Its Walls and Rows (especially the latter) give to the city of Chester
a character all its own. They are not only the pride of the inhabitants
of the city and county, but they also afford an unfailing source of
attraction to a constant stream of tourists and visitors. In no other
town in the kingdom is it possible to make a complete circuit of the
Walls, which involves a walk of nearly a couple of miles. That walk
is a favourite promenade, and offers a pleasing and varying prospect
not only of the different features of interest in the city, but also
of the surrounding country, and of the distant Welsh hills. The Walls
too furnish a never-ending subject for discussion as to their origin
and history; upon which fresh light is continually being thrown by
discoveries that are made. The main point in dispute has been as to
whether they can claim any connection with Roman builders; and the
question seems by some to have been settled in the affirmative on
various grounds. Whilst Roman stones have been found in portions of the
north wall when under repair, on the eastern side some masonry is to
be seen which from its character may safely be ascribed to that early
date; and quite recently some excavations, which were necessary for
building operations, unearthed at that particular spot the foundations
of the Roman wall just a few feet in front of the present one. The
plinth thus discovered indicates that the place is the south-eastern
angle of the Roman Wall, and proves what had been tentatively
suggested, that originally and in Roman times the compass of the Walls
was considerably less than it is now. It has been suggested that at a
later date the Romans enlarged the boundaries of the town, which at
first was a camp or fortress, and that subsequently Ethelfleda, in
907, when she repaired the city, which had lain waste, still further
enlarged its borders on the south side. On the west there are undoubted
traces of Roman work, and here the Walls (or more correctly the Quay)
in early days must have been washed by the tidal waters of the Dee,
and vessels must have been able to come up close to them and moor at
their side. The Roman stones discovered in the north wall when it
was under repair, were many of them inscribed and sepulchral: and so
some authorities concluded that they could not have been placed there
by Roman builders. It was shown, however, that a similar use of a
sepulchral monument occurred in a bastion of the Roman wall of London,
and that none of these stones were found in the upper part of the
wall, but in the lower unmortared base, which was evidently Roman. The
conclusion arrived at was that the Romans had extended their wall at
an early period, and, in doing so, had enclosed or made use of their
cemetery. In confirmation of this theory, it may be stated that the
surrounding masonry is of Roman character, and that a similar use of
tombstones has been found elsewhere, as in a Roman edifice on the Roman
Wall in England, and at Worms, and other towns in Gaul. As we walk
round the Walls, then, to-day, we may remember that a considerable
portion of them are on the foundations and lines laid down in Roman
times.
The upper portion is no doubt Edwardian, though alterations and
repairs at different times have somewhat altered their character.
This is specially to be noted in the removal, at the close of the
eighteenth century, of the old Gateways. These, as we can see from old
prints, were striking and picturesque, if they were at the same time
inconvenient. In York the Gateways (or Bars as they are there termed)
have been retained, and the convenience for traffic has been obtained
by opening arches at the side of them and leaving the Bars untouched.
We can only regret that the same policy was not adopted in Chester.
Each of the four gates was under the guardianship or sergeantry of
particular persons. The North Gate, which contained the prison,
was under the charge of the city authorities; the East Gate, given
originally to Henry de Bradford, passed into the possession of the
Crewe family. The sergeantry of the Water Gate descended through the
Barony of Montalt to the Earl of Derby, and that of the Bridge Gate
from the Rabys and Troutbecks to the Earl of Shrewsbury. Near each of
these latter two gates are beautiful old specimens of half-timbered
houses, where the sergeants or their deputies used to live. In addition
to these principal gates, there were smaller ones or posterns, like the
Ship Gate, which led to the crossing over the Dee--the New Gate, and
the small Kale Yard Gate, which led to the monastic vegetable garden.
There was also a further protection, at a distance of about a quarter
of a mile on the road eastward, called the Bars, which has been removed
many years ago, though the name is still preserved.
In early times a murage rate was levied for the maintenance of the
Walls, and the officers who had charge thereof and collected and
expended this money were called murengers. At one time a considerable
sum was raised by the impost placed upon Irish linen, which was
imported into Chester in large quantities.
As we walk round the Walls we can call to mind the scenes which must
have been enacted on them when the city was attacked. In those days
the walk was probably at a lower level, or at any rate the outer Wall
was higher (and perhaps battlemented), thus affording protection to
the defenders. At various distances were bastions and towers, some few
of which remain, and enable us to form a better idea of the earlier
condition of the city defences. In Roman times there was the
additional protection of a ditch or fosse, and traces of this have
been found in various places. When the Canal was made close to the
North Wall the contractor found to his great advantage that much of the
excavation out of the solid rock had thus been done for him.
[Illustration: Bonewaldesthorne’s Tower.]
The common gaol of the city was in the North Gate, and the prisoners
there confined must have had very close quarters. A similar use of the
North Gate was made at Canterbury (where the building still remains),
and possibly in other places. Just outside the North Gate is the
Hospital of St. John, and here in later years the prisoners attended
divine service. A memorial of this is to be seen in the little bridge
which crossed the fosse, now the Canal, and which has been sometimes
called “The Bridge of Sighs.” Not far from here westward is Morgan’s
Mount, with a lower chamber and an upper platform from which a fine
view may be obtained. During the siege of the city a very important
battery was planted here, and the site may well arouse memories of
anxious and troublous times. Still further west is Pemberton’s Parlour,
so called from the fact that in 1700 John Pemberton established a
rope walk here within the walls, and probably from this spot watched
at times the operations of his workmen, or rested here after his own
labours. Though now semi-circular in shape, it may once have been
circular, with a passage through it. It also bore other names, as
“Dille’s Tower,” or “The Goblin’s Tower,” the latter suggestive of
a ghost story connected with it. An inscription on the city side
records the repair of this portion of the Walls 200 years ago, and
reminds us of those civic functionaries, the murengers, who had
charge of the Walls. The north-west angle of the Walls is marked by
Bonewaldesthorne’s Tower, and connected with it by a battlemented
curtain wall is the New or Water Tower. When the latter was built in
1323 it was washed by the waters of the Dee, and not long since the
rings attached to it for the mooring of vessels might have been seen.
At the present day the Tower rises out of gardens, and the river is
at some little distance away. Continuing our walk southwards we come
to the Roodeye. Formerly, as its name implies, this was an island
surrounded at high tide by the waters of the estuary, but it gradually
silted up. In 1609 Mr. W. Lester, mercer, who was then Mayor, founded,
chiefly at his own cost, the St. George’s Race, which was to be run on
St. George’s Day. This was the origin of the Chester Races, which take
place ordinarily in the first week in May, which would correspond with
old St. George’s Day. On its first foundation the race was introduced
by a stately procession, in which certain emblematical characters took
part, as well as the Mayor and Corporation “in their best apparell and
in scarlet,” and it was followed by a civic banquet at the Pentice. We
may call up such scenes as these as we look over the Racecourse, and
not content ourselves with imagining what things are like, when that
busy throng comes to the Chester Races nowadays. Here, too, were at
times presented the Miracle Plays and city Pageants, and Triumphs and
other games, including that of football, promoted by the Company of
Shoemakers on Shrove Tuesday, otherwise Goteddesse Day, which in 1539
was abolished _owing to its dangerous_ character, foot races being
substituted. We may think, too, of the training of soldiers here in
Elizabeth’s reign, and in recent years of the Yeomanry, until they were
removed to Delamere Forest. As we reach the southern side, and see the
waters of the Dee, we may picture to ourselves Edgar rowed up by the
tributary princes to the Church of St. John, and in later times see the
Walls manned by archers and other brave defenders, ready to resist the
incursions of the Welsh. In short, the Walls are full of interesting
memories, though only one event is chronicled in an inscription in
stone, and that is on the Phœnix Tower, so called from the device of
the Painters’ and Stationers’ Company, which is carved upon its south
wall. It was from the top of the Tower that King Charles I. witnessed
the defeat of his forces on Rowton Moor.
[Illustration: King Charles’s Tower.]
But though only one event is thus definitely recorded, we can think of
others--of the monks bringing in solemn procession the relics of St.
Werburgh at some critical time of danger, and of the protection which
these venerable Walls afforded to the dwellers in the city. Now indeed
they afford a pleasant and enjoyable promenade, much frequented both
by residents and visitors; but time was when they were an absolute
necessity to secure the safety of the citizens, and needed to be
jealously guarded by their watchmen, whilst the Gates which provided
an entrance had their sergeants and keepers. And thus a walk round the
Walls should not fail to suggest a contrast between the peaceful days
in which we live, and the troublous and disturbed times which often
threatened our forefathers.
[Illustration: Watergate Row, Chester.]
If the Walls of our city possess this great interest for us, what shall
we say of our Rows? They are practically unique. Other cities and towns
have their Walls, but no other place, in England at any rate, has
anything like the Rows. And their origin is veiled in obscurity. It
is very difficult to give such a description of them as shall enable
one who has not seen them to realise what they are like. The late Dean
Howson spoke of them as “public highways passing through the front part
of the drawing-rooms on the first floor of a series of houses, the
windows being taken out, while the inner parts of these drawing-rooms
are converted into shops, the bedrooms being overhead, and the
passengers walking over the rooms of the ground storey, these rooms
again being converted into shops.” Mr. Pennant in his _Tour_ gives
this description, founded, as we shall see, upon a mistaken idea as to
their origin:--“The principal streets run direct from east to west and
from north to south, and were excavated out of the earth, and sunk many
feet below the surface. The carriages are driven far below the level
of the kitchens, on a line with ranges of shops, over which passengers
walk in galleries, which the inhabitants call the Rows, secure from
wet or heat. In the Rows are likewise ranges of shops and steps to
descend into the street.” Without giving earlier descriptions, it will
be gathered, that in the main streets within the city Walls there are
covered galleries over the shops on the street level, which also are
lined with shops. The walks in these galleries do not come quite to the
street frontage, as opposite each shop there is, as a rule, a “stall,”
or sloping platform, on which goods may be exposed, though in some few
instances this space is occupied by buildings of a permanent character.
The stalls are protected from the street to which they are open by
balustrades, some of which are of oak and of varying and handsome old
patterns. As the shops represent different properties, there is a
pleasing lack of uniformity about the Rows. In some instances we have
the half-timbered architecture for which Cheshire is famous, in others
houses of the date of Queen Anne; whilst in recent times some have been
rebuilt and made more in accordance with modern requirements, though
due regard has latterly been paid to the character of the ancient
buildings. The walk in Eastgate and Bridge Street is continuous, and
here are the best and principal shops; in the other streets the walk is
interrupted by intervening lanes or streets, except on the south side
of Watergate Street, where there are some very striking houses, such as
“Bishop Lloyd’s Palace,” or “God’s Providence House.” The variety is
also seen in the height of the colonnade, which is sometimes through
the older houses quite low, and in the more modern ones much higher. On
the west side of Bridge Street there is, in fact, barely headroom for a
very tall person in some parts, but here there are no shops in the Row,
so that the inconvenience is not felt. In the greater part of Northgate
the Row, if it ever existed, has disappeared, and in another part it
has recently been brought down to the street level, the under shops,
which were really cellars, having been removed. The Rows thus, like the
Walls, afford a favourite promenade for visitors. In rainy weather they
give protection to those who have business to transact in the shops
which line them; whilst “the stalls” afford a convenient position
for witnessing any procession passing through the streets. We may even
go back in thought to early days and imagine how they would be crowded
with spectators when the Chester Plays were acted in the streets, or
when the questionable sport (?) of bull-baiting took place before the
Pentice at the High Cross. It is curious to know that the ownership of
the property on the street level does not necessarily carry with it the
ownership of the shop or house in the Row above.
[Illustration: Bishop Lloyd’s Palace, Watergate Row.]
In other parts of the city there are shops or houses where the first
floor, supported by brick or stone arches or by wooden posts, is over
the footway or pavement, and in the city accounts there are repeated
entries of payments made for posts set up in the streets to hold up
houses. Interesting examples of this are to be seen in Foregate Street
and in Northgate.
The arrangement of the Rows is so singular, that much discussion
has taken place as to their history and origin. Some have contended
that they may be traced back to the Roman period, and that they were
probably suggested by the common form of Roman building with a portico
in front of them. Much ingenuity has been displayed by architects and
others who urge this view in the drawings by which they seek to justify
this contention. Stress, too, is laid by them on the fact that the Rows
are confined to that part of the city which is of Roman origin, though
this fact has been denied by those who adopt other theories.
The late Mr. John Henry Parker, F.S.A., in 1857, wrote as
follows:--“The most probable origin of these Rows is, that after some
great fire, it was found most convenient to make the footway on the
top of the cellars, or vaulted substructures, instead of in the narrow
streets between them. It was the usual custom in the towns in the
Middle Ages to protect the lower storey, or cellar, which was half
underground, by a vault of stone or brick. This was the storeroom
in which the merchandise or other valuable property was preserved.
The upper parts of the houses were entirely of wood, and the whole of
these being destroyed by fire, it was more easy to make the footway
on the top of the vaults, leaving the roadway clear for horses and
carts. Many of these vaulted chambers of the mediæval period remain in
Chester, more or less perfect; some divided by modern walls and used as
cellars, others perfect and used as lower shops or warehouses.” This
theory, again, is ingenious, and has this justification, that in 1114
a large part of the city was destroyed by fire; but against it may be
urged the fact that one of the most perfect, and probably the oldest
of these crypts (the house or shop in which it is being called “Ye
Olde Crypt”), is not in the street front, but beneath the back portion
of the house. Others have supposed that the original ground-level of
the city was the same level with the Rows, and that the streets were
gradually worn down to their present level through the solid rock. This
opinion has, however, been shown to be untenable, inasmuch as in Bridge
Street, Watergate, and other parts, Roman remains have been discovered
which show that in Roman times buildings were even a little below the
present street level, and that the foundations of the Roman buildings
correspond practically with the height of the roadway. Archdeacon
Rogers, at the end of the sixteenth century, urged that the Rows were
constructed for defensive purposes, and would be found useful in this
way in the time of Welsh incursions. We have, however, no record of
the Welsh having ever effected an entrance into the town, so that the
precaution would seem to have been superfluous. Canon Morris, in his
valuable work (_Chester during the Plantagenet and Tudor Periods_),
advances another theory at some length to account for the gradual
development of the Rows from the seldæ, or movable sheds, on the street
level, and the shops built on the higher ground behind, formed of the
debris of Roman buildings which had been destroyed. These are some
of the ideas which have been propounded as to the origin of the
Rows. It is well to state them, so that our readers may gather what a
fertile source of interesting discussion they furnish. Mr. Henry Dawes
Harrod, F.S.A., after carefully examining these explanations, and the
arguments on which they were based, came to the conclusion that we must
look to ancient Chester for the origin of the Rows, and so go back to
Roman times. His contention is not unlike that of Canon Morris, only
he gives an earlier date. He says: “The shop of the ambulatory, with
its covered way, is perpetuated in the shop in the Row. The stall for
traders on the steps finds its lineal descendant in the shop in the
streets. The covering over the Rows has given way before the growth of
the houses to the front, economising space, and affording better living
accommodation. Without any great revolution in design or architecture,
the Rows have developed by a natural growth on the lines of the ancient
design of Roman Chester.”
“When doctors differ who shall decide?” It may not be possible to come
to a definite conclusion on the matter; but, personally, I think that
the contention of Mr. Harrod, advanced in a paper read before the
Chester Archæological Society on 19th February 1901, and supported
by arguments and illustrations, is a most reasonable one, which at
any rate commends itself to my humble judgment. The mere mention of
these various theories may perhaps lead some of our readers to take
even greater interest in the Rows of Chester, and remind the dwellers
in both city and county that in them they possess a great and unique
treasure.