THE EARLY HISTORY OF BARLICK (17)
Posted: 01 Apr 2026, 01:06
THE EARLY HISTORY OF BARLICK (17)
02 January 2002
Well, you’ve all been very patient for the last four months and I thank you. You have stuck with me through my exploration of the early history of Barlick and I promise you that we’ll get back on to more recent topics very soon. There is one more event we have to look at, the coming of the Cistercian monks to Barlick.
Whitaker set down a simplified version of this story in his great book on the History of the Deanery of Craven and as far as I can see, nobody has really looked into this any further and published the results. You’ve guessed it, I have been doing some digging and I think we have some new facts and clues so let me tell you the story as I understand it now.
In order to understand what was happening, as is so often the case we have to go back to the beginnings of monasticism in Britain. From the very earliest days of Christianity there was a tradition of holy men setting themselves apart from the community, this started with hermits and anchorites who left the villages and lived a solitary life of prayer and meditation in their search for greater understanding of their faith, they might also have been influenced by the fact that they were persecuted in the villages by Pagans and other unbelievers. Such men were venerated by local Christians and often supported by gifts.
As time went on and Christianity established itself there were other reasons why the church separated itself from the community. Devout Christians who had ambitions to learning, entering the priesthood or simply a wish to escape the temptations of everyday life tended to gather together into communities which were called monasteries. They built their own accommodation, churches and resources and whilst interacting with the local people, held themselves apart. Early on in the Roman Church’s history it was recognised that such communities needed rules and one of the earliest of these was set out by St Benedict which became known as the Benedictine Rule, this imposed strict limits on the monks as regards the ‘sins of the flesh’ and became one of the standards for monastic establishments in Britain and Europe.
Over the years some relaxation of these rules crept in to the extent that there were scandals involving debauched and lecherous monks all over Europe. This triggered off a movement to return to a strict Benedictine Order and at the end of the 11th century the Cistercian Order began on the 21st of March 1098 when Robert, the Abbot of Molesme in France led twenty one of his monks out into the wild country nearby and founded a new abbey at Citeaux which he intended would follow the original strict Benedictine Rule. The Latin name for Citeaux was Cistercium and from this the monks of the new order became known as Cistercians. There was never a Cistercian order as such, the rule they followed was strict Benedictine so when we say ‘Cistercian Abbey’ what we mean is a strict Benedictine Abbey populated by Cistercian monks.
The main difference between the early Benedictines and this new version of the rule was that whilst St Benedict had never strictly prohibited accepting support from the manorial system the Cistercians actively prohibited this, once established, they were to be self-supporting and live by their own efforts. The concept was so successful that by 1200 over 500 daughter houses had been founded, some of them following an even stricter rule called Trappism in which they renounced speech.
In 1132 the great Cistercian abbeys of Rievaulx and Fountains were established and rapidly became the dominant force in religious life in Yorkshire and far beyond, they spread their influence by establishing ‘daughter houses’ whenever the opportunity presented itself. This was encouraged by the Normans because much of the north and particularly Yorkshire had been laid waste during the ‘Harrowing of the North’ and the Cistercian Rule was a good way to bring the land back into production and therefore, profit.
It’s no accident that this great surge of religious power happened after the Conquest. The Normans were consolidating their hold on England after the terror by building castles which ensured military control. The establishment of monastic houses took care of religion and learning as the abbeys were the source of all priests and were the only centres of education. Another factor was something that we have difficulty in grasping nowadays, this was the power of the Church. Rome and the Pope was the highest authority, they even outranked the king, it took Henry the VIII to break this power in England. In addition the monasteries were the source of spiritual comfort and worldly charity, it took exceptional courage to oppose them. Bear this in mind because this is exactly what the Old Barlickers did!
Another crucial factor that we have to understand is the method the Cistercians adopted when establishing a new house. As they were committed to self-sufficiency their first move was to chose a site that was deserted or to de-populate the area around where they wanted to build, they needed control of all the land and resources in order to support themselves. There is plenty of evidence for this happening and their attempt to do this was their undoing in Barlick. Reading Whitaker one gets the impression that it was simply a matter of the locals being ‘uncooperative’, there was much more to it than this and I shall reveal all.
Right, let’s get down to the story! Sometime round about 1046, Henry de Lacy, in his castle at Pontefract, was feeling a bit poorly and took to his bed. He sent for his priest and instructed him to pray for his return to health and promised that if God did this for him, he would found a monastery. Remember that there were no doctors and this was about all a person could do if they felt their life was threatened by ill-health, pray for relief.
Henry got better and no doubt his priest reminded him of his promise so he offered the Abbot of Fountains Abbey land at Barnoldswick to found a new Cistercian House. In fact he granted him the whole of the Manor of Barnoldswick and even included some land at Admergill which wasn’t his to give. So Abbot Alexander had complete power over Barlick and there's no doubt that it was his intention to use it. The Old Barlickers were in deep trouble.
There is something else we should take into account as it may have influenced the eventual outcome. In 1207, Hugh of Kirkstall said that the vill of Barnoldswick actually belonged to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and that Henry held it as a tenant on payment of an annual rent of five marks and a hawk. (A mark was a monetary unit equal to two thirds of a pound sterling, thirteen shillings and fourpence in proper money, sixty six and two thirds pence in modern terms.) However, Henry hadn’t paid the rent for a number of years and so there was some question as to whether the charter transferring the land was legal.
Alexander, the prior of Fountains Abbey was promoted to abbot and on May 19th 1147 set out from there with twelve monks and two lay brothers to Barlick. The ‘lay brothers’ were labourers who helped with the agricultural work of the abbey, in effect they were serfs. Alexander was further reinforced in his authority by Henry Murdac, Archbishop of York who, with full Episcopal authority ‘granted and confirmed Barlick and its church as being free and quit and delivered of every claim to the monks there serving God’ In other words as well as having the blessing of the state and the Pope, God’s authority was on the side of the monks!
When the abbot and his monks arrived at Barlick they found there ‘a church, very ancient and founded long before with four parochial vills, to wit Marton and another Marton, Bracewell and Stock besides the vill of Barnoldswick and two small vills appertaining, Elfwynetrop and Brogden of which the monks were by this time in possession, after removal of the inhabitants’. In other words, their first act was to decide on Brogden as the site of the monastery and throw all the existing inhabitants out, a sort of Papal ethnic cleansing! This wasn’t unusual, there is plenty of evidence for this having been done in other places but usually the evicted peasants were given new land, there is no mention of this happening in Barlick.
Hugh also said the local inhabitants were in the habit of meeting at the church with the priest and the clerks ‘according to custom’ and they became a nuisance to the new monastery and the monks. Alexander saw an easy way to rectify this, he ordered his monks to pull the church down and level it so they could have some peace and quiet.
The clerk who was rector and parson of the church took this very badly. With the support of the Barlickers he took the abbot and monks to court before the Archbishop of York. The matter was referred to the Pope who found in favour of the abbot and the monks and ‘silence laid upon the opposing party’ on the grounds that ‘it was a pious thing that the church should fall provided the abbey be constructed in its stead so that the less good should yield to the greater’. In other words, game set and match to the monks!
Let's just stand back for a moment and consider what is going on here. We are getting a very clear picture of the consequences of being conquered by the Normans and having a powerful church as overlord, our Old Barlickers had no rights whatsoever. They could be gifted to the church by the Lord at Clitheroe and dispossessed by the Church without any recourse to common or customary law. Recognise that this is the great change to what have been observing in our examination of the early history of Barlick. In earlier days the Old Barlickers owed allegiance to the tribe but had virtual freedom to do whatever they liked, they could enclose land, build houses and a church, take game, produce and fuel from the surrounding waste and worship whatever deities they liked. Now they are monastic serfs, slaves to the whims of their masters. They are in a no win situation and things are looking very bleak. The wonderful thing is that, unlike every other case I have been able to find, the Barlickers eventually won and the monks gave up on the town. We’ll have a look at what actually happened next week.
02 January 2002
02 January 2002
Well, you’ve all been very patient for the last four months and I thank you. You have stuck with me through my exploration of the early history of Barlick and I promise you that we’ll get back on to more recent topics very soon. There is one more event we have to look at, the coming of the Cistercian monks to Barlick.
Whitaker set down a simplified version of this story in his great book on the History of the Deanery of Craven and as far as I can see, nobody has really looked into this any further and published the results. You’ve guessed it, I have been doing some digging and I think we have some new facts and clues so let me tell you the story as I understand it now.
In order to understand what was happening, as is so often the case we have to go back to the beginnings of monasticism in Britain. From the very earliest days of Christianity there was a tradition of holy men setting themselves apart from the community, this started with hermits and anchorites who left the villages and lived a solitary life of prayer and meditation in their search for greater understanding of their faith, they might also have been influenced by the fact that they were persecuted in the villages by Pagans and other unbelievers. Such men were venerated by local Christians and often supported by gifts.
As time went on and Christianity established itself there were other reasons why the church separated itself from the community. Devout Christians who had ambitions to learning, entering the priesthood or simply a wish to escape the temptations of everyday life tended to gather together into communities which were called monasteries. They built their own accommodation, churches and resources and whilst interacting with the local people, held themselves apart. Early on in the Roman Church’s history it was recognised that such communities needed rules and one of the earliest of these was set out by St Benedict which became known as the Benedictine Rule, this imposed strict limits on the monks as regards the ‘sins of the flesh’ and became one of the standards for monastic establishments in Britain and Europe.
Over the years some relaxation of these rules crept in to the extent that there were scandals involving debauched and lecherous monks all over Europe. This triggered off a movement to return to a strict Benedictine Order and at the end of the 11th century the Cistercian Order began on the 21st of March 1098 when Robert, the Abbot of Molesme in France led twenty one of his monks out into the wild country nearby and founded a new abbey at Citeaux which he intended would follow the original strict Benedictine Rule. The Latin name for Citeaux was Cistercium and from this the monks of the new order became known as Cistercians. There was never a Cistercian order as such, the rule they followed was strict Benedictine so when we say ‘Cistercian Abbey’ what we mean is a strict Benedictine Abbey populated by Cistercian monks.
The main difference between the early Benedictines and this new version of the rule was that whilst St Benedict had never strictly prohibited accepting support from the manorial system the Cistercians actively prohibited this, once established, they were to be self-supporting and live by their own efforts. The concept was so successful that by 1200 over 500 daughter houses had been founded, some of them following an even stricter rule called Trappism in which they renounced speech.
In 1132 the great Cistercian abbeys of Rievaulx and Fountains were established and rapidly became the dominant force in religious life in Yorkshire and far beyond, they spread their influence by establishing ‘daughter houses’ whenever the opportunity presented itself. This was encouraged by the Normans because much of the north and particularly Yorkshire had been laid waste during the ‘Harrowing of the North’ and the Cistercian Rule was a good way to bring the land back into production and therefore, profit.
It’s no accident that this great surge of religious power happened after the Conquest. The Normans were consolidating their hold on England after the terror by building castles which ensured military control. The establishment of monastic houses took care of religion and learning as the abbeys were the source of all priests and were the only centres of education. Another factor was something that we have difficulty in grasping nowadays, this was the power of the Church. Rome and the Pope was the highest authority, they even outranked the king, it took Henry the VIII to break this power in England. In addition the monasteries were the source of spiritual comfort and worldly charity, it took exceptional courage to oppose them. Bear this in mind because this is exactly what the Old Barlickers did!
Another crucial factor that we have to understand is the method the Cistercians adopted when establishing a new house. As they were committed to self-sufficiency their first move was to chose a site that was deserted or to de-populate the area around where they wanted to build, they needed control of all the land and resources in order to support themselves. There is plenty of evidence for this happening and their attempt to do this was their undoing in Barlick. Reading Whitaker one gets the impression that it was simply a matter of the locals being ‘uncooperative’, there was much more to it than this and I shall reveal all.
Right, let’s get down to the story! Sometime round about 1046, Henry de Lacy, in his castle at Pontefract, was feeling a bit poorly and took to his bed. He sent for his priest and instructed him to pray for his return to health and promised that if God did this for him, he would found a monastery. Remember that there were no doctors and this was about all a person could do if they felt their life was threatened by ill-health, pray for relief.
Henry got better and no doubt his priest reminded him of his promise so he offered the Abbot of Fountains Abbey land at Barnoldswick to found a new Cistercian House. In fact he granted him the whole of the Manor of Barnoldswick and even included some land at Admergill which wasn’t his to give. So Abbot Alexander had complete power over Barlick and there's no doubt that it was his intention to use it. The Old Barlickers were in deep trouble.
There is something else we should take into account as it may have influenced the eventual outcome. In 1207, Hugh of Kirkstall said that the vill of Barnoldswick actually belonged to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and that Henry held it as a tenant on payment of an annual rent of five marks and a hawk. (A mark was a monetary unit equal to two thirds of a pound sterling, thirteen shillings and fourpence in proper money, sixty six and two thirds pence in modern terms.) However, Henry hadn’t paid the rent for a number of years and so there was some question as to whether the charter transferring the land was legal.
Alexander, the prior of Fountains Abbey was promoted to abbot and on May 19th 1147 set out from there with twelve monks and two lay brothers to Barlick. The ‘lay brothers’ were labourers who helped with the agricultural work of the abbey, in effect they were serfs. Alexander was further reinforced in his authority by Henry Murdac, Archbishop of York who, with full Episcopal authority ‘granted and confirmed Barlick and its church as being free and quit and delivered of every claim to the monks there serving God’ In other words as well as having the blessing of the state and the Pope, God’s authority was on the side of the monks!
When the abbot and his monks arrived at Barlick they found there ‘a church, very ancient and founded long before with four parochial vills, to wit Marton and another Marton, Bracewell and Stock besides the vill of Barnoldswick and two small vills appertaining, Elfwynetrop and Brogden of which the monks were by this time in possession, after removal of the inhabitants’. In other words, their first act was to decide on Brogden as the site of the monastery and throw all the existing inhabitants out, a sort of Papal ethnic cleansing! This wasn’t unusual, there is plenty of evidence for this having been done in other places but usually the evicted peasants were given new land, there is no mention of this happening in Barlick.
Hugh also said the local inhabitants were in the habit of meeting at the church with the priest and the clerks ‘according to custom’ and they became a nuisance to the new monastery and the monks. Alexander saw an easy way to rectify this, he ordered his monks to pull the church down and level it so they could have some peace and quiet.
The clerk who was rector and parson of the church took this very badly. With the support of the Barlickers he took the abbot and monks to court before the Archbishop of York. The matter was referred to the Pope who found in favour of the abbot and the monks and ‘silence laid upon the opposing party’ on the grounds that ‘it was a pious thing that the church should fall provided the abbey be constructed in its stead so that the less good should yield to the greater’. In other words, game set and match to the monks!
Let's just stand back for a moment and consider what is going on here. We are getting a very clear picture of the consequences of being conquered by the Normans and having a powerful church as overlord, our Old Barlickers had no rights whatsoever. They could be gifted to the church by the Lord at Clitheroe and dispossessed by the Church without any recourse to common or customary law. Recognise that this is the great change to what have been observing in our examination of the early history of Barlick. In earlier days the Old Barlickers owed allegiance to the tribe but had virtual freedom to do whatever they liked, they could enclose land, build houses and a church, take game, produce and fuel from the surrounding waste and worship whatever deities they liked. Now they are monastic serfs, slaves to the whims of their masters. They are in a no win situation and things are looking very bleak. The wonderful thing is that, unlike every other case I have been able to find, the Barlickers eventually won and the monks gave up on the town. We’ll have a look at what actually happened next week.
02 January 2002