Chapter III: Preface (3)

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.

(_Now destroyed._) ]

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

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

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

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

“Thoro the pas of Haulton
Poverte might pass whith oute peril of robbinge.”

[4] From Hanshall’s _Cheshire_.

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

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

(_Now pulled down._) ]

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

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

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

THE TIMBER-FRAMED CHURCHES OF CHESHIRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WALLS AND ROWS OF CHESTER

By the Archdeacon of Chester

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

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

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

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

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