bracket clocks, 334
Bradbury, William, 220
Bradebusk, 55
Bradmore steeple, 274
Brampton, 93
Brant Broughton, 38
Brass trade of Nottingham, 9
Brewing trade of Nottingham, 9
Bribour, 108
Bridge, Gunthorpe, 238
---- Kelham, 98
---- Newark, 238
---- Nottingham, 238
---- Trent, 96
---- Wilford, 238
---- destroyed 1683, Newark, 93
---- destroyed 1683, Nottingham, 93
Bridgford (West) screen, 129, 130
Bridlesmith Gate, Nottingham, 229, 233
Briggs, A. E., 143
Britons, 3, 4
Broadholme nunnery, 54, 58
Brown, Cornelius, 148
Browne, Frank, 226
Brythonic Celts, 4
Bulcote, 197
Bulwell, 234
Bunny, 271
---- clockmakers, 333
---- screen, 130–131
---- steeple, 289
---- W., 214
Burgage Green, 251
Burnet, Bishop, 66
Burrells of Collingham, 333, 336
Burton, 102, 103, 104
---- Joyce, 303
---- ---- spire, 278, 279
---- Lazars, 297
Byland Church, 34
Byron family, 69–74
---- George Gordon Noel, Lord, 12, 59, 67, 69, 74, 193, 197,
203–206, 265
---- of Newstead, Lord, 121
---- Richard, 100
---- Sir Gilbert, 191
---- of Colwick, Sir John, 68, 71, 73, 172
---- of Newstead Abbey, Sir John, 197
---- Sir Richard, 179, 181
Callis, Samuel, 332, 333
Calvert, William, 226
Calverton, 10, 113
---- rood, 131
---- tower, 26
Camden, 240
Canute, 309, 310
Car Colston, 302
---- ---- arrow vane, 293
---- ---- chancel, 41, 42, 44
---- ---- screen, 132
---- ---- steeple, 52, 287, 292
Carlton Home, 101, 104
Carlton-in-Lindrick tower, 17, 52
Carlton-on-Trent steeple, 293
Carmelite friars, Nottingham, 54
---- Friary Church rood, Nottingham, 150
Cars, the, 6
Carter, Mary Ann, 226
Carthusian Priory, Beauvale, 54, 55, 58, 125
Cartwright, Sir Hugh, 172
Cassandra, Willoughby, Duchess of Chandos, 77, 79, 84, 85
Castle Art Museum, Nottingham, 204, 214
---- Belvoir, 187, 188
---- Cuckney, 8
---- Donnington, 271
---- ---- stone, 288, 291
---- Dudley, 212
---- Hayton, 153
---- Newark, 8, 191
---- Nottingham, 7, 8, 109, 114, 173, 174, 176, 180, 181, 191,
229–231
---- Tamworth, 19
---- Tickhill, 16
Castles dismantled, adulterine, 8
Caunton, sculptured arcade at, 27
Caux, Maud de, 107, 108, 110, 111
Cave dwellings, 3
Cavendish, Charles, 178, 179, 180
---- William, 197
Cawthorn, 335, 337
Central steeples, in the county only, 286
Ceolwulf, 241
Ceonulph, 242
Chandlers’ Lane, Nottingham, 229
Chantries, 48, 49
Chapel Bar, Nottingham, 229, 230
Chapter Decree Books, Southwell, 264
---- House, Southwell, 255
Charles I., 231
---- at Newark, 170
---- at Nottingham, 170
---- at Southwell, 262
---- refuses services of the Roman Catholics, 174, 175
---- trial and execution of, 191, 192
Charles’s failure in foreign wars, 169
---- “Instructions to Commissioners of Array,” 174
Charles II. at Newstead Priory, 69, 76
Charterhouse, Beauvale, 56
Chaworth, Lord, 172
---- William, killed in duel by “Devil Byron,” 69
Chesterfield, Earl of, 122, 171, 187
---- parclose, 157
Christian, Ewan, 156
Churches appropriated to monasteries, 16
Cistercian Abbey, Rufford, 54, 55, 56
---- architecture, 34
_Cities Weekly Post_ quoted, 189
Civil War, the, 168–192
Clarborough Church, 30
Clay, division of the shire, 106, 110, 122
Claypole, 38, 189
Clays, of Nottinghamshire, red, 90
Clayworth screen, 132–134
Clifton, 55, 234
Clifton Grove, 194
Clifton-on-Trent chantry, 48
Clifton, Sir Gervase, 172
Clipstone, King of the Scots at, 8
---- park, 118, 119, 120
Clipston, royal hunting lodge at, 62
Clockmakers of Newark, 323–338
Clocks, “Grandfather,” 323, 324, 334
Close Rolls, 114
Clough, 209
Cludd’s Oak, 262
Clumber, 51
---- park, 116, 121
Cluniac Priory, Lenton, 54–56, 58, 59
Cnut, 7
Coal working at Nottingham, 9, 11
Coddington, 91, 183, 188
Coke of Brookhill, Col., 78
College, Nottingham University, 234
---- of Secular Canons, 244
Colleges, or collegiate churches, 55
Collingham, 94, 95, 97, 102, 104
---- token, 317
Collinson, Samuel, 220
Colston Bassett Gothic screen, 134
Colwick, 100
Colwick, William de, 100
Combe, Abbot of, 66
_Comperta_, 57
Constable, Henry, 194, 195, 196
---- Sir Robert, 194
Cooper, Sir Roger, 172, 177, 184
Corbridge, Archbishop Thomas de, 251
Coritani tribe, 4
Cornish and Gaymer, 157
Cossall, 62
---- steeple, 292
Cossall, William de, 62
Costock, 297
---- screen, 134
Cotgrave rood-stair, 134
---- spire, 37, 228
Cotton trade in the shire, 11
Court, Forty-Day, 113
Courts, Attachment, 113, 115
Cox, Rev. Dr., 125, 135, 141, 143, 152, 153, 157, 167
Cow Lane, Nottingham, 230
Cowley, Abraham, 197
Crampern, John, 330, 331, 338
Crampton, Edward, 330, 338
Crankley Point, 101, 102
Cranmer, 10, 67
Creswell Caves, 92
---- Crags, 3
Cromwell, 57, 58, 66, 116, 178, 179, 180, 184, 262
---- at Newark, 177
---- Church, herring-bone work in, 19
Cropwell Bishop screen, 134
Crossings of the Trent, 3
Crumbwell, Ralph de, 114
Cuckney Castle, 8
Culpepper, Sir John, 174
Cursham, Mary Ann, 214
Cut, Kelham, 99
Cuthred, 242
Dalby, will of Alice, 151
Dalman, 335, 337
Dalton, Bishop Thomas, consecrated in Gedling Church, 36
Danelagh, 7, 229
Daniel, 195
Danish invasion, 6
Darwin, Erasmus, 202, 203
Davison tokens, 319
Death of John at Newark, 8
Deer in royal forests, statistics of, 120
---- of Sherwood, 118, 122
---- red and fallow, 107
Denham, 197
Derivation of Nottingham, 228
Despenser, Hugh, 113
“Devil Byron,” 69, 72, 73
Devon, the, 101
_Diary, or an Exact Journal, The_, quoted, 186
Dickinson, 98
Digby, Sir John, 172, 175
Dimock, J. F., 146, 156
Dismantling of adulterine castles, 8
Doddington, 91
Dodsley, Robert, 199–202
“Dogg-whipper,” the, 264
Domesday Book, 105
---- Survey, 107
Dominican friars, 54
Doncaster of Rufford, Abbot, 57
---- William, 163
Donham, Thomas de, 61
Dorset, Earl of, 174
Drakeholes, 6
Drawswerd of York, Thomas, 146
Drayton (East) screen, 134, 135
---- Michael, 195
Drayton’s _Polyolbion_, 108
Drummond, Archbishop, 250
Dryden, 198
Dudley Castle, 212
Duffield spire, 37
Dunham, 95, 97, 101
Dunham-on-Trent tower, 52
Durham, John, Prior of Newstead, 63
Eadgar, 7
Eadwig, 7, 242, 243
Eagle, 91
Ealdred, Archbishop, 244, 245
Earthworks, 4
East Bridgford Saxon Church, 17
East Drayton Church, 16
Easter sepulchre, Fledborough, 42, 43
---- ---- Hawton, 12, 42
---- ---- Sibthorpe, 42, 43
Eastfield, 106
East Leake, 303
---- ---- herring-bone coursing at, 18, 25
---- ---- spire, 37, 288
East Markham Church, 16, 47, 49
---- ---- tower, 52
East Retford Church, 30
---- ---- tower, 51
East Stoke, 10
Ebranc, 228
Edgar, 242
Edgehill, Battle of, 175
Edingley, 214
Edward I., 61, 62
---- II., 61, 62, 114
---- III., 62, 230
---- ---- at Newstead Priory, 76
---- IV., 63
---- ---- at Nottingham, 9
Edward VI., 55
---- the Confessor, 310, 311
---- the Elder, 7, 235, 306
Edwin of Northumbria, 6
Edwinstowe, 62, 113, 116, 119, 121
---- Church, 16
---- spire, 51, 280
Edwy, 307
Effigies and tombs, 49–51
Egmanton, 62, 63
Eland, Governor of Nottingham Castle, 230
Ælfric Puttoc, Archbishop of York, 244
Elizabeth, 77, 120
Elliot, Ebenezer, 73
Elston, 202
Elton screen, 135
English and French boroughs in Nottingham, 7, 231, 232
Epperstone chancel, 41
---- steeple, 288
Esdaile of Bingham, Andrew, 141, 336
Essex, Earl of, 169, 175, 196
Æthelfrith, defeat of, 6
Æthelred, 7
---- II., 308, 309
Etherington, 324
Everingham effigies, Laxton, 49
---- Robert de, 111
Evermuth, Walter de, 113
Everton, carved tympanum at, 25
---- Church, 30
Eyre, Sir Gervase, 172
Fairfax, Lord, 176
Fallow deer, 107
Families, Parliamentarian, 172
---- Royalist, 171, 172
Farndon, 91, 188
---- with Balderton Church, 16
Farnsfield, 106
Felley Priory, 54, 177
Ferry at Littleborough, Roman, 238
Finningley screen, 135
Firth, Professor, 171
Fiskerton, 95, 97
Fitzstephen, Ralph, 107, 108
Fitzwilliam, Sir William, 257
Five Boroughs, the, 7, 229
Flatman, Thomas, 197
Flawford spire, 292
Fledborough Easter sepulchre, 42, 43
---- Holme, 101
Fledborough tower, 273
Fleet stream, 104
Fletcher, 337
Flintham, 296, 300
---- tower, 273
Floods, Trent, 92–97
Florence of Worcester, Chronicle of, 8, 247
Font, Lenton, 26
Forced loans, 169
Fords on the Trent, 176
Forest, Sherwood, 2, 6, 8, 106–123, 256, 281
Forty-Day Court, 113
Foss Dyke, 93, 94
Fosse Way, 10, 240, 325
Foster of Marnham, Will, 332, 333
Fountains Church, 34
Franciscan friars, Nottingham, 54, 114
Frere, Miss, 167
Friar Lane, Nottingham, 229
Friar Tuck, 108
Friary House at Newark, 328
Gainsborough, 12, 96, 97, 102, 179, 180, 181, 184
Gairdner, Dr., 58
Gamston bridge, 236, 237
---- rood-stair, 135
---- tower, 52
Ganter, George, 335, 338
Gardiner, Mr., 179
Gascoigne, William, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 338
“Gates,” Nottingham, 229
Gedling quarries, 279
---- screen, 135
---- spire, 36, 51, 271, 282–284, 293
---- stone, 288
Gell, Sir John, 176, 178
Gerard, Archbishop, 245, 246
Giffard’s register, 64
Gilbertine Priory, Mattersey, 54
---- ---- of St. Katherine, 15, 16, 30
Giles, Sidney, 226
Gill, Harry, 125, 132, 142, 167
Girdlesmith Gate, Nottingham, 230, 233
Girton, 94, 95, 97, 98, 104
Glazebrook of Mansfield, 332
Glazed low side windows, 301–304
“Goblin Friar,” Newstead, 74
Goddard, Nicholas, 326, 327, 338
Godfrey, J. T., 134, 135, 141, 153
Godstowe, Abbess of, 66
Goffe, 191
Goidelic Celts, 4
Golding of Colston Bassett, 172, 175
Goldsmith’s work at Nottingham, 9
Goodwin, Henry, 334, 338
Goodyer, F. R., 220
Goose Gate, Nottingham, 229
Goring, 177
Gospel lectern, Newstead, 72
Gotham, 190, 271
---- spire, 274, 276, 278
Graham, George, 324
Grammar School, Newark, 146
Granby screen, 135
Grange, Prior Richard de, 62
Gray, Archbishop Walter de, 33, 41, 63, 251, 252, 254
---- Col. Henry, 188
---- Col. Theo, 188
Green, quoted, Mrs. J. R., 9
Greendale Oak, Welbeck, 117
Grey Friars at Nottingham, 232
Grey, Lord, 178, 179
Gringley Park, 120
Grosseteste, Bishop, 31
Grove steeple, 293
Guisbrough Priory, 35, 65
Gunthorpe bridge, 238
Habblesthorpe Church, 16
Hacker, Col. Francis, 172, 191
Haggonfield, 106
Halam, 25
---- tower, 273
Hall, Spencer Timothy, 212, 213, 216
---- will of Robert, 125
---- ---- William, 125
---- Wollaton, 77–87
Hampden, 169
Hardicanute, 310
Hardy, Richard, 335, 338
Hareston, Robert de, 113
Harold I., 310
---- II., 311
Harvey, John, 337
Harworth, 25
---- Church, 16
Hastings, herring-bone masonry at, 18
Hatfield, 110, 122
Hawksley, Edward, 214
---- tokens, 319
Hawton, 45
---- chancel, 41, 43, 44
---- Easter sepulchre, 12, 42
---- founder’s tomb, 49
---- screen, 135, 136
---- tower, 52
Hays or parks of Sherwood, 119
Hayton Castle, 153
---- Church, 28, 30
Haywood oaks, 117
Heathfield, 6
Henderson, Sir John, 176, 179
Henry I., 60, 307, 312
---- II., 60, 63, 253, 308
---- ---- takes possession of Nottingham Castle, 8
---- III., 60, 61
---- VI., 63
---- VII. at Newark, 10
---- ---- at Newstead Priory, 76
---- ---- at Nottingham, 10
---- VIII., 55, 58, 59
Heron, Thomas, 98
Herring-bone masonry, 18
Herring, Richard, 334, 338
Heskey, will of Alderman, 150
Hethbeth Bridge, 173, 236
Hicklin, John, 220
Hickling of Cotgrave, George, 220–222
Hickling, pre-Conquest coffin-lid at, 26
---- tower, 52
Hickman, Sir W., 172
Highfield, 106
Hill, A. Du Boulay, 125
Hind, Edward, 226
Hine, T. C., 142
_History of Newark_, 101, 188
_History of Southwell_, Shilton’s, 250, 262
Hockerton Hill, 251
Hodges, C. Clement, 128
Hogg, Henry, 214, 215
Holme, 93, 96, 97, 99, 102, 104
---- Church, 45, 47
---- screens, 137–138
---- steeple, 280
---- Pierrepoint, 198
---- ---- monuments, 50
---- ---- rood-stair, 138, 139
---- ---- steeple, 288, 293
Holt, Richard, 328, 333, 334, 338
Hooton, Charles, 226
Hosiery trade of the shire, 10, 11
Hospital, Nottingham General, 174
---- of St. John in Nottingham, 235
Hospitallers, 29
Hospitals or almshouses, 55
Hotham, Sir John, 170
Hough-on-the-Hill tower, 52
Hoveringham, carved tympanum at, 25
---- spire, 292
Howitt, Mary, 213, 214
---- Richard, 213, 214
---- William, 213, 214
Hoybel Bridge, Nottingham, 235
Hucknall, 60, 63, 298
---- Broomhill charity, 69
---- Torkard Church, 69
Hudson, Dr., 190
---- H., 162, 167
Hundred Years War, 9
Huntingdon, Earl of, 113
Hutchinson, Col. John, 175, 176, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 191, 231
---- family, 172
Ice Age, 89, 91, 92
Idle Valley, 5, 6, 92
Industrial riots in the shire, 10
Inns and public-houses connected with the forest and the chase, 119
“Instructions to Commissioners of Array,” Charles’s, 174
Insula, Brian de, 114
Introduction of Christianity by St. Paulinus, 6
Invention of the stocking-frame by Rev. William Lee, 10
Inventory of the trees, Sherwood, 116
Ireton, Henry, 172, 180, 191
Iron trade of Nottingham, 9
James I., 69, 260
Jenyn, bequest of Elizabeth, 146
Joan, Queen of Scots, 60
John at Newark, death of, 8
---- Nottingham Castle given to, 8
---- Earl of Mortain, 60, 107, 111, 230
_John of Gaunt Sketch Book_, 128
---- of Hexham, 247
Johnson, Dodsley publisher for, 200
Jones, Inigo, 86
Joynes, Lucy, 226
Julius Firmicus, 246
Kaye, Sir Richard, 72
Keats, 207
Kelham, 10, 90, 96, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 188, 190
---- screen, 139, 140
Keyworth arrow vane, 293
---- rood-loft, 140, 141
---- steeple, 51, 287, 290–292
King and Parliament, struggle between, 10
_Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, The_, quoted, 177, 185
King’s Sconce, 188
Kingston, Duke of, 116
---- Earl of, 171, 181
---- first Earl of, 197, 198
Kingston-on-Soar chantry chapel, 50
---- ---- screen, 141
---- ---- spire, 293
Kinsi, Archbishop, 245
Kirkby, 72
---- Hardwick, 177
---- in Ashfield Forest, 116
---- ---- spire, 276
Kneesall, 303
---- screen, 141
Knibb, 324
Knights Hospitallers preceptory, Ossington, 54
Knights of St. John of Jerusalem at Nottingham, 232
Knights Templars, 29
Lace trade of the shire, 10, 11
Lambley, 114
---- screen, 141
Laneham Church, 16, 28, 29
---- ---- herring-bone work in, 19
---- tower, 25
Langar screen, 141, 142
---- tower, 37
Langford, 91, 104
Langton, Bishop Walter, 41
La Warre chapel at Boxgrove, 50
Lawley, 212
Laxton, 108, 295, 296, 297
---- clerestory, 47
---- monuments, 49, 50
---- screen, 142
Layton, Dr., 57, 58
Lee, Rev. William, inventor of the stocking-frame, 10
Leen Valley, 92, 230, 237
Legh, Dr., 57, 58
Leicester, Peter de, 61
Leland, 230, 231, 232
Lenton font, 26
---- Forest, 117
---- obligatory alms, 59
---- Priory, 46, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 114, 232, 234, 308
Leslie, General, 190
Lester, Thomas, 224
Leverton (North) rood-loft, 142
---- South, 196
---- ---- screen, 142
Lexington, Lord, 172
---- Robert de, 113
---- table-tomb, 49
_Liber Albus_ of Southwell, 248
Libraries in Nottingham, Operatives’, 235
Library, Artisans’, 235
---- Mechanics’ Institution, 235
---- Nottingham, Bromley House, 234
---- Oddfellows’, 235
---- People’s Hall, 235
---- Public Free, 235
---- Rancliffe Arms, 235
---- Seven Stars, 235
---- the Alderman Wood, 235
Lichfield, 35, 40, 41, 202, 241
Linby, 61, 62, 113, 119
---- low side window, 304, 305
---- tower, 52
Lindsey, general-in-chief of the Royalist forces, 177
Linen trade of Nottingham, 9
Lineker, A., 167
Lister Gate, Nottingham, 230
List of priors, Newstead, 68
Little John, 108
“Little Sir John with the Big Beard,” 68, 73
Littleborough, aisleless chapel, 25
---- Church, herring-bone work in, 19
---- Roman ferry at, 238
Loans, forced, 169
Lofts, roods, and screens, 124–167
London, Dr. John, 66, 67
Long Row, Nottingham, 229
Longvilliers, Sir John de, 49
Love, David, 226
Lowdham Church, 16
Lowdham rood, 142, 143
---- tower, 288
Low Marnham, 95, 96
Low side windows, 295–305
Lucas, Sir Charles, 182
---- Sir Gervase, 188
Ludham, Archbishop Geoffrey de, 63
Lupus, Robert, 114
Lynsfield, 106
Magnus, Thomas, 146
Major Oak, Sherwood, 118
Malton Prior Church, 32
Manchester, Earl of, quartered at Retford, 184
Mansfield, 10, 13, 106, 107, 111, 113, 116, 118, 121, 184, 199,
256, 271
---- Church, 16
---- low side window, 304
---- (St. Peter) tower, 25, 288
---- stone, 288
---- tokens, 317, 322
---- William, Earl of, 121
---- Woodhouse, 272, 279, 280
Manvers, Earl, 123
Maplebeck, 13, 271
---- screen, 143
---- spire, 279
Marc, Philip, Constable of Nottingham Castle, 8, 110
Markham, 191
---- Gervase, 196
---- of Cotham, Sir Robert, 196
---- (East), screen, 143
---- (West), screen, 143
Marnham Church, 28, 29
---- Holme, 101, 104
Marshall, William, 327, 331, 338
Martin, John, 215
Marton, 19
Mary Gate, Nottingham, 229
---- Queen, 259
Mattersey Priory, 54
---- tower, 52
Maurice, Prince, 187
Meadows, Nottingham, 233
Melbourne, 113
Meldrum, Sir John, 179, 180, 182, 183
Mellish, Edward, 126
Mellors, H. Bradbury, 226
Mercia, 241, 242
Mercian shire, 6
Mering Chapel, Sutton-on-Trent, 159, 161
Middleton, Lord, 77, 123
Milbanke, Miss, 75
Miller, Thomas, 209, 216, 220
Millhouse, Robert, 209, 212, 213, 214
Millington, 191
---- Gilbert, 172
Minster, Southwell, 239–269
Mints, Nottingham, 306–322
Misterton Church, 16, 28, 29, 60
---- steeple, 281
Molineux, Sir Francis, 171
Monasteries, churches appropriated to, 16
---- suppression of the, 16
Moneyers, Nottingham, 306–322
Montgomery, James, 212
Monuments, 49–51
Morley spire, 37
Mortain, John, Earl of, 60, 107, 111, 230
Mortimer’s Hole, 230
Morwent, Charles, 199
Mullen, Samuel, 226
Muskham, 93, 96, 98, 99, 104
---- Bridge, 188
---- (North) screen, 143, 144, 145
---- (South) screen, 145
Musters, J. P. Chaworth, 123
Narrow Marsh, Nottingham, 93, 94
Naseby, battle of, 185
Navigation of the Trent, 2
Nene Valley, 270
Neolithic men, 3
Newark, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 41, 54, 55, 88, 91, 92, 93,
95, 97, 101, 102, 104, 105, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187,
188, 189, 190, 202, 222, 224, 241, 257, 263, 270, 294
---- altar of St. Crux, 145
---- attacked by Ballard, 176
---- Bridge, 238
---- Castle, 8, 191
---- chantries, 48, 50
---- Charles at, 170
---- Church, 28, 30, 45, 46, 47
---- ---- herring-bone work in, 19
---- ---- vaulted crypt, 25
---- clockmakers of, 323–338
---- Friary House at, 328
Newark garrisoned by Royalists, 176
---- Grammar School, 146
---- Mint, 307, 308
---- Parish Church spire, 31, 37, 52, 284, 285
---- Royalist meeting at, 175
---- screen, 146–149
---- siege pieces, 313–315
---- strengthened, defences of, 177
---- tokens, 318, 321
---- treators for, 191
---- wapentake of, 28, 29
Newcastle, Duke of, 116, 117, 171, 176–178, 180, 181, 231
New Park, 116, 121
Newstead, 120
---- Abbey token, 321
---- home of Byron, 12
---- Lord Byron of, 121
---- obligatory alms, 59
---- Priory, 35, 49, 54–76, 177, 203, 205
Newton, 93
---- Cliff, 101
Nicholson, Richard, 165
Nineteen Propositions of Parliament, 170
Normanton-on-Soar spire, 276, 278, 286
Normanton-on-Trent rood-stair, 149, 150
Normanton, Prebendary of, 252
North Clifton Church, 16
---- Collingham Church, 28, 29
Northfield, 106
North Wheatley Church, 16
Norton, J., 136
Norwell rood-stair, 150
Norwood Park, 262
Nostell Priory, 65
Notintone, 228
Nottingham, 2, 3, 5, 7, 41, 55, 56, 59, 62, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,
96, 97, 105, 111, 116, 118, 120, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183,
189, 190, 204, 208, 228–238, 247, 250, 262, 294, 306–322
---- Borough Records, 1392, 100
---- Castle, 7, 8, 109, 114, 173, 174, 176, 180, 181, 191, 229–231
---- Charles at, 170, 173
---- Franciscan Friars of, 114
---- General Hospital, 174
---- Parliamentarians occupy, 176
---- premier of the Five Boroughs Confederacy, 7
Nottingham regicides, 191
---- roods, 150–152
---- (St. Nicholas) spire, 292
---- (St. Peter) spire, 37, 289
---- standard raised at, 172, 174
---- tokens, 317, 320, 322
Nunnery, Broadholme, 54, 58
---- Wallingwells, 54
Nuthall screen, 152
Oaks for the navy, Sherwood, 116
---- from Sherwood used for St. Paul’s, 117
Obligatory alms, 59
Observants, Newark, 54
Offa, 241
_Old and New Nottingham_, 208
Oldham, John, 197, 198, 199
Operatives’ libraries, Nottingham, 235
Ordsall Church, 29
---- screen, 152, 153
Orston Church, 16, 194
Oskytel, Archbishop, 242, 243
Ossington, 224
---- preceptory, 54
Over Colwick, 100
Owthorpe, 175
Oxton, pre-Conquest Church at, 19
Page, Colonel, 185
Paintings on Blyth Priory screens, 127–129
Palæolithic Age, 92
---- men, 3
---- remains, 89
Palladianism, 87
Palmer, Ralph, 150
---- Sir Matthew, 172
Papplewick, 60, 63
Parlby, 337
Parliament Oak, Sherwood, 118
---- treators for the, 191
Parliamentarian families, 172
Parliamentarians capture Nottingham Castle, 231
Parliamentary army, weekly assessment of Notts for the, 171
---- Committee of Leicester, 179
Parrott, Samuel, 213
Paulinus, 240
Paumer, Alice le, 236
---- John le, 236
Penda of Mercia, 6
Pennines, 89
“Pentecostals,” 250
Pepper of Morton, Robert, 142
---- Street, Nottingham, 229
_Perfect Occurrences of Both Houses of Parliament_, quoted, 191
Perkins of Bunny, Sir George, 197
Peter Gate, Nottingham, 229
Peverel, William, Governor of Nottingham Castle, 7, 230, 232, 313
---- the younger, William, 107
Philipote, bequest of John, 146
Pickering, E. G., 226
Pierpoint, Henry, 197
Pierrepont, Colonel, 181
---- Francis, 171
---- William, 172
_Piers Plowman, Vision of_, 109
Plantagenet, Geoffrey, 252, 253
Plumfield, 106
Plumtree, 55, 304
---- pre-Conquest Church at, 19, 238
---- tower, 25
Pollok, 206
_Polyolbion_, Drayton’s, 108
Pope, Alexander, 198, 200
Population of England at time of Civil War, 170
---- of Nottingham, 233, 234
Portland, Duke of, 123
Potter’s Hill, 91
Poverty in Nottingham, absence of, 9
Poyntz, Major-General, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191
Prebendary of Normanton, 252
Pre-Conquest churches, 17, 19
Priest, John and James, 335, 338
Prior of Newstead, William the cellarer elected, 61
---- of Thurgarton, 265
Priors, list of Newstead, 68
Priory, Blyth, 54–56, 58
---- Felley, 177
---- Lenton, 54–56, 58, 59, 114, 232, 308
---- Newstead, 54–76, 177
---- of St. Katherine, Gilbertine, 30
---- Worksop, 15, 54, 57
Public-houses called “White Hart,” 119
Pygg, bequest of Thomas, 146
Pym, 169
Pyramid roofs, 273
Quare, Daniel, 324
Queen’s Sconce, 188
Radcliffe, 91
Radcliffe-on-Trent tower, 292
Radford, 163, 234
---- Forest, 117
Ragg, 209, 212
Ragnall, 96
Raine, John, 126, 128, 129
Rainworth, 6
Rastall, 98
Ratcliffe-on-Soar, 49, 51, 300
---- ---- spire, 277, 278
“Rector’s Book” of Clayworth, 133
Red deer, 107
Rædwald of East Anglia, 6
Reform Riots, 231
Regicides of Nottingham, 191
Repton, 241
Retford, 29, 184
---- token, 318, 319
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 201
Rich, Sir Richard, 67
Richard I., 107, 230, 253
---- at Nottingham Castle, 8
---- II., 62
---- at Nottingham, 9
---- III., at Nottingham, 9
Richmond, herring-bone masonry at, 18
Ridding, Bishop of Southwell, Dr., 267
Robert, Prior of Newstead, 61, 63
Robin Hood, 1, 108–110
_Robyn Hode, A Lyttel Geste of_, 109
Roche Church, 34
Roger, Archbishop, 33
Rolleston tower, 52
Rolston, Launcelott, 100
Roman arrival, 4
---- bridge near Cromwell, 102
---- ferry at Littleborough, 238
---- pottery, 102
---- stations, 5
Romano-British period, 4, 5
Romanus, Archbishop, 64
Romeyne, Archbishop John le, 36, 38, 41, 251, 255
Romsey, 24
Roods, screens, and lofts, 124–167
Rooke, Major, 117
“Ropes, The,” Clifton Hill, 101
Rose, Thomas, 163
Ross, F. J., 157
Rossiter, Colonel, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191
Rotherham, Bishop, 142
Royal Society, Francis Willoughby one of the first members of
the, 77
Royalist families, 171, 172
Ruddington, 55
---- spire, 292, 293
Rufford Abbey, 54–56
---- Abbot of, 112
---- ---- Doncaster of, 57, 112
---- Park, 117, 120, 121, 123
---- Sir George Savile of, 121
Runnymede, 8
Rupert, Prince, 177, 183, 185, 187
---- at Queensborough, Prince, 174
---- loses Bristol, Prince, 186
Rushcliffe, hundred of, 270
Russell, Lord John, 209
Rutland, Earl of, 231
Ryemouth family, 286
Sacheverell tombs, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, 51
Saddleback roofs, 273
Sadler Gate, Nottingham, 229
St. Alban’s, Snenton, 51
St. Catherine’s Chapel rood, Nottingham Castle, 150
St. Eadburg, 241, 242, 248
St. Guthlac, 241
St. James’ Church, Standard Hill, 233
St. Katherine, Gilbertine Priory of, 15, 16, 30
St. Mary, Trent Bridge, Chapel of, 236
St. Mary’s Church, Nottingham, 12, 46, 47, 229, 231, 232
---- Hill, 5
---- rood, Nottingham, 150, 151
St. Nicholas’ Church, Nottingham, 51, 182, 231, 232
St. Paulinus, 6
St. Peter’s, Nottingham, Chapel of the Holy Cross in, 151, 152
---- Church, Nottingham, 231, 232
---- ---- spire, 37
Sampson, William, 196, 197
Sancto Egidio, John de, 61
Saundby tower, 52
Saureby, Christopher, 143
Savage, Ralph, 72
Savile, Lord, 123, 174, 178
Savile of Rufford, Sir George, 121
---- Sir John, 172
Sawley spire, 37
Saxon church, East Bridgford, 17
---- times, 6
Scaftworth, 6
Scandinavian influence on sculpture, 26
Scarle (South) screen, 153
Scarrington spire, 292
School, Nottingham Blue Coat, 234
---- ---- High, 234
Scotch wars, 9
Scots at Clipstone, King of the, 8
Scott, Sir Gilbert, 31, 148
Screens, roods, and lofts, 124–167
Scrooby spire, 51, 290
Sculptured arcades, 27
Secular Canons, Southwell, 55
Sedilia at Southwell, 42
Selethryth, 242
Shakespeare’s reference to the Trent, 102, 103
Shambles Oak, Sherwood, 118
Shapwick, 60
Sheep Lane, Nottingham, 229
Shelford, 187
---- Abbey, 100
---- Manor, 177
---- Mint, 308
---- obligatory alms, 59
---- Priory, 54
---- screen, 153
Shenstone, 200, 202
Sherbourne, 186
Sherwood Forest, 2, 6, 8, 9, 56, 60, 63, 100, 106–123, 194, 256,
281
Shilton, R. P., 224
Shipman, Thomas, 197, 198
---- William, 197
---- of Scarrington, William, 197
Ship-money, 169
Shrewsbury, Countess of (“Bess of Hardwick”), 197
Shuttered low side windows, 296–301
Sibthorpe, 55
---- chancel, 41, 42, 43, 44
---- chantry, 48
---- Easter sepulchre, 42, 43
---- founder’s tomb, 49
---- rood, 154
---- Thomas, 43
---- tower, 52
Sidnaceaster, 241
Siege pieces, Newark, 313–315
Simnel at Nottingham, Lambert, 10
Simpson of Southwell, William, 333
Siward, 7
Sketchley, Richard Foster, 222–224
Smith, Edward, 330, 338
---- Sir Thomas, 172
---- Sophia Mary, 214
---- William Frank, 218–219
---- William Powers, 226
Smithson of Bolsover, John, 78, 80, 82
Smithy (Smeemus) Marsh, 101
---- Row, Nottingham, 229, 233
Smythson, Robert, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86
Snart, Charles, 224
Snenton, 228, 234
---- Church, 229
---- Hermitage, 229
Snotingaham, 228
Soane Museum, 78
Soar, banks of the, 271
Sookholme, aisleless chapel, 25
Southampton, Earl of, 174
South, Archdeacon, 67
South Clifton Hill, 93, 101, 104
South Collingham Church, 26, 27, 29
Southey, Robert, 212, 213
Southfield, 106
South Leverton Church, 16, 28–30
South Muskham Church, herring-bone work in, 19
---- ---- tower, 52
---- Scarle Church, 16, 26, 27
---- Sutton Holme, 101
Southwell chantry, 48
---- chapter house, 38, 39, 40, 44
---- Collegiate Church of, 12, 13, 14, 16
---- corbel table of, 26
---- Feast week, 250, 251
---- Minster, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 32–35, 41, 43, 54, 55, 72, 190,
191, 214, 239–269, 273, 331
---- pulpitum, 40, 44, 154–157, 167
---- sedilia at, 42
---- token, 318
---- towers, 25
Spalford, 93, 94, 104
Speech to citizens of Newark, Charles’s, 170
Spigurnel, Gilbert, 114
Spires, steeples, and towers, 270–294
_Spring Gardens Sketch-Book, The_, 136
Stacey of Farnsfield, Thomas, 330, 331
Stamford, 190
Standard Hill, Nottingham, 232
Standfast, Rev. Dr., 234
Stanford-on-Soar, 297
Stanhope, John, keeper of Thorneywood, 120
---- Lord, 187
Stapleford, 36, 63
---- tower, 288
Statham, H. H., 156
Staunton monuments, 50
---- screen, 157
Stephen, 307, 312
---- civil war in reign of, 8
Stocking-frame, invention by Rev. William Lee of the, 10
Stoke, 55, 189
Stoke-by-Newark Church, 16
Stone from Roche Abbey, 290
Stone _pulpitum_, Southwell, 40, 44
Stone quarried at Nottingham, 9
Stoney Street, Nottingham, 229
Strafford, 169
Street, G. E., 156
Strelley screen, 157–159
---- table tomb, 50
Strength of Charles in the north and west, 171
Strength of Parliamentarians in south and east, 171
Stretton, William, 124, 132, 134, 135, 141, 143, 153, 163
Sturton-le-Steeple Church, 16, 27
---- screen, 159
---- tower, 52
Stuteville, John de, 113
Suppression of the monasteries, 16
Surflett, Stephen, 99
Sussex tower, Newstead, 70
Sutton Bonington (St. Michael) steeple, 288
Sutton-cum-Lound with Scrooby Church, 30
Sutton, H. Septimus, 216, 217
Sutton-in-Ashfield, 213, 331, 333
---- Forest, 116
---- steeple, 288
Sutton-on-Trent Church, 336
Sutton-on-Trent screen, 159–162
Sutton, Robert de, 62
---- St. Ann’s, 303
“Swaynmote,” 113
Swinderby, 91
Tamworth Castle, 19
---- herring-bone masonry at, 18
Taxation Roll of 1291, 61
Taylor, Ann, 220
---- Isaac, 212
Thomas of Bayeux, 244, 245, 246
---- of Beverley, 247–251
Thoresby Park, 116, 117, 122
Thorney Park, 120
Thorneywood, 120, 121, 122
Thornhaugh, Colonel, 184
---- of Fenton, Sir Francis, 171, 172
Thoroton, 194, 197
---- Church, 26
---- Robert, 53, 262, 263, 272
---- spire, 37, 285–287
Thorpe, John, 78–86
Throsby, 98
Thurgarton, 12, 101, 177, 184
---- obligatory alms, 59
---- Prior of, 265
---- Priory Church, 31, 33, 34, 54
---- tower, 37
---- William de, 62
Tickhill Castle, 16
---- tower, 52
Tiguocobauc, 228
Timber of Sherwood Forest, 114, 115
Tiovulfingacester, 240
Tokens, 316–322
Tombs and effigies, 49–51
Tompion, 324
Torksey, 93
---- Mint, 308
Towers, steeples, and spires, 270–294
Trades of Nottingham, 9
Trafford, Robert de, 142
Trained bands, 171
Treators for Newark, 191
---- for the Parliament, 191
Trees, inventory of the, 116
Trent, 2, 5, 6, 12, 28, 30, 88–105
---- banks of the, 271
---- Bridge, 96, 182–185, 235–238
---- crossing at Nottingham, 235
---- reaches of the, 194, 195
Trevelyan, G. M., 169
Trollope, E., 165
Truman, Joseph, 215, 216
Tuxford, 13, 55, 63, 184, 271
---- chancel, 47, 48
---- screen, 167
---- spire, 51, 288
---- stone, 289
Tympanum, Everton carved, 25
---- Hoveringham carved, 25
Unwin, Matthew, 225
---- William, 328, 329, 333, 338
Upton, 19
---- tower, 52, 292, 294
Uvedale, Sir William, 174
Vale of Belvoir, 13
Vanes, 293, 294
Venables, Piers, 109
Vescy, Sir William de, 112
Vienne, Hugh de, 61
Vikings, invasions of the, 6
_Vision of Piers Plowman_, 109
Wade of Staythorpe, R., 335, 336
Wainwright of Bunny, Humphrey, 332, 333
Wakefield, Gilbert, 220
Walesby Church, 16
---- tower, 273
Walkelin, Henry, 61
Walkeringham, 60
---- chancel, quarter of repairs charged to Vicar, 15
---- Richard de, 65
_Walks Round Nottingham_, 153
Waller, 198
Wallingwells nunnery, 54
---- obligatory alms, 59
Wapentake of Newark, 14
Wars of the Roses, 9
Wath Bank, 93, 104
Weaver, William, 335, 338
Webb, John, 86
---- W. F., 70
_Weekly Account_, quoted, 184, 185
Weekly assessment of Notts for the Parliamentary army, 171
Weightman, J. G., 129
Welbeck Abbey, 54–57, 59, 117, 177, 184, 186, 187
---- obligatory alms, 59
---- Park, 117, 123
Welby Park, 119
West Bridgeford, 97, 237
West Drayton tower, 52
Western towers, 31
West Leake, 19, 25
---- ---- monuments, 49, 50
West Markham Church, 16
Weston spire, 51, 288
---- William, 334, 338
West Retford spire, 37, 51, 289, 290
Whalley, Edward, 172, 180, 191
Whatton-in-the-Vale, 47, 298
---- ---- steeple, 286
Whatton tombs, 49, 50
Wheeler Gate, Nottingham, 229, 230
White Friars at Nottingham, 232
---- Henry Kirke, 193, 194, 203, 206–208, 216
---- Lodge, 116
---- or Premonstratensian Abbey, Welbeck, 54–57, 59
---- Nunnery, Broadholme, 54, 58
“Whitsun farthings,” 250
Whitworth, R. H., 70, 71
Wickwaine, Archbishop, 64
Wildman, Colonel, 70
Wilfield, 106
Wilford, 173, 303
---- Bridge, 238
---- rood-stair, 163
William I., 311
---- at Nottingham, 7
---- rebuilds Nottingham Castle, 230
---- II., 311
---- III., 336
---- Earl of Mansfield, 121
---- the cellarer, Prior of Newstead, 61
Williamson, Sir Thomas, 172
Willis, Sir Richard, 186, 187
Willoughby, Mistress Anne, 197
---- of Parham, Lord, 179
---- of Risley, Sir Henry, 196, 197
Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, 191
---- chantry, 48
Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, effigies, 49
---- screen, 163
---- spire, 278
Willoughby, Percival, 77, 86
---- Richard, 48, 49
---- Sir Francis, 77, 78, 79, 84, 86
---- Sir T., 172
Will Scarlett, 108
Windows, low side, 295–305
Winkburn tympanum, 163
Winthorpe, 91, 104, 188
Witham, 37
Witton of Norwell, F., 332, 333
Wiverton Hall, 177, 178, 187
Woden, 109
Wollaton arrow vane, 293
---- chantry, 48, 49
---- Church, 78
---- Hall, 77–87
---- Park, 117, 123
---- steeple, 287
---- table tomb, 50
Wolsey, 10
---- at Southwell, 257
Wood, Anthony, 194
Woodborough chancel, 41, 43, 44
---- tower, 52
Woollen trade of Nottingham, 9
Worde, Winken de, 109
Worksop obligatory alms, 59
---- Priory, 15, 28, 34, 42, 54, 57, 77, 110, 111
---- ---- screen, 163–165
---- ---- towers, 25
---- token, 318
Wren, Sir Christopher, 117
Wright, Ichabod Charles, 220
---- John, 226
Wyld, John, 332
Wylleby, Robert de, 62
Wysall screen, 165–167
---- tower, 288, 289, 294
Yates, Simon, 157
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
Edinburgh & London.
[Illustration: SKETCH MAP OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.]
Selections from
George Allen & Co.’s List
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.
_Beautifully Illustrated. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, gilt top.
Price 15s. net each._
=Memorials of Old Oxfordshire.=
Edited by the Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A.
Dedicated to the Right Hon. the Earl of Jersey, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.
“This beautiful book contains an exhaustive history of ‘the
wondrous Oxford,’ to which so many distinguished scholars and
politicians look back with affection. We must refer the reader
to the volume itself ... and only wish that we had space to
quote extracts from its interesting pages.”--_Spectator._
=Memorials of Old Devonshire.=
Edited by F. J. SNELL, M.A. Dedicated to the Right Hon.
Viscount Ebrington.
“A fascinating volume, which will be prized by thoughtful
Devonians wherever they may be found ... richly illustrated,
some rare engravings being represented.”--_North Devon
Journal._
=Memorials of Old Herefordshire.=
Edited by the Rev. COMPTON READE, M.A. Dedicated to Sir
John G. Cotterell, Bart.
“Another of these interesting volumes like the ‘Memorials of
Old Devonshire,’ which we noted a week or two ago, containing
miscellaneous papers on the history, topography, and families
of the county by competent writers, with photographs and other
illustrations.”--_Times._
=Memorials of Old Hertfordshire.=
Edited by PERCY CROSS STANDING. Dedicated to the Right
Hon. the Earl of Clarendon, G.C.B.
“The book, which contains some magnificent illustrations,
will be warmly welcomed by all lovers of our county and its
entertaining history.”--_West Herts and Watford Observer._
=Memorials of Old Hampshire.=
Edited by the Rev. G. E. JEANS, M.A., F.S.A. Dedicated
to His Grace the Duke of Wellington, K.G.
“‘Memorials of the Counties of England’ is worthily carried on
in this interesting and readable volume.”--_Scotsman._
=Memorials of Old Somerset.=
Edited by F. J. SNELL, M.A. Dedicated to the Most Hon.
the Marquis of Bath.
“In these pages, as in a mirror, the whole life of the
county, legendary, romantic, historical, comes into view,
for in truth the book is written with a happy union of
knowledge and enthusiasm--a fine bit of glowing mosaic put
together by fifteen writers into a realistic picture of the
county.”--_Standard._
=Memorials of Old Wiltshire.=
Edited by ALICE DRYDEN.
“The admirable series of County Memorials ... will, it is safe
to say, include no volume of greater interest than that devoted
to Wiltshire.”--_Daily Telegraph._
=Memorials of Old Shropshire.=
Edited by the Rev. THOMAS AUDEN, M.A., F.S.A.
“Quite the best volume which has appeared so far in
a series that has throughout maintained a very high
level.”--_Tribune._
=Memorials of Old Kent.=
Edited by the Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A., and
GEORGE CLINCH, F.G.S. Dedicated to the Right Hon. Lord
Northbourne, F.S.A.
“A very delightful addition to a delightful series. Kent, rich
in honour and tradition as in beauty, is a fruitful subject
of which the various contributors have taken full advantage,
archæology, topography, and gossip being pleasantly combined to
produce a volume both attractive and valuable.”--_Standard._
=Memorials of Old Derbyshire.=
Edited by the Rev. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
Dedicated to His Grace the Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
“A valuable addition to our county history, and will possess
a peculiar fascination for all who devote their attention to
historical, archæological, or antiquarian research, and probably
to a much wider circle.”--_Derbyshire Advertiser._
=Memorials of Old Dorset.=
Edited by the Rev. THOMAS PERKINS, M.A., and the Rev.
HERBERT PENTIN, M.A. Dedicated to the Right Hon. Lord
Eustace Cecil, F.R.G.S.
“The volume, in fine, forms a noteworthy accession to the
valuable series of books in which it appears.”--_Scotsman._
=Memorials of Old Warwickshire.=
Edited by ALICE DRYDEN.
“Worthy of an honoured place on our shelves. It is also one of
the best, if not the best volume in a series of exceptional
interest and usefulness.”--_Birmingham Gazette._
=Memorials of Old Norfolk.=
Edited by the Rev. H. J. DUKINFIELD ASTLEY, M.A.,
Litt.D., F.R.Hist.S. Dedicated to the Right Hon. Viscount Coke,
C.M.G., C.V.O.
“This latest contribution to the history and archæology of
Norfolk deserves a foremost place among local works.... The
tasteful binding, good print, and paper are everything that can
be desired.”--_Eastern Daily Press._
=Memorials of Old Essex.=
Edited by A. CLIFTON KELWAY, F.R.Hist.S. Dedicated to
the Right Hon. the Earl of Warwick.
“Will be one of the most essential volumes in the library
of every man and woman who has an interest in the
county.”--_Southend Telegraph._
=Memorials of Old Suffolk.=
Edited by VINCENT B. REDSTONE, F.R.Hist.S. Dedicated to
the Right Hon. Sir W. Brampton Gurdon.
“Will be found one of the most comprehensive works dealing with
our county.”--_Bury and Norwich Post._
=Memorials of Old London.=
Edited by the Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A.
Dedicated to Sir John Charles Bell, Bart., late Lord Mayor of
London. Two vols. Price =25s.= net.
“They are handsomely produced, and the history of London
as it is unfolded in them is as fascinating as any
romance.”--_Bookman._
=Memorials of Old Lancashire.=
Edited by Lieut.-Colonel FISHWICK, F.S.A., and the
Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A. Two vols. Price
=25s.= net.
“These fascinating volumes, re-picturing a vanished past, will
long afford keen pleasure.”--_Manchester City Press._
=Memorials of Old Middlesex.=
Edited by J. TAVENOR-PERRY.
“Closely packed with well-digested studies of the local
monuments and archæological remains.”--_Scotsman._
=Memorials of Old Yorkshire.=
Edited by T. M. FALLOW, M.A., F.S.A. Dedicated to Sir
George J. Armytage, Bart., F.S.A.
“The book well maintains the high standard so conspicuously
illustrated in the many previous volumes.”--_Bookseller._
=Memorials of Old Staffordshire.=
Edited by the Rev. W. BERESFORD. Dedicated to Right
Rev. the Hon. Augustus Legge, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
“Complete and most useful history of ancient Staffordshire, full
of interest and sound information.”--_Morning Post._
=Memorials of Old Cheshire.=
Edited by the VEN. THE ARCHDEACON OF CHESTER and the
Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A. Dedicated to His
Grace the Duke of Westminster, G.C.V.O.
“The book is packed with information.”--_Pall Mall Gazette._
=Memorials of Old Durham.=
Edited by HENRY R. LEIGHTON, F.R.Hist.S. Dedicated to
the Right Hon. the Earl of Durham, K.G.
“The book is illustrated with excellent photographs and
drawings, and is altogether a worthy addition to a remarkable
series.”--_Pall Mall Gazette._
=Memorials of Old Leicestershire.=
Edited by ALICE DRYDEN.
“Deserves a place in every library, and cannot but prove rich in
antiquarian and historic wealth.”--_Leicester Daily Post._
=Memorials of Old Lincolnshire.=
Edited by E. MANSEL SYMPSON, M.A., M.D. Dedicated to
the Right Hon. Earl Brownlow.
“A valuable addition to a series highly esteemed among
antiquarians.”--_Scotsman._
=Memorials of Old Surrey.=
Edited by the Rev. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
“Extremely well put together, and the writers are
just those who are best qualified to deal with their
subjects.”--_Spectator._
=Memorials of Old Gloucestershire.=
Edited by the Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A.
Dedicated to the Right Hon. Earl Beauchamp.
=Memorials of Old Worcestershire.=
Edited by FRANCIS B. ANDREWS, A.R.I.B.A.
_The following volumes are in preparation_:--
=Memorials of Old Nottinghamshire.=
Edited by EVERARD L. GUILFORD.
=Memorials of North Wales.=
Edited by E. ALFRED JONES.
=Memorials of Old Berkshire.=
Edited by the Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD, M.A., F.S.A.
=Memorials of Old Monmouthshire.=
Edited by Colonel BRADNEY, F.S.A., and J. KYRLE
FLETCHER.
_Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Sussex are out of
print._
=The Counties of England: Their Story and Antiquities.=
Edited by Rev. P. H. DITCHFIELD and other writers. With
150 Illustrations Two Volumes. Demy 8vo, cloth, =21s.= net.
=The Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers of Mediæval England.=
By Rev. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A. With Coloured Frontispiece, 20
Full-page Plates, and 11 Line Drawings. Demy 8vo, cloth, gilt top,
=15s.= net.
The author has long been engaged in collecting the material for
this work, which traces the development of Sanctuary rights in
England from Anglo-Saxon days until their decay in the sixteenth
century.
=In the Rhone Country.=
By ROSE KINGSLEY, Author of “Eversley Gardens and Others.”
With 52 Full-page Illustrations, including 12 in Photogravure. 320
pages, large crown 8vo, cloth, gilt top, =10s. 6d.= net.
Miss Kingsley, who has made France and French literature her
constant study for many years, herein describes an ideal trip
through the country of the “fierce and noble river.” Although
this is not a guide-book, it will be found indispensable to all
who visit the country.
“Infused with the warmth of an intelligent
enthusiasm.”--_Times._
THE BRITISH EMPIRE
The aim of this new series of books is to give the public at home and
in the Colonies an absolutely trustworthy, authentic, and up-to-date
description of British interests, resources, and life throughout the
Empire, which, with its great problems of government, self-defence,
finance, trade, and the representation of the coloured races, forms
a subject of at least as great and live value as any of the subjects
studied at school and university.
_=Large Crown 8vo, Cloth, gilt top, with Map, 6s. net per Vol.=_
=Yesterday and To-Day in Canada.=
By HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
=Modern India.=
By Sir J. D. REES, K.C.I.E., C.V.O. Sometime Additional
Member of the Governor-General of India’s Council.
=South Africa.=
By the Right Hon. JOHN XAVIER MERRIMAN, of Cape Colony.
_Other Volumes in Preparation._
COUNTY CHURCHES
General Editor: REV. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
_=Foolscap 8vo, Cloth, 2s. 6d. per vol. net; each Volume
Illustrated with Half-tone and Line Illustrations=_
A new series of small handy guides to all the old Parish Churches in
each of the Counties of England, written by expert authors. The main
Architectural features are described and reference made to the Fonts,
Pulpits, Screens, Stalls, Benches, Sedilia, Lecterns, Chests, Effigies
in Brass and Stone, and other Monuments. The initial dates of the
Registers, where possible, are also given.
The following volumes are now ready, or in active preparation:--
=Norfolk= (Two Vols., sold separately, 3s. net each).
By J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
=Surrey.= By J. E. MORRIS, B.A.
=Cambridge.= By C. H. EVELYN-WHITE, F.S.A.
=Isle of Wight.= By J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
=Sussex.= By P. M. JOHNSTON, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.A.
_Other Volumes are being arranged._
=Dinanderie: A History and Description of Mediæval Art Work in
Copper, Brass, and Bronze.=
By J. TAVENOR-PERRY. With 1 Photogravure, 48 Full-page Illustrations,
and 71 Drawings in the Text. Crown 4to, Specially Designed Cloth Cover,
=21s.= net.
Dinanderie was the name used to denote the various articles used
for ecclesiastical purposes with which the name of Dinant on the
Meuse was so intimately associated.
No attempt has hitherto been made to describe adequately the art
of the Coppersmith, although our Museums and the Continental
Church Treasuries abound in beautiful examples of the work.
“To many lovers of mediæval art, Mr. Tavenor-Perry’s beautiful
volume will come as a revelation.”--_Standard._
=Old English Gold Plate.=
By E. ALFRED JONES. With numerous Illustrations of existing
specimens from the collections belonging to His Majesty the
King, the Dukes of Devonshire, Newcastle, Norfolk, Portland, and
Rutland, the Marquis of Ormonde, the Earls of Craven, Derby, and
Yarborough, Earl Spencer, Lord Fitzhardinge, Lord Waleran, Mr.
Leopold de Rothschild, the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, &c.
Royal 4to, buckram, gilt top. Price =21s.= net.
“Pictures, descriptions, and introduction make a book that must
rank high in the estimation of students of its subject, and
of the few who are well off enough to be collectors in this
Corinthian field of luxury.”--_Scotsman._
=Longton Hall Porcelain.=
Being further information relating to this interesting fabrique,
by the late WILLIAM BEMROSE, F.S.A., author of “Bow,
Chelsea, and Derby Porcelain.” Illustrated with 27 Coloured Art
Plates, 21 Collotype Plates, and numerous line and half-tone
Illustrations in the text. Bound in handsome “Longton-blue”
cloth cover, suitably designed. Price =42s.= net.
“This magnificent work on the famous Longton Hall ware will be
indispensable to the collector.”--_Bookman._
=Old English Silver and Sheffield Plate, The Values of, from the
Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries.=
By J. W. CALDICOTT. Edited by J. STARKIE
GARDNER, F.S.A. 3000 Selected Auction Sale Records; 1600
Separate Valuations; 660 Articles. Illustrated with 87 Collotype
Plates. 300 pages. Royal 4to, buckram. Price =42s.= net.
“A most comprehensive and abundantly illustrated volume....
Enables even the most inexperienced to form a fair opinion of
the value either of a single article or a collection, while as
a reference and reminder it must prove of great value to an
advanced student.”--_Daily Telegraph._
=Old English Porcelain and its Manufactures, History of.=
With an Artistic, Industrial, and Critical Appreciation of
their Productions. By M. L. SOLON, the well-known
Potter-Artist and Collector. In one handsome volume.
Royal 8vo, well printed in clear type on good paper, and
beautifully illustrated with 20 full-page Coloured Collotype
and Photo-Chromotype Plates and 48 Collotype Plates on Tint.
Artistically bound. Price =52s. 6d.= net.
“Mr. Solon writes not only with the authority of the master
of technique, but likewise with that of the accomplished
artist, whose exquisite creations command the admiration of the
connoisseurs of to-day.”--_Athenæum._
=Manx Crosses; or The Inscribed and Sculptured Monuments of the
Isle of Man, from about the end of the Fifth to the beginning of the
Thirteenth Century.=
By P. M. C. KERMODE, F.S.A.Scot., &c. The illustrations
are from drawings specially prepared by the Author, founded
upon rubbings, and carefully compared with photographs and
with the stones themselves. In one handsome Quarto Volume 11⅛
in. by 8⅝ in., printed on Van Gelder hand-made paper, bound in
full buckram, gilt top, with special design on the side. Price
=21s.= net. The edition is limited to 400 copies.
“We have now a complete account of the subject in this very
handsome volume, which Manx patriotism, assisted by the
appreciation of the public in general, will, we hope, make a
success.”--_Spectator._
=Martha Lady Giffard: Her Life and Letters, 1664–1722. A Sequel to
“The Letters of Dorothy Osborne.”=
Edited by JULIA G. LONGE. With a Preface by JUDGE
PARRY. Containing 24 Full-page Illustrations and
Facsimiles, including Frontispiece in Colour. 384 pages. Demy
8vo, cloth, gilt top, =15s.= net.
“Miss Longe has expended much care and enthusiasm on her task
and her commentaries are ample.”--_Athenæum._
=The Russells of Birmingham in the French Revolution, and in America,
1791 to 1814.=
By S. H. JEYES. With Portraits and other Illustrations. Demy
8vo, cloth, gilt top, =12s. 6d.= net.
These Memoirs are of singular interest to the serious students
of the French Revolution. They are unique of their kind, for
they give pictures of the later period of the Revolution as
seen on the spot by a cultivated English family of strong
liberal views. After being made prisoners of war, the family
was subsequently driven to America, and its experiences of life
under a republic there are well worth perusal.
=Country Cottages and Homes for Small and Large Estates.=
Illustrated in a Series of 53 Designs and Examples of Executed
Works, with Plans Reproduced from the Original Drawings,
including 3 in Colour, and Descriptive Text. By R. A.
BRIGGS, Architect, F.R.I.B.A., Soane Medallist; Author of
“Bungalows and Country Residences.” Demy 4to, cloth, =10s.
6d.= net.
=Venice in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. From the Conquest
of Constantinople to the Accession of Michele Steno, A.D. 1204–1400.=
By F. C. HODGSON, M.A., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge.
With 21 Full-page Illustrations and Plans. 664 pages, Crown 8vo, cloth,
=10s. 6d=. net.
This volume is the result of several years’ research, and is
a continuation of the Author’s previous work entitled “Early
History of Venice.”
=Derbyshire Charters in Public and Private Libraries and Muniment
Rooms.=
Compiled, with Preface and Indexes, for Sir Henry Howe Bemrose, Kt., by
ISAAC HERBERT JEAYES, Assistant Keeper in the Department of
MSS., British Museum. Royal 8vo, cloth, gilt top. Price =42s.= net.
“The book must always prove of high value to investigators in
its own recondite field of research, and would form a suitable
addition to any historical library.”--_Scotsman._
=How to Write the History of a Parish.=
By the Rev. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A. An Outline
Guide to Topographical Records, Manuscripts, and Books. Revised
and Enlarged, Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, =3s. 6d.=
net.
=The Danube with Pen and Pencil.=
By CAPTAIN B. GRANVILLE BAKER, author of “The Walls of
Constantinople.” With 99 Illustrations in Colour, Half-tone, and
Line, from drawings by the Author. Royal 8vo, cloth, =15s.=
“Capt. Granville Baker, who gave us last year a good account
of the historical associations of the Walls of Constantinople,
is an intelligent and lively cicerone, and his drawings are
admirable and numerous.”--_Times._
=Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office of the Cities and Towns of
England and Wales.=
By the late LLEWELLYNN JEWITT, F.S.A. Edited and
completed with large additions by W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE,
M.A. Fully illustrated, 2 vols., crown 4to, buckram, =42s.=
net. Large paper, 2 vols., royal 4to, =63s.= net.
“It is difficult to praise too highly the careful research
and accurate information throughout these two handsome
quartos.”--_Athenæum._
_Completion of the Great Edition of Ruskin_
The whole of Ruskin’s works are now for the first time obtainable in a
complete, Uniform, Annotated, Illustrated, and Indexed Edition. This
has just become possible through the completion of
THE LIFE,
LETTERS, AND WORKS OF
RUSKIN
EDITED BY
E. T. COOK AND ALEXANDER WEDDERBURN
The Final Volume, consisting of a Complete Bibliography and an Index to
the Whole Work, with 100,000 references, is nearly ready. Its inclusion
will make this more than ever the One Reference and Library Edition of
Ruskin’s Works, with about 1800 Illustrations from drawings by Ruskin.
For full particulars of the 38 Volumes, for =£42= the set, or in
Monthly Instalments, see Prospectus.
George Allen & Co. Ltd., Ruskin House
Rathbone Place, London
FOOTNOTES:
[1] York Epis. Reg. Wickwane, f. 79 (Surtees Soc. vol. cxiv. ed. Brown,
p. 290).
[2] York Epis. Reg. Kempe, f. 37 _d_.
[3] Viz., Harworth, Lowdham, East and West Markham, Walesby, and North
Wheatley. These, before they were granted to Westminster, were regarded
as members of the free chapel in Tickhill castle.
[4] The dean and chapter held the churches of Edwinstowe and Orston.
The dean was parson of Mansfield and South Leverton. The chancellor
held the church of Stoke-by-Newark as a prebend; and the churches of
North Clifton, Farndon with Balderton, and South Searle formed separate
prebends.
[5] The churches belonging to this body are mentioned below. The
dean and chapter of York held East Drayton, Laneham, Misterton, and
Sturton-le-Steeple. Bole and Habblesthorpe were prebends in York
minster.
[6] _Memorials of Old Lincolnshire_, 1911, pp. 53–80 (“Saxon
Churches in Lincolnshire”).
[7] The two western responds of the Norman presbytery are _in
situ_.
[8] The arches, however, were probably not turned until some advance
had been made with the nave. The capitals of the eastern piers are much
earlier in character than those of the western.
[9] The aisles were probably set out before the nave arcades were
begun, but the walls were not raised till later.
[10] The best and most refined example of twelfth-century sculpture
in the county is the font at Lenton. This, however, hardly comes
within the scope of architecture; the same thing may be said of the
pre-Conquest coffin-lid at Hickling.
[11] Marnham was appropriated to the Knights Templars, and passed on
their suppression to the Hospitallers.
[12] The church was not appropriated to Peterborough till long after
the thirteenth century. The licence bears date 1499, 20 April (Pat. 14
Hen. vii., pt. 2).
[13] _E.g._ at Sherburn-in-Elmet and Campsall.
[14] It should also be noted that the west front and towers at Ripon
were added at this period to Archbishop Roger’s aisleless nave there.
[15] The same arrangement is found in the eastern bay of each aisle.
[16] At the same time, it may be noted that the elevation of the quire
at Southwell appears to owe something to western, rather than northern
influence.
[17] For reasons determining this date, see _Memorials of Old
Lincolnshire_, pp. 144, 145.
[18] Thomas Dalton, consecrated 1294, 10th Oct. (Stubbs, _Registrum
Sacrum Anglicanum_, 2nd ed., 1897, p. 68).
[19] The corbel-table of carved heads below the parapet should be
noticed. This feature is very usual in the neighbouring county of
Leicester.
[20] He was a Leicestershire man by birth, but was related to William
of Rotherfield, dean of York, and to Archbishop Walter de Gray. He was
a prebendary of York, was beneficed in more than one place in York
diocese, and was master of St. Leonard’s hospital at York.
[21] Licence bears date 1316, 4th Aug. (Pat. 10 Edw. II., pt. 1, m.
31). The actual appropriation, however, did not take place until
1349, by deed of 28th March in that year (York Epis. Reg. Zouche,
ff. 124 _d._, 125). A vicarage was ordained on 24th September
(_ibid._, f. 141).
[22] The north chapel of the chancel was “newly built” by 23rd Oct.
1325. See Pat. 19 Edw. II. pt. 1, m. 20, and _cf._ m. 12. See
_Vict. Hist. Notts._ ii. 150–52, and Dugdale (ed. Caley, &c.) vi.
1369, 1370.
[23] See Pat. 21 Edw. III. pt. 3, m. 10 (20th Nov. 1347). There is much
in common between the window-tracery at Beckingham and that in the
chapel east of the north transept at Southwell.
[24] Licence bears date 1343, 10th July (Pat. 17 Edw. III. pt. 2, m.
31).
[25] A chantry was founded in Heckington church by licence bearing date
1311, 28 April (Pat. 4 Edw. II. pt. 2, m. 17). Rebuilding may have been
begun by that time. The founder was presented to the rectory in 1309–10.
[26] H. B. M’Call, _Richmondshire Churches_, 1910, has dealt at
length with this group of Yorkshire chancels.
[27] Licence bears date 1337, 2nd Sept. (Pat. 11 Edw. III. pt. 3 m. 39).
[28] The account of Newark Church, by T. M. Blagg, F.S.A., in his
valuable handbook to Newark, Hawton, and Holme, contains a plan of the
building, and traces its architectural development very clearly.
[29] This chronology is indicated by internal evidence. It follows a
very usual method of rebuilding, in which the aisles were first built
outside the older nave, and the new nave begun when they were finished.
Thus the old fabric was kept in use as long as possible.
[30] A large number of licences occur on the Edw. III. Pat. Rolls.
Fourteen chantry priests are enumerated in Chantry Certificates, Roll
13 (14–27); fifteen in Roll 37 (48 b-p).
[31] The licence for the foundation of Richard Willoughby’s chantry at
Willoughby bears date 1324, 16 Nov. (Pat. 18 Edw. II. pt. 1, m. 8). See
also Chantry Certificates, Roll 13 (1); 37 (18).
[32] Chantry Certificates, Roll 13 (43 c); 37 (106 a^2). In Roll 13 the
altar is said to be of our Lady and St. Cuthbert. It seems to have been
originally dedicated to our Lady of Grace.
[33] Licence bears date 1476, 24 Oct. (Pat. 16 Edw. IV. pt. 1, m. 6);
Chantry Certificates, Roll 13 (3); 37 (14).
[34] See Blagg, _Guide to Newark_, &c., p. 85, for the evidence.
No licence exists.
[35] Licence bears date 1470, 13 Dec. (Pat. 49 Hen. VI. m. 16); Chantry
Certificates, Roll 13 (50); 37 (3).
[36] Licences of 1351, 6 Nov. (Pat. 25 Edw. III. pt. 3, m. 16) and
1356–57, 8 Feb. (Pat. 31 Edw. III. pt. 1, m. 25); Chantry Certificates,
Roll 13 (36, 37); 37 (71 a, b). See also Dugdale, vi. 1370.
[37] For the chantry here, see Chantry Certificates, Roll 13 (4), 37
(25).
[38] “The master of the infirmary ought to have mass celebrated daily
for the sick, either by himself or by some other person, should they
in any wise be able to come into the chapel; but if not he ought to
take his stool and missal and reverently at their bedsides make the
memorials of the day, of the Holy Spirit, and of Our Lady; and if they
cannot sing the canonical hours for themselves, he ought to sing them
for them, and frequently in the spirit of gentleness repeat to them
words of consolation, of patience, and of hope in God; read to them,
for their consolation, lives of Saints; conceal from them all evil
rumours; and in no wise distress them when they are resting” (Willis
Clark, _Customs of the Augustinian Canons_, 205).
[39] _Narratives of the Reformation_, p. 35. (Camden Society.)
[40] These notes as to the haunting of the priory are taken from Mr.
Whitworth’s memoranda.
[41] There seems to be no doubt that the relief of the county, except
for the deep Vale of Trent, was then similar to what it is now, but it
has been considerably lowered by denudation.
[42] Upon the wall of a house in Girton village there is the following
record by G. Porter:--
Slit painted
. black.
^ +--------------------------+ .
| | |.
. | FEB. 14, 1795 .|
. +--------------------------+.......3 ft. above
. ^ | | level of
1 ft. 4 ins. | OCT. 24, 1875 | street.
. ^ v +--------------------------+
. | | |
. . | |
. 8½ ins. | |
. . | |
| | | NOV. 20, 1852 |
v v +--------------------------+
| |
| _When this you see |
| Pray think of me._ |
| G. P. |
+--------------------------+
[43] From account in a local journal, 1875.
[44] _The Nottingham Evening Post_, December 5, 1910.
[45] For further details on the above subject see articles by the
author in the _Geographical Journal_ for May 1910, and the
_Transactions of the Thoroton Society_ for 1910, from which the
above article has been largely compiled. Other references may be found
in the publications of the Geological Survey, in Wake’s _History of
Collingham_, Brown’s _History of Newark_, Rastall’s (Dickinson)
_History of the Antiquities of Newark_, Padley’s _Fens and
Floods of Mid-Lincolnshire_, _The Victoria County History of
Nottingham_, _The Nottingham Borough Records_, &c., &c.
[46] Cox’s _Royal Forests of England_, pp. 219–20.
[47] The inns and public-houses of Nottinghamshire of to-day reflect
in a remarkable manner its former close connection with the forest
and the chase, especially throughout the Sherwood Forest half of the
county. There are three Red Harts (one of them absurdly corrupted into
Red Heart), eleven White Harts, one White Hind, one Stag, two Horse
and Stag, and two Horse and Pheasant. As to hounds, there are nine
Greyhounds, three Talbots, and eight Foxhounds. The monarch trees of
Sherwood Forest are commemorated in two Greendale Oaks, a Major Oak,
a Parliament Oak, and twenty-two Royal Oaks. There are three Forest
Taverns, one Forest Grove, a Foresters’ Arms, and two Royal Foresters.
It is also worth while to note that there are twelve Robin Hoods, and
two Robin Hood and Little Johns.
[48] Cox, _English Monasteries_, pp. 78–79.
[49] Between 1684 and 1689, Edward Mellish, proprietor of the
confiscated estate of the Priory, built himself a pew in the north
aisle, “cutting pier and capital and window in the most wanton manner,
taking up one entire arch of the nave with his steps,” and “projecting
his pew far in advance into the nave through another arch.” There is
now no sign of this pew, but it would seem to have been identical with
the “private gallery” referred to by Raine in 1860.
[50] Probably Rowland Hacker.
[51] On August 2 Welbeck had surrendered to the Earl of Manchester, who
was marching south after the victory at Marston Moor.
[52] As Sidnaceaster was annexed by Offa to the short-lived Lichfield
Archbishopric (787–803), the whole of Nottinghamshire must have
belonged to that province during these years; but as under Ceolwulf the
condition of affairs before 787 was restored, this does not affect the
question.
[53] _A.S. Chron._ (ed. Earle and Plummer, p. 68).
[54] See _Thomas of York_, an essay by W. E. Hodgson.
[55] Vide _Trans. of Thoroton Society_, vol. i. (1897), p. 44, and
_The Church Times_ (Jan. 11, 1900), p. 51.
[56] In my essay on Thomas II. of York, I have tried to outline the
reasons which would induce Edgar to confirm the gift of his brother,
and also the reasons the King would have for making the gift as
valuable as possible in the eyes of the Archbishop (pp. 13, 14).
[57] The part of the charter which defines the boundaries of the land
is written in Anglo-Saxon, and is obscure.
[58] Southwell was all one parish up to about sixty years ago.
[59] _Alcuin of York_, p. 82, _note_.
[60] Leach, _Memorials of Southwell Minster_, Introd. p. xxii.
[61] _Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops_:
Edited by Canon Raine (Rolls Series), vol. ii. p. 353.
[62] _England under the Normans and Angevins_: H. W. C. Davis, p.
190.
[63] William of Newburgh, _Historia Rerum Anglicanum_, book ii.
chap. 3. (In Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I. Rolls
Series.)
[64] The Visitation Charge of the Archdeacon of Nottingham, delivered
at Southwell in May 1909.
[65] Mr. Francis Bond’s opinion, quoted in _Life of Thomas II._,
by W. E. Hodgson, p. 86.
[66] _Ibid._, p. 87.
[67] Roger de Hoveden (_sub anno_ 1189).
[68] _Ibid._ (_sub anno_ 1190).
[69] Roger de Hoveden (_sub anno_ 1194).
[70] Quoted from the Rev. A. Dimock’s _Guide to Southwell
Cathedral_, p. 91.
[71] Cavendish, _Life of Wolsey_ (Temple Classics, p. 181).
[72] _Memorials of Southwell Minster_, Introduction, p. lxviii.
[73] Dimock, _Guide to Southwell Cathedral_, p. 115.
[74] Dimock, _ibid._, p. 115.
[75] Livett, _An Account of the Cathedral Church of Southwell_, p.
33.
[76] Livett, _ibid._: Quotation from State Papers, 1604, Add. Ch.
15,241 Brit. Mus.
[77] The important MSS. in the Library, besides the White Book, consist
of Chapter Decree Books, which start about the middle of the fifteenth
century, and with some considerable number of years omitted, go down to
1840. There is also a book of leases and other documents.
[78] Quoted by Mr. Dimock, _op. cit._ p. 129.
[79] Dimock, _op. cit._ p. 124.
[80] “South Prospect of Nottingham, taken from Wilford Pasture beyond
the Trent,” by Thomas Sandby, R.A., 1721–1798. Nottingham Castle Art
Museum, Gallery F.
[81] “Be it had in mynd that the Towne of Maunsfeld Wodhouse was
burned, the Saturdaye nexte afore the Fest of Exaltation of the
holy Crosse, the yere of our Lord MCCCIIII., and the Kirke Stepull
with the Bells of the same, _for the Stepull was afore of Tymber
werke_: and part of the Kyrk was burned” (Thoroton, _Antiquities
of Nottinghamshire_, p. 273).
[82] The church was destroyed by fire on 2nd July 1706.
[83] The Anglo-Saxon verb “getimbrade” (made of wood), became so
familiar in the vernacular, that we find in documents the expression
“to getimbrian a church of stone”--_i.e._, literally to make of
wood a stone church. Nor was this altogether a misnomer, for the motif
of the carpenter was adopted in the earlier attempts at masoncraft.
[84] The fine illustrations of Newark and Bingham are reproduced by
permission of B. T. Batsford from Francis Bond’s _Gothic Architecture
in England_.
[85] Whatton and Normanton-on-Soar are the only central steeples in the
county. The remainder are all at the west end.
[86] The spire is shown with crockets in early pictures of Nottingham
down to 1845, when for the first time it is represented as it now
stands plus the pinnacles, portions of which lie in the churchyard at
the base of the tower.
[87] An example can still be seen at Scarning church, Norfolk.
[88] “And he sall make a windowe on the same side, of two lightes, and
a botras accordaunt thereto on the same side. And the forsaide Richarde
sall make then a quere dore on wheder side of the botras that it will
best be, and a windowe of two lightes anense the deskes.”--_Endenture
Ecclesie de Catrik_ (Yorks), A.D. 1412.
[89] Tompion and Graham lie in Westminster Abbey as the fathers of
English clockmaking, while Knibb was clockmaker to William III., and
Quare was the inventor, among other things, of the repeating watch.
[90] In the case of the late Mr. Harston, the organ builder, this
process was reversed. Being apprenticed to a clock and organ maker, he
left the clock trade for that of the piano and organ, and founded the
business so successfully carried on at present by his son.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
3. Italics are shown as _xxx_.
4. Bold print is shown as =xxx=.
5. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r.
or X^{xx}.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MEMORIALS OF OLD NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
