Archaeologia Cambrensis.

No. II. APRIL, 1846.

BASINGWERK ABBEY.

DURING the middle ages, devotees from all parts of Christendom were in the habit of visiting St. Winefred's well, in the county of Flint, not only because such an act was considered meritorious in itself, but also from a persuasion that the sacred waters were endued with the power of curing bodily diseases. That a place of this religious celebrity should be long without its monastic establishment is hardly to be expected, as such a case would have been contrary to the custom of the times. Accordingly we find that a society of monks did exist here previous to the year 1119. For it is said that Richard, the son of Hugh Lupus, earl of Chester, being then attacked by the Welsh on his pilgrimage to the virgin's well, was obliged to take refuge in an abbey in the neighhourhood.1 But how long it had existed prior to that date we have no means of ascertaining. Neither is it known who the original founder was; only it is conjectured from the charters of Llewelyn ab Iorwerth, and his son David, in which they give and confirm the several donations to God, St. Mary, the monastery of Basingwerk, and the monks, which had been bestowed on them by their predecessors, that he was one of the princes of Wales.

From Henry the second's charter we learn moreover that

1 Bradshaw's Life of St. Werburgh.

2 Bishop Fleetwood thinks that this charter belonged to Henry III. His reasons are thus stated:- "Since the King there gives the lands which once belonged to W. Peverell in the time of King Henry his grandfather, and it is certain that King Henry II. took away those lands from W. Peverell because he was found to have poisoned Randle, the second earl of Chester, in or about the year 1154, therefore, 'tis plain that Henry here named must have been Henry III. whose grandfather Henry II. was.”Life and miracles of St. Winifrid, p. 24. We confess that we cannot ARCHÆOL. CAMB. VOL. I.]

H

the primitive institution consisted only of a chapel, in which the monks dwelt. It is evident that these could not have been of the Cistercian order, for the fraternity had no house in this country before A.D. 1128, when William Giffard, bishop of Winchester, founded one at Waverley, in Surrey. It is probable that the Cistercian rule was introduced into Basingwerk by Ranulph, the second earl of Chester, A.D. 1131, one of the greatest benefactors of the abbey, and mistaken by Tanner for its founder. The historian, indeed, doubts whether it was a Cistercian establishment before the fourteenth century. But here again he is evidently wrong, for Henry

acquiesce in this view, for notwithstanding our unwillingness to disturb the usual acceptation, we think it more likely that the bestowal of the lands upon the abbey was an act which immediately and naturally followed upon their confiscation to the crown.

There is however, another, and a fatal objection to the bishop's hypothesis, arising from a circumstance which that learned prelate no doubt overlooked. The first witness to Henry's charter is "Thomas, Chancellor." This was no doubt Thomas à Becket, who was chancellor of England from A.D. 1154 to A.D. 1162, (or A.D. 1155 to A.D. 1162 according to M. Paris;) the only other chancellor of England of the same name in the reign of Henry III. was Thomas de Cantelupe, 49 Henry III. But there is another witness, "Richard Humest, Constable." Now Richard de Humet, or de Humez, was constable of England in the reign of Henry II., and then only. We find Richard de Humet named as constable in a charter given by Henry II. to the Cistercian abbey of Croxden in Staffordshire, witnessed by Walter, bishop of Lincoln; and this must have been previous to A.D. 1186, for his name occurs in the list of bishops as Walter de Constantiis, between A.D. 1183 and A.D. 1186-(vide Spelman's Gloss. p. 110. p. 146.; Dugd. Mon. sub voce Basingwerk.) "Jocelin de Bailoil" was one of Henry the Second's chief councillors. R. de Dunstanvill and William Fitz Hamon were both of the court and times of Henry II., not of Henry III., so that the identity of this charter cannot, we think, be any longer uncertain. We find, however, by a note appended to p. 262, vol. v. of the new edition (Ellis) of Dugdale, that the learned editors followed Bishop Fleetwood's opinion, we think through inadvertence. With regard to the affair of William Peverell, we find the following notices

Matt. Paris says, A.D. MCLV. "Eodem anno Rex Anglorum Henricus exhæredavit Willielmum Peverell causa veneficii, quod Ranulpho comiti Cestriæ fuerat propinatum: in cujus pestis consortio plures conscii extitisse dicuntur." R. Diceto adds that he turned monk to avoid the punishment he justly deserved. Holinshed's words are "Also about the same time William Peverell of Notingham, a nobleman and of great possessions, was disinherited by the king for sorcerie and witchcrafte, which he he had practised to bryng to death Ranulph Erle of Chester, as it was now revealed openly and brought to light. In accomplishing of whiche haynous crime and detestable practise many other were of councell, and founde giltie with him, which went not away withoute punishment for that their wicked enterprise."

1 Annal. Waverl. and Dugd. Mon.

II. grants and confirms donations expressly "to God, St. Mary, and the monks of Basingwerk," and we find the same expression made use of by Owain Brogyntyn, a contemporary of this king, so that we have sufficient reason for believing that the abbey belonged to the Cistercians as early as the twelfth century. But though it was thus dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Welsh continued to call it "Maesglas," which 'signifies green field, or perhaps more properly, cloister field, "Basing," and "Dinas Basing," or the city of Basing. In Latin it was usually designated "Abbatia, sive Monasterium, de Basingwerk."

The general style of the remains of this religious house is the early pointed, corresponding closely in character to the time of Henry II., or the latter half of the twelfth century; the masonry work is good and carefully finished, but there are very few traces of ornament remaining, not even any foliations being observable in the windows. The ruins consist of the abbey church, running from west to east, with a little deviation to the south, the refectory, abbot's buildings, barns and grange, and probably a portion of the porter's lodge. The church was cruciform, consisting of a nave with a single aisle at each side, transepts without aisles, and a chancel probably also without aisles. Of the edifice nothing is left standing except the southern transept, and a few courses of the outer wall of the southern aisle; nevertheless, from the traces of rubbish, &c. the plan of the church may be made out satisfactorily, except for the chancel. It is probable, indeed, that if some heaps, on which trees now grow luxuriantly, were dug into with proper precautions, many valuable fragments, and perhaps tomb stones, might be discovered. As far as can be guessed, then, from the present condition of the church, the nave was about eighty feet long by twenty-five feet wide, the aisles were ten feet wide; the piers of the nave arches were circular or octagonal, massive, and supporting bold arches, very slightly pointed, like those of Buildewas abbey in Shropshire; one pier and half an arch are still remaining. The transepts were twenty feet long by seventeen feet wide; the northern one had probably lofty lancet windows below, and three smaller lancets above in the gable, judging by the analogy of the southern transept, where

1 It was a rule of the fraternity to dedicate their houses to the

Blessed Virgin.

the upper lancets remain. Against this southern gable the refectory set on, so that no lower windows were there practicable, but a low circular-headed doorway, without any chamfering or mouldings, leads from the south western corner of this transept into the refectory; while at the south eastern corner of the southern aisle was a circular-headed doorway, with good mouldings and capitals to the shafts, leading probably into the cloisters. The chancel could not have been more than twenty-five feet or thirty feet long, and was probably as wide as the nave; no traces, however, remain, whereby to judge of its architectural character, but the present tenant of the adjoining buildings says that only a few years ago a gable with three lofty windows fell down, having been undermined; and these might have been either in the chancel or the northern transept. There are no means of judging whether any tower sprang from the crossing of the aisles, but from the plainness of the remaining pier we should infer the negative. A very beautiful and unusual bracket or corbel occurs here, from which the main arch of the southern transept sprang. There was a doorway in the western end of the nave, but no traces are observable of any in the western ends of the aisles; the roof of the southern aisle had probably been altered in its pitch, if we may so infer from a double line of junction observable in the transept wall.

The refectory, entered by a circular-headed doorway from the cloister, extended southwards from the wall of the southern transept about seventy-five feet, and seventeen feet wide; it had the dormitory above, and both apartments were lighted by small lancet windows with very wide and bold internal splays. At the southern end of the dormitory the gable is pierced with three bold lancets, still visible, though two had been blocked up by the monks and the easternmost converted into a fireplace, from the outside. Southward of the refectory must have been originally a small court, but this was afterwards occupied by buildings, perhaps for the improvement of the abbot's house, for they consisted evidently of two stories, and in the southern wall is still remaining a fireplace and two perpendicular windows, one of two, and the other of three lights. At the north eastern corner of the refectory was a room or parlour, entered by two circular-headed archways, the central pier between them

being longer than those at the sides, and standing in front of what seems to have been a hole in the ground, the use of which it is difficult to conjecture. This room, thirteen feet

by seventeen feet, is lighted by three lancets in the eastern side, and one in the southern, of bold internal splays and deeply cut labels. The roof was vaulted in stone, and above was an apartment approached by a staircase in the wall, having a double-light window in the eastern gable, and a doorway into the dormitory. The roof of the dormitory seems, by the traces on the wall of the church, to have been flat at top, and not to have run up into a ridge, at least at the northern end.

Westward of the refectory are the remains of one or two apartments, the use of which cannot be assigned, and also a beautiful room or hall, which Pennant and Grose call the chapel of the templars. It might very well have been the chapter house or library. It runs north and south, and was approached, to judge from Grose's view, by a doorway in the south gable, under three or five lancet windows. In the western wall is a range of seven lancet windows, of unequal dimensions but of excellent design and workmanship. Three of these must have continued to be used as windows till a late period, but the other four had been blocked up, perhaps by the monks. They are divided by banded shafts, have bold splays, and the heads of two of the splays are circular. There are brackets against the wall, showing that, probably, the roof was of timber; and indeed the pitch of the gable was rather low.

Eastward from this runs a long range of abbey barns, ending at the eastern extremity in a plain square stone building, which was no doubt the granary, and having a return towards the south, the gable of which still shows its post and pendant. All the lower story of the barns was of stone, the upper of timber work and brick or plaster; the beams of the roof and walls are untouched, in excellent preservation, all plainly chamfered, and of unusually ponderous dimensions. All the best stones of these buildings have been taken away to serve for erecting the adjacent farm houses, and perhaps part of Greenfield Hall. The situation of the abbey is very beautiful, and our view is taken from a spot in the field on the south western side of the church where once stood an enormous oak, figured in Pennant's view, and supposed,