|
The present
church, or part of it, is known to have been in use in 1186 when it
was mentioned in the Bull of Pope Urban III. Its original
construction can therefore be dated as having taken place in all
probability between 1170 and 1186. There may well have been an
earlier structure on the site.
Charles
Heath, writing in 1800, claimed to identify Saxon features in the
arches and windows, but the evidence for this is uncertain.
Some fifty
years after being built, in 1233, the church was damaged by fire (as
was Monnow Bridge) in the course of the Battle of Monmouth, an
action in the baronial uprising against Henry III. In the following
year the King authorised the Constable of St Briavels to supply
thirteen oaks from the Forest of Dean to repair the damage. In the
year 1256 there is an unusual reference to the fact that anchorites
were living in St Thomas's.
For the next
five hundred years, or more, information about the church is sparse. In 1479 an
Indulgence was granted by the Bishop of Hereford for the repair of
the church, but in 1543 John Leland wrote (of the Monnow Gate) "beyond this gate is a suburb in the diocese of
Llandaff where once stood the parish church of Saint Thomas, but now
only a little chapel dedicated to the saint."
At about this
time the Monmouth Cap came into prominence. There is a widespread
belief that manufacture of the famous cap was centred in Overmonnow
which, as a result, became known as Cappers' Town and Saint Thomas's
as Cappers' Church. Mr Kissack however has pointed out (a) that
nowhere in the known records is Overmonnow referred to as Cappers'
Town, nor is the term used in an contemporary accounts of Monmouth.
In 1611 John
Speed published a map of Monmouth, believed to be reasonably
accurate, which showed St Thomas's Church with a square castellated
tower at the Western end of a small building.
For the next
two hundred years or more there is little information to be had. In
the general decline in church-going during the period, Monmouth lost
four of its mediaeval churches and Saint Thomas's probably came
close to suffering the same fate. A contemporary picture shows a
scene of neglect and decay. The church was for many years a Chapel
of Ease to Saint Mary's Parish Church, and was used for services
only on Tuesday.
In 1830 Saint
Thomas's again became a separate parish and major restoration of the
church was undertaken by Thomas Henry Wyatt, a prolific architect
whose uncle was agent to the Duke of Beaufort at Troy House. Wyatt
installed new pews and galleries made from oak grown of the Beaufort
estates. It has been stated that the galleries came from Raglan
Castle which had been dismantled nearly two hundred years earlier at
the end of the Parliamentary War, but this is believed to be
unlikely. Wyatt rebuilt the West front in brick and added a turret.
This turret, depicted in a print of c.1850 has been described as
being "curiously slavonic".
Further
extensive restoration was carried out in 1874/5 by John Pritchard an
architect who had been assistant to the famous Augustus Pugin.
Wyatt's turret was replaced and the West doorway reconstructed in
stone.
The vestries
were added in 1887/8. The present East window dates from 1957.
In 1989-91 an
extensive restoration was carried out costing £72,000, under the
direction of Jonathan Price, an architect of the firm of Hook Mason
of Hereford. The heating system installed in 1966 had its oil-fired
boiler replaced by a gas boiler.
Visitation
returns of the Archdeacon dated 1846 are in existence (at Dixton)
which record that, at Saint Thomas's at that time, one hundred and
fifty seats out of a total of four hundred and seventy were
appropriated to private use. Further, six seats were classified as
first class at £25 each, eight were second class at £20 each, seven
third class at £15 each and two fourth class at £10 each. There was
presumably a fifth class. The difficulty of accommodating four
hundred and seventy persons in the church as we see it is
immediately apparent, the figure probably represents an earnest hope
rather than a record of fact. The careful division of the
congregation into no less than three different categories is
interesting and unusual. The categories were presumably based on
wealth and social status, and probably reflect the influence of the
Duke of Beaufort's agent. |