The Annals of Cranbrook Church; its monuments, ministers, officers, and people, in a series of lectures, etc

Preface

. Aly reasons for publishing this First Lecture and for promising that the others shall follow as soon as convenient, is, that I have been often requested to do so by more than One Hundred Subscribers, many of whom zvere present when the Lecturs were delivered ; I therefore claim an indulgence for every imperfection they may contain. I feel, however, quite satisfied, I should have been spared the trouble of publishing any of these Lectures, if the materials I have so largely made use of had been more easy of general access. Most of the facts are fro?n our parish records, and those which are not, I have collected from the best sources I am acquainted with. Cra?ibrook, December, 1870. FIRST LECTURE, CRANBROOK CHURCH Parishioners of my native Town. You meet this evening to hear the best account I can give of the Annals of our noble Church, — on another occasion, I hope to treat on its Monuments, Ministers, Officers, and People.

I have no doubt you feel some concern for me, lest I should fail to accomplish in a creditable manner, so intricate a subject. But as I propose to open up to you an almost unfrequented path, I think I am entitled to some consideration at your hands ; for should you think that I am leading you through a rugged one, recollect you are only following an explorer, and not a professional guide. It may be, you ask, what could induce me to enter upon this intricate subject _ to which I answer, because no one has yet put this History before us with a fullness the subject deserves. Whether we take a view of the Church as a Building or as an Institution, we have nothing as noble or so ancient within the bounds of this extensive parish. This venerable fabric has historical associations surrounding it, that deserve to be fully brought to light.

Even in a financial point of view it deserves a passing remark. I calculate the building alone and its usual fittings, to have cost the inhabitants of this parish, not less than sixty-five thousand pounds (I mean present value of money), and I divide that sum thus, forty thousand pounds for its original construction and fitments connected with the various alterations it has undergone, and the other twenty-five thousand pounds for repairs within and without, and I believe I am under the mark rather than over. " "Tis to the Church I call thee, and that place Where sleep our fathers, now they 've run their race." Within that fabric, our forefathers have met together to worship their Maker, under many different modes. Within those walls, doctrines have been promulgated very diverse from each other ; the same may be said of its forms and ceremonies, at times it has been very imposing, and anon very plain and unpretending.

A visit to the Church may kindle such reflections as the following. For more than two hundred years, every variety of ceremonial with which the Romish Church presents herself to her devout worshippers has been exhibited here, with all the variety of colour that art could procure to adorn her Priesthood, to this may be added the best of music and the fumes of incense, everything in short, that money could buy to please the eye, to delight the smell, and to regale the ear, our ancient inhabitants possessed ; this is no ideal fancy of mine. I am prepared with the plain facts to prove my assertions, which I shall notice* in due course,* I shall shew you how all this gave place to a far more simple mode, to a system that offered its teachings to the mind and understanding, and not to the senses.

We laid aside the doctrine of transubstantiation, invocation of saints, masses for the dead, purgatory, celibacy and auricular confession, for one grand doctrine, viz : justification by faith in the atonement of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The fruit which has sprung from this grand doctrine, has strengthened our minds and given vigour to all our actions, instead of the bondage and superstition that oppressed our people under the old regime. We shall have to notice, I regret to say, though established on these purer principles, our religious path has been far from smooth ; there has been great clashing of sentiments, both in doctrine and in practice ; I shall only be able to indicate these matters as I pass on, but what I wish you to bear in mind, is, that I believe it arises from that cardinal doctrine just alluded to, that has saved the building, and saved its worship from destruc tion, the foundation of the English Church as a human institution being based thereon, but the superstructure does often undergo a change; our Ministers have been very far from all thinking alike, whether in doctrine or ritual.

I have consulted all the works that have been published by our Parochial Ministers (some 20 vols. or more), which I have procured at some pains and cost, from these works and other reliable sources, to which I add our own invaluable records, I hope to secure your confidence in what I advance. But there is one view of our subject which you will allow me to notice, because the religious services connected with the Church have been in their application more uniform. I refer to those sendees which are connected with baptism, marriage, and death. What emotions of joy on the one hand have the former of these two exercises kindled in the breasts of our parishioners from time to time in every age, and what sorrow from the latter ; this is an inheritance we derive in unvarying order from our grandsires, and those who have experienced the joys of the one or participated in the sorrows of the other, need no further observations from me, except that these things create in our minds a hallowed influence towards the Church as an Institution. * See Appendix, The Inventory, 1509.

But to commence with the Church as a Building. The Church, when built ? here as you all know I have a very difficult duty to discharge. "The old foundation, It is not clear When it was laid, Nor can /tell tho year." You must not expect from me a scientific discourse on the various styles of Architecture, so as to tell you in a learned way how a stone was cut in such a year, and then how it was cut in another, but I will do a little in a plain unpretending manner. First, I think we had better say from the best authorities I know of, when we had no Church. Well, in the days of our Saxon forefathers, the most we seem to derive from them is our baptismal name, Cranebrook, and the reason why they gave us that name, was, because the Brook here was the frequent resorting place of Cranes, a remarkably shy bird that does not like to live among the habitations of men.

When doomsday book was made by order of our Norman Conqueror in 1 1.86, the only Church recorded there for many miles around this spot was Benenden, that parish in those early days it seems had one, thus we say in 1 186, we had no Church ; now when have we evidence we had one ? why, in 1291, at the taxation of Pope Nicholas the IV. Perhaps you are ready to ask the question from this statement, if the Pope of Rome ever had anything to do with taxing our Churches ? I am sorry to say he had too much to do with our Benefices, but their was a little English scheming over this affair; King Edward the ist through his delight in war, was up to his chin in debt, and he did not know exactly what plan to adopt to get money (a common dilemma with persons so circumstanced). Dr. Lingard, the Roman Catholic Historian, says, " Under the pretence of undertaking a crusade for tho recovery of the Holy Land, he obtained from Pope Nicholas TV", the tenth of all Ecclesiastical Benefices for the six following years ; and that the grant might he more productive, the assessments were made by a new valuation, taken upon oath." * So, seeing we are in that assessment, it is quite clear we had a Church and a Benefice in 1291,! that evidence gives us a standing of 578 years; in round numbers we are not much short (if any) in saying we had a Church built in this parish 600 years ago, but not one of the same dimensions we have now.

Before I treat of that, I think we have to allude to whom our Church was dedicated. The Church of Rome made her great ecclesiastics after they were dead, saints : we make our great laymen while they live, Peers of the Realm, a much better plan I think. To these dead men whom they called saints, Churches were often dedicated, and on the day of the year in which they died, they began to build the Church they intended to dedicate to them, the * Page 292, vol. 2, p.e. t See Taxatio Ecclesiastica, Auctoritate P Nicholai IV, circa, page 2 and 295, A.D. 1291, 1802. Church was always placed in a parallel line with the rays of the rising sun on that identical day, and if any of you are curious to prove this, on the 19th of May, if you get on the steeple just at sun rise and look straight along the ridge of the Church you will have the sun full in your face (if there are no clouds).

When our ancestors prepared to build on a certain 19th of May, they met on the spot, we have now under consideration, and, no doubt erected their posts, which were to guide the workmen in digging the foundations of the building, and then they had what is termed a wake. This was usual, and was always an annual celebration, our present May Fair is the result of that 1 st wake on the 1 9th of May, about 600 years ago. But say some of you, how is it that our fair is now on the 30th of May _ exactly ; when the style and calendar was altered in 1752, they put us all forward 11 days, and 19 and 11 is just 30. Perhaps you ask the question who Dunstan was to whom we dedicated our Church ? He was an Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived in Anglo-Saxton times, or about 300 years before our Church was erected, and he was a wonderful clever man, I assure you they did not dedicate our Church to a fool ; he was one of the most dexterous statesmen of his day, and his influence over the King and the nation was something marvellous ; nothing was too high or too low for him to take in hand.

Dr. Flook, in the lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, recently published, says thus of Dunstan : ''Even to trivial matters his mind could descend, finding that quarrels very frequently arose in taverns, from disputes among topers about their share of the liquor, when they drank out of the same cup (or as we say pot), he advised Edgar (the Bang), to order gold or silver pegs to be fastened in the pots, that whilst every man knew his Just measure, shame should compel each one to confine himself to his proper share, hence the expression 'a peg too low.'" I fear that' at our annual wakes or fairs as well as at other times, this respect for the peg has not always been observed. If ignorance of this fact is offered as an excuse, let it now be known what sort of a man it was we selected for the dedication of our Church, and do honour to ourselves by observing his maxims.

After the dedication, the building was erected. It would afford me great pleasure if I could produce to you a pictorial illustration of this Church, or even a written description of it ; failing that, we are left to our speculations respecting it. We have, I believe, a little left to us of this first Church, viz : the south porch and the stone rubble "work in the north "wall, and of that little we must make the most, those are evidences we must keep to. Without further ceremony, I will give you my opinion, but not my reasons in full, because that would occupy too much time, but when I have given you my opinion of the first appearance of our Church, remember I am not conceited about it, I am quite ready to hear any body else offer a better one. My opinion is, then, that the entire length of our first Church which was coeval with the porch, and a. portion of the north wall terminated at our present chancel arch ; thi would give us a Church 9 1 feet long inside from the tower to the east window; and of this 91 feet I take exactly 70 for the body of the Church and 2 1 for the chancel ; further, that its width was 65 feet inside, that it had three isles as now, and that the middle one was supported by five arches on each side, the two centre ones being exactly straight with the south porch entrance ; these ten arches required eight columns, viz : four on each side to sup port them, and further, that the columns and arches were very similar to those we now have in the chancel.

For windows, we had narrow lancet windows, something similar to those at Sissing hurst; for roofs, we had three angular ones covered'with tiles, and this Church had neither buttresses or battlements ; the chancel might be at the end, circular, called an apse, very common in those days, the windows also being very narrow. At the west end a low square tower with neither buttress or battlements, and this tower is proved by the investigations of the Rev. T. A. Carr, to have been at the wTest end of the north aisle, and not where the tower is now. The present inner door-way of the western porch was once an outside door ; the window we have now at the west end of the north aisle, is erected on the base of the original tower; thus you have my opinion of the appearance of our first Church. Having furnished the best evidence I can respecting the time when the Church was built, I have now to deal with another difficulty, when and of what character was the first great alteration made ?

As I have only circumstantial evidence to go upon, you will allow me to speculate a little. In the year 1331, King Edward the III induced the Flemings to leave their native home and settle here to teach our forefathers the art of making broad cloth ; the mercury of our prosperity (as a parish), rose at once many degrees, I could prove this from a multitude of sources we will take one only as significant. In this very same year, 1331, King Edward the III, to shew at least how great interest he took in the welfare of the higher dignitaries of the Church, appropri ated this living, which was rectorial, to the see of Canterbury.* Cranbrook about this time appears to have been much under the eye of the King, and also of the Pope, for first, we have a dispute between the Rector of Cranbrook and the Rector of Biddenden, about the boundaries of their respective parishes, this matter on being referred to the Pope, as head of the Roman Church, approves of the appointment of a commission to settle the dispute, this was in 1314^ There is very little doubt that by this circumstance, the King of England and the Pope of Rome obtained some knowledge of the size of this parish, which might have something to do with the King's future acts ; for after the Flemings had fixed themselves in this locality, the King granted a license * This act of the King was confirmed by Pope Clement the VI. t See Hasted's Kent and Ducarel Rep. to appropriate this Rectory to the see of Canterbury, which transfer also was sanctioned by the then Pope.

Perhaps the King in his zeal for the Church thought he could enrich the Metropolitan Church of Canterbury, without doing much injury to the parish cure, as the increased population of the place would make a vicarage endowment sufficient, so an appropriation was made and a vicarage endowed ; but it does not appear to have given satisfaction to the parish priest, for about 33 years afterwards an augmentation took place, which the Archbishop sanctioned, and still left the vicarage too small;* but you must understand the priest then had fees in connection with the Roman Catholic worship, which with our manufacturing prosperity were something considerable. From 1331, wealth came into the parish apace, and most likely the Flemings began to talk about how much better Churches they had left behind than ours was, and wanted to see some change for the better here ; it is difficult to say, but I think in less than 20 years after the Flemings came, the first alteration took place.

Of this alteration I consider we had a new chancel about 50 feet long, and the present chancel arch made at this time, but the side chapels not made then ; the chancel part has undergone many changes and alterations, through what has been done with the side chapels, that it is not safe for me to venture far here out of my depth. This one thing, I may say, that if not whenf the chancel was extended this 50 feet, it was not long after before there was erected at the east end, as fine a perpendicular window as you will meet with in any Country Parish Church, this window was placed there towTards the latter end of the 1 4th cen tury; J the present chancel arch was erected, as I have said, before so large a window in the east end was determined on, this makes me think (beside some other things) that the extension of the chancel was a work some years prior to the window.

The four lowest windows in the north aisle, are, I believe, coeval with the extension of the chancel, and that the preserft memorial windows right and left of the centre one in the high chancel, were removed from another part of the chancel, when the centre window was put in. Perhaps the see of Canterbury gave liberally to these chancel transfor mations, having derived great benefit from this parish by the appropriation of the rectorial benefice. § * See Ducarel Rop. t It is very evident that the east end of the present chancel when first made, was not as it is now. % Hasted says, there were several shields of arms in this window, one to Archbishop Bouchier, another to Sir John Guildford, and another to Willsford, of Hartridge. § I offer the following as my opinion respecting the removal of the tower and the construction of the north aisle, as we see it now.

By the extension of the chancel and the enlargement of the Church, larger windows was wanted, and windows with two mullions of the perpendicular order was then fashionable, we had, probably, six on the north side, four of which still remain as they were, except the one that has the north door cut under it — why these windows were not placed at equal distances from each other, I have no idea. After this aisle had been enlarged and the new windows put in, John Roberts, of About the year 1460, John Roberts, Esq., died, and by his. will he founded a chantry, and he appointed Robert Egleonisby to be the first priest to sing mass for his soul, and he was to have the appointment of his successor, for which, a perpetual charge of ten marks per year should be due from his estate to pay for this service ; and Walter Roberts, his son and heir, partaking of his father's zeal towards the Church, had painted within the mullions of the east window in their chapel, his father kneeling in armour, with his helmet lying by him, before a desk with a book on it, and an inscription, to pray for him and his wife, and his son Walter and his three wives.

If the inscription in the book had been obliterated, which recognizes the doctrine of pur gatory, I think it would have been an ornament to that window if that painting had been preserved to our day. There was in that will of John Roberts (1460) another remarkable item, he ordered (equivalent to £ 150 now) to be laid out in removing the rood loft (of which we shall have a little more to say), and it was removed from its then position and placed in the high chancel. I apprehend that this rood loft was somewhere near the chancel arch, and that Mr. John Roberts thought it ought to be fitted up in a costly style high aloft in the high chancel. Passing on to Walter Roberts (some 10 or 12 years before he died) when he made his will, among other things (which we shall have to notice ere long) he proposed to leave half the timber that would be required for building the middle aisle of the Church ; now this brings us upon ground much firmer than we have yet trod upon, for we have all the particulars about building this "middle aisle" preserved in our parish documents, but before I turn to them, it may be of interest if I inform you that this Walter Roberts of whom we have just spoken, was a regular family man, he had three wives, as we have just noticed, and no less that thirty children by them.* One word respecting the present tower before we pass on to the "middle aisle," this tower was not wisely built which is very evident on examination, and this has been the cause of all the trouble the parish has had from time to time about the steeple being not safe ; instead of building it upon its own base, all the inner part is upon the wall of the Church, even the north buttress springs from the wall of the Church instead of springing from the ground.

It was most likely built between Glassenbury, participating in the spirit of the age in which he lived, viz : great zeal in Church matters, and as other principal families in parishes, built private chapels for their own use, he resolved to copy the example. Sometime about the year 1420, this idea being determined upon, opened up the desirableness of a much larger scheme such as that the aisle should be remade from end to end, save and except so much of the wall as contained the four lowest windows, then the tower wanted moving to the middle aisle, and a new window in place of the old tower. The turret, buttress, and battlements were all included in this scheme. The old angular roof might be out of repair, having been up about 150 years, and so a flat one covered with lead was also determined upon.

All this, I conclude, was done between the years 1420 and 1440. * See Burke' s Extinct Baronetage. the years 1420 and 1440. Archbishop Chichley's arms are on the tower, and if they were placed there because he contributed to its erection — which is every way likely — and as he was primate from 14 14 to 1443; it was probably built within those years. The stair turret had not battlements and a vane as now, it had a pinnacle, how high above the present stone work I am not able to say ; the pinnacle was taken down in 1634-5, perhaps considered then unsafe, as a vane was not put for 50 years after wards. About the building of the middle aisle, which appears to me to have been much canvassed over for many years before it was done. The middle (or nave) and south aisle roofs no doubt were not good, and looked very unsightly after the north aisle was done, then the desire was very keen to have a clerestory, the Church looked mean without it ; Mr. Walter Roberts no doubt was repeatedly consulted respecting it, but having so large a family to provide for, he expressed his willingness to aid in the cause, but instead of giving anything, he simply made his will in favour of the scheme ; the parishioners (some more than others), doubtless were anxious to see what could be done in this matter before Walter Roberts died.

In the year 1520, the first subscription was made, in which list 16 persons agreed to give 13s. 4d., equal to £i&oo now, the head subscriber was Mr. Robert Brickenden, who gave equal to £750, this Mr. Brickenden was a wealthy clothier, living as it appears, at the Fright House.* In connection with this subscription, the materials that had been promised had to be reconsidered ; first, Walter Roberts had made a will in favour of the undertaking by ordering " ten ton of timber" to be taken from his estate; now as this would have depreciated the value of Glassenbury Estate, ten ton of timber from his son Thomas, it was finally agreed by all parties that Walter Roberts the testator, should allow the timber to be taken during his lifetime, and that the gift should be recorded as his son's and not his own.

The promises then stood "Master Thomas Roberts, ten ton of timber, Jarvis Hendley, sen., ten ton of timber, and Thomas Willsford, of Hartridge, six waggon loads." Further, John Net (Netter I expect) promised " to give as much stone as shall need to serve for building the said aisle." This I think refers to sand-stone from his estate at Hartley. Four more names are put down as promisers to this undertaking, one is Dr. Roots, another William More. These gentlemen, I fancy where owners of quarries on the rag stone hills, of which stone they proposed to use freely ; then we have two more Hendleys' promise materials if wanted. Having got matters in such good order for the work, but yet feeling they wanted a little more money for labour and carriage of these materials to complete their design, at the beginning of the year 152 1, a list was taken round the parish and 60 persons became subscribers amounting to £119 3s. 8d., * It was the residence of the Brickendens for something like 200 years. making a total in cash of 17s. od.

(equal to present value of money) ; as I informed you of the name of the largest subscriber, I will give you the name and amount of the smallest, "Henry Thristo, is $d." (equal to 10s. now).* Our records do honour to the 60 persons I have alluded to, by heading the entry thus : " Hereafter followeth the names and sums of certain persons which of their good devotion hath given to the new making of the middle aisle." Having obtained of the "good devotion " of some 80 or 90 persons so substantial a sum, and all the materials in the shape of wood and stone promised, they set about to perform what had long been desired. The first question to settle must have been how best to support the internal side of the north aisle, while they took away the old middle aisle (or nave), and built the new one ; this was done by shoring it up after the fashion of that age — for Church builders well understood all those matters.

The next point appears to me to be more difficult, how they could make the middle aisle about 4 feet wider than the old one; to this point it appears they sacrificed everything, 25 feet within the columns is what I consider they resolved upon, at all risks ; well, to get 12^ feet of this measure on the north side of the centre of the chancel arch, would extend 15 inches into the north aisle beyond what they could very well do, so they resolved to have 11 feet 3 inches on the north side, and 13 feet 6 inches on the south, (the width of the nave is not quite 25 feet,) this alteration rather spoils the appearance of the chancel arch ; to carry out this plan, brick buttresses were built up close to the wall support ing the chancel arch, the north side, about 3 feet 6 inches thick, and on the south side about 6 feet ; this very massive buttress on the south side of the chancel, very much spoils the internal appearance of the Church.

This forcing the middle aisle so far into the south, would only leave 1 6 feet for the south aisle, which would be about 5 feet less than the north, so here, I presume they had another difficulty in their way, and this was got over by resolving to pull down, not only the middle aisle, but the south one too, and extend the south wall further out ; but again they were met by still one more block in the way, the south porch must be pulled down or mutilated, and as it should appear being anxious not to pull that down, they determined to mutilate the inside by cutting away about 3 feet, and making the south aisle only 1 9 feet wide instead of 2 1 . The four-centred or Tudor arch was determined on (instead of the equilateral as in the north aisle), and this style of arch we have along the colonade, and also in all the windows on the south side, and in the doorways that were then made.