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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration:
_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.
[Illustration:
‘_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.
[Illustration: PLAN OF BEVERLEY MINSTER]
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.
Let us imagine a by-no-means uncommon event in the years just after the
Black Death. A husbandman is working for his master as a free labourer
and small cottager. His father before him had also been a free labourer,
but his grandfather had in his youth been a serf of the lord of a
neighbouring manor. This grandfather of his, because the serfs had
increased beyond their lord’s requirements, had been allowed with others
to go free; and taking advantage of his freedom he had sought and
obtained work as a free labourer under a new master. But now, after the
Black Death, labourers are scarce; and the present lord of the manor is
causing to be looked up all the descendants of those serfs whom his
ancestor had set free. Thus the lord’s bailiff has been making enquiries
about our freeman, and has sent two servants to arrest him and take him
back to the serfdom that his grandfather had once suffered.
But our freeman is a man of spirit, and will not be taken without
resistance. Knives are drawn, and he defends himself. In the scuffle one
of his assailants stumbles and falls, and unluckily for himself and for
our freeman, he happens to fall upon his own weapon, which pierces his
body and so causes his death. His comrade, chicken-hearted, fears to
continue the struggle alone, and makes off to the village for help.
What is our freeman to do? If he remains where he is and allows himself
to be taken, not only will he be claimed as a serf by the lord of the
neighbouring manor, but he will also be charged with causing the death
of the lord’s servant.
Little chance is there of his proving himself innocent of his
assailant’s death; for the dead man’s companion will not fail to swear
that the death-blow was struck by him. In any case he will be thrown
into the town jail for an indefinite length of time, perhaps not to come
out alive, or to come out maimed for life. Were not three prisoners, two
men and a woman, thrown into the jail last year on suspicion of having
been concerned in a murder, and were they not kept there till one of the
men died, the other lost a foot, and the woman lost both feet, from
disease produced by the foul condition of the cell into which they were
cast?
So thinks our freeman to himself. It is little comfort to him to
remember that when the two prisoners who remained alive were eventually
tried, they were found ‘not guilty’ of the charge laid against them, and
were told by the justices that they could depart.
* * * * *
What can our freeman do? In a short while the lord of the manor’s other
servant will come up with help against him, and he must then be
overpowered. He can only flee. But whither? In the distance he can just
distinguish the outline of the great church of St. John of Beverley. If
he can only reach that church and knock on the small door that holds the
sanctuary knocker he will be safe.
[Illustration:
_Photo by_] Sanctuary Cross at Bishop Burton. [_C. W. Mason_
]
So off he sets on a six-mile run, with life before him and death behind.
He has a good start over his pursuers, whom he can just make out
half-a-mile or so away, but will he be able to hold out till he reaches
the goal set before him? Nearer and nearer becomes the church, and
although his pursuers are gaining on him, yet his heart is cheered by
the sight of the boundary cross which tells him he has little more than
a mile now to run, and which in itself gives him a certain amount of
protection. For should he now be taken, he is under the protection of
St. John, and his pursuers will lay hands on him at the risk of a fine
of eight pounds payable to the Church.
Spurred on by fresh hope he reaches his goal, and has just sufficient
strength to clang the knocker before he falls heavily against the heavy
door. ‘Oh that the door may be opened quickly!’ His prayer is answered;
for a watching priest has seen the pursuit. He draws back the bolt,
drags in the senseless form, and clangs to the door again just as the
pursuers reach it.
For a space of thirty days our freeman will now be safe, and during
these thirty days he will be fed and lodged by the canons of the
Minster. But first he will be required, with his hand placed on the
great written copy of the Bible possessed by the Minster, to take an
oath read out to him by the Coroner in the following words:—
‘Sir, take hede on your oth—
Ye shalbe trew and feythfull to my Lord Archbisshop of York, Lord
off this towne....
Also ye shall bere gude hert to the Baillie and xij governars of
this town....
Also ye shall bere no poynted wepen, dagger, knyfe, ne none other
wapen, ayenst the Kynges pece.
Also ye shalbe redy at all your power, if ther be any debate or
stryf, or oder sothan case of fyre within the towne, to help to
surcess it.
Also ye shalbe redy at the obite[35] of Kyng Adelstan ... at the
warnyng of the belman of the towne, and doe your dewte in
ryngyng....’
Footnote 35:
A service held in memory of the death of a benefactor.
Then having taken the oath he will be required to ‘kysse the book.’
But in the eyes of the law our freeman is a felon—a man over whose head
there hangs a charge of murder, and who will have little chance of
proving his innocence of this charge. He must avail himself of the law
established of old and confirmed by King Edward II.—
Let the felon be brought to the church door, and there be assigned
unto him a port, near or far off, and a time appointed to him to go
out of the realm, so that in going towards that port he carry a
cross in his hand, and that he go not out of the King’s highway,
neither on the right hand nor on the left, but that he keep it
always until he shall be gone out of the land; and that he shall not
return without special grace of our lord the King.
Such were the rights of sanctuary possessed by the Minster at Beverley.
For the space of a mile around the church in every direction the peace
of St. John extended, and within this circle—the boundaries of which
were marked by the erection of a ‘sanctuary cross’ on each of the roads
entering Beverley—partial safety was assured to all fugitives. But the
nearer a fugitive got to the high altar of the Minster the safer he
became. Seated in the _Frith-Stool_ that stood by the side of the altar
he was absolutely safe; for none—not even the King himself—dare violate
its sacred peace.
The Beverley frith-stool now stands in the chancel near the north-east
transept. A plain, massive seat of stone it is, so massive and so simple
in design that its age seems greater than that of the Minster itself.
Possibly it dates back to the days of the Saxon King Aethelstan. It was
once engraved, we know, with a Latin inscription, the translation of
which ran thus:
This stone seat is called FREEDSTOLL, that is, chair of peace, on
reaching which a fugitive criminal enjoys complete safety.
A frith-stool very similar to the Beverley one exists at Hexham Abbey in
Northumberland, and in the village church of Halsham in our East Riding
there is what is thought to be another. Here, however, the ‘chair of
peace’ is built into the wall of the chancel between the sedilia and the
priests’ door. No other examples are known in Yorkshire.
[Illustration: THE BEVERLEY FRITH-STOOL.]
Of sanctuary knockers still existing the finest is the Norman one on the
north door of Durham Cathedral, but nearer home there is a good example
on a door of All Saints’ Church at York. That which once existed, and
which was so freely used, on a door of Beverley Minster has long ago
disappeared, nor is there any known example in the East Riding.
[Illustration:
_Photo by_] [_W. Watson_
Sanctuary Knocker on a Door of All Saints’ Church, York.
]
As an instance of the protection afforded to the people by the existence
of this right of sanctuary, and of the power of the Church over the
minds of even such Kings as William the Conqueror, may be given the
story told by Alured,[36] a priest of the Minster of St. John in the
reign of William’s son, Henry I.:—
At the time when William was engaged on his ‘Wasting of the North’
he had once pitched his camp seven miles from Beverley, and had
caused all the people of the district to flee to the church for
protection. Certain soldiers coming up intent on plunder made their
way to the church, and their leader, Toustain by name, did not
hesitate to spur his horse within its open door. But the vengeance
of St. John came down upon him for his impious deed, his horse
stumbled on the threshold, and Toustain fell with broken neck.
Moreover, when his men picked him up, his head was found to be
twisted towards his back, and his feet and hands were distorted like
those of a mis-shapen monster. Fear came upon all the Norman
soldiers, and when William was informed of the miracle that had
happened, fear came also upon him; so that he confirmed all the
privileges of the church, gave it a grant of lands at Sigglesthorne,
and decreed that the lands of the blessed Saint John should be
everywhere spared from the ‘Wasting.’
Footnote 36:
An old spelling of ‘Alfred.’
In affording protection to the innocent, the injured, and the oppressed,
the Church was carrying on a good work. But we must remember that the
same protection was afforded to those actually guilty of all possible
crimes. The registers kept at Beverley show that during a space of sixty
years in the reigns of King Edward IV., Richard III., Henry VII. and
Henry VIII., those who claimed the right of sanctuary included:—
186 who were charged with murder,
54 ” ” ” ” felony,
1 ” was ” ” horse-stealing,
1 ” ” ” ” treason,
1 who was charged with receiving stolen goods,
7 ” were ” ” coining,
208 ” ” ” ” debt,
35 ” ” ” ” other crimes.
—--
493 who were charged with various offences.
In the Beverley registers there are 469 entries, of which all but a few
are written in Latin. One of the English entries will give an idea of
the kind of record kept:—
John Spret, Gentilman.
Memorandum, that John Spret, of Barton upon Umber, in the Counte of
Lyncoln, gentilman, com to Beverlay, the ferst day of October, the
vij yer of the reen of Keing Herry the vij, and asked the lybertes
of Saint John of Beverlay, for the dethe of John Welton, husbondman,
of the same town, and knawleg[37] hymselff to be at the kyllyng of
the saym John with a dagarth,[38] the xv day of August.
Footnote 37:
Acknowledged.
Footnote 38:
Dagger.
It is evident from these 469 entries that the Beverley Sanctuary must
have been of special repute. For the criminals who asked the liberties
of Saint John of Beverley came from parts of Britain as wide apart as
Lowestoft, Honiton, Haverfordwest, Anglesey, and Durham. No fewer than
thirty came from London, Beverley itself provided five, _Preston in
Holdernes_ three, and _Kyngestone super Hull_ ten; while others came
from _Heydon_, _Hezell_, _Hoton Cransewik_, _Hogett super le Wolde_,
_Otteryngham_, _Wetherwyk_, and fifty other towns and villages in the
East Riding.
All ranks and conditions of life are represented among these entries,
from the _armiger_ or knight, and _generosus_ or person of noble birth,
down to the common _laborer_. The _goldsmyth_, the _surgyon_, the
_grosiar_—an alderman of London—the _yoman_, the _chapman_, the
_shepard_, and the _husbondman_ are there. So, sad to relate, is the
_capellanus_, or chaplain; and among the tradesmen there are the
_berbrower_, _bocher_, _bowyer_, _brykemaker_, _capper_, _coke_,
_flecher_,[39] _fysshemonger_, _payntour_, _pewterer_, _plommer_,
_pursor_, _pynner_, _saddiler_, _salter_, _syngyngman_, and
_tawlowchaunler_.
Footnote 39:
A _flecher_, or _fletcher_, was an arrow-maker.
* * * * *
Under such circumstances as these, it is not wonderful that complaints
of the misuse of sanctuary rights became frequent. In 1324 ten
prisoners escaped from Newgate Jail, of whom five took refuge in one
or other of the London churches, and thence escaped out of the
country. In 1376 Parliament complained to the King that certain people
got money or goods on loan, made pretended gifts of all their property
to their friends, then went into sanctuary, and stayed there till
their creditors were glad to accept some small portion of the debt in
payment for the whole; after which they came out, received back their
pretended gifts, and lived merrily on their ill-gotten wealth. Cases
even occurred in which thieves and murderers left their place of
sanctuary at nightfall, committed fresh crimes during the night, and
returned to the ‘chair of peace’ again before daybreak.
So great did the scandal of this misuse of the privileges afforded by
sanctuaries eventually become, that in 1623 Parliament passed a law
that:
No sanctuarie or priviledge of sanctuary shal be hereafter admitted
or allowed in any case.
The law was again passed in 1697, but it was not until the reign of
George I. that the last sanctuary in our country was demolished.
XVII.
HOW TWO KINGS OF ENGLAND LANDED
AT SPURN.
In the old Norse account of the life of Harold Hardrada it is stated
that after the battle of Stamford Bridge Olaf, the King’s son, ‘led the
fleet from England, setting sail from _Hrafnseyri_.’ This is the
earliest mention that we have of the bank of sand and shingle which is
known to-day as Spurn Point, and the name of the place—‘Hrafn’s
gravel-bank’—is evidence of both its general appearance and its
ownership in the year 1066.
For two centuries after this we have no mention of it, but in the
meanwhile there had grown up two settlements to each of which the name
Ravenser was attached. _Ald Ravenser_—that is, Old Ravenser—was ‘inland,
distant both from the sea and the Humber’; while _Ravenserodd_, or as we
should write it, Ravenser Point, lay ‘between the waters of the sea and
those of the Humber,’ and was ‘distant from the main land a space of one
mile and more.’ Connecting the two was a sandy road ‘covered with round
and yellow stones, thrown up in a little time by the height of the
floods, having a breadth which an archer can scarcely shoot across, and
wonderfully maintained by the tides of the sea on its east side, and the
ebb and flow of the Humber on its west side.’
Of the birth of the former of these towns we know nothing, but the birth
of the latter was described by one of the jurors in a lawsuit brought in
the year 1290 by the men of Grimsby against the men of Ravenserodd.
Several years before a ship had stranded on a sand bank, and the wreck
had been taken possession of by an enterprising fellow who used it as a
store for meat and drink which he sold to sailors and merchants. Then
others came to dwell on the sand-bank, and in 1235 or thereabouts the
Earl of Albemarl, Lord of Holderness, began there the building of a
town.
* * * * *
The growth of this town must have been rapid; for in 1251 the King
granted to the Earl of Albemarl the right to hold in Ravenserodd a
weekly market and a fair lasting sixteen days. Then trouble began
between the men of the town and the men of Grimsby, and the latter
complained that
the men of the said town of Ravenserodd go out with their boats into
the high sea, where there are ships carrying merchandise, and
intending to come to Grimsby with their merchandise. The said men
hinder those ships from coming to Grimsby, and lead them to Ravenser
by force when they cannot amicably persuade them to go thither.
So we see that ‘peaceful picketing’ was not altogether unknown in these
parts six hundred years ago.
At intervals during the reigns of Edward II. and Edward III. the men of
Ravenser were called upon to provide a ship for the King’s wars against
Scotland. In each case the ship was to be furnished with from thirty to
a hundred of ‘the stoutest and strongest men of the town, with armour,
victuals, and other necessaries.’ In 1332, also, an expedition of five
hundred men-at-arms and two thousand archers set sail from Ravenser for
Scotland, having on board Edward Baliol, Lord Beaumont, Lord de Wake,
and others who wished to see Baliol crowned as King of Scotland. Their
wishes were fulfilled, for the expedition was successful and Baliol was
crowned at Scone.