each side what is called an _aisle_, in which case its central roof is
supported on a double row of pillars. Possibly the chancel also has
aisles. The walls above the lines of pillars may be pierced with
windows, which thus look out above the roofs of the aisles. These
windows are known as _clerestory_ windows.
[Illustration:
_Photo by_] [_C. W. Mason_
A Piscina in Patrington Church
]
In cathedrals and very large churches there is a story which runs along
each side of the nave and chancel, between the capitals of the pillars
and the clerestory. This is called the _triforium_. Beverley Minster has
a triforium, but there is no passage round it, and it is really a blind
story. A portion of it can be seen in the photograph of the Percy Tomb
on page 230. Bridlington Priory Church has a triforium on the north side
only.
In churches of large size the building is not simply a rectangular one
with or without aisles, but is formed of two rectangular buildings
crossing each other at right angles. The nave and chancel have added to
them a _north transept_ and a _south transept_, and above the
crossing-place rises a _central tower_ on four huge _piers_.
These transepts, as well as the nave and chancel, may have aisles. But
this is customary only in cathedrals. Holy Trinity Church, Hull, the
third largest church in Britain,[25] has aisles only to the nave and
chancel; Patrington Church—the ‘Queen of Holderness’—has aisles to the
nave and to each transept; and Hedon Church—the ‘King of Holderness’—now
has aisles only to its nave, though its transepts formerly had an aisle
on the east.
Footnote 25:
The following are the _internal areas_ of the three largest churches
in Britain:—
St. Nicholas’, Great Yarmouth 25,023 sq. ft.
St. Michael’s, Coventry 24,015 "
Holy Trinity, Hull 21,756 "
* * * * *
Many were the difficulties that the builders of our ancient churches had
to overcome. In the East Riding one difficulty was the obtaining of
suitable building-material. Stone blocks were costly, for these had to
be brought by water from the quarries of the West Riding. So usually the
builders had to make the best use they could of the materials they
obtained locally—boulders from the cliffs of the sea-shore, blocks of
chalk from the Wolds, or clay bricks from the low-lying bank of the
Humber.[26]
Footnote 26:
The brickwork of the chancel and transepts of Holy Trinity, Hull, is
probably the ‘earliest existing example of mediæval brickwork in
England.’ These portions of the church were built during the first
quarter of the fourteenth century.
Another difficulty was sometimes encountered in obtaining suitable
foundations. The clay soil on which the church of Holy Trinity, Hull, is
built was not of sufficient depth to afford foundations for the heavy
central tower which it was intended to build.
Twentieth-century builders would drive piles down into the clay to make
a firm foundation; the fourteenth-century builders solved the problem by
constructing four huge rafts of trimmed oak trunks, each consisting of
two rows of trunks crossing at right angles. On these rafts they raised
the piers for their tower; and when, in 1906, it became necessary to
take out the tree-trunks and replace them with steel girders and cement,
many of the trunks were found to be as sound as on the day that they
were placed in position six hundred years ago.
* * * * *
[Illustration:
_Photo by_] [_J. Ball_
Part of the Foundations of the Tower of Holy Trinity Church, Hull.
]
The greatest charm of our ancient churches lies in the fact that, except
in a very few instances, a church is not built in the same style
throughout. It is quite evident, if we have a seeing eye, that additions
and alterations have been made at different times. The nave and the
chancel were plainly not designed by the same architect; the north side
of the church differs from the south; here has been added a new door,
there a new window; the roof has been taken off, the worn ends of the
rafters sawn away, and the rafters used again, so that the roof has to
be of less slope than it was before.
[Illustration: FILEY CHURCH, SHOWING THE LINES OF THE ORIGINAL ROOF.]
All these are the signs of life and growth. If we wish, we can read by
them how our forefathers prospered in their worldly business, and how
they gave thanks to God for their prosperity; or how the coming of the
Plague brought them poverty and distress, and perhaps put a stop to
their building operations, which were not completed till many years
afterwards, and then in a style quite different from that in which they
had been begun.
Often these alterations and rebuildings were put on record, and some of
the records remain to our day. Thus John Skinner, of Westgate, Hedon, by
his will made in 1428, left the sum of forty shillings towards the
building of the new tower of St. Augustine’s Church. On the south face
of the tower of Aughton Church is an inscription which is now illegible,
but which once told in the Anglo-French language that Christopher Aske,
the second son of Sir Robert Aske, rebuilt the tower in 1536.
[Illustration:
_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_
The ‘Beverley Imp’—St. Mary’s Church, Beverley.
]
Cut into the stone of the same tower is in two places the likeness of an
_aske_ or newt, a punning allusion to the name of the builder. In the
same way, the tower of Hemingbrough Church is ornamented with a row of
‘dolly-tubs’ or ‘weshing-tuns’—an allusion to the name of Prior
Wessington, in whose period of rule the tower was rebuilt.
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.
[Illustration: DIFFERENT FORMS OF ARCHES.]
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.
[Illustration:
‘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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration: BRASS OF THOMAS TONGE, RECTOR OF BEEFORD. A.D. 1472.]
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.
[Illustration: ARMS OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL.]
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.
[Illustration: SILVER PENNY COINED AT HULL IN THE REIGN OF EDWARD I.]
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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration:
EFFIGIES OF SIR WILLIAM DE LA POLE AND DAME KATHERINE IN HOLY TRINITY
CHURCH, HULL.
_From Gough’s ‘Sepulchral Monuments.’_
]
[Illustration: ARMS OF THE DE LA POLES.]