to the town. The Mayor, accompanied by two bailiffs, named John Arnold and
Thomas Green, and a large company of local supporters, met His Grace. The
Archbishop complained bitterly to the Mayor, saying, amongst other serious
faults, that he had shown himself wanting in that respect for the
Archbishop which the representative of religion was entitled to receive.
His Worship soon waxed warm, declaring that he had only done his duty in
maintaining the rights of his fellow-townsmen. The prelate insisted that
the Mayor was in the wrong, and that it was his intention to enforce the
payment of his dues. The Mayor soon shewed signs of his displeasure, and
seeing one His Grace's men mocking him, he, without ceremony, snatched
from the Archbishop his crosier, and struck the man. This was the
commencement of a free fight, in which the prelate and his people suffered
a severe defeat. Blood freely flowed, and the Archbishop, seeing that he
could not make, with any degree of success, a stand against so many
opponents, beat a hasty retreat, followed a considerable distance out of
the town by a large number of excited inhabitants of Hull, eager to avenge
the wrongs it was believed His Grace had done to the port by collecting,
or attempting to collect, prisage. The Mayor, it must be recorded, fought
manfully with the crosier, which was broken into several pieces.
The Archbishop, being a Court favourite, brought the matter under the
notice of the King. The Mayor was summoned to appear before His Majesty at
Westminster. This proceeding doubtless caused much trouble in Hull, but
the Mayor, feeling that he had right on his side, proceeded to London with
a brave heart, and at the trial pleaded his cause with considerable
eloquence. The case resulted in judgment being left in abeyance, or, in
other words, His Grace was non-suited.
We can readily imagine that the Mayor would return home in higher spirits
than when he left it to appear in the King's Court, and that he would
receive a hearty welcome from his fellow townsmen.
The place where the fight occurred was regarded by the superstitious as
sacred, crowds of fanatics repairing to it to shed tears. Not a little
inconvenience was caused by their conduct, and their proceedings were
stopped by a permanent guard being appointed to keep folk away from the
place.
After the death of the Archbishop, it was believed for many years that his
spirit haunted the spot where the battle was fought.
In spite of the serious breach between Prelate and Mayor, Hull appears to
have been a favourite residence in past times of the Archbishops of York.
We know, from the annals of the town, that in the year 1442 the Archbishop
had a house in the historic High Street.
Dr. Thomson, the late Archbishop of York, was a frequent and welcome
visitor to the town. The last time he was in Hull, His Grace was the guest
of Alderman Sherburn, the Mayor. When we saw the two gentlemen in friendly
conversation, we could not help contrasting the conditions of 1889 with
those of 1378, and noting the great changes which five centuries have
brought about, changes better alike for gentle and simple.
Chapels on Bridges.
The building of bridges in bygone times was regarded as a religious duty.
An order of friars was established on the continent, in the twelfth
century, having for its object the erecting and repairing of bridges. Its
work extended into several countries. In France, the friars built the
celebrated bridge over the Rhone at Avignon, and a bridge, still in use,
at Pont St. Esprit, was one of their works. We have not any traces of the
operations of the order in England, but there were in the country, prior
to the reign of Richard II., lay-brotherhoods performing a similar good
work.
Queen Matilda erected and endowed bridges at Stratford and Bow, which she
regarded as meritorious. The Church looked upon the work as one deserving
of encouragement. Richard de Kellawe, Bishop of Durham, from 1311 to
1316, for example, promised to remit penances for those engaged in
bridge-building. The Registry of his Episcopal Chancery contains many
entries similar to the following: "Memorandum ... his lordship grants
forty days' indulgence to all who will draw from the treasure that God has
given them, valuable and charitable aid towards the building and repair of
Botyton bridge." We read in another entry: "Forty days' indulgence is
allowed to those sincerely contrite and confessed of all their sins, who
shall help by their charitable gifts, or by their bodily labour, the
building and maintenance of the causeway between Brotherton and
Ferrybridge, where many people pass by." On another occasion, a similar
indulgence was granted for help towards the highroad and bridge between
Billingham and Norton.
The most striking case which has come under our notice, where pious
motives have caused the erection of a bridge, is set forth in a contract
of the thirteenth century. The particulars are given in Jusserand's
"English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages." "Reginald de Rosels," we are
told, "allowed Peter, Abbot of Whitby, to build a permanent bridge on the
river Esk, between his own and the convent's lands. He pledges himself in
that act to permit to all comers free access to the bridge through his own
property. 'For which concession the aforesaid Abbot and convent have
absolved in chapter all the ancestors of the same Reginald of all fault
and transgression they may have committed against the church of Whiteby,
and have made them participant of all the good works, alms, and prayers of
the church of Whiteby.'" The original contract is in Latin, and was
printed by the Surtees Society (1881).
"It was very usual," says Leland, "in greater brydges to build chappells
in which they did pray for the soules of their founders." There were other
reasons for erecting chapels, one being for a place of residence for
priests to solicit alms from all who passed over the bridge, whether
walking or riding, to keep it in repair. Some were built for sheltering
benighted travellers, having crypts where rest and refreshment might be
obtained. In these chapels, the wayfarer could pray for protection on his
journey, and return thanks for safety after his undertaking had been
completed. Travelling, in mediaeval times, was beset with trial and
hardship on every side.
[Illustration: OLD LONDON BRIDGE.]
The history and romance of London Bridge must ever remain amongst the
subjects most popular to the people of England. The first and famous
London Bridge was regarded as one of the glories of the Middle Ages. The
bridge was commenced by Peter Colechurch, in 1176. He worked for
twenty-nine years, then death ended his earthly career, and "he was
sepultured" in the chapel on the bridge he had done so much to erect. A
clever Frenchman, called Isembert, completed the work, in the year 1209.
The undertaking had the hearty support of the people, and large sums of
money and extensive endowments of land were given to carry it on. The
excitement throughout the land was immense. The nation felt it was one of
its great undertakings. It was in length nine hundred and twenty-six feet,
in width forty feet, some sixty feet above the water, and stood upon
nineteen pointed arches, between massive piers. When first completed, it
had only one building upon it, a handsome stone chapel, dedicated to St.
Thomas Becket, which stood on the middle pier. Subsequently, two rows of
houses were erected on the bridge, one on each side of the road. A
drawbridge was put up as a means of protection. A terrible fire, on July
10th, 1212, was the cause of the death of upwards of 3,000 persons. Stow,
in his "Survey of London," supplies some important information on this
subject. After adverting to a fire commencing on the Southwark side of the
bridge, he states that "an exceeding great multitude of people passing the
bridge, either to extinguish and quench it, or else to gaze at and behold
it, suddenly the north part, by blowing of the south wind, was also set on
fire, and the people, which were even now passing the bridge, perceiving
the same, would have returned, but were stopped by fire; and it came to
pass, that as they stayed or protracted time, the other end of the bridge
also, namely, the south end, was fired, so that the people, thronging
themselves between the two fires, did nothing else but expect present
death; then came there to aid them many ships and vessels, into the which
the multitude so unadvisedly rushed that, the ships being drowned, they
all perished. It was said, that through the fire and shipwreck, there were
destroyed about three thousand persons, whose bodies were found in part,
besides those that were wholly burnt to ashes, and could not be found." A
frost, in 1282, destroyed five arches of the bridge. In 1305, when Edward
I. was king, was commenced the practice of placing the heads of traitors
over London Bridge gateway. Paul Hentzner, a German traveller, visited
England in 1598, and counted on it no fewer than thirty heads. Several
houses on the bridge were destroyed by fires at various times, and all
were swept away by the Great Fire, of 1666. A good idea of these buildings
may be obtained from the picture we give on page 47.
On the west side of the Ouse Bridge, at York, was St. William's Chapel, an
interesting example of early English architecture. Respecting the origin
of this chapel, there is a popular story that it was built shortly after
the bridge was completed, in 1268, in obedience to royal commands. The
tale is to the effect that a Scotch nobleman was visiting the city,
shortly after the erection of the bridge, when some of the citizens
quarrelled and came to blows with his servants on the bridge. Several of
the strangers were slain. The riot was brought under the notice of the
kings of England and Scotland for settlement, and it was finally agreed
that the citizens of York should pay L300, a large amount in those days,
and erect a chapel on or near the spot where the servants met their
untimely deaths, and also that they maintain two priests to pray for the
souls of the slain men. After the Reformation, the chapel was converted
into an Exchange for the Society of Hamburg Merchants at York, and
subsequently put to other secular uses. Finally it was taken down, on the
erection of a new bridge, in the year 1810.
Under the year 1505, a note appears in Hollinworth's "Mancuniensis,"
stating that "Care was taken for the reparation of the chappell standing
on Salford Bridge, built, as it is sayd, by Thomas del Booth, in Edward
III.'s time. He certainly gave L30 towards the building of Salford Bridge;
and it was very usual on greater bridges to build chappells, in which they
did pray for the soules of their founders. This chappell is now converted
to a prison for Manchester and Salford." The building was pulled down in
1778, for the purpose of making the bridge wider.
[Illustration: BRADFORD BRIDGE.]
We have other instances of bridge prisons besides the one at Salford. A
familiar example is that at Bedford. It has been asserted by several
authors that Bunyan was imprisoned in it, but it has been proved beyond
doubt that such was not the fact. The bridge prison belonged absolutely to
the borough, and Bunyan was a county prisoner, and spent his time in the
county gaol. Much interesting information bearing on this subject will be
found in Dr. Brown's book on Bunyan. The records of the town contain some
curious particulars respecting the bridge. The following may be given as
an example: "Item, yt ye ordered that the great cheyne by every nighte at
ten of the clocke to be locked crosse the great bridge, and so kept untyl
fyve of the clocke in the morninge, and that he or they that shall dwell
in the bridge house, to keep the keye of the said locke, and keep the same
soe locked, and not suffer aine horse, horseman, or cattell to passe
within that tyme wch he shall not knowe. And of them wch he shall knowe,
to take a pennie only for letting doune the cheyne and noe more." The
prison was taken down in the year 1765. Here was a chapel or oratory,
dedicated to St. Thomas the Martyr, built by a Bedford man, early in the
fourteenth century, and endowed with lands for the support of a warden or
chaplain, who had to repair the bridge at his own expense.
A small structure on the old bridge at Bradford-on-Avon has also been used
as a prison. Its original purpose has provoked some discussion. Some say
that it was erected for a chapel, but not a few question the statement.
Aubrey of old, and the Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., and Precentor Venables
of our time, are of opinion that it was a chapel. For many years it was
used as a lock-up, and later as a powder magazine. It has a dome-like
roof, of later date than the building. It bears a model of a gudgeon, the
emblem of St. Nicholas. The Bradford-on-Avon folk are familiarly spoken of
as Bradford gudgeons. Those who had been imprisoned on the bridge were
said to have been "under fish and over water."
[Illustration: ST. MARY'S BRIDGE-CHAPEL, DERBY.]
A small bridge-chapel at Derby, dedicated to St. Mary of the Brigg, links
the past with the present. It most probably dates back to the fourteenth
century. Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., in his "Churches of Derbyshire,"
traces with care the history of this old-time building. He says: "St.
Mary's Bridge--by which access was gained from Nottingham and the south
into the town of Derby, through whose streets lay one of the most
important thoroughfares from London to the north--must, in mediaeval days,
have been of considerable importance. It is pleasant to think of the busy
burgesses or men-at-arms turning aside into the Chapel of Our Lady for a
brief silent prayer, before crossing the Derwent, and plunging into the
forests that stretched out before them on the other side of the river."
There would, doubtless, be a gatehouse, built for defence and for levying
tolls, etc. On the chapel or gatehouse were placed the heads and quarters
of the priests who were martyred at Derby, on July 25th, 1588, when the
Jesuits were making determined efforts to win England back to Rome. "Two
resolute Catholic gentlemen" stole and buried the remains. Here have
worshipped the persecuted Presbyterians of Derby. About a century ago it
was turned into dwelling-houses, and later was used as a carpenter's shop.
In 1873, a Bishop's license was obtained, and once more it was used as a
house of prayer. We give, by the courtesy of Mr. Richard Keene, a view of
the chapel, from an interesting book published by him, in 1881, under the
title of "All about Derby," by Edward Bradbury and Richard Keene. The
picture is from the pencil of the late Llewellynn Jewitt, F.S.A., the
eminent antiquary.
Prior to the Reformation, the Chamberlains of Derby rendered annually to
the monks of the Priory of St. James two pounds of wax, for the privilege
of passing over St. James' Bridge.
[Illustration: OUR LADY'S CHAPEL, ROTHERHAM BRIDGE.]
On the old bridge at Rotherham, which spans the river Don, is still
standing the chapel of "Our Lady."
"The sacred taper's light is gone."
It is an interesting monument of bygone times, but it is no longer used as
a house of prayer. Where once the mass was celebrated by devout priests, a
trader keeps a small shop. The earliest mention of this chapel which is
known, occurs in the will of John Bokying, master of the Grammar School at
Rotherham, and is dated August 24th, 1483. He leaves "To the fabric of the
chapel to be built on Rotherham bridge, 3s. 4d." The design of the
building was plain, but, on the whole, its effect must be pronounced
pleasing. The dimensions of the building in the interior are thirty-two
feet nine inches in length, by fifteen feet five inches in width. Leland,
the antiquary, visited the town in the middle of the sixteenth century,
and says, "I enterid into Rotheram by a fair stone bridge of iiij arches,
and on hit is a chapel of stone, wel wrought." In old records relating to
Rotherham, reproduced by John Guest, F.S.A., in his "Historic Notices of
Rotherham," may be read many items of local interest on this chapel. We
find statements respecting the bridge and chapel occupying the attention
of the Justices of Peace at Pontefract Sessions and Doncaster Sessions,
towards the close of the seventeenth century. The Feoffees of Rotherham
successfully maintained that the bridge and chapel belonged to them, but
that they had to be kept in repair at the expense of the West Riding. It,
at this period, was used as an almshouse for poor people. In the Feoffees
records it is stated as follows:
"1778. June 6th. Ordered that the greaves do employ a proper person to
examine ye state of ye almshouse, and to report what expence will be
necessary to make the same into a dwelling-house for ye deputy-constable,
and secure gaols for the receiption of prisoners."
"1779. February 5th. That the greaves do immediately agree with Mr. Platts
for altering the almshouse to a prison, and, according to a plan now in
their hands, so that the expense of the alterations do not exceed
thirty-six pounds."
"1779. June 16th. Ordered that John Watson be permitted to inhabit that
part of the almshouse designed for the deputy-constable. That the rent of
the same shall be five pounds. Only to use the two first rooms and the
pantry on the ground floor, and the two chambers over the same. The other
parts of the house being designed for other purposes. And that he shall
not take out a license to sell ale or spirituous liquors."
In 1825-6, a new court house was built, and then the bridge-chapel was no
longer required as a prison. As we have previously stated, the ancient
building is now devoted to business purposes. Let us hope the day is not
far distant when it may once more be used as a house of prayer.
[Illustration: NORTH-WEST VIEW OF WAKEFIELD CHAPEL, PREVIOUS TO
RE-BUILDING.]
Perhaps the most interesting of chapels on bridges, is the one at
Wakefield, dedicated to St. Mary. Its history has been carefully compiled
by Norrisson Scatcherd, in 1843, by John W. Walker, F.S.A., in 1890, and
it has received the consideration of other antiquaries. It has long been a
popular, but mistaken belief, that the chapel was built by Edward IV.
that masses might be said for those slain in the battle of Wakefield, in
1460, and in which his father, the Duke of York, and his brother, the Duke
of Rutland were slain. It will be remembered, that in this engagement, the
Lancastrians defeated the Yorkists. It is clear, from Mr. Walkers work,
that the beautiful chapel was built by the townsmen of Wakefield, and
there is not any trace of the King adding anything to the revenues of the
chapel. When the first bridge was built over the Calder, is not known,
but, in 1342, King Edward III. granted to the bailiffs of the town the
right of tollage for three years, on all goods for sale and cattle passing
over the bridge, "as a help towards repairing and improving the bridge,"
which is stated to be "rent and broken." In the documents, there is not
any mention of a chapel, a bridge only is referred to. Mr. Walker is of
opinion that about this time the suggestion was first made for the
erection of a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that it was
soon carried into effect. Three townsmen and two priests obtained the
first license, in 1356-7. In a decree, bearing date of November 20th,
1444, it says the chapel is "Wholly built of costly stonework by the
inhabitants and community of Wakefield." It has been suggested that, for a
time, the black death, which caused such terrible desolation in the
country, in 1349-50, may, for a period, have stopped the building of the
chapel. It was a noble structure when completed, the carving being
especially fine. On the west front, were carvings representing the five
glorious mysteries of the Rosary. We give a picture of the central
figures, illustrating the Resurrection. It will be seen that Christ is
rising from the tomb, and on either side of him are two angels engaged in
prayer. In front of the tomb are three soldiers, placed there as guards,
and they are clad in complete armour of the time of Edward III. An
important feature of the Wakefield bridge-chapel is the crypt. "This,"
says Scatcherd, "has undoubtedly been the dwelling of the priests--where
they might have lodged strangers, or administered relief." There was a
high turret, reached by a little spiral staircase. On this elevated part
of the building was kindled the cresset-light, which would guide the
wayfarer, and possibly assist the navigator on the river Calder, when day
had given way to night.
[Illustration: SCULPTURE IN THE CENTRAL COMPARTMENT OF THE WEST FRONT.]
[Illustration: NORTH-EAST VIEW OF WAKEFIELD BRIDGE-CHAPEL, 1810.]
The chapel was for many years used for secular purposes, but, happily,
opened for public worship on Easter Sunday, April 22nd, 1848. It had been
previously rebuilt by Mr. G. G. Scott, and the west front is still to be
seen at Kettlethorpe Hall, and forms the front of a boathouse. The
rebuilding, instead of restoring, was a serious mistake. The Bath and Caen
stone used does not resist the wasting action of the impurities in the
air. "It was in an evil hour," says Scott, "that I yielded, and allowed a
new front in Caen stone, in place of the weather-beaten old one.... I
never repented it but once, that has been ever since.... I think of this
with the utmost shame and chagrin." We state, on the authority of Mr.
Walker, that, "Sir Gilbert Scott, some years before his death, was so
anxious to have the old front replaced in its original position, that he
offered to contribute freely towards this object, if he could persuade the
Yorkshire people to help him, but nothing further was done."
Charter Horns.
In the Cathedrals of York and Carlisle are preserved interesting charter
horns. The horn, in bygone times, often played an important part when land
was granted. In some instances ancient drinking horns are the only
charters proving the ownership of extensive possessions. The blowing of
the horn has formed, and still forms, the prelude of many quaint customs
for maintaining certain manorial and other rights. Some of the details of
the old services of manors are extremely romantic, and supply not a few
strange chapters in local and national history. Romance, in some of the
records, takes the place of dry matter-of-fact statements, and adds not a
little to the pleasure of the study of past ages.
[Illustration: THE HORN OF ULPHUS.]
The important Horn of Ulphus is preserved in the treasure room of York
Minster, and, apart from its rich historical associations, it is an
object of great beauty. It is made from a portion of a large tusk of an
elephant. Were this horn totally without a history or a tradition
connected with it, its elaborate and peculiar character of ornamentation
would render it an object of interest and value. It has two bands, one
near the thinner end and the other at about a fifth part of the length
from the thicker end. The space between the latter band and the end is
adorned with sculptures in low relief, which express much that in European
mediaeval art did not appear for several hundreds of years later than the
date of the horn, and which, it may fairly be supposed, are of Asiatic
origin. The band of carvings is about four inches in width, and there are
four chief figures. One appears to be an unicorn performing the act that,
in the credulous natural history of long ago, it was so apt to
indulge--namely, piercing a tree with its one horn, and so fixing itself
and being at the hunter's mercy. The unicorn is the symbol of chastity. At
the other side of the tree is a lion killing and devouring a deer. Next,
facing another tree with palmated leaves and grape-like fruit, is a
gryphon, a creature having the body of a lion and the head and wings of an
eagle. At the other side of this tree, and facing the gryphon, is a
similar monster, which has, however, the head of a dog or wolf. The lion's
tail is foliated, while those of the winged beasts end in ludicrous dogs'
or wolves' heads. Three wolves' heads, collared, rise from the
ground-line, and a wolf runs in the upper part, and it is not unlikely
that Ulphus (or Ulf, equal to our word wolf) is so hinted at. The form of
the animals, especially those which have wings, are Assyrian in feeling
and treatment, while the treatment of the trees still further adds to the
opinion that the horn is not a specimen of European carving.