Part 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHESHIRE CASTLES

By the Archdeacon of Chester

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

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

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