Part 7 (1/2)
This notion that the Ribble and not the Mersey was the southern boundary of Northumbria in the earlier period of the Heptarchy, was first propounded by Dr. Whitaker, but upon very slight evidence. It is sufficient here to say that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under the date 923, expressly states that King Edward sent a force of Mercians to take possession of ”Mameceastre (Manchester), _in Northumbria_, and repair and man it.” Again, the same chronicle, when referring to this very battle, A.D. 798, expressly states that it took place ”at Whalley, _in the land of the Northumbrians_.” Against such evidence, Dr. Whitaker's mistaken dialectal argument, as well as that based on the extent of the episcopal see of Lichfield, at some period of the Heptarchy, is utterly valueless. His authority is the ancient doc.u.ment ent.i.tled ”De Statu Blackbornes.h.i.+re,” supposed to have been written in the fourteenth century by John Lindeley, Abbot of Whalley. Some notion of the value of this monkish compilation, with reference to the earlier history of the district, may be gathered from the fact that the author makes Augustine, and not Paulinus, the missionary who planted Christianity amongst the Northumbrian Angles. Dr. Whitaker likewise contends that the Ribble is the _dialectic_ boundary between the two kingdoms. My own observation, however, leads me to a very different conclusion. To my ear the change is by no means so distinctly marked on the north and south sides of the Ribble as it is on the north and south banks of the Mersey. The swampy country between the two rivers would rather seem to have been a kind of ”march” or ”debateable ground,” during the earlier portion of the Anglo-Saxon and Danish periods, districts in it being sometimes governed by tributary British chieftains under both Northumbrian and Mercian kings as the fortune of war from time to time prevailed. Lancas.h.i.+re is not referred to as a county till the middle of the twelfth century. The name is never mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. As we find the ”Lands between the Ribble and the Mersey” are surveyed with those of Ches.h.i.+re, in the Domesday book, it seems highly probable that they formed a part of Leofric's earldom of Mercia, at the time of the Norman conquest. Consequently it is to the latter and not to the earlier portion of the Anglo-Saxon period that the Ribble formed the southern boundary of the _earldom_ of Northumbria, rather than of the earlier independent _kingdom_.
Mr. J. R. Green (”Making of England,”) says--”The first missionaries to the Englishmen, strangers in a heathen land, attached themselves necessarily to the courts of the kings, who were their earliest converts, and whose conversion was generally followed by that of their people. The English bishops were thus at first royal chaplains, and their diocese was naturally nothing but the kingdom. The kingdom of Kent became the diocese of Canterbury, and the kingdom of Northumbria became the diocese of York. So absolutely was this the case that the diocese grew or shrank with the growth or shrinking of the realm which it spiritually represented, and a bishop of Wess.e.x or of Mercia found the limits of his see widened or cut short by the triumphs of Wolfhere or of Ine. In this way two realms, which are all but forgotten, are commemorated in the limits of existing sees. That of Rochester represented, till of late, an obscure kingdom of West Kent, and the frontier of the original kingdom of Mercia might be recovered by following the map of the ancient bishopric of Lichfield.”
After describing in detail some of the subdivisions made by Archbishop Theodore (A.D. 669-672), he adds--”The see of Lichfield thus returned to its original form of a see of the Mercians proper, though its bounds on the westward now embraced much of the upper Severn valley, with Ches.h.i.+re and the lands northward to the Mersey.”
Notwithstanding this error with regard to the southern boundary of Northumbria at that period, the Roman road, in all probability, was utilised by the contending forces, and some portion of the main battle was, doubtless, fought in its immediate vicinity. On the other hand, it is equally probable, as the two larger tumuli are situated on the north-west bank of the Ribble, that the chief conflict occurred in their neighbourhood. On this hypothesis, Wada and his allies, on leaving Waddington, crossed the Hodder, at the ford nearest its mouth, met the King's army on the banks of the Ribble, and the possession of Bullasey-ford was the immediate object of the encounter in which the rebellious chieftain was discomfited. Or the route may have been reversed. Wada may have crossed the Ribble, at the Bungerley ”hyppyngstones,” to the north-west of c.l.i.theroe, or the Edisford, to the south-west, and after penetrating the southern portion of the present county, had to fall back before the advance of the King's army, and, unable to retrace his steps he made for the nearer ford at Bullasey, where he was defeated and pursued across the river. As the slaughter is generally greater when a discomfited enemy is routed, perhaps the two large tumuli, named ”lowes,” mark the spot where the greatest carnage ensued. This, however, of course, is merely conjecture. Its value cannot be tested unless a thorough investigation of the contents of these huge mounds should throw additional light upon the subject.
The good fortune of King Eardulf deserted him on a future occasion. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says--”A.D. 806. This year the moon was eclipsed in the Kalends of September; and Eardulf, King of the Northhumbrians, was driven from his kingdom.... Also in the same year, on the 2nd before the Nones of June, a cross appeared in the moon on a Wednesday at dawn; and afterwards in this year, on the 3rd before the Kalends of September, a wonderful circle was seen about the sun.” This is the last we hear of the victor of Billangahoh, and the manner of his exit from the historic stage would seem to indicate that his rule, like that of his predecessor, had become so intolerable that further revolts ensued, and that Wada's successors, whoever they may have been, being successful in their contumacy, would be regarded, not as traitors, but as ”saviours of their country.” Truly, in struggles of this character, in all ages, successful ”rebels,” writing their own history, are ever lauded as heroes or patriots, while discomfited rulers are, with equal verity, denounced as tyrants and enemies of the common weal.
A little higher up the Ribble than its junction with the Hodder, and about a mile below the venerable ruin of the keep of c.l.i.theroe Castle, the ancient stronghold of the De Lacies, is a handsome modern bridge, named Edisford or Eadsford, to which I have previously referred. The country people, however, call it ”Itch-uth Bridge,” p.r.o.nouncing the latter syllable as in Cuthburt.
Johannes, Prior of Hagulstald, records that in this neighbourhood, in the year 1138, one William, the son of the b.a.s.t.a.r.d brother of David, king of Scotland, when engaged on a foray into England, was gallantly encountered by a small band, near c.l.i.theroe, but, being overpowered by numbers, the Lancas.h.i.+re men sustained a slight defeat, and the Scots took a considerable number of prisoners. The monkish chronicler calls the northern a.s.sailants ”Picts and Scots,” and adds that they with difficulty held their own till the fight had lasted three hours.
Tradition has preserved both the memory and the site of this conflict.
Mr. Edward Baines says:--”Vestiges of this sanguinary engagement have been found at Edisford Bridge, and along the banks of the Ribble, during successive ages up to the present time.”
The ”Bashall-brook,” after pa.s.sing ”Bashall Hall,” enters the Ribble a little above Edisford Bridge. This is the stream referred to by Mr.
Haigh,[29] as the ”Ba.s.sus” of Nennius, and the site of one of the Arthurian victories which attended Colgrin's flight to York, after his defeat on the Douglas, near Wigan. I have, however, never heard of any legend or tradition which referred to a battle in the neighbourhood, except the one recorded by the Prior of Hagulstald.
Near the bridge above c.l.i.theroe may yet be seen the ancient ”hyppyngstones” to which I have previously referred, and by means of which the river was crossed before the erection of the present viaduct.
These ”hyppyngstones” have at least one mournful historical a.s.sociation.
After the fatal battle of Hexham, in the year 1464, the unfortunate Henry the Sixth, the defeated son of the renowned victor at Agincourt, was for a time concealed at Bolton-in-Bolland and Waddington Halls. What transpired is best told in the words of the old chronicler:--
”Also the same yere, Kinge Henry was taken byside a howse of religione [_i.e._, Whalley Abbey] in Lancashyre, by the mene of a blacke monke of Abyngtone, in a wode called Cletherwode, beside Bungerley hyppyngstones, by Thomas Talbott, of Bashalle, and Jhon Talbott, his cosyne, of Colebury [_i.e._, Salesbury, near Ribchester], with other moo; which discryvide (him) beynge at his dynere at Waddington Hall; and [he was]
carryed to London on horsebacke, and his legges bound to the styropes.”[30]
Mr. J. G. Nichols (Notes and Queries, vol 2., p. 229), says--”Waddington belonged to Sir John Tempest, of Bracewell, who was the father-in-law to Thomas Talbot. Both Sir John Tempest and Sir James Harrington, of Brierley, near Barnsley, were concerned in the king's capture, and each received one hundred marks reward, but the fact of Sir Thomas Talbot being the chief actor, is shown by his having received the large sum of 100.” In addition to his one hundred marks, Sir James Harrington received from Edward IV. large grants of land, forfeited by Richard Tunstell, and other ”rebels,” ”for his services in taking prisoner, and withholding as such, in diligence and valour, his enemy, Henry, lately called Henry VI.” Mr. Baines says Sir John Talbot likewise received, ”as a reward for his perfidy, a grant of twenty marks a year, from Edward IV., confirmed by his successor, Richard III., and made payable out of the revenues of the county palatine of Lancaster.”
In his ”History of Craven,” Dr. Whitaker gives engravings of the unfortunate monarch's boots, gloves, and a spoon, which were preserved at Bolton Hall, in Bolland, Yorks.h.i.+re, then the seat of Sir Ralph Pudsey, who married a daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstell. I understand these relics of the unfortunate king have been since removed to Hornby Castle, Lancas.h.i.+re. The ”Old Hall” at Waddington, which has been converted into a farmhouse, yet presents some ma.s.sive masonry, and a field in the neighbourhood still retains the name of ”King Henry's meadow.”
The fate of the unhappy monarch is too well known to necessitate further reference here.
The neighbourhood of Whalley was the scene of a relatively more recent combat, of some local importance. During the civil war between Charles I. and his Parliament, the Earl of Derby advanced, in 1643, from Preston, to operate in the hundred of Blackburn. One of the ”Civil War Tracts,” edited by Ormerod, and published by the Chetham Society, says:--”The Earl of Derby, the Lord Molineux, Sir Gilbert Hoghton, Colonel Tildesley, with all the other great papists in the county, issued out of Preston, and on Wednesday now came to Ribchester, with eleven troops of horse, 700 foot, and an infinite number of clubmen, in all conceived to be 5,000.” Colonels Ashton and Shuttleworth opposed them with some regular troops, and a body of peasantry and militia, hastily levied. A regular engagement, or rather a running fight, took place between Whalley and Salesbury, in which the Earl was defeated and pursued to Ribchester. This success appears to have been the precursor of the subsequent declension of the Earl of Derby's military power in the county. It was judged to be of so much importance at the time by the ”Roundheads,” that a day of thanksgiving was set apart for the victory by order of Parliament.
The ruin of c.l.i.theroe Castle, on its well-wooded limestone eminence overlooking the town, forms a picturesque object in the beautiful valley of the Ribble. I remember well, in my early boyhood, being seriously informed that the venerable feudal stronghold of the De Lacies was battered into ruin by no less a personage than the redoubtable Oliver Cromwell. The truth of this tradition was implicitly believed by me till some slight study of Lancas.h.i.+re history, and a special visit to the locality, threw serious doubt upon it. I have likewise a distinct recollection of the consternation I caused amongst some aged friends, after a careful inspection of the ruined keep, by my informing them that if, as the tradition a.s.serted, Cromwell had placed his cannon on ”Salt Hill,” about a mile to the east of the fortress, the said ordnance must have possessed some of the marvellous property ascribed to the Hibernian weapon, which, on occasion, could ”shoot round a corner,” the wall of the keep presenting the largest amount of superficial damage facing directly west. This dilapidated aspect had, in my hearing, often been attributed to the pounding the wall had received from Oliver's cannon. A careful examination, however, satisfied me that the western face of the structure was simply most weather-worn, on account of the lengthened action of the prevailing south-westerly winds. Again, ”Salt Hill” was too far distant for the eight-pounder field pieces of the parliamentary army to make any serious impression on the ma.s.sive walls.[31] But tradition is ”tough” indeed, and especially if an element of superst.i.tion or partizan zeal be embedded in it. Of course, my critics had not the slightest objection to allow that there might possibly be some mistake with regard to the site of his guns, but ”everybody knew that Cromwell did batter the castle into ruin,” notwithstanding; and I was frankly told that n.o.body thanked me for my _mischievous_ endeavour to undermine people's faith in the well-known legend!
Cromwell must certainly have _seen_ c.l.i.theroe Castle on his memorable forced march from Gisburne to Stonyhurst Hall, on August 16th, 1648, the day previous to his decisive victory over the Marquis of Langdale, on Ribbleton Moor, and the Duke of Hamilton at Preston and the ”Pa.s.s of the Ribble.” But there are two good and sufficient reasons why he did not stay to expend his gunpowder on the fortress. In the first place, he had not time, having important business on hand that demanded the utmost expedition. In the second place, the castle was garrisoned by a portion of the Lancas.h.i.+re Militia, who held the stronghold for the Parliament, and Cromwell was not the man to amuse himself by bombarding his friends on the eve of a great, and, as it proved, a decisive battle.
In point of fact, the castle remained intact, till the end of the civil war, when the only recorded instance of its ever having been even seriously threatened with a siege, occurred. An ordinance, disbanding the militia generally throughout the country, did not, it seems, meet with the approval of the Puritan warriors who held possession of the c.l.i.theroe fortress, and who, instigated, it was said, by clerical advisers, ”professed for the Covenant,” and, in the first instance, flatly refused to disband until their terms were accepted. After the enforcement of the law, however, had been entrusted to Major-General Lambert, these chivalrous champions of the Covenant thought, under such circ.u.mstances, discretion was unquestionably the better part of valour, and they surrendered the castle to the Parliamentary general without further pressure. By an order of a Council of State, several of these strongholds throughout the country were dismantled, with a view to prevent their military occupation in case of a renewal of the war, and amongst those so doomed were the castles of c.l.i.theroe and Greenhaugh, in the county of Lancaster. Thus ignominiously expires one element in the presumed historic truth of Cromwell's numerous castle and abbey battering exploits, referred to at length in the first chapter of this work, and on which the most remarkable and wide-spread legend of _modern_ and strictly historic times is based.
A still more astounding instance of the appropriation of popular legends and famous names by localities that have no historical claims to them whatever, is found in connection with the ancient castle at Bury, Lancas.h.i.+re. Mr. Edward Baines says--”In the civil wars which raged in Lancas.h.i.+re in 1644, Bury Castle was battered by the Parliamentary army from an intrenchment called 'Castle-steads,' in the adjoining towns.h.i.+p of Walmersley; and from that period the overthrow of this, as well as of a large proportion of other castles of the kingdom, may be dated.” Mr.
Baines gives no authority whatever for this astounding statement. He evidently merely repeats a well-known local tradition. It would have been worth the while of a local historian, one would think, to have made some enquiry as to the history of the edifice at Bury during the century which had elapsed between Leland's reference to it, and the redoubtable exploit of the Parliamentary army in 1644. The earliest authentic record of the castle is no older than the reign of Henry VIII., but from the very nature of the record it must have been in existence for a long time previously. Leland, the ”king's antiquary,” when travelling through the country ”in search of England's antiquities,” _circa_ 1542-9, thus writes about the place--”Byri-on-Irwell, 4 or V. miles from Manchestre, but a poore market. There is a Ruine of a Castel by the paroch chirch yn the Towne. It longgid with the Towne sumetime to the Pilkentons, now to the Erles of Darby. Pilkenton had a place hard by Pilkenton Park, 3 miles from Manchestre.” Leland's distances are, of course, merely guesses. In this respect he is frequently in error. It is certain that the de Bury family held land in the parish as recently as 1613, and we find the manorial rights, at the time of the ”Wars of the Roses,” were held by the Pilkington family. Sir Thomas Pilkington, a devoted adherent to the fortunes of the House of York, obtained from Edward IV. a licence to ”kernel and embattle” his manor-home at Stand, in Pilkington. It is not, therefore, improbable that the Bury castle at this time ceased to be a manorial residence, and gradually fell into the ruinous condition in which it was seen by Leland.
During the time I was inspecting the excavation by the local commissioners of the site of Bury castle, in October, 1865, I was courteously permitted by Mr. J. Shaw, of that town, to copy a MS., formerly the property of his late father, and, I understood, in that gentleman's handwriting. It is, however, dated ”Bury, April 13th, 1840,”
and signed ”T. Crompton,” or ”Krompton,” it is difficult to determine which. As the doc.u.ment may be said to embody all the ”traditional lore”
respecting the subject under consideration, I give it entire:--