OUR PRE-REFORMATION CHALICES
1 – The Willson Chalices
2 – The Dowlais and Leyland Chalices

by Dom Hilary Willson

© Ampleforth Journal 32 (1927) 195  &  33 (1928) 218

Click here for Part 2

In the Notes of our Summer Number, 1925, page 201, was recorded the transfer to the Abbey by Dom Hilary Willson of an English pre-Reformation chalice and paten. They were presented to him on his ordination day, March 23rd, 1884, and had formerly belonged to his great uncle, Bishop Willson of Hobart, in Tasmania. Another ancient chalice and paten, somewhat smaller and of different design, which had belonged to their grandfather, Edward James Willson, f.s.a., of Lincoln, the elder brother of the Bishop, was presented to the Abbey in 1909, by Dom Hilary's sisters, who jointly inherited it from their father and uncle. Besides these, preserved at the Abbey, the Ampleforth Conventus is possessed of two others of pre-Reformation date, the " Leyland" chalice, bearing the inscription, " Restore mee, to Layland, in Lankeshire," and the " Dowlais " chalice, of foreign make,, with an inscription beneath the foot in old French.

It seems fitting that a description of these mediaeval treasures and an assignment of their probable date and place among the known specimens of pre-Reformation English church plate, should be given to our readers, together with what is known of their history. The writer begs the indulgence of readers of the Journal for the personal element in the statement of facts and details gathered by him at varying intervals during the past forty years, when the larger " Willson " chalice and paten came into his hands. In 1845 they were in the possession of Selim, Dean & Co., of London, as is stated in Specimens of Ancient Church Plate, etc., which gives illustrations of them, published by J. H. Parker & Co., Oxford, in that year. Consecrated in October 1842, Bishop Willson reached Tasmania in May 1844. He returned to England for some months in 1847, and it is probable that he acquired the chalice and paten by gift or purchase, either then or on the occasion of his next visit in 1854, as ne did not come home again till June 1865, a year before he died. When it came into his hands, and into mine, nearly twenty years after his death, the chalice was not quite in appearance as it is now. An addition of about an inch and a half had at some been made to the stem which so altered the proportions of the whole as to put it out of harmony with pre-Reformation Of this I was not at first aware, but later when I was certain of its antiquity and of the alteration made, had the added piece removed, which at once restored the halice to its original proportions and beauty. Before effecting the change I had a photograph taken of it as it came to me. This I sent with both chalice and paten to Mr St John W. H. Hope, v.s.a., who wished to exhibit them before the Society of Antiquaries of London. In January 1906, he sent me their official report printed in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, with the remark, 'The lengthened stem has quire properly been shortened.''

As we are able by the courtesy of the present Hon. Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries to reproduce the illustrations of the chalice and paten, which appeared in the Proceedings of the Societv at the date mentioned above, it mav be well to give here, the detailed description which accompanies them, though it has alreadv appeared in the Notes of our Summer Number, 1925 The chalice is 6.5 in. high, and has a hemispherical bowl ;}t; in. in diameter and 2-ft- in. deep. The stem is hexagonal, with a knot of cast work with four-leaved roses on the points, and spandrels alternately plain and pierced. The foot is of the mullet form, with plain mouldings round the edge, and has never had any knops on the points. On the front panel is engraved the usual crucifix, with leafwork on either side.There are no hall or other marks, but the date of the chalice is probably cir:.i 1470-80. It belongs to the type Fa of Messrs Hope and Fallow. [Other images to follow.]

The paten is 5-ft- in. in diameter and has two depressions, the first circular, the second sexfoil with plain spandrels. In the middle is engraved the Manus Dei on a cruciform nimbus vithin a cirele of short rays on a hatched ground. This central device is 1 ft in. in diameter.

There are no marks on the paten, which is of a date 1350. It belongs to type C of Messrs Hope and Fallow Archaeological Journal, xliii. 147 and 155.)

On leaving Ampleforth for Belmont in 1888, I was allowed take the chalice with me. I had not been there long before happy accident convinced me of what I had already begun to suspect, that it was of pre-Reformation date. Turning the pages of a volume of the Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists Club, Herefordshire, I came upon a photograph of a chalice and paten preserved at Bacton,near Abbey Dore, with a detailed description of both by E. W. Colt, m.a. The general resemblance to my own chalice, apart from the lengthened stem of the latter, struck me forcibly, and aroused my curiosity. When, in the descriptive notes, I read that this chalice, and another with the same distinctive features, preserved at Old Hutton, near Kendal, in Westmorland, though neither of them hall-marked, are almost the exact counterpart of two that are, my hopes of a solution of the date-problem quickened.

One of these, the 'Chester' chalice, bears the year mark for 1496, and the other, the Pride of Nettlecombe, in Somerset, that for 1479-80. This latter is the earliest hall-marked specimen of English church plate so far discovered. Both bear the same goldsmith's mark, a divided fleur-de-lys, and the legitimate presumption is that these four chalices are the handiwork of the same craftsman, and are to be assigned to the same period, the quarter of the fifteenth century. The fact that the 'Willson' chalice and paten, neither of which is hall-marked, are of a simpler, though undoubtedly of similar design, pointing probably to a somewhat earlier date, convinced me that they belonged to the pre-Reformation period. This conclusion was finally confirmed in 1906, by the verdict of the Society of Antiquaries that the chalice is of date probably circa 1470-80, the paten, with the Manus Dei engraved upon it, of a date circa 1350.

The report also called attention to the probability that the chalice, which is of silver, was orginally only parcel gilt, as there are signs around the lip of an earlier band of gilding imagine it was gilded throughout when the stem was lengthened, as it came to me in that condition, though the gilding within the bowl was already wearing thin. In 1905, when the stem was reduced to its original length, I had both chalice and paten regilded and a plate iixed beneath the foot with an inscription in Latin to the following effect : 'This chalice, With its paten, made about the year 1480 which at one time belonged to the Right Rev. Robert William Willson, first Bishop of Tasmania, his nephews Thomas John and William Edward Willson presented to Dom Hilary Willson, professed monk of Ampleforth Abbey, on his ordination to the priesthood in the year 1884.'

The smaller 'Willson' chalice and paten were acquired in the first half of the nineteenth century, how or at what exact date is not known, bv Edward James Willson, f.s.a., of Lincoln. He was the elder brother of the Bishop, and had two sons, Thomas John and William Edward, to whom, on his death in 18^4, tne chalice and paten passed. As an architect and builder Edward James did a great deal of restoration to churches, chapels and mansions in Lincolnshire, and as an antiquarian he became possessed of pre-Reformation vestments, a large badge of the Pilgrimage of Grace, and other objects of mediaeval origin ; but though he wrote much on antiquities generally, he left no record as to when or how he came into possession of this chalice and paten. A scale drawing made during his lifetime is subscribed, " Chalice in the possession of E.J.W., actual size, Silver parcel gilt," and but for its preservation the treasure might have been irretrievably lost.

Somewhere about 1890, the late Charles Edmund Waterton, grandson of the naturalist, wishing to establish the antiquity of a chalice he had in the chapel at Walton Hall, his seat near Wakefield, begged the loan of the smaller Willson chalice to compare the two. Not long after, Walton was sold, the chapel dismantled, and its contents removed to Deeping Waterton. near Stamford, in Lincolnshire. When applied to by the owners for the restoration of their chalice, Mr W ater-ton's replv was far from satisfactory. He admitted that he had in his chapel a chalice of ancient date, but maintained that this was the one he had inherited, and that if he had borrowed one from the applicants, it must have somehow been lost at the breaking up of Walton Hall. A desultory-correspondence followed, extending over two or three years.

A proposal made to Mr Waterton to allow the chalice to be compared with the drawing alluded to above was declined by him. So, too, was the suggestion that it should be placed in the hands of some third party, such as Messrs Hunt and Roskell, of London, who should take the evidence on either side and adjudicate. Meantime the position on the Willson side was considerably strengthened by an admission, made-by Fr Edmund Buckler, o.p., an acquaintance of both parties, that, when celebrating Mass at Deeping,he had used a chalice resembling the sketch shown him by my uncle, though he begged that his name might not be brought in. The upshot was a refusal by Mr Waterton to part with the chalice, or deal further with the claimants excepting through his solicitors. Matters stood thus, when, in the year 1897, he died. This made it still more likely that the question would have to be decided at law, a costly method whatever the outcome.

My father had at one time or another read to me most of the correspondence, and my uncle had given me his views of their claim. The former died in 1902, and the latter in the following year, when the whole of the correspondence alluded to above came into my hands. The scale drawing did not, however, at that time come to light. Though I saw no immediate prospect of recovering the chalice, now the property of my sisters, I put by these materials for the possible establishment of their claim. Three years later, in the autumn of 1906, the accidental discovery of the sketch, in a portfolio of my uncle's drawings, revived my hopes. A year before this I had been placed at Leyland, where I not only became temporary custodian of the " Leyland" chalice, but found myself in a district where several other ancient chalices are in actual use. Amongst these was one in the possession of Dean Powell, of Birchley, near Wigan. Hearing of this I asked his consent to my calling upon him with a view to seeing it. To my surprise it proved, from a comparison with the sketch I had with me, to be almost of the same dimensions and design as the chalice in dispute. The following year I told Fr Abbot Smith the story of its loss, and give him, I believe, the hope, that if recovered, my sisters would make a present of it to the Abbey. He readily undertook to do all he could to help us and proposed in the first instance to take advice of Canon Waterton, of Carlisle, an uncle of the late Mr Waterton.

By him he was assured that, if his widow were approachedm she would be willing for the claim to be gone into. It happened fortunately, that Fr Abbot's sister, Mrs Dawson, of Preston, was acquainted with Mrs Waterton, formerly a Miss Mercer, of Alston Lane, near Preston, and sometimes visited her at Deeping. Our application met with a favourable reply, an I was instructed to send the scale drawing to Deeping, with the happy result that the chalice and its paten were in my ands by the close of the year.

I took an early opportunity of comparing it with the 'Birchley' chalice, and found them remarkably alike, the latter rather the taller of the two - a little over five inches—its bowl, though less in breadth, somewhat deeper, the foot in either case sexfoil, of the mullet or pointed form with plain mouldings, and the knot of five inches - its bowl, though less in breadth, somewhat deeper, the foot in either case sexfoil, of the mullet or pointed form with plain mouldings, and the knot of five lobes, each flat faced and ornamented with a delicate fo leaved flower. The edges of the stem and of the knot are much more worn in the " Birchley " specimen, showing th een in far more constant use. It is probably one of several chalices still surviving in that part of Lancashire which Richard Hitchmough, the apostate priest, deposed, in 1709, that he had used when saying Mass. Item, 'At Burchlev. near Wigan, one small silver chalice and paten.' Both chalices and patens are of silver, orginallv parcel gilt The Willson specimens still remain so, while the Birchley examples were gilded throughout in 1878.

Notes from Forfeited Estates Papers, MS. p. 21, 1890, by R. D. Radcliff, Esq.

Anxious if possible to verify their antiquity, at a somewhat later date I proposed to Dean Powell that we should them together to Mr St John Hope for his opinion. He did not exhibit them before the Society of Antiquaries, but, on July 8th, 1909, he forwarded me the following report :

Of the two chalices, the gilt one belongs to a tvpe examples of which occur from 1450 to about 1510. From the flattened knot I should think this example is a late one. The bowl has perhaps been renewed. The paten belonging to it is also apparently mediaeval, but it is exceptional, if not uniqu in having the engraved figure a cinquefoil instead of a sexfoiL It is very much worn, and even the later I.H.S., which replaces the original central device, is almost obliterated. The parcel gilt chalice is perhaps contemporary with the gilt one, of which it is a lesser version, or it may even be a fairly mod copy. The angles of the knot are rather sharp for a chalice that should have been in use four centuries. The paten is contemporary.—W. H. St John Hope."

Should this seem a challenge to the antiquity of the lesser specimen, it must be borne in mind that the Faith was not kept in Lincolnsh where presumably the chalice was preserved, with the same fldelitv as in Lancashire, and the Mass-houses were consequently few and far between. To say that the chalice an paten should have been in use four centuries sounds reasonable enough, but against this may be urged that they are too small for convenient use. It is then quite conceivable that they may have been but little used during the greater part of the centuries from 1550 to 1850. In pre-Reformation days almost all chalices of English make seem to have been much smaller than thev are now, and so, for obvious reasons, thev continued for the most part during the days of persecution. As this relaxed, chalices of a larger type, no longer modelled on Gothic lines, and often of foreign make, came into vogue England, and thereafter one can hardly imgine a practical minded priest having a chalice and paten made of the size and on the model of the smaller Willson specimen, except as an imitation of a curiosity.

A statement of the measurements and details of the ornamentation will, I think, bear out the validity of my contention. The chalice is 4! in. in height ; the bowl which is of beaten work is 2I in. in diameter and if in. in depth. The stem is pentagonal with a knot of cast work dividing th two members and measures in all 2^- in. The five bosses of the knot are square edged and fiat faced, and are ornamented with a floriated cross or four-leaved flower on a background of black enamel. The spandrels between them are deeply hatched above and below, and are slightly curved. The foot, measuring 3 ^m. from point to point, is sexfoil of the mullet form. There are two plain mouldings below the spread which is chamfered at the edge. In the central compartment is a figure of the Crucifixion in relief with foliated plants of a very simple design springing from four hillocks, while a fifth supports the foot of the crucifix. The paten is 3^ in. in diameter, and is incised with three circles at the outer rim and one half-an-inch from the rim. In the centre within a smaller circle is the monogram of the Holy Name, surmounted by a long stemmed cross, with a heart below it, from which rise three nails.

My correspondence with Dean Powell accidentally raised a question concerning another chalice of persecution days, which from a puzzling inscription on the foot, he surmised may at one time have belonged to Leyland. Naturally this interested me, and while endeavouring to establish the antiquity of the two small chalices just dealt with, by submitting them to the expert judgement of Mr St John Hope, I took the opportunity to solicit his help in deciphering this inscription, On November 15th, 1907, the Dean wrote me : I have an old chalice very similar to one at Lowe House, St Helen's. The inscription on the last is ' Restore mee with a whole suite of church stuffe . . . unto Leyland Church 1490.' It is strange that there should be two chalices belonging to Leyland, amongst so few for the whole county." In a letter of November 25th he adds : " Both the Birchley and Lowe House chalices (the latter being then at Hardshaw Hall, the present Providence Refuge) are mentioned by the apostate priest, Hitchmough, as having been used with his own hands, viz., 6 At Burchley near Wigan : one small silver chalice and paten.' ' At Hardshaw, near St Helens, chapel, one silver chalice and paten.' " Mr Hope's first examination of the doubtful inscription was made in 1908 from photographs only. He wrote me January ist, 1909 : " Some time ago a Mr Austin Powell of Birchley, Wigan, sent me photographs of the base of the chalice you refer to. From these the inscription plainly reads ' Restore mee with a whole suite of church stuffe. A great Bidiner and Allter Clothes to geather all soe with rit in Bound in morrey toow Gould R Crosses toow Paire of Ambertens unto BMand Church 1490.'

The name of the church clearly begins with a B, which seems to have been altered into an ' L ' and a small ( e ' written over. The R before 6 Crosses' seems another blunder. I am afraid I cannot explain two curious words ' bidener ' and * ambertens,' but it has occurred to me that perhaps a 'bidener' was an invitatory book and the 'ambertens' curtains of some kind. It is impossible to date the chalice without seeing it." By the courtesy of Fr Ward, s.j., I was able to send the chalice to London shortly afterwards, and on July 8th, 1909, I had a further letter saying : " The chalice is apparently of late sixteenth or early seventeenth century date. The inscription on the foot seems to be as I have inscribed it and has apparently been copied from an older one by an engraver who has blundered the words."

Restore mee with A whole Suite of Church Stuffe A great Bidiner and Auter Clothes to geather all soe with ritin Bound in morrey toow Gould R. Crosses toow paire of ambertins unto Leyland Church 1490.

To Amplefordians it is interesting to note that the only alternative reading suggested is Beyland, which we may suppose would refer to the great abbey-church. Though Mr St John Hope does not call attention to it, it seems at least doubtful whether the engraver has not made a further blunder in his date 1490. For, unless the foot of the chalice is of earlier workmanship than the rest, it is difficult to see how a chalice made in the sixteenth or earlv seventeenth century could be dated in 1490. Were this an error for 1590, it would fall within the period suggested by Mr Hope. In that case the chalice and the various articles of church furniture mentioned along with it, coming down perhaps from an earlier date, may have been part of the equipment of the chapel in the Old Hall, Leyland, the residence of Fr Robert Charnock at that date, and have been removed, like the pre-Reformation Leyland chalice, when the hall, after his death in 1670, passed out of Catholic hands. The doubtfulness of the inscription is such as to preclude any positive claim to the chalice on the part of the Leyland Mission of to-day, but the fact of its survival first at Hardshaw Hall, and now at Lowe House, both like Leyland in South Lancashire, and in the district subject to Fr Charnock of Leyland in the seventeenth century, would seem to give at least some colour to a presumptive claim to its possession.

2 – The Dowlais and Leyland Chalices

Ampleforth Journal 33 (1928) 218

Besides the two ancient chalices preserved at Ampleforth Abbey, there are two chalices certainly of pre-Reformation date in the keeping of Missions subject to the Abbey, one at Dowlais in Glamorgan, the other at Leyland in Lancashire. The Dowlais chalice is the older of the two by fifty years. It is not of English make. An inscription beneath the foot in old French states that it was made in Paris in 1469 to the order of Dafydd ap Gruffydd. In its general lines it conforms to the Gothic type of English chalices to which the larger "Willson" chalice of approximately the same date belongs. A comparison of the illustration here given with that of the "Willson" chalice given on page 196 of our Summer Number, 1927, reveals however, some points of difference. The lower member of the stem is of abnormal length for a chalice of the period, giving a suggestion of slenderness and of want of proportion between the parts. The foot, while of the usual mullet form, is octagonal instead of hexagonal, and a simple foliated cross replaces the figure of our Lord crucified. The knot has merely a spiral fluting of eight lobes, without perforation or other ornament. Simplicity of outline is the Pre-Reformation Chalices prevailing character of the vessel as compared with others of its date. It stands 8 in. in height, which is rather above the average, the breadth of the foot from point to point is in., of the bowl 3J in., and the depth of the bowl is 2in. The paten belonging to it, though not perhaps of contemporary date or of French make, is certainly antique. It measures 5 J in. in diameter, and at a distance of one inch from the rim has a flat depression with the sacred monogram engraved upon it, surrounded by rays alternately plain and flamboyant. A dagger like cross rises from the central letter, below which are three nails, but there is no pierced heart such as we find in examples of a somewhat later date. Both chalice and paten are of silver and are gilded only within.

The most interesting feature of the chalice is the inscription beneath the foot. It is chased in a double circle of Gothic characters and reads as follows :

Davy+ap+grefyt+amerit+aliter+ddarre+ddick+le+herault
+afait+fr+aparis+cest +galice+po+prier+dieu+pour+ces+amys
+ou+moys+davril+lan+mil+IIIJc+IXIX+apres pasques.

It was tentatively deciphered by Father Elphege Hind twentv years ago, but the fourth, sixth and seventh words [amerit, ddarre ddick, herault] presented difficulties which he could not solve. In the autumn of 1926, with the approval of the Archbishop of Cardiff, and of Father Abbot, the chalice and paten were placed in the hands of Mr V. E. Nash-Williams, keeper of the Archaeological Department of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff, with a request that he would submit the inscription to expert examination and report upon it. He called in the help of a philological authority of the highest rank, Professor Morgan Watkin, m.a., ph.d., L.-es-L., of University College, Cardiff. After a prolonged study of the problems involved, Mr. Nash-Williams gave me the conclusions they arrived at, together with some philological and historical annotations, of which the following is a summary. The inscription in full reads:

Dafydd ap Gruffydd ap Meredydd aliter Ddu 0 Hiraddug le herault a fait faire a Paris ce calice pour prier Dieu pour ces times au mois d'Avril V an 1469 apres Paques.

The poet Dafydd Ddu o Hiraddug, son of Gruffydd ap Meredydd, had this chalice made at Paris to pray for these souls. April 1469 a.d.

The enigmatical words amerit, ddarre and ddick are thus resolved:

(1) amerit, abbreviated from ameretit, is a variant cf amheretit, later amheredydd or amheredudd. The form amredydd = ap Maredudd is actually met with in the Cafn Coed MSS 334. The absence of h from our form is in keeping with what we know of certain texts of the thirteenth centurv

(2) ddarre ddick for Ddu'r Addug, i.e., Ddu 0 Hiraddug. Ddu, 'black' or 'dark', is an adjective describing the colour of the bard's hair or features, or possibly both; O Welsh for 'of': Hiraddug, a hill near Prestatyn, North Wales. Dafvdd Ddu was presumably a native of this district. The forms of the Welsh names suggest that the inscription was drafted by a scribe unacquainted with the Welsh language who therefore rendered them phonetically.

(3) herault (modern French héraut, 'herald' is here used for 'poet' or 'bard', but this, Professor Morgan Watkin remarks, is the first instance he has met with of such a usage.

The functions of the old Welsh bardd teulu (lit. 'of the household') are nowhere, so far as I know, fully defined. Whether he was also a custodian of heraldic lore at this early time is uncertain, but that an interest was taken in heraldry by the Welsh before the end of the fourteenth century is certain...
The inscription is of more than ordinary interest on account of the two names Gruffyd ap Meredydd and Dafydd Ddu o Hiraddug. It happens that both are names of fourteenth century(?) Welsh poets. Gruffyd ap Meredydd is conventionally dated 1310-60, but the latter date is certainly wrong, since he is known to have been alive in 1382. The dates of Dafydd Ddu o Hiraddug are also given as 1310-60, but perhaps on no good authority. He seems to have been a priest of the Church and to have translated the Officium Beatae Mariae.
If the inscription is genuine, and the persons referred to are these two men, then two new pieces of information regarding them are established, (1) that Dafydd Ddu o Hiraddug was alive in 1469, (2) that he was the son of Gruffydd ap Meredydd. A third fact is likewise suggested, namely that the ceremonial duties of a bardd teulu transscended his role of minstrel and the like, and made him more akin in the eyes of the French to the hérault than to the trouvère. This fact helps us to differentiate between the bardd teulu, family or household bard, and the pencerdd, chief of song.

These evidences, brought to light after an interval of over 450 years, Mr Nash-Williams considers to be of such value that he begged to be allowed to publish the inscription together with the illustrative notes in a forthcoming volume of the Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 'Where,' he says, 'they would form a permanent record of a very important historical document.' This request I need not say was readily and gratefully acceded to, as well as a further request that, in view of the exceptional interest of the chalice, it should be permitted to remain on loan until after the King's visit on April 21st, 1927, on the occasion of the opening of the museum.

Apart from the deciphering of the inscription and the illuminating comments on its contents, we are indebted to Mr Nash-Williams for the photographs from which our line drawings of the chalice and paten are made. A third photograph of the inscription it was beyond our ability to reproduce as the details are so numerous and intricate. Of the later history of the Chalice and Paten, how they came to Dowlais, or when, it is to be regretted that nothing is known. The supposition is that they had been preserved through the days of persecution by some Catholic family of the neighbourhood, perhaps at some farm or Mass-house, and that they came into the hands either of Fr John Carroll, who served both Merthyr and Dowlais from 1835 to 1847 and built the first Capel Iltyd in 1846, or of Fr Patrick Millea, who was its pastor for the long space of twenty-one years from 1851 to 1873. Throughout this period of nearly forty years Merthyr and Dowlais were the chief centre of the revival of Catholicity in South Wales, and it was fitting that under God's providence this link with the days of the poet-priest Dafydd Ddu ap GrufTydd ap Mereddyd should find a resting place where it would again be used in the Holy Sacrifice ' pour prier Dieu pour ces ames.'

Like the Dowlais chalice, though on very different evidence, the Leyland Chalice can be assigned to a definite date, for it is hall-marked. Besides the rebus for the maker's name, three links of a chain, which is found also on a chalice preserved at jurby in the Isle of Man, it is marked with a leopard's head crowned and a Lombardic capital A. The former, nowadays replaced by a lion passant, is the mark of the London assaying office in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, and the latter is the date letter for the years 1518-19, IX—X Henry VIII.

In the early part of 1906 it was exhibited at a meeting of the London Society of Antiquaries, and a detailed description of it was given in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, May 10th, 1906, as follows :—

The chalice is of silver parcel-gilt, and measures 6 inches in height. The bowl which is wide and shallow, and somewhat broad at the bottom, is 3J inches in diameter and if inches deep. The stem is plain and hexagonal with flat plates at the joints. The knot is of the usual six-lobed type, with blind compartments, and angels' heads on the points. The foot is sexfoil in plan, but the spread, though hexagonal at its junction with the stem, is circular, and descends with an ogee curvature on to the flat of the principal member, which is sexfoil with vertical edge, set with a band of delicate flower-work. On the front of the foot is engraved a crucifix between flowering plants on a hatched ground. The chalice bears the London hall marks for 1518-19, and for the maker two links of a chain. On the bowl is engraved in a late seventeenth century hand

Restore, mee,to,Layland. in Lankeshire

Nothing is known of the early history of this chalice.

The date of the chalice proclaims it as be'onging to the latest type of pre-Reformation chalices, and it is interesting to note the variations from the purer Gothic type of the ' Willson ' or ' Dowlais ' chalice of fifty years earlier. The bowl has assumed a shallow, one might say debased form, certainly less elegant than the conical or hemispherical cup. The foot is no longer of the graceful mullet pattern. The six points, with concave spaces between each, give place to six convex, almost semi-circular, lobes, set with a vertical face upon an outer rim of the same formation. The development of the spread into a new member, circular where it joins the foot, and sexfoil where it joins the stem, gives additional solidity and strength to the base, which is balanced by a greater fulness in the knot. The type as a whole is not so graceful as that which preceded it, but is interesting as marking the latest variations in the design of pre-Reformation chalices.

Though it cannot be asserted with any assurance, it is not impossible that this chalice is the one referred to in Sir Henry F arrington's Inventory, 5 Edward VI {Worden Evidence) of the plate at Leyland Parish Church. Item " a chalyce with patint parcel gilt." How, if this were so, it came later into Catholic hands will probably never be known. This much is certain, that no such chalice or paten is in the keeping of the parish church to-day. It may possibly have been attached to one of the chantry chapels, and at the suppression of these chapels, which followed on the suppression of the Mass in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it may have been retained by the chantry priest or have passed into the hands of the patron of the chantry chapel. That there was one such chapel, at a somewhat earlier date than the Inventory referred to above, we know from a statement in the Worden Evidence that "in 1548 one Thurstan Taylor, aged 52 years, was chantry priest, and keep free grammar school in the said (Leyland) church."

The late Octavius Leyland Baldwin, in whose family the living of Leyland had been for three successive generations, from 1748, gave it me as his opinion in 1905 that the chalice and paten had somehow passed into the hands of Fr Robert Charnock, the last of the Leyland branch of the Charnocks of Charnock and Astley, and that he had the inscription engraved upon the chalice. He lived and died at Leyland Old Hall and lies buried close by the chancel of the parish church. Mr Gillow, in his Biographical Dictionary of Catholics, Vol. I, tells us that he served the Mission in these parts from 1640 till his death in 1670, and that in his later years he acted as Vicar General of the Lancashire district and held the dignity of Archdeacon of the Chapter for Lancashire. In his capacity of Vicar General it would be but natural, that, if he were at the time custodian of a pre-Reformation chalice ordinarily in use in his own chapel in the Old Hall but at times transferred perhaps to one or other of the Mass-houses of the neighbourhood, he would take the precaution to provide for its return to its rightful home. This surmise is supported by the fact that the inscription : ' Restore mee to Layland in Lankeshire' is in late seventeenth century script, of about the date therefroe of Fr Charnock's death.

To pass now from conjecture to recorded history, we know from documentary evidence that in 1846 the chalice with its paten were at St Gregory's, Weld Bank, near Chorley, and in that year were handed over to the Catholic Mission of Leyland, at its restoration by Provincial Henry Brewer of Brownedge. In the archives at Weld Bank is a document, a copy of which is preserved in the archives of St Mary's, Leyland. It reads :

The church of St Gregory, Weld Bank, being possessed of a silver chalice which stands six inches high, is three inches three quarters across the top of the cup and bears the inscription: 'Restore mee to Layland in Lankeshire', together with a silver paten five inches in diameter which has a face engraved on the centre within a small and larger circle, Henry Greenhalgh, Priest of St Gregory's church, hereby agrees with the approbation of the Bishop to transfer this chalice and paten to the recently established Mission at Leyland on the following conditions:
(1) That the above mentioned chalice and paten shall belong inalienably to the Chapel of Leyland, but if ever there cease to be a Chapel (Catholic) in the village of Leyland, they shall be restored to the Church of St Gregory, Weld Bank.
(2) That no change shall be made in the present size or shape of the said chalice and paten."

Henry Brewer, Prov. Ebor.
Thomas Shepherd, Incumbent. St Andrew's Catholic Chapel,
Leyland, lSth Feb., 1846.

The dedication of the chapel was changed later to avoid confusion with the parish church, St Andrew's. The Mission of Weld Bank, as we learn from Gillow's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. 7, was established in 1774^ when Cardinal Weld provided the means for the foundation of a permanent Mission there, to replace the family chapel of the Chadwicks at Burgh Ha 1, near Chorley. The first to serve it was Canon John Chadwick, who at the time was priest at his brother's seat. In 1780 he became Vicar General to Bishop Matthew Gibson, Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District, and he died at Weld Bank 1802.

A circumstantial and romantic account of how and when the Leyland Chalice found its way to Weld Bank and thence to Leyland is given in an interesting paper entitled 'Old-time Lancashire Chalices' read by Dom Odo Blundeil, OSB, FSA Scotland, before the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, and reprinted from their Transactions, 1925. The author, after quoting the detailed description of the Leyland Chalice by Fallows and Hope from the log-book of the Mission, which ends with the words, 'The history of the chalice is unknown', concludes as follows: 'I find, however, a letter of Mr Gillow, who was unequalled for his knowledge of Catholic traditions, stating',

This chalice, like the Molineux one, had strayed, but through the inscription on the foot, 'Restore mee to Layland in Lankeshire' the Very Rev Canon Toole, DD, then at Weld Bank, near Chorley, restored it at the opening of the mission at Leyland in 1845. Very possibly this chalice belonged to the parish church of Leyland before the Reformation. It remained at the Leyland mission erected in the residence of the Charnocks, Blackleach Hall, commonly called the Old Hall of Leyland, till 1746. After the defeat of Prince Charles the chapel was plundered and the chalice was put up to auction along with the priest's effects, Mr Thomas Shuttleworth happened to be riding through Leyland at the time and purchased it. His son, Rev. Thos, Shuttle-worth, gave it to the Rev John Charnock, v.c, of Weld Bank, and there it remained till Canon Toole restored it to Leyland.

One hesitates [writes Dom Odo] to disagree with such an acknowledged authority as the late Mr Joseph Gillow, but even Homer nods at times. Remembering, as we must do, that the tradition as here given is only quoted from a letter, and not from one of his printed works, it is still surprising to find so many errors in so short a space. The inscription is on the bowl of the chalice not on the foot. It was Canon Henry Greenhalgh, not his curate, Fr O'Toole, who restored the chalice to Leyland, and that in 1846, not 1845. The original name of the Old Hall was Blacklach, not Blackleach, and it was Fr John (Canon) Chadwick, not Charnock, who was its first custodian at Weld Bank. It may have come to him from Fr Thomas Shuttleworth, as stated in the letter, and he may have inherited it from his father, but that his father acquired it in the romantic way we are told is contradicted by what we know from certain historical evidence as to the fate of the Old Hall and presumably of its contents.

In Catholic Records, Vol. XVIII, No. III, is printed 'An Official Enquiry as to the Estate of Robert Charnock, of Leyland, Lancashire, Priest, left for Superstitious Uses', 1687. The original is a bulky roll of 227 folio pages which is in the keeping of the Vicars of Leyland, and was courteously lent to me in 1905 by Rev Mr Baldwin for transcription and publication by the Catholic Record Society. On the parchment cover is endorsed, 'These are ye pleadings and papers of Leyland Hall, late Mr Charnock's lands, forfeited and new given by their Majesties to Leyland Church for Ever. 1690'. The work of transcription was carried out by Fr Elphege Hind and in a brief Introduction he tells the story of the suit-at-law.

The Charnocks of Leyland Hall were a younger branch of the Charnocks of Charnock and Astley. Robert Charnock, the last of the Leyland Hall Charnocks, was sent to Lisbon, where he was ordained priest. He then returned to England, and ultimately became Vicar General of Lancashire. He made a settlement of his affairs in January, 1660, conveying his entire estate to Willoughby Manley and Robert Charnock ; then to Grace Bold. He died in 1670. Canon Raine (the noted antiquary of York) states ' this estate was given in the year 1660 by Robert Charnock, in trust for the maintenance of secular priests in Lancashire and was so found by a Jury at Lancaster Assizes in 1686, and upon a verdict to this effect, the lands were decreed by the Court of Exchequer to be forfeited to the Crown. William and Mary, upon petition, granted the premises and lands in trust to the Vicar of Leyland and his successors for ever. The decree was disputed and a Bill of Review brought forward. The decree was again affirmed by the Court of Exchequer, and upon an appeal to the House of Lords, the decision was finally confirmed Nov. 26, 1690. The date of the estate's conveyance to the Vicar of Leyland is Deer. II, 1690.'

Two facts are hereby clearly established, first that Leyland Hall passed out of Catholic hands in the year 1690, and second that it passed into the hands of the official head of the Protestant religion in Leyland, a sufficient guarantee that it would not be used for superstitious purposes. How Mr Gillow's assertion, that the chalice remained at the Leyland mission erected in the residence of the Charnocks, Blackleach Hall, commonly called the Old Hall of Leyland, till 1746, is to be maintained in the face of these recorded facts we fail to see. It seems much more reasonable to suppose that as soon as the proceedings at law brought the Old Hall with its chapel, its priests' hiding holes, and its other ecclesiastical effects into evident danger of sequestration by the Crown, the chalice and paten at least were removed for safety's sake by Fr Char-nock's heirs at law, and placed in the hands of some Catholic family of the neighbourhood. It may certainly have found its way about the time of Prince Charles' defeat, in 1745, into the hands of Mr Thomas Shuttleworth, though hardly, we think, in the romantic way we are asked to believe by Mr Gillow. From him, his priest son, Thomas, may have inherited it, as there stated, and he may have passed it on to Canon Chadwick of Weld Bank, with whose successors it naturally remained till the restoration of a Catholic mission in Leyland, its rightful home. But for the inscription placed upon it late in the seventeenth century it would never have found its way back to Leyland, nor would its connection with the Leyland of old Catholic days have been known. It is much to be regretted that the paten restored with it was no longer with it when Messrs. Fallows and Hope reported upon the chalice about 1880. The paten now used with it is a modern copy of a paten, of the same design as that handed over by Canon Greenhalgh, preserved with a pre-Reformation chalice at Bacton in Herefordshire.