"Chadwell should properly be called Caldwell. The earliest surviving record of it being so called dates from 1276. Caldwell stems from two Old English words, which together literally mean ‘cold-well,’ or ‘cold-stream’, the well or strearn concemed being situated by the churchyard wall, and from which the village derived its proper name. Sadly, the spring is now all but dried up. It used to be much resorted to for its medicinal properties, local folklore relating that the water was especially efficacious in remedying diseases and disorders of the skin. According ta Jahn Nichols, in his ‘History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester’, the village was first ‘miscalled Chadwell in the Parliamentary Return of 1801, which, incidentally, stated: ‘Wickham and Chadwell contain 25 houses; the number of males is 50, of females 55; total 105; of whom 50 are employed chiefly in agriculture’.
Caldwell remained the generaily accepted name for the village until relatively recent times, its present, historically speaking incorrect, name only having come to be the accepted one in the early years of the present century. Chadwell has been linked to the neighbouring hamlet of Wycombe since time immemorial, but Chadwell has always had the church for both hamlets (we should really call it a chapel as it has not had its own priest since the late 13th century at least), hence the local proverb, which John Nichols quotes in his ‘History and Antiquities’:
Wikeham and Caldwell are built of a stone,
Caldwell hath a church, but Wikeham hath none.Chadwell Chapel seems to have originated in the first half of the 12th century, round about the middle of the Norman period (1066-c.1190) as a small church with an aisled nave, from which the arcade to the north sisie still survives, though this has been walled in at a much later date. This early church would have had a much shorter chancel than the present one, and would have also lacked any porch. A tower was added slightly after, towards the end of the Norman period, and the two lowest stages of the three stage tower we see today belong to it.
The Chapel was extensively rebuilt in the late 13th century. The chancel was lengthened, the south aisle rebuilt with a porch added on, and the tower increased in height by the addition of the third stage. The Knights Templar became Lords of the Manor of Rothley (to which Chadwell and Wycombe were attached) in 1231, and unequivocal possessors of the Advowson (the right to present the priest to the living) not long after. The Order of Templars therefore made themselves Rector so that they could appropriate the revenues of the office. As Rector of Rothley, the Templars would have only been obliged to keep the chancels of the church of Rothley and its chapelries in good repair, the naves, strictly speaking, being the responsibility cf the parishioners. The chancel at Chadwell is certainly Templar work, but there are commonalities of detail between the chancel, top stage of the tower, and south arcade, which must imply that they are all the product of a single building campaign. (so, it must surely be aspumed that the Templars were responsible not only for the new, lengthened chancel, but rather exceptionally, for the rebuilt south aisle, top stage of the tower, and the new south porch as well as might be expected of a building with which the Templars are associated, these parts of Chadwell Chapel are of very good quality ‘Early English’ period (c.1190-c.1290) work.
A clerestory was added to the nave at some point - probably at, or around the middie of the 15th century. Exactly when it is difficult to say. The evidence has gone, the Victorian restorer having removed the clerestory out of a mieguided sense of historical correctness, seeking to ‘restore’ the church to a ‘proper’ 13th century appearance. The provision of a clerestory necessitated putting new, and separate, lead covered roofs of shallow pitch upon tha nave and aisles. The addition of the clerestory would of course have made the church much lighter inside.
Later on, the aisles recieved new windows with square-haaded frames, possibly in the 16th century. This is inferred upon the basis of there being a single survivor, which has been re-set at a rather high level in the west wall of the south aisle, and then blocked at later date.
The north aisle was taken down at an unrecorded date, and the Norman arcade was simply filled in with masonry to form the nave's present north wall, through which Ihe Norman columns and arches show through. The 16th century north aisle windows were probably reset in the new north wall as not to diminish the amount of light coming into the church, but these windows were to be replaced when the church was restored by the Victorians. Removal of he north aisle probably took place during the mid- to late 16th century. Many churches in South Nottinghamshire, North-east Leicestershire and Rutand suffered the loss of an aisle (generally the north one) round about this time. as a resull of land enclosures, by which means already wealthy landowners appropriated for themselves land that had been previously held in common, and rationalised its use so as to obtain greater profit from it. This early example of ‘privatisation’ depriving villagers to their ancient, feudal rght to common land, resulted in families losing their smallholdings and grazing nights, and therefore unable to make a living. This led to much vagrancy, and sew the depopulaton of villages and the growth of towns. Wartnaby, also within the Soke of Rothley, was enclosed in 1764, just 13 years before Chadwell, and the church there had its north aisle taken down at roughly the same time that the north aisle would have been removed at Chadwell. The practice was of removing an aisle was seen as the simplast and most practical of means of reducing the size of churches which had suddenly become too large for their congregations and overly expensive for the declined number of parishioners to keep in repair. Churches as far apart as South Croxton in Leicestershire, Upper Broughton in Nottinghamshire and Egleton in Rutland all had an aisle removed, and there are numerous other examples in between. In Chadwell's case tough (andd possibly Wartnaby's as well) being such a small place anyway, the Enclosure Award of 1777 would have made little difference to the size of the population. Chadwell Chapel had more than likely always been on the large side for what had never been more then 25 households in the two hamlets of Chadwell and Wycombe combined, and the late 18th century parishioners here probably did imitatively, out of choice, what the parishioners of many other local villages had done out of necessity.
The floors of the nave, aisle and porch, of small, stone flags, which add so much charm to the church, were probablylaid in the 18th century, after the north aisle had been removed.
By way of a footnote as to the lost north aisle, there is no doorway in the chapel’s present north wall. When an aisle was removed, any doorway in its wall was usually reset further in, in the new nave wall. It is nevertheless assumed that there was once a doorway in the north aisle at Chadwell (and possibly a north porch as well, contemporary with that on the south), but that, exceptional to the rule, it was nor re-set when the Norman north aisle was removed in the 18th contury,
Chadwell Chapel was restored in 1865-66 by R.W. Johnson, who attempted to make the exterior of he church look more or lees the way it would have appeared at the end of the 13th century by removing the 15th century clarestoty, so that the steeply sloping pitch of the 13th century nave roof could be recreated. The chancel was also reroofed, but its genuine, steep 13th century pitch wee obviously left unaltered. The aforementioned square-heeded windows of 16th century date were removed from the south aisle south wall and from the nave north wall. These were replaced with new south aisle windows which are of imitative form to the one in the chancel’s south wall, and new north wall windows which are of an indeterminate style of Johneon's own invention. These Victorian alterations give the exterior, especially when viewed directly from the south, an impression of part-pastiche.
Aa regards the interior, the most noticeable changes made by the Victorians are to the chancel (the costs incurred in the remodeling of the chancel were generously paid for by the 6th Duke of Rutland, this being his obligation as Lay Rector). RW. Johnson inserted a chancel arch and placed the chancel and sanctuary floors on ascending levels, so as to conform with Victorian High Church ideals that the High Altar should stand on an elevated plane. The introduction of the intrusive chancel arch, together with the raising of the chancel and sanctuary floors, which are typically covered with encaustic ties, have done much to deprive the interior of ts rustic charm."
SOURCE - (
visit link)