There is almost a complete blank between the years 1640 and 1660 in the story of the church in Northumberland and Durham. In fact it could hardly be otherwise; for in the larger aspects of church life there was nothing to record. As an organization the church had practically disappeared for the time. For even apart from the ever increasing repression of Prayer Book ministrations by the civil authority during those years, the field had beon already deserted by all the leading clergy; and only some of the fiercer spirits, and a few besides of the poorer and humbler parish priests, remained. The bishop, the dean, and all the canons of Durham had fled precipitately before the advance of the Scottish troops under Leslie, and certainly when, after a ridiculously easy victory at Newburn in August, 1640, the invaders held Newcastle for a whole year and overran the two counties and impoverished them almost to destitution, this district was no place for the prominent officers of an episcopalian hierarchy. Nor did any of them return until after the restoration of the constitution in 1660.

Moreover, the departure of the cathedral body not only deprived the church of its proper leaders and officers, but also left a dozen or more of the more important parishes without responsible heads.For the canons were, nearly all of them, sad pluralists, after the fashion of the day; and had contrived to possess themselves of not a few of the larger livings in the dioceses. Thus nine out of twelve canons residentiary held amongst them, at the time of their flight, the rectories of Brancepeth, Easington, Elwick, Haughton-le-Skerne, Midd1eton-in-Teasdale, Morpeth, Ryton, Sedgefield, Stanhope, Whalton, and Wolsingham; and the vicarages of Aycliffe and Merrington. As a result of this wholesale exodus, if for no other reasons, there were no episcopal and no capitular acts to record during the whole of that period. There were no ordinations, no institutions to vacant benef ices, no visitations; there was no corporate life, and little or no pastoral activity. The diocese was virtually defunct.

Nor is it possible in the absence of diocesan annals to have recourse to the minor local records of the parish books. For these were kept but very irregularly, if at all; and where they were entered up in many instances they were subsequently lost or wilfully destroyed. In the case of South Shields, for example, the earliest extant book of registers dates from 1653. But that there was an earlier book then in existence is shown by a notice of the Bellasis bequest which is copied on the last page of the book from an entry made in 1604, by a former incumbent (the Rev. T. Turwhet) and the churchwardens in the previous register book. So, too, the first vestry book which is now to be found at the church begins in the year 1660. But twelve pages, apparently belonging to the years before 1660, have been cut out, probably at the time of the restoration; for they were already missing when Mr.Nicholas Fairles made extracts from the book in the eighteenth century.

It is therefore extremely difficult to recover any account of what happened during those twenty years in the several parishes; or of the men who stood by their posts through evil report (for there was little or no good report for them). And yet some very sparse gleanings may be gathered with patience from various odd sources; and it is possible by a careful study of these to form some idea of the characters of the inconspicuous clergy who were left behind when their superiors sought safety in flight. No doubt many of the less prominent men followed the example of their leaders, and also escaped. And it was nothing less than a matter of common prudence that they should do so if they could. In fact, the wonder is that any of them should have stayed on in the north, in face of the conditions with which they were confronted. To judge by the very few careers of these men which can be partially traced, the motives which actuated them in their persistence were very diverse. It may be inferred that some were turbulent spirits who could not resist taking their part in the general conflict which was going on. Others were probably held fast by sheer poverty, and the consequent inability to seek refuge elsewhere. While others again may fairly be credited with a sincere devotion to their duty towards their people, on account of which they refused to abandon their cures. Some few, no doubt, were timeservers, who kept their posts by bowing from time to time to the dominant views of those in authority. Of Henry Hutton of Witton Gilbert, for instance, Hutchinson adds after his name, in the list of the incumbents of the parish, the brief but significant remark: 'A true Vicar of Bray'.

Of the very few of whom anything definite can be traced there are two, THOMAS WANDLES and PATRICK WAIT, of quite opposite types, who were associated with St.Hilda's, South Shields: and it is perhaps worth while in the dearth of more general knowledge of the time, to collect what can be ascertained about them from various fragments of information, and so to endeavour to gather some estimate of what manner of men they were; as specimens of the larger body of which they formed a part, and of most of whom there is no memorial.

THOMAS WANDLES
-------------------------
On 15 November,1637, the dean and. chapter of Durham appointed the Rev. Thomas Wandles, one of the minor canons of the cathedral, to the living of St. Hilda's, South Shields, vacant by the death of the Rev. George Cane, who had been the pluralist incumbent of Monkwearmouth and South Shields for twenty-six years. This Thomas Wandles was the son of Edward Wandles of Durham, a dyer, and one of the first aldermen nominated under the municipal charter of bishop Matthews in 1602, who was mayor of the city in 1603 and again in 1609. In 1618, or 1619, Thomas Wandles was appointed to a minor canonry; and it was in this capacity that he came into conflict with dean Hunt, who, acting under the instructions of bishop Howson, was endeavouring, against the wishes of the chapter, to reduce the services of the cathedral to a drab puritanical standard. The account of the fracas is quaintly told in a joint letter from Dr. Lindsell, rector of Houghton-le-Spring, and Dr. Cosin, rector of Brancepeth, both canons of the cathedral, addressed to Mr. Eleazar Dunkon, the chaplain of bishop Neile of Winchester, and himself also a canon of Durham:

       'Upon the last Communion day,' they write, '(the first Sunday in January), according to the usuall custome, they sung, after the sermon was done, an anthem proper for the sacred action: but whereat Mr. Deane was so highly offended, that sitting in his Quire stall, and preparing to goe up towards the Alter, he cal 'd him a saucie, proud, presumptuous, daring fellow that began it; and afterwards rated William Smith, the Sacrist, all to nought for it, nor wold he be pacified til he had proved it to be his worship's owne direction.'

A marginal note specifies this leader of the anthem as 'Mr. Wanles.'  This letter is dated 'Durham, Jan.16,1630..... this very day being Sunday': so that the day when the disturbance occurred was 2 January, 1630-31. And incidentally it appears that the Holy Communion was at that time celebrated only on the first Sunday in the month.

In this matter Wandles was clearly acting under the directions, or at least with the full sympathy, of some of the principal canons. But he had, some two years before, been in trouble, on his own account, with the dean, before whom he had been brought in the Court of High Commission, sitting in the Galileo chapel, for 'hyndering Divine Service at Munkeheslden Church, on the promocion of Mr. Marke Leonard.'  Leonard, who was master of the song school of the cathedral on the palace green, was appointed in 1628 by the dean and chapter to the vicarage of Monk Hesleden. His predecessor there had been one Henry Wandles, who had held the living for fifty years; presumably he was a relative of Thomas Wandles, and apparently the appointment of his successor was resented by the latter, who considered that he was entitled to receive it himself. For he went down to Monk Heselden and took possession of the parish church on a Sunday, refusing entrance to Leonard, and advising the people to go to Hart or Castle Eden, saying that 'hee would be their warrantes to pay noe tithes to Mr. Leonardes, but to himself.' In the evidence given before the court at his trial some interesting, but scarcely relevant, particulars wore brought out as to his general conduct. Thus Richard Smith of Hutton Henry deposed that 'Wandles doth keepe two greyhoundes and two or three good horses for the most part to ryde and hunt upon, and usually goeth a-hunting with the said greyhoundes.' At a subsequent sitting of the court a fortnight later, on October 1, Edmond Ellinor of Hutton stated that 'Wandles doth often use horse-coursing, and did himself runne his horse at Woodham Moor, and there he broke his collar bone.' With reference to this last escapade, Anthony Fawell of Durham stated that 'the 17 May,1625, at Woodham Moore (he) did see Wandles course a bay maire there, and in the coursing of her gott a great and dangerous fall, and therewith broke his collar bone, as was reported.' The date given by the last witness shows that it was a long-past occurrence, considerably more than three years old, which was dragged up against him, to swell the Monk Heselden case; and even then it was one that involved no moral delinquency. If that was all that could be alleged against him, he was certainly not the turbulent character that the prosecution sought to represent him.

The result of this trial before the Court of High Commission was that Wandles was ordered to 'acknowledge his offence in Munkheseledon Church on Sunday, 7 December, in his ordinary apparrel.' This obligation he duly performed, and so was discharged on payment of the costs, which were 'taxed with great moderation to 31. 10s.'

This, then , was the man whom nine years later the dean and chapter appointed to St.Hilda's. At first sight it might be thought a somewhat strange selection to make for a pastoral charge, to choose a man who had the reputation of being a rather wild and reckless character. It would be an unfair aspersion on Wandles to regard him in such a light as this, simply because almost all that is recorded of his previous career happens to be in connection with two scrapes in which he became involved. Indeed, what is told against him in these cases really points the other way. In the first instance, in the cathedral service, he was but doing his duty, and had the support at any rate of some of the canons, while in his action at Monk Heselden, if it was high-handed at all events, it was frank enough, and was as frankly repudiated by him when he was directed to do so publicly by the court before which he was arraigned. And with regard to his keeping dogs and horses, and practising coursing, why should he be censured more severely than a parson who rides with the hounds, or who plays in a football or cricket match, today? Sport always has, and always has had, an attraction, at times an irresistible attraction, for a healthy Englishman; and the pursuit of it does not in itself stamp a man as violent or discreditable.

The instrument of appointment of Wandles to the living of St.Hilda's contains, in the customary emphatic form the proviso that he was to serve the cure himself unless prevented from doing so by serious illness; in which case he was bound to secure the services of some fit and proper priest in his place; and in the event of the non-fulfilment of his duty he was to be removable at the will of the dean and chapter. But the insertion of these stringent terms was not intended to be taken seriously. It was but the usual formality employed on such occasions. And the dean and chapter showed that they did not really expect Wandles to go into residence at South Shields, in that they continued him after this appointment in his position as a minor canon of the cathedral. Moreover in the following year they further elected him to be master of the song school at Durham, on the death of his old antagonist Mark Leonard. Of course if he still kept his 'two or three good horses' he may have ridden over to Shields from time to time: but obviously he was not expected by his patrons to put in many appearances there, for his duties as master of the choristers and minor canons must have kept him continuously in close residence at Durham.

A man of this type, vigorous and fearless and frank, who had successfully braved the Court of High Commission in the worst days of its irresponsible tyranny, who had as a minor canon dared to ignore a puritanical dean, and who was a keen sportsman, was the last who was likely to run away on the approach of an invading force. As a matter of fact, he was one of the three minor canons who remained in the north after 1640. William Smith, rector of St.Mary-le-Bow (for all of the six minor canons held livings: perhaps they should be called 'minor' livings!), James Green, curate of Croxdale, and Matthew Cooper, vicar of Dalton, all disappeared. The other three were apparently men of very different types. Elias Smith, the incumbent of St.Gile's, Durham, and master of the grammar school, to the charge of which he had been appointed only a few weeks before the Scottish army appeared upon the scene, was the faithful custodian of the chapter library, and of the copes and vestments of the cathedral, through all the long years of turmoil which followed. In 1643 he received an appointment to the vicarage of Bedlington; but it does not appear from whom. Richard Wakelin was officiating in William Smith's church of St.Mary-le Bow in 1646; so that he probably conformed to the covenant.

But not so Thomas Wandles. He stood his ground all the time that the Scots were in possession of the district, and remained to enter with zest into the fray, when the two chief interests in England came to blows. For he won himself the soubriquet of 'Cavalier Wandles.' So Randall records. It would be interesting to know how he came by this title, and what part he took in the struggle. But on this point no details have been preserved. It is clear, however, that it could not have been on account of any part that he played in resisting the Scottish invaders. For they retired home in August, 1641, and it was not until the very end of that year that the use of the term 'cavalier' as opposed to 'roundhead' first came into vogue from the conflicts between the disbanded officers in the king's retinue and the London apprentices, at Westminster. Moreover, while the Scots remained in Durham and Northumberland, they were so completely masters of the situation that no active resistance could be shown to them. This nickname, as applied to Wandles par excellence, suggests that it was after the outbreak of the civil war in the summer of 1642 that he distinguished himself by the ardour with which he threw himself into the conflict. The result was that he was eventually 'sequestrated and cast into Prison, because he was of the King's side', as Randall's note states. 'He was carried Prisoner to Shields, and from thence to Hull, where he was released out of gaol. However he never returned to Durham again, but continued to live at Hull, and died there about the year of our Lord, 1653' . This note again indicates clearly that it was not until 1642, or later, that Wandles incurred this treatment. For the phrase 'because he was of the king's side,' points unmistakably to the time when the parliamentary forces had taken the field against Charles. And he was sequestrated as a 'malignant, 'because he was of the king's side', not as a 'scandalous minister' under the earlier method of proceedings: a charge which included not merely imputations of immorality, but might be brought against 'any ecclesiastical person having cure of souls, under the age of sixty, and not hindered by sickness or imprisonment', for not preaching six times at least in the year, or for being absent from his cure above ten Sundays, or eighty days, in a year. It is likely enough that Wandles might fairly have been charged with both of these last counts, yet it was not for those reasons, but for his political action, that he was sequestrated. The attention of parliament had been specially drawn to the northern counties by the association formed there in November, 1642, to raise forces 'to succour the malignant party', and again in December by the news of large importations of arms and ammunition into Newcastle 'to be imploy'd against the Parliament', which called forth an ordinance on December 10, authorising 'adventurers' to fit out privateers to intercept these supplies at sea. At the beginning of the war, the north was strong in its support of the king; and Wandles, taking an active part in the movement, naturally paid the penalty when he fell into the hands of the parliamentary forces.

He had stayed on in Durham all through the year of the Scottish occupation. If he was not a pattern as a parish priest, he was at all events a man of determination and valour, who so won the respect even of his captors as to be set at liberty in the midst of a very embittered strife.

-------------------