Chapter VIII: Preface (8)

“This speedy transmission of intelligence did not save the situation. Although preparations were made early in the day for a sally, and the citizens were busy clearing out the dung that barred up the gate which led to the suburbs, such delays were made by some about the King, that no orders were sent, nor any sally made out of the city by the King’s party till past three o’clock in the afternoon, which was full six hours after Poyntz had been beaten back. Through some misunderstanding Lord Gerard ordered Langdale to draw nearer Chester, where some foot would be ready to support him. This was impracticable, as Sir Marmaduke would then have been open to attack in rear as well as in front. For Poyntz had now had time to rally his forces, and, in obedience to his message, was reinforced about noon by 500 horse and 300 foot under Col. Jones, the Adjutant General, drawn hurriedly from the force besieging Chester. This hasty march of the Parliamentarians was mistaken for flight, and a considerable portion of the garrison with Lord Gerard and Lord Lichfield were ordered to pursue, passing through the North Gate round by Flookersbrook, as the direct way by the East Gate had been blocked up. Before they could learn their mistake Poyntz fell upon Langdale, who was thus compelled to meet his assault in front, as well as Col. Jones’ attack in rear, and notwithstanding a gallant resistance he was routed, and forced to retire in the direction of Hoole Heath. Here the Royalist horse became disordered, and the narrow lanes and passes between there and Chester so crowded, that they were unable to make an effectual stand, and, in fact, threw their supporters under Lord Gerard into immediate confusion. Some made for Holt Bridge, others crossed the river at Dee-fords, and so into the city; but Poyntz, satisfied with his success, made no attempt to pursue them. No less than 600 men fell in this battle, amongst them several of high rank and distinction: more than 800 prisoners were taken. Amongst the slain was Bertie Stuart, the young Earl of Lichfield. The King, attended by the Mayor, Sir Francis Gamul, and Alderman Cowper, had the unhappiness of watching this disaster, first from the Phœnix Tower, and afterwards from the Cathedral Tower, where, as he was talking with a captain, a bullet from St. John’s gave him a salute, narrowly missing the King, hit the said captain on the head, and killed him on the spot. Owing to this disaster, it was not thought advisable that the King should remain in Chester. Before his departure he called the Mayor and leading citizens together, and desired them, if he was unable to send them the aid he expected within eight or ten days, to make the best terms of surrender they could. Instead of pursuing his route to Scotland, he returned into Wales, passing over Dee Bridge between nine and ten in the morning, accompanied by Sir F. Gamul, Capt. Thorpe, and Alderman Cowper. After staying three hours at Hawarden Castle, he reached Denbigh Castle the same night.”

FROM SLINGSBY’S DIARY.

“By ye wayes we took through ye almost inaccessible mountains of Wales, y^t we heard no more of Poyntz, nor did he trouble us much till we got to Chester; and though he troubled us not, yet found we both loss and trouble in our passage: loss in our horses, many of y^m tireing so, y^t ye Troopers were fain to forsake y^m. In our Quarters we had little accommodation, but of all ye places we came to ye best at Old Radnor, where ye King lay in a poor low chamber, and my Lord of Linsey and others by ye Kitching fire on hay: no better were we accommodated for victuals: which makes me remember this passage; while ye King was at his supper eating a pullet and a piece of cheese, ye room without was full but ye men’s stomachs empty for want of meat. Ye good wife troubled w^{th} continual calling upon her for victuals, and having it seems but ye one cheese, comes into ye room where ye King was, and very soberly asks if ye King had done with ye cheese for ye gentlemen w^{th}out desired it. But ye best was we never tarried long in any place, & therefore might we more willingly endure one night’s hardship in hopes that ye next might be better. And thus we continued our march until we came to Chester, when we found my Lord Byron in command in ye town & ye enemy in ye suburbs, and so close y^t it was some hazard to ye King to pass ye bridge. Now, our horse quartered about 3 miles off, except only ye King’s life-guard and my Lord Garrard’s (Charles Gerard, created L^d Gerard Nov. 8 this year) horse, both w^h were drawn into ye town, & preparations made ye next day to have a sally, but while they were busy to carry out ye dung that barricaded up ye gate y^t led to ye suburbs a messenger came y^t brought ye King’s word y^t Poyntz had engaged Sir Marmaduke Langdale to fight, & a little after we heard y^t we had taken some colours of ye enemy’s, but y^t ye King must send supplys, by reason y^t ye enemy increased by that assistance they had from neighbouring garrisons which flocked to them. Whereupon ye King sent forth both Lord Lichfield and Lord Gerard with those that were in ye town, but before they could joyne our horse were beaten, and in ye view of ye town & of ye King, who at ye very same time was in one of ye towers of ye Walls, looking over to see our men & theirs in ye suburbs exchanging some bullets one with another. We took it first for ye enemy till some came wounded & brought in ye sad news y^t our horse was routed, many taken, and my Lord Lichfield slain.

“Here I do wonder at ye admirable temper of ye King, whose constancy was such y^t no perils never so unavoidable could move him to astonishment, but y^t still he set ye same face & settled countenance upon what adverse fortune soever befell him, & neither was exalted in prosperity nor dejected in adversity; w^h was ye more admirable in him, seeing he had no other to have recourse unto for counsel & assistance, but must bear ye whole burden upon his shoulder. By this accident I never found him moved at all, though the loss was so much & greater by my Lord of Lichfield’s death, his kinsman, & whom he loved so dearly. But this makes him look nearer for his own safety, & therefore gives order for his march ye next day with those horse y^t came safe to ye town; which he left without all hopes of relief to make conditions for themselves for the town if they durst attempt no more. We marched over ye bridge in ye day, having set up some blinds if they might not take notice so easily when ye King passed over, & except one horse that was killed, I think no others took any harm. From hence we marched on to Denbigh Castle, and after that to Ruthin, till at last by unknown ways and passages, with many dark & late marches, we arrived at ye garrison of Newark about ye 14^{th} of October.”

The above contemporary accounts will enable us to realise both the gravity of the situation in the city, and the difficulties which beset the Royalist troops in their journeys through the country.

CHESHIRE AND ITS FAMILIES

By James Hall

_Author of “A History of Nantwich,” “The Civil War in Cheshire,” &c._

Cheshire, in regard to its shape, has been said to resemble a bird’s wing, an axe-head, and a shoulder of mutton. The late Colonel Egerton Legh humorously compared it to a chicken with its head in Featherbed Moss, Macclesfield in its crop, and the tail formed by Wirral. Perhaps more seriously, but no less fancifully, it may be likened to a broad, ear-topped shield of the College of Arms type, divided palewise by a central line of hills, of which the isolated rocks of Halton and Beeston occupy respectively the chief point and the fesse point of the shield.

From the summit of Beeston Castle, or, better still, from the more elevated escarpment of the adjacent Peckforton Hill, marked on the survey map _Stanner Nab_--a name little altered from its original Saxon, _Stan-es Nebb_, literally “front of stone,” or stone head, and now commonly called _Tanner’s Nob_--nearly the whole county is spread out in fine panorama of plain; the view extending from the Wirral coast to the high moorlands of Macclesfield, a distance of about fifty miles; and from the Mersey to the Shropshire border, a little over thirty miles. A like distant and picturesque horizon is obtainable from eminences such as Alderley Edge, Cloud End, and Mow Cop on the east; Frodsham Hill, Helsby Tor, and Halton Castle on the north; Carden Cliff, Harthill, and Belvidere in Wirswall on the south border. From gentle uplands, the more circumscribed landscape presents the effect of a tree-covered plain, owing to the great quantity of hedgerow timber, chiefly oak, and the smallness of the fields. This illusion is perfect when the view is taken from the cupola on the roof of Doddington Hall; but in reality the county is almost destitute of woods, excepting spinnies, often hidden in dingles, and the rather modern plantations on the central hills. There are, however, extensive parks at Dunham, Tatton, Tabley, Arley, Lyme, Peover, Somerford, Oulton, Vale Royal, Eaton, Cholmondeley, Combermere, Doddington, and Crewe; although some mentioned in history have been disparked, as at Kermincham and Norbury Booths.

Cheshire is a county of large estates, many of which have descended by a long ancestry to the present owners. The greatest estates occur in the purely agricultural and sparsely populated districts of the south. In order of their extent comes first the Peckforton estate, 25,380 acres (Lord Tollemache); next Cholmondeley, 16,842 acres (the Marquis of Cholmondeley); then Eaton, 15,001 acres (the Duke of Westminster); Doddington, 13,832 acres (Sir Delves L. Broughton, Bart.); and Crewe, 10,148 acres (Earl Crewe); but this last estate does not include the railway town of that name. Other large landowners[47] (most of whose names are historic in the county, and whose estates vary between 5000 and 10,000 acres) are--

The Lords--Egerton of Tatton, Harrington, Stamford, Derby, Haddington, De Tabley, Delamere, Stanley of Alderley (Sheffield), Kilmorrey, Shrewsbury, and Combermere. Also Sir Philip Grey-Egerton, Mr. Legh [now Lord Newton] of Lyme, Mr. Legh of Adlington, Mr. Egerton-Warburton of Arley, Sir W. G. Shakerley, Mr. Bromley Davenport, and Colonel France Hayhurst.

[47] This list of names is taken from the published returns to the House of Commons of the “Owners of Land” throughout the United Kingdom, commonly called the _Modern Domesday Book_, of 1873.

These twenty-three gentlemen own collectively 203,533 acres, or a little over one-third of the whole county; but, according to the same authority, 2840 persons own lands varying from 10 to 1000 acres, also 3166 persons have holdings between one acre and ten acres, while 17,691 persons possess lands less than one acre in extent. The Crown lands amount to 3581 acres, and the commons or waste lands to 6704 acres, so that the total number of owners in Cheshire is 23,720, the total area of the county being 608,922 acres, or rather less than 1000 square miles.

Some houses of the gentry have from ancient times stood on the margin of a natural mere, as at Tatton, Tabley, Mere, Rostherne, Arley, Combermere, and Marbury; or beside an artificial pool, as at Crewe and Doddington. But Bagmere, which once reflected the stately mansion of the Breretons, has been drained, and Ridley Pool has long been “sown and mown,” in fulfilment, as credulous people have believed, of Nixon’s prophecy. Barmere is one of the few meres that have not been honoured by a gentleman’s seat.

Of modern mansions, both the magnificent palace at Eaton and the castle at Cholmondeley stand near ornamental sheets of water; while Peckforton Castle, perhaps the most remarkable house in all England, being built in close imitation of a Norman castle, is perched on a rocky eminence like an eyrie.

In no part of Cheshire are so many gentlemen’s seats clustered together as within a radius of a few miles around the old-fashioned town of Knutsford. They are as follows:--

_Dunham Hall_, or Dunham Massey, as it was named in ancient times, when it was held as a feudal barony by the Massey family until the death of Hamon, about the year 1340, stands in what is known as the Old Park, which is walled round for the protection of about a hundred head of deer. The so-called New Park, nearly three miles in circumference, also contains aged oaks and beeches, and is divided from the other park merely by the road leading from Bowdon to Dunham village. From the Masseys the estate descended to the notable family of Booth. At the old mansion lived Sir John Booth, who was slain at Flodden Field; Sir George Booth, created Baron Delamere in 1661 in honour of his staunch royalist services to Charles I.; and his son Henry, second lord, who, after having been three times unjustly imprisoned in the Tower, was in 1686 tried for high treason by his peers and acquitted.

_High Leigh._--Here two important mansions stood in close proximity, namely, East Hall and West Hall. The latter, or what remains of it, was changed into a farmhouse nearly a century ago. The former, rebuilt towards the end of the eighteenth century as a brick mansion, is still the residence of the Legh family, which has been seated there since the time of Edward I. In the reign of Henry VII. there was much litigation between the Leghs of the two halls.

_Rostherne Hall_, long the residence of the Masseys of Coddington, and now the property of Lord Egerton, stands on the border of a broad mere, as much famed for its curious legends as for the natural beauty of its surroundings.

_Ashley Hall_, where, in 1715, ten Cheshire gentlemen, namely, Thomas Assheton, the resident proprietor; Sir Richard Grosvenor, of Eaton; James, Earl Barrymore, of Marbury; Charles Hurleston, of Newton; Amos Meredith, of Henbury; Alexander Radclyff, of Fox Denton in Lancashire, but born at Wythenshawe in Cheshire in 1677; Robert Cholmondeley, of Holford; John Warren, of Poynton; Henry Legh, of Legh; and Peter Legh, of Lyme; met to discuss the propriety of espousing the cause of the Old Pretender, the Chevalier St. George, the decision arrived at being in the negative by the casting vote of the owner of Ashley.

_Tatton Hall_, anciently the seat of the knightly family of Massey, from the time of Edward I. to the time of Henry VI., descended in the time of Charles II. to the Egerton family, and is now owned by Lord Egerton. The present mansion, designed by the two Wyatts, has for its chief external feature a portico of columns 25 feet high, and stands in the centre of a park nearly 12 miles in circumference. The old hall, half a mile away, is situate on low, sheltered ground at the north end of the lake.

_Mere Hall._--The old hall, long the residence of the ancient family of Mere, stood nearer the village, but only a portion of it now remains, used as a farmhouse. This estate has been in the possession of the Brooke family since 1652. Mr. Peter Langford Brooke, who, in 1834, built the present brick mansion overlooking the mere, had the misfortune to be drowned while skating on the mere on 9th January 1840, his wife witnessing the sad occurrence.

_Arley Hall_, the seat of the Warburton family for several centuries, was demolished in 1833, and the present handsome structure, with its chapel designed by Salvin (who was also the architect of Peckforton Castle), was not completed until 1845. Over the stone porch doorway is carved the following rhyme by the squire of the hall:--

“This Gate is free to all Good Men and True,
Right Welcome thou, if worthy to pass through.”

_Marbury Hall_,[48] possessed by the Marbury family for many generations until the death of Richard Marbury in 1684. Since the eighteenth century it has belonged to the family of Barry. The present mansion, overlooking Budworth Mere, was built by the architect, Mr. A. Salvin, in the French château style.

[48] On the southern border of the county is another _Marbury Hall_, late the residence of Cudworth H. Poole, Esq., beautifully situated on a hill that commands the view of two meres and a picturesque church and village of the same name.

_Tabley Hall_, which resembles Tatton in architecture, was completed in the year 1769. The old hall, now in a ruinous condition, and in danger of becoming a tumbled heap by its thick mantling of ivy, together with a detached brick chapel dated 1675, stand on an island in the circling mere. This was the home of Sir Peter Leycester, the representative of a long lineage, and the first great historian of Cheshire families, who was buried at Budworth in 1678.

The above-mentioned halls lie on the northern and western sides of Knutsford; two others are on the south side of that town, namely:--

_Toft Hall_, another seat of the Leycester family for many generations, and remarkable now for its fine avenue of elms in triple rows. Ralph Leycester, who died in 1777, owned this estate for no fewer than 70 years.

_Peover Hall_ is associated with the Mainwarings from Plantagenet times, whose surname, according to the antiquary Dugdale, had undergone 131 variations of spellings in old deeds. Sir Henry Mainwaring, who died unmarried on 6th April 1797, was the last direct descendant. By his will the estate came to his uterine half-brother, Thomas Wettenhall, of Nantwich, who took the name and arms of Mainwaring, and, dying the following year, on 12th July 1798, thus became the ancestor of the present line of baronets of Peover.

Farther away from Knutsford, on the borders of Delamere Forest, stand three notable houses; namely, _Delamere House_, designed by Wyatt, and owned by Mr. Wilbraham, who is the direct descendant of the ancient family of Wilbraham of Woodhey in the south part of the county; _Vale Royal_, the seat of the present Lord Delamere, that estate having been purchased in 1615 by the noble lady, Mary Cholmondeley, widow of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, and known in history as “the bold lady of Cheshire,” who entertained King James I. on his progress through the county in 1617; and _Utkinton Hall_, now a farmhouse with some remains of its former importance, which in the same year, 1617, was the residence of the forester, Sir John Done, who had married Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Wilbraham of Woodhey, whose manners and character were “so amiable that to this day” (as Thomas Pennant says in 1782), “when a Cheshire man would express some excellency in one of the fair sex, he would say, ‘There is a Lady Done for you!’”

Very fine specimens of ancient timber houses are at Bramhall, Little Moreton, Adlington; and the hall at Baguley, perhaps the oldest building of its kind in the county, has massive oak beams, still in good condition, proving the durability of that material for building construction. Of stone and brick mansions, Brereton is the best example of Tudor architecture; Dorfold and Crewe of the seventeenth century renaissance; Oulton, Lyme, and Doddington of the later palladian style.

Other halls constructed wholly or in part of timber, and once occupied by the yeomen class--the charterers or freeholders named on old manor court-rolls--whose estates have been swallowed up in the larger properties, were usually defended by deeply-dug, rectangular moats, indicative of an unsettled and dangerous state of life in former times. At Huxley Old Hall, at Harden, at Moreton, and elsewhere, moats and drawbridges still exist; but some moated enclosures have been turned into orchards, and a farmhouse has been built outside, as at Mickley in Wrenbury parish, and at Stapeley in Wybunbury parish.

Formerly Cheshire people frequently married with neighbouring families of like station in life, according to their common proverb, “It is better to marry over the mixen than over the moor;” and even yet there is a saying: “If you are going into Cheshire, remember they are all cousins.”

The long-established peasant families must not be passed over in silence. Suspicious of strangers, they understand “the law of the land” very differently from the inhabitants of crowded cities and manufacturing towns. Country people still speak with confidence and respect of “our squire,” just as the landlords talk of “our people”; although it must be admitted that the mutual social influences of old English life are now fast waning. A former manifestation of goodwill and good understanding among the tenantry of a large estate may here be mentioned. On the death of the Rev. Sir Thomas Broughton, Bart., in July 1813, the coffin containing his remains was borne to burial on the shoulders of relays of farmers by road from Doddington Hall to Broughton Church, a distance of no less than twelve miles!

The numerous townships into which Cheshire is divided are almost entirely rural in their situation; and in few parts of the county, Wirral being the chief exception, are the dwellings sufficiently near each other to constitute what is generally known as a village. I have heard a countryman express this peculiarity in these words: “The common people live in the lanes, but the quality (that is, the well-to-do farmers) live up in the fields.”

With regard to Cheshire families in the dim past, Camden the antiquary of the sixteenth century wrote:[49] “Cheshire is the great nursing-mother of the gentry; for there is no other English county that formerly supplied the King’s army with more nobility, or that could number more knightly families.”

[49] The original words in the _Britannia_ read: “Cestria eximia nobilitatis altrix; nec enim alia est in Anglia provincia, quæ plures nobiles in aciem eduxerit, et plures equestres familias numerarit.”

Contemporary with Camden, John Speed, the historian, a native of the county, calls Cheshire the “seed-plot of gentility.” In proof of this, we refer to the statement already made in the historical introduction to this volume, that William the Conqueror constituted Cheshire a county palatine, bestowing the earldom on his nephew, Hugh Lupus, whose title, Earl of Chester, has belonged, since the time of Edward I., by hereditary right to the heir-apparent of the English Crown. Cheshire, like Normandy in France, thus became an _imperium in imperio_, with the Earl as titular sovereign and courts of justice, administered by a Constable, Seneschall, Chamberlain, Justices, Barons of Exchequer, Sheriff, Attorney, Escheator, &c. So constituted, the county preserved its independent existence until the time of Henry VIII., when it became subject to the Crown; and in the next reign the county sent its first representatives to the national Parliament at Westminster. The first Earl held a large part of the earldom in his own hands; and portioned out the rest of the land among military men, whom he created barons, or tenants _in capite_; and their hereditary honorary services for their fees were due to him and his successors. In course of time these fees became a civil establishment rather than a military plan, and the services began to be compounded. Agricultural and other services grew out of the sub-infeudations of the chief tenants; and eventually, by a statute, 12 Chas. II., local baronies and manors became little more than nominal institutions, and as such they continue to be.

It is said the Grosvenors are descended from Gilbert le Grosvenor, who came over from Normandy with Hugh Lupus, his uncle; the Mainwarings from Earl Randle; and the Egertons and Cholmondeleys from the Norman Barons of Malpas. The ancient, but now extinct, families of Merbury, Hatton, Rutter, Birkenhead, Vernon, Leftwich, and Fitton, each bore three _garbs or_ (three golden wheatsheaves) on their shields, an honourable charge claimed to have been assigned them by the sixth Earl, Randle Blundeville, who bore the same device. In modern times the _garb or_ occurs on the arms of Wicksted, Cholmondeley, and Grosvenor; and, in the last named, since the time of Richard II., when Sir Robert Grosvenor contended with the proud Sir Richard Scrope of Yorkshire in the long heraldic suit (1386-1389) as to the right to bear _Azure a bend or_, with the result that Sir Robert should bear a golden sheaf instead of a golden band, as descended from the Earls of Chester.

In the ancient days of chivalry the military aristocracy promoted peace and order within the county, and defended it against raids from beyond the Welsh Marshes. Cheshire archers became famous; and, led by their own knights, gained renown in the wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

If military achievement be claimed in justification of the proverb--“Cheshire, chief of men”--quoted by Drayton, it must be remembered there was a rival in the field. The “Men of Kent,” who boldly said to William the Conqueror--

“We are ready to offer thee either Peace or War at thy own
choice and election--Peace with faithful obedience, if thou wilt
permit us to enjoy our liberties; War, and that most deadly, if
thou deny it”--

have a prior claim for daring manhood. But while Grose, the antiquary, insinuated that the proverb was given to our noble selves _by_ our noble selves, it may, after all, have had no more serious signification than that Cheshire men always boasted of their isolation from other English people.

Truly the warrior-roll forms a long list of brave and hardy men, from Roger Lacy, the Constable of Cheshire in 1200, that magnanimous champion of war in both France and Wales, down to Field-Marshal Combermere of Salamanca and Bhurtpore fame; but memorials abound of heroic endeavour in the arts of peace, in law and letters, as well as in the field.

Of famous lawyers were Lord Chancellor Egerton and Sir Ranulph Crewe, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the seventeenth century. In the following century were Randle Wilbraham, ancestor of the Wilbrahams of Rode, and of Lathom House (now Lord Skelmersdale) in Lancashire; Sir John Chesshyre, who founded in 1733 a library at Halton, and was buried at Runcorn in 1738 with this epitaph:--

“An honest man’s the noblest work of God”:

and Richard P. Arden, born at Stockport in 1745, who became Lord Chief Justice, Baron Alvanley, and died in 1804.

Of talented men of letters were Dr. Broome, the poet, born at Haslington in 1689; and in our own time Lord de Tabley, eminent as poet, botanist, and author of the first work on the subject of book-plates; Sir Philip Egerton, the learned geologist and mineralogist; the Rev. A. P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster; and other worthies whose names are enshrined in the volumes of the _National Biographical Dictionary_.

Of benefactors of their fellow-men were James Neild, born at Knutsford in 1774, the philanthropic prison-visitor; the Duke of Bridgewater, pioneer of canal construction; George Wilbraham, Esq., of Delamere House, who died in 1813, and was one of the first to introduce an improved system of agriculture into the county; the first Lord Tollemache, who in his lifetime was everywhere spoken of as Cheshire’s model landlord; and many others who, holding positions of trust for the general good, fulfilled their duties with integrity and honour, and to whom we are all debtors.

There is another local proverb, expressed in curious rhyme and alliteration, that relates to the number and distribution of four Cheshire family names:--

As many Leighs as fleas; Massies as asses;
Crewes as crows; and Davenports as dogs’ tails.

This is easy of explanation when multitudinous plebeians bearing the same surnames are added to the following lists of genteel families:--

There were _Leghs_ of Legh, Northwood, Sandbach, Booths, Oughtrington, Adlington, Baguley, Lyme, and Ridge.

There were _Masseys_ of Massey, Coddington, Puddington, Tatton, and Chester.

There were _Crewes_ of Crewe, Nantwich, Alvaston, Farndon, Holt, Cholmondeston, and Utkinton.

There were _Davenports_ of Davenport, Woodford, Calveley, Wheltrough, Bramhall, Henbury, Capesthorne, Blackhurst, Boughton, and Chorley.

The Davenport family had power of life and death over intruders infesting the royal forest of Macclesfield; and their crest--a rogue’s head, with a halter round the neck--must have been a constant reminder that the Davenports were terrors to all evil-doers.

The Bramhall Davenports, who held that estate for more than five hundred years, have persistently borne the name of William; and for the same length of time the Tattons of Wythenshawe have been named Robert and William alternately; while the owner of Carden has been John Leche for sixteen successive generations!

In regard to curiosities of descent, it may here be restated that Robert Hyde, of Hyde, Esq., who died about the year 1528, left a son, Lawrence Hyde, who, leaving Cheshire for Wiltshire, became the ancestor of the Hydes of Westhatch, from whom descended the celebrated Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, whose two granddaughters, Mary and Anne, became in succession Queens of England.

Few counties in England have had their history so fully written and re-written as Cheshire; and therefore from this epitome of a wide-embracing subject the reader is referred to the writings of Camden, Webb, Fuller, Sir Peter Leycester, the Lysons, and the monumental volumes of Dr. Ormerod’s _History of Cheshire_; to the published transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, and of the historic societies of Manchester, Liverpool, and Chester; to many separate histories of towns and parishes in the county; and to the genealogical works of the late Mr. Earwaker, whose untimely death in 1895 is still deplored by all who take an interest in the records of family history.

This chapter shall close with the words of two Cheshire poets--the one Geoffrey Whitney, who, living in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, wrote in praise of prominent Cheshire men of that time; the other, the late Rowland Eyles Egerton-Warburton, “the rhyming squire of Arley,” in the time of Queen Victoria.

Whitney, in his _Emblem_, dedicated to “I. I. esquier,” says:--

Not for our selues alone wee are create,
But for our frendes, and for our countries good.

Mr. Egerton-Warburton composed these verse-mottoes for the shields that decorate the two fireplaces in the dining-room at Arley Hall.

Under the Egerton shield:--

Since days of olden chivalry bequeathed from sire to son,
May honour keep untarnished still the shield which valour won.

Under the Warburton shield:--

If proud thou be of ancestors for worth and wisdom famed,
So live that they, if now alive, would not of thee be shamed.

SOME CHESHIRE CROSSES

By the Archdeacon of Chester

It would be impossible, in the course of a short chapter, to give an adequate account of all the crosses in the county of which remains still exist. On such a subject, as in the case of most counties, a volume might be written. Nor will it be attempted even to refer to all of them or to give a complete list, and it may well be that some interesting specimens will be omitted, or not mentioned here, not because they are not worthy of mention, but because there is not space to do justice to them.

It cannot but be a matter of regret that Puritan fanaticism was responsible for the destruction of many, if not most, of these crosses throughout the country. It has been computed that at least 5000 had been at various times erected, and they afforded not only types of architectural design and ornament, but also historical evidence of former times and customs.

The crosses varied much in form and character, as also in position and origin. Many of them, no doubt, were in the first instance _Preaching Crosses_. The monks or other early heralds of Christianity would rear up some simple or wooden cross to mark the place from which they would address the people who came to hear them, and this would in process of time give place to a more permanent structure of stone, sometimes of an elaborate nature. Generally it would be elevated or raised upon a platform of steps, sometimes few, but sometimes as many as eight or more. The cross itself might be enriched with the Figure or with some inscription or pattern of some emblematic kind. After a time, in some places, a church would be erected, and the cross or its successor would become the _Churchyard Cross_. Where this did not happen, the cross would remain as a reminder to the people of the message that had been delivered there, and to teach them that all their actions were to have a religious purpose. In some instances the cross became a _Market Cross_, of which, in different parts of the country, we have various elaborate specimens. Here again the name, whether the form of the cross was prominent or not, was evidently meant to suggest that the transactions there carried on were to be true and just, as became Christian men. Sometimes the cross became “_the High Cross_,” where justice was administered and civic matters discussed; and in this case also the title is most suggestive. In addition to these there were _Boundary Crosses_, by which would be implied the sin of removing a neighbour’s landmark; and _Weeping Crosses_, visited by penitents. Of all these, except, so far as I know, the latter, there are, of course, many examples in the county, and of some of them this article will treat.

First and foremost, it is a matter of great regret that the _High Cross_ has disappeared from its position in the city of Chester. It has indeed left its name behind it, the junction of the four principal streets in the centre of the city being still known as _The Cross_, and being so named not from the fact of the cross-roads being there, but from the structure which once stood on the spot. This was a tall shaft with canopied head, on which were carved two rows of figures in niches, and on the top an orb surmounted by a cross. The civic buildings were close at hand, being built on to St. Peter’s Church, and being styled _The Pentice_, probably from pent-house, as indicating the way in which it was built on to the church. Though the offices of the municipality have long since been moved to the Town Hall, the old name is still preserved, one of the courts over which the Recorder presides being called in documents “The Pentice Court.” The _High Cross_ was taken down in 1646, when the Parliamentarians entered the city, the other crosses having been destroyed in 1577 or earlier. It was removed to Netherleigh House in the outskirts of the city, then the home of the Cotgreaves. What is said to be the head of it is now in the Grosvenor Museum at Chester, but the carvings have been cut away, as it is quite plain; and the shaft is said to be in the grounds of Plas Newydd at Llangollen. The suggestion has been made that the cross might be restored, and though it could not be placed again on its old site, owing to the confined space and the exigencies of traffic, it might find a position of importance in some other part of the city. The _High Cross_ was the scene of all great civic functions. Here, again and again, royalty was received and conducted into the adjacent Pentice and entertained. Here proclamations were read out with due formality, and here the Mystery Plays were represented, the first performance having taken place at the Abbey Gate before the Abbot and his brethren. The cross would thus be associated in the minds of the citizens with much of their civic life, and many noteworthy events in their history, and for this reason, if for no other, its removal is much to be regretted.

Reference has already been made to the destruction of crosses in 1577 in and about Chester. In that year Sheriff Mutton seems to have distinguished himself in this work, as we read that he pulled down certain crosses by a commission from the Archbishop’s visitors. Some probably had disappeared at an earlier date, for in 1543 the city mason was paid two days’ wages “for shiftyinge the cross” at St. Mary’s-on-the-Hill. No doubt at this period many of the churchyard crosses in the county, as well as in the city, were demolished. This was often done by shortening the shaft, thus taking away the cross itself, and using the portion that was left as the basis for a sun-dial. This was sometimes a flat one, as at St. Mary’s-on-the-Hill, Chester, and sometimes a four-sided one, as at Acton, where a very elaborate one of the latter description may be seen. In this latter case the base, out of which the octagonal shaft rises, rests upon a pedestal of three steps, and the square stone, with its dial-face on each side, is surmounted by a round knob. On the top of the cube there was this inscription: on the north, “Tempus fugit: mors venit”; and on the south, “Ut hora: sic vita.” Originally this cross must have been very fine in its proportions, and a conspicuous object, whether it occupied its present position (at the west of the church) or not. In the churchyard of St. John the Baptist, Chester, is a sun-dial, which probably stands where the _Churchyard Cross_ stood, as marked in an old plan of the end of the fifteenth century preserved in the British Museum. In the old chapter-house of this church are preserved some fragments of crosses of a remarkable character. They are of beautiful design, and are fully described by the Bishop of Bristol in vol. xlix. of the _British Archæological Journal_. He assigns them to the pre-Norman period, and designates them as British, and prior to 903, when the Bréts were driven out of this part of England. In his opinion the fragments of two beautiful sculptured shafts are as fine in their work as any of the pre-Norman monuments left in England. Fragments of crosses of a similar character, and probably of a similar date, are to be found at Neston, Bromborough, and West Kirby, and a portion of one from Hilbre Island is now in the Grosvenor Museum at Chester. Most of these have circular wheel heads with three projections, a type of cross which (according to Mr. Romilly Allen) is common to North Wales and Cornwall, but does not appear to be known elsewhere. Some of the crosses here mentioned, besides others elsewhere, as at Disley (now at Lyme Hall) and at Cheadle, have no doubt been sepulchral, either as headstones or flat ones. Some, however, have been _Churchyard_ or _Preaching Crosses_, and a notable instance of this is to be found in the fragments now preserved at Bromborough. The late Mr. E. W. Cox gave a very accurate and careful description of these, and a design for the reconstruction of the cross, which would have stood about 10 feet high. A similar one once existed at Wallasey, and is described in a MS. history of that parish early in the seventeenth century. It is said to have been broken in three pieces by the soldiers of William III., and afterwards used for steps to the churchyard stile. In many of our churchyards, as at Bebington and at Shocklach (and no doubt there are many other instances), the pedestals or bases of crosses are to be seen. In the latter place the stones of the three steps have been carefully refixed, and the stem been lengthened a foot at its lower end so that it might fit into the socket on the top base. On the top of the stem (from which, of course, the cross had been removed) are four semi-circular holes systematically placed opposite to each other, 2 to 2½ inches in diameter, and 1½ inches deep. These are not dowel or cramp holes for the affixing of a sun-dial, or for the cross itself; and it has been conjectured that marketing and other transactions would take place here, and that when the plague was raging these holes would be filled with vinegar, in which the coins would be placed, so as to render them free from infection. Many of our readers will think of other examples which are left, some, it may be, in their own churchyards, and will be able to associate with them scenes of former days. They may picture to themselves the congregations gathered round them listening to the monk or friar or other early preacher as he unfolded the story of which the cross was the centre and the emblem, and pressed upon his hearers the lessons it was to teach, and the impression it was to make upon their daily lives. Then, in some cases, these fragments which are left have preserved to us wonderful specimens of decorative treatment, interesting not merely to the archæological student, but also to the ordinary individual, as indications of the art and skill and thoroughness of past generations, and thus as treasured memorials of olden days. Sometimes the _Churchyard Cross_ has been restored in recent years, as at Over Peover and St. Mary’s-on-the-Hill, Chester. In each case the shortened shaft had been made the receptacle of a sun-dial. At Peover the restored cross is a memorial to the late Sir Philip Mainwaring. On an octagonal shaft of Portland stone a moulded capped head has been placed, on which is carved the figure of our Lord upon the cross with St. Mary and St. John under a gabled canopy. The cross at St. Mary’s, Chester, is a floriated one of Yorkshire stone: at the bottom of the new work is a border with four angels, and above this architectural canopies or niches, in one of which is the patron saint of the church, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The cross occupies a most commanding position overlooking the river and the city walls. Other examples will no doubt occur to many of our readers.

Mention must be made, though an accurate description cannot be given, of Clulow Cross, near Wincle, of the Bow Stones on Lyme Moor, of two at Ludworth, and of three in the Public Park at Macclesfield. They are singular in their construction, the shafts being square at the top and round at the bottom. Mr. Romilly Allen has given a careful description of these, which have great antiquarian interest, but has not suggested what their origin may have been, though he classes them amongst early Christian monuments. Whilst they may have been memorial in the first instance, they may afterwards have served the purpose of reading a lesson and imparting instruction to the wayfarer as he passed by, or to the observer as he noted them from a distance.

Of _Market Crosses_ the county has some noteworthy examples. Some of these are to be found in places where markets are no longer held, and thus stand out as witnesses of departed greatness. A notable instance of this is found at Bromborough, in the Wirral. Though a simple village, it formerly had a market on Monday, which was granted in 1277 to the Abbot and Monastery of St. Warburgh, in Chester, together with a three days’ fair at the festival of St. Barnabas, the patron saint of the church. The market, of course, has long since ceased to be held, but in the centre of the village the site of the Market Cross is marked by the ancient steps, eight in number, on which was erected a few years ago a handsome cross. In this case it can only recall what once has been. At Lymm (where again no market is now held) is another example of a different kind. Here the lower steps are carved out of the natural rock. On the top one stands, not a cross, but a stone building, supported on four columns, with a gabled roof, surmounted by a knob facing each way. On the gables are sundials, which have been renewed, and on the top a central pinnacle with weather-cock. On one of the lower steps are the stocks, very perfect examples of these old-time punishment seats. The grooved uprights still remain, and the woodwork, with a double pair of holes (so that two offenders might be in durance vile at the same time), though much chipped and broken, is still complete. In the little hamlet of Eaton, in the parish of Tarporley, at the junction of the roads may be seen a flight of steps, on which once evidently rested a cross, the place of which is now occupied by a growing tree. The position seems to bring it into the category of market crosses. Was it in humble imitation of larger places that village crosses were erected in the centre of the hamlet, and did they thus give their religious sanction to the business which might be transacted beneath them, even though no markets, in the proper sense of the word, were held there? At Macclesfield, the remains of the old Market Cross now stand in the Park, where the uncomfortable town stocks of iron may also be seen. In other places in the county no doubt similar relics have been preserved; but it is in the Market-place of Sandbach that the greatest treasures of this kind are to be seen. Of the Sandbach crosses Ormerod has said, “They may indisputably be ranked among the finest monuments of antiquity of this kind in the kingdom.” Similarly Mr. Romilly Allen has said, “Much of the finest series of figure subjects probably in all England is to be seen on the mutilated crosses at Sandbach.” The origin of the crosses is veiled in obscurity. It has been asserted that they were put up in the year 608, when Penda returned a Christian convert to Mercia, attended, according to Bede, by four priests deputed to preach the gospel throughout his dominions. But though this statement may be quite conjectural, there is no doubt that they may be placed at a very early date. Mr. Romilly Allen thinks that the earliest date which can be assigned to any Christian monument in Cheshire is in the second half of the seventh century; so that he (no mean authority) would not accept the above statement.

The crosses have had a chequered history. They were broken down and defaced in the civil wars in the reign of Charles I. The pieces were then dispersed, and were taken possession of by different people. One of the largest was removed to Utkinton Hall, thence later to Tarporley Rectory, and finally to Oulton Park, where it stood for some time near the park wall, not far from the lodge. Other pieces had a similar experience. Dr. Ormerod was chiefly instrumental in gathering the fragments together, one having been built into a wall near the town well, and another used as a step of a cottage. Fortunately the stone, though local, is of a much harder grit than the ordinary Cheshire sandstone, and in consequence the carving has not suffered to anything like the extent it otherwise would have done by these removals and by weather. Considering the unique character of the crosses, this is a matter of sincere congratulation. Mr. Allen suggests that they were erected “to encourage devotion in a public place by the religious subjects sculptured on them”; and to this we might add, to urge upon all who transacted business there that their dealings should be marked by truth and justice. The two crosses stand on a substructure of two steps, with two sockets in which the crosses are fixed. At the angle of each stage of the platform are stone posts, on which figures have been rudely carved. The crosses are now of unequal height, if ever they were of the same dimensions. The taller one is 16 feet 8 inches high; the shorter one 11 feet 11 inches. On the shorter cross one piece, and on the taller one two pieces, have evidently suffered somewhat when they were taken away, as the carving on them is less distinct than on the rest. The following description will give some idea of the elaborate nature of the carvings, and will show that the opinion of Dr. Ormerod and other experts is amply justified, and that the county, and specially the town, of Sandbach may be proud of possessing such treasures. In the larger cross the framework, in which the figures on each side are included, divides near the base and becomes forked, and in the angles on the east side are figures of cherubs looking upwards. Immediately above this is a large circle containing three figures, representing the Virgin enthroned, holding the Holy Child, with a saint on either side and the Holy Dove above. In the next compartment are three figures, and it has been suggested that they may represent the Baptism of our Lord, though it would seem to be unusual to have three figures in such representation. The Holy Dove is again observed here on the right. The longer panel above this has in the lower division the Nativity, the ox and the ass being seen on either side of the manger-cradle. Then there is the Crucifixion, with the sun and moon above and the Virgin and St. John below; and surrounding this are the symbols of the four Evangelists. On this latter point Mr. Romilly Allen remarks: “The association of the symbols of the four Evangelists with the Crucifixion is somewhat unusual, as well as in the form of the symbols, which resembles those on one of the crosses at Ilkley, in Yorkshire, and on a small fragment of a cross shaft at Halton, in Lancashire.” Perhaps the association of the four Evangelists with the Crucifixion may be intended to emphasise the fact that that event is recorded with much minuteness by each of them, and is thus the central fact of the gospel story. The west side of this cross is divided into eight double compartments. The first part is filled by dragons and other zoomorphic designs, and in other parts representations of winged figures. The scriptural scenes are pronounced to be the appearance of the Angel Gabriel to Zacharias; Simon of Cyrene bearing the cross; our Saviour led bound before Pilate; Christ in glory; and St. Peter with his keys. On the south side we find a variety of foliage, knots, and elaborate ornaments; and on the north side a number of figures, the most conspicuous being a large fish, with tongue triply cloven. The smaller cross bears a variety of human figures placed within niches and lozenges, with one group apparently intended to represent the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. There are at least three different patterns in what may be called the knot ornamentation, which may be thus described: knots derived from a three-cord plait, figure-of-eight knots, and a pattern derived from a four-cord plait. This last is one of extreme rarity in this country, there being, in Mr. Romilly Allen’s opinion, no other instance of its occurrence elsewhere. It is, however, to be found on a splendid sword of the Viking period found at Ultuna, in Sweden. Mr. Romilly Allen, commenting on the crosses, remarked that, “The way in which the designs are arranged in several different kinds of panels is worthy of notice. Some of the panels have square tops, others round tops, others are diamond-shaped, and others triangular. They are also in some cases placed in double rows, and are not always opposite each other. On one of the shafts the panels are shaped like a thimble, and aggregated in twos and threes in an extraordinary way.”

It will be understood from this that these monuments, whatever be their origin, are of priceless value, and offer for the student much food for reflection, and for the ordinary individual objects for admiration.

It is satisfactory to know that the local authorities at Sandbach fully appreciate these treasures. Quite recently they consulted the Council of the Chester and North Wales Archæological and Historic Society as to their condition, and as to whether any further steps should be taken for their preservation. Accordingly two members of the Council with expert knowledge visited the place, and came to the conclusion that beyond the careful pointing of some joints nothing was necessary. They thought that a fence or barricade of any kind would interfere with the harmony of the design, and that if a careful watch was exercised to see that no damage was done by children or mischievous persons, the crosses would last in their present condition for generations, the nature of the stone being hard and durable. Still more recently Sandbach has been visited by the Cambrian Archæological Society, and as a consequence of that visit it is probable that casts or squeezes will be taken of the designs on the crosses, and that thus a more close and careful examination of them will be rendered possible. This may lead to the elucidation of some of the doubtful points in connection with their interpretation, and so to the clearing up of a good deal which is at present uncertain. At any rate, we may hope that for many generations Sandbach will be known as the happy possessor and the jealous guardian of these early monuments, and that for many a long year amongst the “Memorials of Old Cheshire” will be reckoned these wonderful and unique crosses.

ECHOES FROM FARNDON

By the late Rev. L. E. Owen