NOTES ON NEWLAND CHURCH, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, WITH REMARKS ON

CHURCH RESTORATION AND ARRANGEMENTS.

By WILLIAM WHITE, Fellow.

Read at the Ordinary General Meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects, November 30, 1863.

I have been asked to give a detailed account of Newland Church, in the Forest of Deane, and of its restoration. To me it is no easy task to frame a sufficiently vivid description either of the building itself or of the work effected. The history of the church, however, is instructive, and at all events I may hope that what I shall be able to bring before you may not be without its interest. But whether I weary you or interest you, the blame or the thanks must be laid upon your zealous and indefatigable Secretaries, who will give one no peace till the duty which they have imposed has been performed. They will find to their dismay that the spirit which they have invoked is more easily raised than allayed, for I shall take the opportunity of enlarging upon certain points of church restoration and arrangement in a more detailed manner than may at first sight seem needful or advisable. Decided as are my views on some of these matters, and strongly as I may express myself, far be it from me to imply a censure either of the persons or the views of those who may be so unfortunate as to differ from me in the matter of church arrangement. But I do, nevertheless, feel bound earnestly to advocate that which I believe to be the life and soul of church architecture, and by all means in my power to promote the diffusion of those principles upon which experience has taught me to place so high a value, and which form one great desire and aim of my life to set forth in a fair and proper light.

I do not profess to be a setter forth of new views, or of views of my own-I only seek to urge upon the notice of such as have not yet fully considered them, a few of the principles which ought to be our guide; and I feel sure that such as have learned their worth will, for the sake even of a few who have not, bear with what may be to them only an old story twice told, but told now in new words and with all the force that can be applied to it by one who feels deeply his desire, but withal his inability to plead for those principles as they deserve.

Having warned you of what is in store I must now turn to the special subject of this evening, viz. my notes upon Newland Church. Newland is situate about four miles S.E. by S. from Monmouth, and about six miles West from Lydney Station. The navigable Wye forms the western boundary of the parish. The Royal Foresters are very jealous of the name of their mother church. You will observe that I do not call it Newland. This is the name of a village about thirty miles distant, in the adjoining county of Worcester. But it is New-land'. I take the origin of this peculiarity to be connected with its attachment till within these few years to the Welch See of Llandaff, and I suppose that its second syllable is properly "Llan" rather than "Land," in spite of its being found in conjunction with the Roman prefix of "New."

The Church of Newland then, dedicated to All Saints, is one of the finest and most interesting in the "Royal Forest." It is the mother church of Coleford, Clerewell and Bream. According to Sir Ric. Atkyns S. Briavel's also was included in the parish anciently. The church has been described as "standing on very elevated ground, overlooking an extensive tract of country in which thickly wooded. "slopes, rugged rocks, verdant meads and peaceful vales are thrown together in picturesque confusion "and gorgeous luxuriance. From even almost the lowest valley the heaven directed tower is seen to "over-top the richly timbered heights; while viewed from more elevated positions it seems to stretch

"upwards-though the church is not very high-with a lofty grandeur that dwarfs all surrounding "objects." This description though somewhat stilted is hardly exaggerated, and the warm deep grey of the masonry stands out in pleasing and striking contrast with the forest green. Indeed there are very few of our country villages able to boast of so magnificent a church, with so clear and interesting a history. The church appears to have received successive additions almost from its first foundation. It is grand in plan and picturesque in outline. The general plan consists of a fine chancel with an arcade of two on either side separating it from the Gage aisle or chapel on the north and the Dunraven aisle on the south; a large and lofty nave with clerestory, terminated at the west by a grand tower; very broad and masculine north and south aisles separated from the nave by arcades of five. The north aisle is separated by an arch from the Gage aisle. The south aisle is almost continuous with the Dunraven aisle. There is a south porch, by the side of which stands the Probyn aisle, a mortuary chapel connected with the south aisle by an arch of two orders. There was also a large but very poor modern vestry to the north-east.

Having now sketched out a description of the church, I must lay before you a few particulars as to its history, after which I shall endeavour to trace out and connect with its history the architectural features presented by the building itself. I shall then say something of its state before restoration, and give an account of what it has been necessary to do, and of what has been done. I purpose then adding a few words, as I have already intimated, upon the general principles of church restoration which such a church as this are calculated to suggest, together with some remarks upon church arrangement as bearing upon the subject of church architecture.

"There is record of the first building of this church in 20 Henry III. (A.D. 1236). The first "partial endowment of tythes was in the reign of Edward I., a larger one in Edward II., and there was a grant of estates in Edward III. There is also mention of the rise of a family named Hall, who is "said to have enlarged the church in Henry VII.

"The church originated in a neighbouring hermitage, which again had its rise in the flight of a "British chieftain from the battle of Bangor Iscoed, in Flintshire, in the sixth century. Again, the "conversion of this chieftain was connected with the preceding visit of S. Germain to this country, and "with the foundations left by him, and by some other missionaries from the country about the Loire. "There was a Welch or Irish tribe in the neighbourhood, afterwards supplanted by a Breton tribe, "and these again by a Norwegian or Danish settlement, and all these traces were crossed by Anglo"Saxon footsteps, and at last swept over by the Anglo-Normans. Besides this there were unmistakable "traces of Roman settlement." For this information I am indebted to the research and kindness of Mr. Fryer, of Coleford, who may, I hope, be induced some day to give us the result of his investigations as connected with the fragments of other architectural antiquity found in the neighbourhood. It would be interesting to trace the foundation and spread of that spirit which appears to have slumbered so long, working with slow and steady steps, leavening the country with its influence, and at last bursting out into the glow of devotion which called forth from the dust so noble a structure as Newland church; for, as appears sometimes to be the case, the first seed from which this church sprung was sown by strangers in a quiet sequestered spot, free from the haunts of men, to serve for the devotions only of a few religious recluses.

But when this church was built it was planned essentially as a parish church, for the accommodation of large and increasing congregations. It was planned so as to be capable of extension, and it did undergo alteration and great addition within a few years of its foundation. To it flocked, no doubt, the scattered population of Foresters who at that time must have inhabited the neighbourhood in great numbers.

The dedication itself suggests the probability of there having been a Christian community there for many years previously to the building of the church, who were interred, perhaps, in this very spot, and who now were to be remembered by their children's children year by year in Christian commemoration, that so their memorial might be handed down to posterity and form a link in the never ending chain of association. And I do not know a district where all classes, whether churchmen or nonconformists, take the same lively interest as the Foresters do in decking the graves of their dead every year, chiefly on Palm Sunday, with garlands of flowers and evergreens, or take the same uncontrollable pride in their mother church, notwithstanding that their un-endowed villages, or rather towns, have been left to themselves and to unauthorised ministrations till within the last few years. The venerable vicar, who had the happiness of celebrating his parochial year of jubilee by the re-opening of his restored church, appears to have been the first to take any very active step in the many good works that since the commencement of his ministry have been carried on in the now sub-divided parish.

It has been supposed that the original church of Newland was on a very small scale. I can, however, see no indication of this, but, on the contrary, there is every appearance of its having been planned upon an unusual scale of magnificence in size, though so simple in treatment and detail.

The 20 of Henry III. (A.D. 1236) was given in the information I have above quoted as being the date of the first building. But it appears that the crown grant of land for its site is dated 3 of Henry III. (1219) and that grants of oak were made for it in the 5th and 7th of the same reign. It appears that a grant of tythes was made to the Bishop of Llandaff, in the 1st of Edward I., and of lands in the reign of Edward II. to Sir John Wysham, and in the reign of Edward III. to Sir John Joce, to whose memorial I shall presently refer. The hermitage before spoken of was granted away in the 4th of Henry III. as a grange to the Abbey of Grace Dieu in Monmouthshire, and from this time may be said to date the arrangements for the commencement of the church by Robert Wakering, a royal chaplain, aided by Radulphus and Philip, two chaplains from a hermitage at Stow Grange. The extent and exact position of the original building has been much questioned, and of course can be only matter of conjecture. I naturally conclude my own conjecture to be the only right and true one. Some have concluded, I know not why, that it "comprised only what is now the north aisle, with its chancel at the east end." This, however, is impossible; for the north aisle is essentially an aisle complete in itself, it had a window at its east end, the jamb of which still remains, prior to the erection of this eastern chapel. The date of this chapel is therefore later, though probably earlier than that given by Sir R. Atkyns, who speaks of it as founded by Robert Grinder and Joan his wife, in the 24th of Henry VI. (1446). To me it seems very clear that the chancel and the present nave were first built, with preparations made for the subsequent addition of aisles when time and funds, or other circumstances, should allow. The north aisle was accordingly then added; and after this, the south with its porch soon followed. After these came the tower at the west end, late in the same century. For this, also, preparations had been made. The Dunraven aisle followed some fifty years later. It must be observed that no preparation had been made for these chancel aisles; they formed no part of the original plan.

The only other additions were the Gage aisle and the Probyn aisle, in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of Henry VI., at which time also the chancel underwent considerable rebuilding. The clerestory must have been added about A.D. 1600 or later, when also a few other minor alterations were effected. But the roofs generally must have been renewed from time to time about this period, following to some extent the more ancient forms.

I have given a consecutive sketch of the architectural history of the church, rather than break in upon my narrative with proofs or indications of the respective alterations and additions. It is now necessary to support what I have advanced by the architectural evidences, which appear so far as I can

see satisfactory and conclusive; my only fear is that I may be unable to make the explanation so clear to others as it is to myself.

There is nothing in the chancel to which we can definitely point as being a portion of the original structure. But we know that a nave would not have been built in those ages without a chancel. The indications of earliest character are in the nave arcades. But in taking down the east gable of the chancel the portions of a sill were discovered, evidently belonging to a window of early date, although there was nothing to define what that date was. We come therefore to the nave arcades. Now the church appears to have been fifteen years in commencing after the site was given, and a grant of oaks made for its erection. Time was thus allowed for cutting and seasoning the oak. And the work was probably carried on by only a limited number of local artificers. We are led to suppose from this that the building itself would not go on with extreme rapidity, and it was probably, as I have said, carried out by slow degrees; and hence, although the detail of the aisles themselves indicates the date of the latter end of the thirteenth century rather than the middle, they may well have been merely the lengthened continuation of the great work commenced in A.D. 1236. There is nothing perhaps particularly marked or striking in the simple detail of this arcade to enable us to decide its exact date. But the vertical profile of the cap and base mould is an indication of its early character. This however appears to have been followed to a considerable extent in the later cap moulds. Still there is a sufficient difference between the earlier and the later to enable us to say with some certainty that these are of the date named. The pillars are octagonal, and the arches simply recessed-chamfered of rather massive character. There is a slight difference between the north and the south arcades in the height of the arches and level of the bases, as well as in the detail; as e.g. in the south arcade the chamfer is stopped out. Its pillar is shorter, and its arch higher. The abacus projects at the sides, as well as at back and front. There are relieving arches over the southern arcade of thin flat stones and the outer or southern side of this wall appears to have been built with greater care than the inside, in order to allow of its presenting, for the time, an exterior well finished face till the south aisle should be built. It is built too of small thin well packed walling stones indicating its earlier character than the other work. Over both of the arcade walls was a good deep corbel table hung out ready to receive the roofs of the aisles, when these should come to be added, without breaking in upon the walls or roof of the nave, which was in itself complete, and as yet without a clerestory. These corbel tables again exhibit about the same amount of difference as appears between the two arcades.

It is absurd to name positive dates for what is mere conjecture, but in order to convey to you an idea of my own impression regarding these dates, and of the general successive periods of the several parts, I may without pretensions to accuracy, say, that the south arcade was finished in A.D. 1245, the north arcade in 1255, the north aisle in 1270, and the south aisle in 1280, when the tower immediately followed. There is but little difference of character between the two aisles, but there is just enough difference in the measurements of the detail and treatment, to make it probable that the one was a few years earlier than the other. The difference consists not so much in the treatment of the window tracery, as in the splays of the jambs, the chamfers of the monials, and section of the labels. The pitch of the roof of the south aisle moreover was steeper than that of the north. On this account it might have been supposed to be the earlier of the two, were it not for the stronger indications of finish to the exterior face of the wall. There is a question relating to the chancel arch very difficult to determine. It was evidently rebuilt at an early period; for at the back of its northern jamb is the starting of a previous jamb of similar character and plainly in sitû. The east end of the chancel inclines slightly to the south. The southern as well as the northern jamb is thrust to the southwards. The one-sided effect of this is somewhat neutralised by this jamb being carried up only in one order, the inner order of the arch being

carried on a tapered corbel, the south side being in two orders and thrust as far as it can go into the pier of the arcade of the Dunraven aisle. Possibly the chancel arch may have been rebuilt of its old material when the Gage aisle was added (A.D. 1446) when also the rood staircase appears to have been built, thrusting the pier as it were out of its place. This is ingeniously corbelled over to carry the abutting arcade of the Gage aisle. The arches, however, into this Gage aisle appear to be of earlier date than the aisle itself would lead one to suppose; and possibly it was not built but rebuilt and endowed by Robert Grinder with its £12. a year. The section of its western arch agrees in character with that of the chancel arch, whilst its side arches more closely follow that of the nave arches. It is not unlikely that it was in the first instance a narrow aisle, and afterwards enlarged to its present size. Its trellised parapet is yet later still, but this may have been a kind of reproduction after ap earlier one.

It

Sir Richard Atkyns says that the south chancel aisle was founded by Sir John Joce in the reign of Edward III., by the owner of Cowerwall-Clerewell I suppose-and that it still in his time belonged to the family of that place-as indeed it does to the present proprietor of Clerewell Court-Lady Dunraven. It must have been built early in his lifetime. It had, however, undergone several alterations. contained a square headed window which might have been of 1550 date, not in its original position but reset in the more recently rebuilt wall which had been thrust out by the pressure of the roof. The east window of the Dunraven aisle is five-light of a single order, chamfered; its tracery is uncusped, intersecting, of the simplest description of middle pointed work. It has a fine massive inner arch rib. The window is 12 or 14 inches out of the centre of the gable, to the north of it. This cannot have been for the sake of effect or of the perspective inside; but was probably occasioned by the remodelling of the gables when the roofs were renewed. For this roof appeared older than that of the nave aislenot an original roof nevertheless-and the roof of the nave aisle had been framed and forced into a line with it subsequently to the removal of the arch separating the two aisles. There was no corbel table prepared on the side of the chancel wall, but only a single corbel subsequently let in for the reception of this roof, which was clumsily and insecurely supported upon some longitudinal pieces bearing east and Moreover, it is the ridge which is crooked, not the window; the window inside is midway between the walls. It may have been in order to obviate some of the one-sided effects of the short leg of the gable as compared with the outer.

The porch is fine and large, of somewhat remarkable treatment. Its outer entrance was protected in former times by large folding doors, in order to shut out the fierce south-west storms, and possibly also to resist attack. Close by this main entrance was a small side door in the eastern wall of the porch for use when the large doors were closed. The outer and inner main doorways are nearly alike in size and form. They are of very broad proportions, and have segmental pointed heads. Their section shews a moulding consisting of recessed quarter round. The outer doorway is simply of two orders, with a soffite rib, whilst the inner one, which is also of two orders, has plain jambs and inner arch as usual. Over the outer doorway is a single-light window, and over the inner doorway a kind of recess half filled up with a projecting narrow ledge on rubble stonework, whose purpose I cannot quite divine. These openings are cusped with soffite cusping of somewhat earlier character than the cuspings of the windows, which have feathered cuspings of small depth, whilst one of these is soffited and the other solid. By the side of this porch rises the short ridged, but high pitched and picturesque gable of the Probyn aisle which is called, I believe, King Edward's Chapel in some old documents. The last incumbent of this chantry was Edward Fryer. Whether the present family of this name, whose burial place is close adjoining on the outside of the wall, is connected with him, I know not. This is popularly reported to be the chapel of the Joce or Joyce family. But it must have been erected much later than the altar tomb to his memory; and authority as well as architectural detail are in favour of the Dunraven