Chapter IV: Part 4

Most interesting of all such records are the inscriptions on the pillars of the north side of the nave in St. Mary’s, Beverley. They show that when the tower fell in 1520 and destroyed that side of the nave, the destruction was repaired by a combined effort on the part of the parishioners. A family named Crosslay provided the wherewithal for rebuilding the half pillar at the west end, and the two pillars next to it towards the east; the ‘good wives’ of the parish rebuilt the next two pillars; and, as will be shown later, the remaining pillar was rebuilt by the Gild of Minstrels.[27]

Footnote 27:

See page 185.

Hence the inscriptions which we may read to-day high up on the pillars:—

XLAY AND HIS WYF TO PYLLORS
FE MADE THES AND A HALFFE

THYS TO PYLLO WYFFYS GOD
RS MADE GVD REWARD THAYM

But though no written or inscribed record may exist, it is yet possible to tell approximately the date at which either a church was built, or some particular portion of it was rebuilt. This is so because men built in different styles at different times—the fashionable mode of building changed as the centuries went on. Let us see how we can recognise these styles.

* * * * *

When the Normans came to England, they brought with them great zeal for church-building, and many churches built by them remain to our day on the Wolds of the East Riding.

The NORMAN style of building was one of round-headed arches and of narrow round-headed windows with the sides widely splayed, so that the window-opening inside is very much larger than the narrow slit which appears on the outside of the wall. The walls were very thick, the masonry was rough, the joints between the stones were very clumsy, and the buttresses, if used at all, did not project more than a few inches from the walls. The early Norman churches had very plain chancel or tower arches, such as we see at Speeton, Reighton, and Rudston; but those built later had arches magnificently carved with zigzags or _chevrons_, and with animal forms. Good examples of these may be seen at North Newbald, Kirkburn, Nunburnholme, Etton, and Garton-on-the-Wolds.

The Norman style of building lasted from 1066 to 1190. Then came a change. Instead of using a semi-circular or one-centred arch, architects found out the advantages of a two-centred arch. They also made the discovery that the walls need not be so thick, if the thickness of the buttresses was increased. Thus came about what we call the EARLY ENGLISH or LANCET style of building, which was fashionable for the ninety years from 1190 to 1280. Beautiful examples of this style can be seen in the churches of Filey, Hedon, Middleton-on-the-Wolds, and Kirk Ella.

Again came a change, a growth of ideas. Men grew tired of the simple form of _Lancet_ window, which we to-day consider so beautiful because of its simplicity. First they experimented by piercing an ornamental hole through the stonework above a group of lancets. This gave what we call _Plate Tracery_, examples of which are not numerous in our Riding.

Then a further experiment was made. Instead of building the head of a group of lancets in solid stone, some architect-builder hit upon the idea of making a pattern of shaped bars of stone, and of filling in the pattern with glass cut to fit the spaces. This at once proved popular, and an entirely new fashion in window designs set in.

At first the patterns made in stone were simple _Geometrical_ ones, such as those in the chancel windows at Rudston. But gradually, as one set of builders vied with another in building the most beautiful church, the patterns became more complicated and _Curvilinear_ in form. These last two styles together made up what is usually known as the DECORATED style of building, and were in fashion from 1280 to 1380.

‘NORMAN’ AND ‘EARLY ENGLISH’ SOUTH DOORS.

STILLINGFLEET. HESSLE.
]

Lastly came another great change, due to the discovery of methods for producing stained glass. The windows of Norman churches had been very small, and the interiors of the churches had been very dark. How dark they were may be judged from the present interior of the church of Garton-on-the-Wolds when the doors are both shut. Very early the worshippers experienced a desire for more light, and at Garton they solved the problem by knocking down some of the wall and inserting a much larger _Decorated_ window.

_Photo by_] [_C. W. Mason_

Part of the South Wall of the Church at Garton-on-the-Wolds.

]

But when stained glass became reasonably cheap, there were few church-people who could endure the thought that some neighbouring church had stained-glass windows when their church had none. So there began a competition among them as to who should be able to show the greatest area of stained glass in their church windows. Walls were therefore pulled down, and windows enlarged, or perhaps a nave or chancel was entirely rebuilt, for the reception of this glass; until where there had once been a stone wall with a few narrow slits in it, there was now a series of wide expanses of glass separated with narrow strips of wall.

For convenience also, the bars of stone which formed the window tracery were made straight instead of curved. This is the style which we call the _Perpendicular_ style, and it grew in popular favour from 1380 until 1547, when the Reformation put an end to further growth.

* * * * *

All the three styles, _Early English_, _Decorated_, and _Perpendicular_, make up what is known as GOTHIC architecture. The name is unfortunately a meaningless one; for it does not in any way refer to the architecture of the Goths, as the name NORMAN does to the architecture of the Normans.

The great difference between the two styles is that whereas the roof of a _Norman_ building was supported by the walls, the roof of a _Gothic_ building was supported not by the walls, but by the buttresses, some of which might be constructed in the form of bridges. Such buttresses are known as _flying buttresses_.

It would be almost true to say that we might knock down every inch of wall in Beverley Minster or Patrington Church and yet leave standing the framework and roof of the buildings, with the western towers of the one and the central spire of the other. Such buildings are perfect in design, and their perfectness is due to the knowledge and skill which were possessed by their architect-builders.

Gothic architecture grew like a plant, and reached its full development in the _Perpendicular_ style, when the enthusiasm for church-building was at its height. Most of our village churches show signs of having been in part rebuilt during the period when the _Perpendicular_ style flourished, and one of its most marked features is a lofty central or western tower, such as we see at Hedon, Howden, and Driffield.

For a long time after the Reformation there was no fresh church-building, and little church-repair. What little attention our ancient parish churches had at the repairers’ hands was often of the kind that is called ‘churchwarden’ restoration, an example of which we see in the accompanying photograph of a portion of Welwick Church. Now, happily, such is a thing of the past, and our church restorers aim at a restoration which is true to its name.

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

‘Churchwarden’ Restoration at Welwick Church.

]

It is unusual to find an ancient parish church built in one style throughout. But Filey Church is almost entirely on the border-line between _Norman_ and _Early English_; Patrington Church is almost entirely _Decorated_; and Skirlaugh Church, which was built by Walter Skirlaw, Bishop of Durham, about 1403, is entirely _Perpendicular_.

Modern churches are, on the other hand, usually in one style throughout. The churches of Kilnwick Percy, East Heslerton, and Sledmere will serve as good examples of modern _Norman_, modern _Early English_, and modern _Decorated_ styles.

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

A Grotesque ‘Poppy-Head’ at Holy Trinity, Hull.

]

In and about many of our ancient parish churches are preserved features which remind us of the customs and beliefs of long-past days. At Easington we may see the ancient tithe barn, in which was stored the parson’s tithe of corn when tithes were paid not in money but in kind. At Barmby-on-the-Marsh, North Frodingham and Swine are preserved the church chests in which the parish records were kept. Holy Trinity, Hull, has only recently parted with the library of which its parishioners enjoyed the use long before the days of ‘Free Libraries.’

In the churches at Barmston, Burstwick, Goodmanham and Thwing may be seen the _squint_, or hole cut through a pier of the tower so that the people worshipping in the transept might see the ‘elevation of the host’ before the high altar. At Millington, Nunburnholme and Sancton there remain the _low-side_ or _lepers’ windows_, so built that the poor unfortunates outside the walls of the church might not be deprived of the sight of the same.

Just within the south door of the church at Great Givendale stands the _stoup_ or holy-water vessel, from which all worshippers were once sprinkled; and across the chancel arches at Flamborough and Winestead stand the ancient _rood screens_. At Kirkburn we may see a modern replica of an ancient rood screen in all the glory of brilliant colours; and the interior surface of the walls and roof of the church at Garton-on-the-Wolds reproduces the ancient custom of painting in colours every square inch of available space within a church.

In several churches there are grotesque carvings in wood and stone—gargoyles, corbels, poppy-heads, and misericords—carvings so grotesque and irreligious that we can only wonder at the feelings which prompted their construction.

Brasses and altar tombs show us plainly how the lords and ladies were dressed in former days, and an occasional brass of a parish priest serves to point out the differences between the parish priest of the fifteenth century and his successor, the ‘parson’ of to-day.

XIII.
THE BIRTH OF HULL
AND
THE ROMANCE OF THE DE LA POLES.

To say exactly the date of birth of the city which to-day the inhabitants proudly call ‘The Third Port’ is one of the things that are beyond man’s power. It used to be thought that Hull was founded by King Edward I., but we know now that this was wrong; for there are in existence old title deeds which show that the city goes back in point of time more than one hundred years before ‘Edward of the Long Shanks’ became King of England.

On the other hand, we are certain that there was no town of Hull in the time of William the Conqueror. Had there been, we should find mention of it in the Domesday Book. Hessle is mentioned in this, and so is Ferriby. But, though we find in the Domesday Book no mention of Hull, we do find mention of Myton, a hamlet belonging to the Manor of North Ferriby, and recorded at the time of the survey as ‘waste.’

Later on we find this hamlet grown into a manor, and meanwhile there was growing up alongside it another small settlement to which became attached the names _Wyke_, _Wyke-upon-Hull_, and _Hull_. Its position was the angle formed where the small river Hull empties itself into the mighty Humber, and its first inhabitants would doubtless be fishers and other sea-faring men, who found the place convenient for beaching their boats. Whether they were Angles or Danes we cannot definitely tell, for its name, _Wyke_, might have been given by either of these peoples.

The first mention of Wyke is in a grant of land made in the year 1160, and after this date its growth must have been rapid. Less than forty years later it was one of the ports to which was given the privilege of exporting wool; and in 1203 the taxes collected on wool and other exported goods at Hull amounted to no less than £344, while those collected in London amounted to only £836.

The export trade in wool grew by leaps and bounds during the thirteenth century, and Hull was the port in the north of England that derived most benefit from this growth. At the close of the century there were ‘some sixty houses in the town, mostly built of clay and timber, and one-storied, with perhaps a chamber or two in the thatched roof; a gaol; a court-house; a church[28] ...; a monastery of White Friars; with some seven acres of land set apart for markets and fairs, and lying around and about where the Market-place now runs.’

Footnote 28:

This was a chapel, dedicated to the ‘Holy Trinitie,’ which James
Helward, a townsman, founded in 1285. It stood where the chancel of
Holy Trinity church now stands, and was pulled down when the present
transepts and chancel were built a few years later.

Such was Wyke, or Hull, when in 1293 the monks of Meaux Abbey, its owners, sold the greater part of it to King Edward I., in exchange for other lands. Its annual value was £81 12s. 4d., and that of the part sold was £78 14s. 8d. With it were sold some farm lands and buildings at Myton, worth not quite half as much.

When the town thus passed into the King’s hands, he had to appoint a Warden to collect his rents, and the first King’s Warden rejoiced in the name of Richard Oysel. Six years later the townsmen obtained from the King a charter granting them all the privileges belonging to the inhabitants of a ‘Free Borough.’ Among these was the right of holding a market twice weekly, and a fair lasting for thirty days each year.

_Photo by_] [_J.R. Boyle_

Photograph of the Charter granted by Edward I. to the Townsmen of Hull
in 1299.
(One-fifth actual size).

]

Under its new name of the _King’s Town upon Hull_ the port naturally drew to itself merchants from the less-privileged towns of the neighbourhood, and among those who came to take advantage of its privileges was a wealthy merchant of Ravenser named William de la Pole. With the migration of this Ravenser merchant began an uninterrupted course of prosperity both for his family and for the King’s Town.

William de la Pole’s two elder sons, Richard and William, came into great prominence as merchants. The ‘great Hull Firm of De la Pole Brothers’ has been a modern description of their business enterprise, and the adjective ‘great’ is rightly used. For not only was Richard de la Pole King Edward III.’s wine merchant, but the two brothers were also for many years the King’s bankers. As royal wine merchant, Richard had some twenty deputies in other ports of England, and as royal bankers the ‘Firm’ lent large sums of money to the King for the carrying on of his wars with Scotland and France.

In 1327, for instance, these Hull merchants lent the King sums amounting to £10,200; and in February of the next year the King, while at York, paid two wine bills, one of two thousand marks and the other of £1,200. Later on in this year, the brothers undertook to find £20 per day for the upkeep of the King’s household, and as much wine as was necessary.

In 1337 Edward declared war against France, and that war was carried on mainly with supplies of money provided by the De la Pole Brothers.

Within two years of the opening of war, the King had borrowed money on the crown jewels, on the crown itself, and even on his own person. Edward was actually stranded in France unable to move for lack of money, when his ‘beloved merchant,’ William de la Pole, came to his assistance with new supplies; and the King acknowledged himself bound to him for the astonishing sum of £76,180, a sum equal to more than a million pounds in our money.

‘How was this immense sum raised?’ we may quite naturally ask. Probably a large portion of it was borrowed by the lender from others who were quite ready to put their spare cash into the hands of such a far-sighted and reliable man of business as William de la Pole. And how was the loan repaid by the King?

The answer to the second of these questions gives the secret of the wealth of the ‘Hull Firm.’ Edward repaid his loans not with money but by grants of the customs and duties payable on exported goods at the various ports of the kingdom. In other words, if the King borrowed £1000, he gave to the lender of this sum permission to collect all the dues at, say, the port of Bristol, for the next five years; and as the trade of Bristol was then rapidly growing, the lender very probably received during those five years twice as much value in dues as he had lent in money to the King.

Such services as these, rendered at a critical moment, did not go unrewarded in other ways. In 1332 Edward visited his new ‘King’s Town’ on his way to Scotland, and was the guest of William de la Pole, whom he knighted before his departure.

At the same time the townsfolk were granted the dignity of having a Mayor and four Bailiffs instead of a Warden, and Sir William was, naturally, the man chosen by them to hold this office. Thus the long line of Mayors of the city of Hull goes back to Sir William de la Pole, who was Mayor for three years, 1332–1335. Later on other honours were showered upon him, and when he died his body was buried in the church of the Holy Trinity, where the alabaster effigies of himself and Dame Katherine his wife may still be seen.

As William de la Pole was a great favourite of King Edward III., so his son Michael was equally a favourite of Edward’s grandson, King Richard II. Michael de la Pole had gone to Spain in the train of John of Gaunt, Edward’s third son, and his retinue had consisted of 140 men-at-arms, 140 archers, 1 knight banneret, 8 knights bachelor, and 130 esquires.

In 1376 Michael was not only Mayor of Hull but also ‘Admiral of the King’s Fleets in the Northern Parts.’ Seven years later he became a Knight of the Garter and Lord Chancellor of England. In another two years he was raised to the peerage as Earl of Suffolk, the first example in our history of a prosperous merchant becoming a peer of the realm. As Earl of Suffolk, Michael began the building at Kingston-upon-Hull of a mansion which was known when finished as Suffolk Palace, and which stood on the ground where has recently been built the General Post Office.

But the first Earl of Suffolk was by no means a favourite with Parliament, whatever he might be with the young King; and though he had as Lord Chancellor advised the members of Parliament to ‘avoid all corruptions,’ he was accused by them of enriching himself at the expense of the nation. As the result of the charges laid against him by his many and powerful enemies he was exiled, and died at Paris four years after the creation of his peerage.

EFFIGIES OF SIR WILLIAM DE LA POLE AND DAME KATHERINE IN HOLY TRINITY
CHURCH, HULL.
_From Gough’s ‘Sepulchral Monuments.’_
]

Richard II.’s deposition by Parliament followed ten years after his favourite’s death, and Henry IV. became King. This King’s son, Henry V., attempted to rival in France the exploits of his great-grandfather; and in his retinue when the English army sailed from Harfleur were two Michael de la Poles, father and son. Both were of high honour in the King’s train, both set out in hopes of winning still higher honour in the glorious conquest that was to be, but both were fated to die a soldier’s death on the soil of the country which they had hoped to conquer. The elder Michael, second Earl of Suffolk, died of dysentery before the walls of Harfleur in September 1415; the younger Michael, third Earl of Suffolk, fell mortally wounded in the battle of Agincourt, five weeks after the death of his father. His body was brought home to England, and lay in state in Saint Paul’s Cathedral before it was buried in Oxfordshire.

You will find an account of the Earl of Suffolk’s death in Act IV., Scene 6, of Shakspeare’s play _Henry the Fifth_; and when you next read of the wars of Edward III. and Henry V. in France, do not fail to remember, if you yourself belong to the city of Hull, that good silver crowns from Kingston-upon-Hull provided the wherewithal for the battle of Crecy, and that good honest men from Kingston-upon-Hull fought, and—in one case at least—died in the battle of Agincourt.

* * * * *

Two years after this battle, King Henry was again fighting in France, and in his retinue was again an Earl of Suffolk. This was William, the fourth Earl, brother of him who had been slain at Agincourt. ‘Thirty lancers and four score and ten archers’ was the portion of the army furnished by this Earl, and for seventeen consecutive years he served in France as a soldier of the King. While Henry VI. was the infant King of England, Suffolk was in command of the English army in France, and it was his misfortune to be beaten by the ‘Maid of Orleans.’ In this war he was taken prisoner by the French, and ransomed for the sum of £20,000.

After Suffolk’s return home as a defeated soldier we find him playing the part of a successful ambassador. The marriage of King Henry with Princess Margaret of Anjou was arranged by him, and for his services he was raised to the dignity first of a Marquis and secondly of a Duke. At the same time his heirs were granted the privilege of carrying at the coronation of all the King’s successors a golden sceptre with a dove upon the top—a privilege embodied in the design of the Common Seal of the Corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull.

But this marriage brought the newly-created Duke of Suffolk into great disfavour with Parliament; for he was accused of having delivered the important province of Maine into the hands of the French, this being one of the conditions of the marriage treaty. His enemies also accused him of having murdered the Duke of Gloucester.

To save his favourite Duke the King banished him for five years, but his enemies were determined that he should not escape their vengeance. Realizing the danger he was in, he set sail from Ipswich, and hoped to reach Calais in safety. Before his departure he wrote, on the 30th of April, 1450, the following letter to his young son:—

My dere and only welbeloved sone, I beseche oure Lord in Heven, the
Maker of alle the world, to blesse you, and to sende you ever grace
to love hym, and to drede hym; to the which, as ferre as a fader may
charge his child, I both charge you and prei you to ... do no thyng
for love nor drede of any erthely creature that shuld displese
hym....

Secondly, next hym, above alle erthely thyng, to be trewe liege man
in hert, in wille, in thought, in dede, unto the Kyng ... to whom
bothe ye and I been so moche bounde to....

Thirdly, in the same wyse, I charge you, my dere sone, alwey, as ye
be bounden by the commaundement of God to do, to love, to worshepe
youre lady and moder, and also that ye obey alwey hyr
commaundements, and to beleve hyr councelles and advises in all
youre werks....

Wreten of myn hand,
The day of my departyng fro this land.

Your trewe and lovying fader,

SUFFOLK.

It was indeed the day of Suffolk’s ‘departyng fro this land,’ as the following portion of a letter written in London on the 5th of May of that year will show. The writer tells first how news had then reached London that on April 31 the Duke of Suffolk had been captured off Dover by a ‘shippe callyd Nicolas of the Towre,’ whose master ‘badde hym “Welcom, Traitor.”’ Then—

Yn the syght of all his men he was drawyn ought of the grete shippe
yn to the bote ... and oon of the lewdeste of the shippe badde hym
ley down his hedde, and he should be fair ferd wyth, and dye on a
swerd; and toke a rusty swerd, and smotte of his hedde withyn halfe
a doseyn strokes, and toke awey his gown of russet, and his
dobelette of velvet mayled, and leyde his body on the sonds of
Dover.

Although the first Duke of Suffolk suffered this ignominious death, the tide of fortune for his family still rose. John, his son, the second Duke, married the sister of King Edward IV.; and in the year 1484 their son John, Earl of Lincoln, was declared heir-presumptive to the throne of England.

* * * * *

SEAL OF EDMUND DE LA POLE
EARL OF SUFFOLK.
]

This is the high-water mark of the family fortunes. The battle of Bosworth, and the accession of King Henry VII. a year later, altered everything. The Earl of Lincoln took up arms against King Henry on behalf of the pretender, Lambert Simnel, and was killed at the battle of Stoke in 1487. His younger brother, Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was considered a man too dangerous to be allowed to live and was beheaded by Henry VIII. in 1513; and his remaining brother, Sir Richard de la Pole, having fled to Italy, was killed in the battle of Pavia in 1525.

=Sir WILLIAM DE LA POLE.=
A merchant of Ravenserodd, who migrated to Hull.
|
+-------------------+------------------+
| |
=Sir Richard de la Pole.= =Sir William de la Pole.=
A merchant of Hull; A merchant of Hull, founder
d. 1346. of the Hull Charterhouse and
| first Mayor of Hull (1332–5);
| d. 1366.
| |
=Michael de la Pole,
Earl of Suffolk.=
Mayor of Hull 1376, and Admiral
of the King’s Fleets in the Northern
Parts; Italian Ambassador and
| Lord Chancellor of England;
| d. 1389 in exile at Paris.
| |
=Richard, Duke =Michael, Earl of Suffolk.=
of Buckingham and Fought at Harfleur, and
Chandos.= died of dysentery, Sept.
d. 1889. 18, 1415.
|
+-------------------------------------+---+
| |
=Michael, =William, Earl of Suffolk.=
Earl of Suffolk.= Commander of the English army
Slain at Agincourt, in France; became =Marquis=, and
Oct. 25, 1415. later =Duke, of Suffolk=; was accused
of various crimes, exiled,
and murdered at sea, 1450.
|
=John,
Duke of Suffolk.=
Married Elizabeth,
sister of Edward IV.
and of Richard III.;
d. 1491.
|
+-------------------------+----------+---------+
| | |
=John de la Pole, =Edmund de la Pole, =Sir Richard
Earl of Lincoln.= Earl of Suffolk.= de la Pole.=
Declared heir-presumptive Beheaded by Fled to Italy,
to the English throne Henry VIII., 1513. and was killed
1484; Commander-in-Chief at Pavia, 1525.
in Lambert Simnel’s
rebellion; killed at Stoke
1487.

PEDIGREE OF THE DE LA POLES.

In all English history there is no stranger family history than that of the De la Poles. For had there been no battle of Bosworth, the great-great-great-great-grandson of a Hull merchant would, in all probability, have become King John II. Such, however, was not to be, and there is now living no descendant of the first William de la Pole in the male line. A few years ago the female line was represented in the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, who was lineally descended from Richard de la Pole, the elder partner in the ‘great Hull Firm of De la Pole Brothers.’

XIV.
MONKS, NUNS, AND FRIARS.

Scattered over some of the pleasantest parts of Yorkshire are to be found the ruined homes of men and women who centuries ago formed a very distinct class among the people of our country. These men and women were the monks, friars, and nuns of mediæval England, and their homes were known as monasteries and friaries.

The foundation of monasteries was due to the growth of an idea that men and women could serve God better by withdrawing entirely from worldly affairs, and by giving themselves up to a life of continual prayer and worship. Many were established in England during the tenth and eleventh centuries, but the great period of their foundation was that from 1066 to 1216. During these years no fewer than 556 monasteries were founded in our country, and 65 of these were in Yorkshire.

According to whether a monastery was independent of all others or not, it ranked as an Abbey or a Priory; and according to the particular code of rules under which its inmates lived, it was inhabited by BENEDICTINES, CISTERCIANS, or CARTHUSIANS. The monks of the Order of St. Benedict were popularly known as _Black Monks_, and their three Abbeys in Yorkshire were at Whitby, Selby and York. They had no House in the East Riding, but there were Benedictine nunneries at Nunburnholme, Nunkeeling, Wilberfoss and Yedingham.

The Order of the Cistercians, or _White Monks_, received its name from the Abbey of Citeaux in Normandy. In this the rules were stricter and the life harder than among the Benedictines. The Cistercians believed that the work of a man’s hands was as acceptable an offering to God as the recitation of prayers and the chanting of psalms, and hence they became great farmers and wool-growers.[29] Yorkshire was particularly their county, and the great Abbeys of Fountains, Rievaulx, Jervaulx and Byland were some of the wealthiest and most powerful in England. In the East Riding the Cistercians had an Abbey at Meaux and a nunnery at Swine.

Footnote 29:

In 1280 the monks of Meaux owned 11,000 sheep and 1000 beasts.

A still stricter Order of monks was that of the Carthusians, who received their name from the Abbey of Chartreuse in the south-east of France. From the popular corruption of the word ‘Chartreuse’ into ‘Charterhouse,’ their monasteries became generally known as _Charterhouses_. One of these was established at Hull by Sir Michael de la Pole,[30] and there was in the North Riding another at Mount Grace, near Northallerton.

Footnote 30:

Close to this Carthusian monastery Sir Michael also built—in 1384—a
_Maison Dieu_, or Hospital, for twenty-six poor men and women, ‘feeble
and old.’ Its buildings were pulled down during the second siege of
Hull, but afterwards replaced by others. This is the ‘Charterhouse’
that exists to-day, the present buildings dating from 1780.

The life of a monk or a nun was one spent apart from the world but, at the same time, in common with all other inmates of the monastery or nunnery. The inmates worked together, prayed together, had their meals together, and slept in a common dormitory.

Their life was also one of absolute devotion to carrying out the rules of their Order. Each inmate took, on entering the religious life, the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. By the first, no monk or nun might own separate possessions except the necessary clothing and bedding. Thus, one mattress, two pairs of blankets, two counterpanes, one cowl and frock, two tunics, two pairs of vests, four pairs of breeches, two pairs of shoes, four pairs of socks, two pairs of day-boots, one pair of night-boots, one night-cap, two towels, one soiled-linen ‘pokett,’ and one shaving cloth formed the wardrobe of a Black Monk. In addition he might possess a silver spoon, and then his outfit was complete. By the second vow he bound himself never to marry, and by the third to obey implicitly the orders of his superiors.

* * * * *

The Houses of these monks and nuns were, with slight exceptions here and there, constructed on certain definite lines, which can best be illustrated by a plan of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall, near Leeds. Surrounding all was a wall, not shown in the plan.

The arrangement of the various buildings was very simple. Foremost in importance ranked the _church_, which was always the first building to be erected and that on which the greatest wealth was lavished. To the south of this were attached the domestic buildings, grouped round a central _cloister court_. Of these the most important were the _chapter house_, in which the monks assembled each morning to hear a chapter from the Latin rules of their Order; the four _cloisters_ or covered walks in which the daily tasks of the monks were performed; the _frater_ or _refectory_, in which their midday meal was served; and the _dorter_ or _dormitory_, in which they slept. This last ran above the line of buildings to the south of the south transept, and had a staircase leading directly into this as well as one leading into the east cloister.

THE CISTERCIAN ABBEY OF KIRKSTALL.

_From ‘Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society,’ Vol.
III._
]

The other buildings included the _sacristy_ or treasure-house; the _library_; the _locutorium_ or parlour, which was a meeting-place for conversation as well as a school for the novices; the _infirmary_ for sick monks; the _calefactory_, or warming-house, where a fire was kept burning from the first day in November till the following Easter; the _kitchen_; the _cellarium_ or store-room; the _hospitium_ or guest-house; and the _Abbot’s house_.

Attached to each House of the Cistercians was a band of _conversi_, or lay brethren, the uneducated portion of the community, who did all the rough work of the House. Their frater and dorter were separate from the other buildings, the dorter running over the cellarium; and they attended service in the nave of the church, whereas the monks used the choir or chancel.

Such was the general plan of a Cistercian monastery or nunnery. That of the Benedictines did not differ from it except that their churches were larger and more magnificently built than those of the Cistercians, and their fraters ran east and west instead of north and south.

Look at the outer wall of the south aisle of Bridlington Priory Church, and you will at once notice something strange. The windowless wall and blocked arches are due to the fact that the Abbot’s house adjoined the church at this spot. Look along the wall farther to the east, and you will see plainly the brackets on which once rested the roof beams of one of the four cloisters.

In some cases the domestic buildings lay to the north of the church, but this was exceptional. Advantage was usually taken of the protection afforded by the church against the biting north winds of winter, an advantage not to be despised by those who had to live in unwarmed stone buildings on the bleak moorlands of Yorkshire. One can imagine a shivering monk returning from his two hours’ service in the church at two o’clock on a cold winter’s morning, and piling on the bed his whole wardrobe in a vain endeavour to keep the marrow of his bones from freezing into solid ice. It was worth something to be an Abbot. For the Abbot’s house had fire-places, and there would be little fear of his forgetting to make use of such a comfortable privilege.

* * * * *

As was mentioned earlier in the chapter, the monk lived in common with his fellows. In winter his time-table was as follows:—

7 a.m.—Prime—a prayer,[31] hymn, and three psalms.
8 a.m.—Mixtum or breakfast.
8–30 a.m.—Morning mass.
9 a.m.—Chapter, followed by confession of sins and punishment for
faults.
10 a.m.—High mass.
11 a.m.—Dinner.
12 noon.—Manual work.
5 p.m.—Vespers.
6–30 p.m.—Collation—a short reading in the chapter house.
7 p.m.—Compline—a service in the church.
7–30 p.m.—Bed.
12 midnight—Matins and Lauds—services in the church.
2 a.m.—Bed.

Footnote 31:

The prayer with which the daily life began was this: ‘O Lord God
Almighty, Who hast brought us to the beginning of this day, so assist
us by Thy grace, that we may not fall this day into sin, but that our
words may be spoken and our thoughts and deeds directed according to
Thy just commands.’

Strict regulations were made with regard to the church services, manual work, and meals. Each monk had some definite occupation for his working hours. He was a stonemason, a carpenter, a worker in metals, a scribe, or a farmer; and his work must be carried out in silence—a very needful exception being made in the case of the blacksmiths.

Each monk’s dinner allowance was one pound of bread and a pint of wine or ale, with two cooked dishes and fruit or salad. Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and all the days in Lent were fast days, when no meat might be eaten. On these fast days there were allowed as cooked dishes to every two monks either two plaice or mackerel, or four soles, or eight herrings or whiting, or ten eggs. No breakfast was the rule on fast days, and to avoid excess of blood due to good living, each monk was ‘cupped’ four times a year.

Table manners were also looked after. ‘No one was to clean his cup with his fingers, nor wipe his hands, or mouth, or knife, upon the tablecloths.... Salt was to be taken with a knife, and the drinking-cup was to be held always in both hands.’

A CORNER OF THE CLOISTER COURT AT KIRKHAM PRIORY.

The two arches at the back formed the lavatory, where the monks
washed their hands before passing into the frater by the door
on the left.
]

More severe by far was the life of the Carthusians. They lived solitary lives, each in his separate two-roomed cell, never talking to others, and not even seeing others except at matins and vespers. A Carthusian never ate meat and always wore a hair shirt next his skin. It is therefore not surprising that this Order did not become a popular one.

* * * * *

So far we have been dealing with monks and nuns. Besides these there were the REGULAR CANONS—men who lived under a _regula_, or rule, as did the monks, and who took the same three vows, but who were generally priests, while the monks were generally laymen. The Augustinian Canons had priories at Bridlington, Haltemprice, Kirkham, North Ferriby and Warter, and there was a Gilbertine nunnery at Ellerton and a House for both Gilbertine Canons and Benedictine Nuns at Watton. Here the canons and nuns had each their separate domestic buildings, but they shared the church, the canons using one half of it and the nuns the other half.

THE BAYLE GATE, BRIDLINGTON.

Formerly one of the gateways to the Priory grounds.
]

Quite distinct from monks and canons were the FRIARS. Monks were concerned with one thing only—the salvation of their own souls. Hence their monasteries were, as a rule, built in desolate spots, far removed from the centres of population. The churches of the canons were, in most cases, partly used as parish churches, the prior of the convent being also the rector of the parish. Friars were concerned with the salvation of the souls and bodies of other people, hence they established themselves in populous towns. _Fratres_, or _frères_, they were to all poor people, whether they were Dominican Friars, Franciscan Friars, Carmelite Friars, or Austin Friars.

A WHITE FRIAR IN HIS STUDY.
(_From Abbot Gasquet’s ‘English Monastic Life.’_)
]

The followers of St. Dominic were the teachers, the followers of St. Francis the doctors, of the middle ages. _Black Friars_ and _Grey Friars_ they were in the language of the common people. Beverley had its Dominican and Franciscan Friaries, while Kingston-upon-Hull had its Carmelite and Austin Friaries—the names of the two latter remaining to-day in our ‘Whitefriargate’ and ‘Blackfriargate.’

* * * * *

It is difficult for us to realise what enthusiasm there was in the olden days for that which was called ‘the religious life.’ ‘It is good for us to be here, for here a man lives more purely, falls more rarely, rests more safely, and dies more happily’ was the honest thought of each of the _religious_ in early days.

But as with all other human institutions, these good ideals perished in the course of time. Men did not continue to live up to the rules of their Order. Even in Chaucer’s time—that is, before the year 1400—the typical monk had travelled far away from his vows of poverty and obedience.

Full many a dainty horse had he in stable.
* * * * * *
Greyhounds he had as swift as fowls in flight;
Of riding and of hunting for the hare
Was his delight, for no cost would he spare.
* * * * * *
He was not pale as a tormented ghost,
A fat swan loved he best of any roast.

Chaucer’s friar was likewise a wanton and merry man, who knew the taverns well in every town.

His tippet was aye stuffèd full of knives,
And pins also, fit for to give fair wives.
And certainly he had a merry note,
Well could he sing and play upon a rote.[32]

Footnote 32:

A violin with three strings.

XV.
SAINT JOHN OF BEVERLEY AND HIS MINSTER.

ARMS OF BEVERLEY
MINSTER.
]

Each of two East Riding villages, Harpham and Cherry Burton, claims to be the birthplace of Saint John of Beverley. His date of birth is even more uncertain than his place of birth; but we know that he was sent to school at the monastery at Canterbury, and afterwards became an inmate of the famous monastery of St. Hilda at Whitby. Then he was for nineteen years Bishop of Hexham, and finally, in 705 or 706, was ‘translated’ to York, and thus became the fifth in the long line of eighty-nine Archbishops from Paulinus to Cosmo Lang.

While John was Bishop of Hexham he purchased a plot of ground in Beverley, and on it built a church which he placed in charge of a small number of canons. The surrounding country was then nothing but swamp and forest—the swamps of the river Hull and the wild woodland whose name has come down to us as ‘Beverley Westwood.’ So fond of this church was John, that in 718 he gave up his Archbishopric and retired to Beverley, where he died three years later.

John’s church suffered the fate which came to nearly all the monasteries and churches of those far-off times. The ravaging Northmen fell upon it, and it was not till the reign of King Aethelstan that it recovered from their attacks.

Then its fame began to grow. In 934 Aethelstan was marching north to make war upon the Scots, and when at Lincoln met—so the story runs—a band of pilgrims who joyously declared that they had been healed of all manner of diseases by visiting the tomb of the blessed John of Beverley. Their story induced the King to pay a visit to the same tomb; so he journeyed directly north, crossed the Humber, and went on to Beverley, while his army went round by the longer branch of the old Roman road to York.

Arriving at Beverley, Aethelstan besought the aid of the holy Bishop John, and placed his knife on the high altar as a pledge of the rewards that he would bestow upon the church if he were successful in his journey. Thereupon a vision of John of Beverley appeared before his eyes, and he heard the words, ‘Pass fearlessly with your army, for you shall conquer’—words which certainly came true enough.

Believing that his success was due entirely to the power of the holy Bishop whose banner he had brought with him from Beverley, the King, on his return, liberally fulfilled his pledge, and endowed John’s church with grants of lands, tolls, and the right of Sanctuary.

=Swa mickel fredom give i ye,=
=Swa bert may think or egbe see=—

is the way in which a charter of much later date than the time of Aethelstan describes the King’s gifts to John of Beverley’s church.

So great after this became the fame of the miracles performed at the tomb of the founder of the church, that in 1037 the Pope ordered that John of Beverley should thenceforth be ranked as a Saint. His bones and other relics were then laid in a magnificent shrine in front of the high altar, and the story of the fate which came upon the sacrilegious Toustain in 1069 is sufficient evidence of their power.[33]

Footnote 33:

See page 152.

* * * * *

The charter of Aethelstan was renewed by Edward the Confessor, Henry I., and Stephen; and in the reign of the last-named King the banner of St. John was for the second time in the forefront of a battle against the Scots. This was the _Battle of the Standard_, when the banners of the four northern Saints—St. Peter of York, St. Cuthbert of Durham, St. Wilfrid of Ripon, and St. John of Beverley—brought victory to the English host.

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

‘Early English.’ Doorway in the South Transept of Beverley Minster.

]

Once again an English King visited Beverley and carried north with him the banner of St. John. The King was Edward I., the ‘Hammer of the Scots,’ and the Household Accounts of his reign show that in 1299 there was paid:

To master Gilbert de Grimsby, vicar of the collegiate church of St.
John de Beverley, for his wages, from the 25th day of November, on
which day he left Beverley to proceed, by command of the King, with
the standard of St. John, in the King’s suite aforesaid, to various
parts of Scotland, until the 9th day of January, both computed, 46
days, at 8½d. per diem ...

£1 8s. 9d.

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

Small ‘Decorated’ Doorway at the west end of Beverley Minster.

]

Edward II., Henry IV., Henry V., and Henry VI. all paid visits to the shrine of St. John of Beverley, and his power was once more demonstrated in the victory of the English army at the battle of Agincourt. For during the time that the battle was being waged, did not the tomb of the Saint sweat drops of holy oil? So at least said the pilgrims to the shrine, and certainly they ought to have known whether it did or not.

Royal gifts and pilgrims’ offerings brought great prosperity to the church of St. John of Beverley. But evil days were fast approaching, and in 1547 Royal Commissioners were sent to report on it. They reported that there were attached to the church a Provost, 9 Canons, 7 Parsons, 9 Vicars, 15 Chantry Priests, 4 Sacristans, 2 Incense Bearers, 8 Choristers, and 22 others, a total of 77 officers, who shared among them an income of £900 derived from lands and tithes. Two years later its revenues were declared confiscated to the Crown, and its inmates reduced in number to 1 Vicar and 3 Assistants.

* * * * *

Of the building as it was in its earliest days we know little. In Aethelstan’s time it was probably entirely of wood. The erection of a stone church is believed to have taken place in the reign of Edward the Confessor, but we know that in 1188 the chancel and transepts of this church were destroyed by fire.

Rebuilding was commenced shortly afterwards, and a lofty tower was built on the weak foundations of the older one. As a result the new tower soon fell, and about 1225 the building of an entirely new church was taken in hand. This was the time when what we call the _Early English_ style of building was in vogue, and there is nothing of this style in all England finer than the chancel and transepts of Beverley Minster.[34]

Footnote 34:

The name _Minster_ became attached in mediæval times to the great
churches which were not parish churches but were governed by a
_College_, or body of secular canons.

If you look at the old engraving of the Minster given on page 137 you will notice that this one style of building was not followed throughout the church. Just past the transepts the style changes into the _Decorated_ style. The reason is that there was a long interval of nearly one hundred years during which the canons had not enough money to continue their building operations, so that the work came to a standstill. Meanwhile the Norman nave was still standing; and when at last money again became plentiful, a larger nave in the new and fashionable style was built around the old one. A curious result of this mode of building is seen to-day in that the pillars of the nave are not exactly opposite to one another, because the builders were not able to measure directly across from one to the other.

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

Part of the Arcading on the south side of the Nave in Beverley Minster,
showing the change of style from ‘Early English’ to ‘Decorated.’

]

Another glance at the old engraving will show that a further change in men’s ideas of building took place before the church was finished. The ravages of the ‘Black Death’ stopped progress for a time; and when the great twin towers of the west end were built, the _Perpendicular_ style of building had become fashionable. Then, in order that the east window should be in fashion with the west window, it was rebuilt ‘in the latest style.’ Thus we have in the church three successive styles of building, quite different from one another, and yet so blended that they make one harmonious whole.

After the confiscation of the church property in 1549, the Minster fell, naturally, into sad disrepair. Its beautiful octagonal chapter house was sold and pulled down. One hundred and ten years ago the Minster was reported to be almost a ruin. So bad was its condition that the beautiful gable of the north transept had bulged outwards no less than four feet, and was saved from destruction only by the skill of a carpenter named Thornton, who erected a huge screen of timber, and forced the wall back to its upright position.

‘_Hey-diddle-diddle,
The cat and the fiddle._’

A WOOD-CARVING IN BEVERLEY MINSTER.
]

In 1886 a great architect, Sir Gilbert Scott, was employed to make necessary restorations. First of all he took down the dome-like roof, with gilded ball above it, seen in the old engraving of the Minster. True, the Minster still lacks the central tower which, like the cathedrals of York, Durham, and Lincoln, it was originally planned to have; but better none at all than the unsuitable dome which our ancestors built a century ago. The beautiful choir screen was designed also by Sir Gilbert Scott, and was carved by a Beverley craftsman, Mr. James Elwell.

Since 1886 the main work of restoration has been the filling in of the numerous niches around the walls, each of which before the Reformation had its statue, great or small. Only one of these ancient statues remains, a statue of one of the Percy family, on a buttress of the north face of the north tower. There are now in position on the walls of the Minster 182 statues—108 outside and 74 inside—most of which have been provided through the generosity of Canon Nolloth.

There is much of interest to see around the Minster. The best view of the great towers is obtained from the entrance to Minster Moorgate; that of the interior of the nave from the upper floor at the west end, which is reached by a staircase in the north tower.

Climb to the top of the tower and you will, if the day is fine, be rewarded with a wide-reaching view over Beverley Westwood and the Plain of Holderness. Go into the chancel and examine the Percy Tomb. You are looking at the most magnificent stonework of the fourteenth century in the whole of Europe. Lift up the seats in the canons’ stalls and you will see the best collection of carved _miserere_ seats in England. Sit in the ancient _Frith-Stool_ and you can imagine yourself to be either an innocent victim of oppression or a criminal of the deepest dye—whichever you prefer. Stand before the great east window, and admire the beauty of the old stained glass of which it is composed. Or stand before the great west window and you will see portrayed in its coloured glass Augustine and Aethelberht of Kent and St. John of Beverley, the marriage of Edwin and Ethelburga, the baptism of Edwin by Paulinus, and Coifi, the heathen high priest, with his broken idols—an epitome of the early church history of our country.

XVI.
SANCTUARIES.

The Church in the Middle Ages had a tremendous hold over people’s minds, and this was largely due to the power which it wielded over their bodies. Foremost amongst the rights then possessed by it was the right of ‘Sanctuary,’ by which the poor and injured could gain safety from the attacks of their oppressors, and one who had unwittingly committed a crime might save himself from a criminal’s death. This right belonged, in greater or less degree, to all the churches scattered up and down the country.