From fighting prelates to fortified churches is not a long step. Three or four of these structures have come in for more notice than the rest, although the latter cannot thereby be considered as lacking some of the most interesting features of the others. During the last thirty years the changes necessitated by restorations of churches have caused some of these relics of turbulent times to be somewhat altered; there are still, however, numerous village structures which tell their own story much more vividly, to the trained eye, than could be done by written record. When the late Mr. John Cory, county architect for Cumberland, read his paper on the subject at Carlisle a quarter of a century ago, he pointed out some of the characteristics of these ancient ecclesiastical strongholds: “The distance from each other tells of a scanty population; the deficiency of architectural decoration shows that the inhabitants of the district were otherwise engaged than in peaceful occupations; while traces of continual repairs in the fabric are evidently not to be attributed to the desire shown in the churches of many southern counties to make good buildings better, but have resulted from the necessity occasioned by the partial destruction of churches through hostile aggressions. In many instances it may be said that the church had been erected scarcely less for the safety of the body than for the benefit of the soul.”
That the abbey of Holme Cultram was once both a fortress and a church is shown to this day by the remains of earthworks which once served for its defence. Curious entries in the parish books also indicate the bitter hatred of the Cumbrians for those from over the Border. The value of the abbey is shown by a petition of the inhabitants of the lordship to Cromwell in 1538, when they asked “for the preservation and standynge of the Church of Holme Cultrane before saide; whiche is not onlye unto us our parish Churche, and little ynoughe to receyve all us, your poore Orators, but also a great ayde, socor, and defence for us agenst our neghbours the Scots, witheaut the whiche, few or none of your Lordshipp’s supplyants are able to pay the King his saide Highness our bounden dutye and service, ande wee shall not onelye praye for his graciouse noble estate, but also your Lordshipp’s prosperitie with increase of honour long to endure.”
The tower of Burgh-by-Sands Church, close to the Solway, was built at the west end of the structure, with walls six feet to seven feet in thickness. A further indication of the desire for security is found in the bottoms of the windows of the church, which were placed eight feet from the ground. Entrance to the fortified tower could only be obtained through a ponderous iron door six feet eight inches high, with two massive bolts, and constructed of thick bars crossing each other, and boarded over with oak planks. As only one person at a time could gain access to the vaulted chamber, there was every possibility of offering effective opposition to attacks, while the ringing of the bells would be the signal for bringing any available help. What was true of one side of the Solway was equally true of the other, there being still traces of fortified churches on the Scottish side of the Firth.
Newton Arlosh Church is another noteworthy example of a building
“Half house of God, half castle ’gainst the Scots,”
though here the bulk of the attention would seem to have been paid to bodily danger. The doorway was made only two feet six inches wide, and as at Burgh the lowest parts of the windows were placed above the reach of a man’s hand—in this case the sills were seven feet from the ground. Light was of less consequence than security, and so the windows were only one foot wide, with a height of three feet four inches.
Though further away from the Border than either of the other churches mentioned, that at Great Salkeld was peculiarly liable to attack by the Scottish raiders, as it occupies a strong position near the river Eden, whose banks seem to have been much used by the undesirable visitors. The tower is in a splendid state of preservation, although necessarily much altered, in detail, from its former condition. There were five floors, that on the ground level being a vaulted room, with a strong door of iron and oak leading into the church. Three small apertures afforded light and opportunities for watching from the first floor, and that room also contained a fireplace. In a footnote in their “Cumberland” volume of “Magna Britannia,” the brothers Lysons suggest that Great Salkeld Church might have been fortified about the time that Penrith Castle was built. There is, however, no direct evidence on the point. Dr. Todd, the former Vicar of Penrith, who was noted for his encounters with his superiors, says in his account of Great Salkeld Church, that in his time there was a place “called the Corryhole, for the correction and imprisonment of the clergy, while the Archdeacon had any power within the diocese.”
Prior to the restoration of Dearham Church, the structure possessed numerous features of interest to the antiquary, some of which have necessarily been removed or altered. The lower storey of the tower consisted of a barrel-vaulted chamber, originally enclosed from the church, and entered only by a small and strongly-barred doorway, similar to that at Burgh. When the Antiquarian Society visited Dearham some twenty years ago, the late Canon Simpson drew special attention to this part of the church. He said it had unquestionably “been one of the old massive fortified towers peculiar to the Border district: from it, whilst the parishioners were being besieged, a beacon fire at the top would alarm their friends in the surrounding country.” Some oak beams then seen in the tower showed signs of fire, one of them being charred half through. The lower part of the tower of Brigham Church, only a few miles from Dearham, is strongly vaulted with stone, access being obtained to the chamber above by means of a narrow door and winding stairs. From these features it has been concluded by archæologists that this was one of the old Border fortified churches.
Further away from the Border, into Mid Westmorland, the searcher may still meet with evidences of old-time church builders having a much keener eye for the defensive qualities of their structures than for architectural beauty. Solidity was the first consideration, and although some of them were, after all, but ill adapted for the purpose, they must have been, as the Rev. J. F. Hodgson[4] once pointed out, “much larger and stronger buildings than the wretched hovels of the common people. Their enclosures would very generally offer the best position for defence. Among the Westmorland churches, those of Crosby Garrett (or Gerard) and Ormside, though small, and not structurally fortified, seem unmistakably posted as citadels. Orton Church, too, both in structure and position, is admirably situated for defence. At Brough, the church, a massive and easily defensible building, is situated upon the precipitous bank of the Hellebeck, and forms a sort of outwork of the Castle.” The church at Kirkby Stephen certainly occupies a position which would give its occupants a strong hold on the Upper Eden Valley. The old church at Cliburn, on the banks of the Leath, was also probably placed there with some regard to defence. It is believed that the fine old church at Barton was used for a like purpose, and the vicar some time ago pointed out to the writer existing evidences of a large moat having probably been formed in case of necessity, the river Eamont being near enough to ensure an easy means of water supply.
There are preserved in the church of Langwathby two specimens of old Cumberland armour—a helmet and a cuirass. The villagers have versions of their own as to the wearer of these articles, but obviously the stories rest on no better foundation than that of tradition; the real explanation is, doubtless, that given by the late Rev. B. Porteus, and already quoted in the chapter on “Watch and Ward.”
Above the tomb of Sir Roger Bellingham (died 1533), in Kendal Church, there is an ancient helmet suspended, but whether it was put there because the helmet belonged to the knight, or as a memorial of his having been created a knight banneret on the field of battle, there has nothing come to the knowledge of local historians to enable them to decide. The popular name for the helmet, however, is “the Rebel’s Cap,” and following the account of Machell, who was living at the time, various writers have given different versions of a story which, though doubtless correct in its main points, is open to question on others. The version given by the late Mr. Cornelius Nicholson[5] may be quoted, as it is the briefest:—
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст