Cultural and Artistic Antecedents : Clairvaux 351 



On July 30, 1529, Cuthbert Murray of Cockpool had seisin of the 

 lands of Cockpool, Revel, Arbigland, and others. ^ 



According to Chalmers, ^ the patronage ^ of the church of Ruthwell 

 continued with the Murrays of Cockpool ^ and their successors the 

 Viscounts of Stormont, and it now belongs to the Earl of Mansfield, 

 who represents the Viscounts of Stormont.^ 



^ Scots Peerage 1. 223 ; Mansfield Charter-Chest. 



2 Caledonia, 1890, 5. 191, note (p). 



^ ' In 1406 [Chalmers 5. 191], Robert, the archbishop of Glasgow, collated 

 Alexander Murray to the parsonage of Ruthwell, upon the presentation of 

 Sir John Murray of Cockpool.' 



* Cockpool is about two miles from Ruthwell, and half a mile from Com- 

 longan. Here, according to Chalmers (5. 191, note (o)), ' there was formerly 

 a chapel, which was subordinate to the mother church of Ruthwell.' 



5 In 1794 the church was thus described {Stat. Ace. 10. 220) : ' It is a 

 long building, remarkably narrow, and has a projecting aile or wing joined 

 to it, which was formerly the burial place of the Murrays of Cockpool.' 

 (The longer part of the Ruthwell Cross lay in Murray's ' quire ' in 1704 ; 

 see my paper in Ptib. Mod. Lang. Assoc, of America 17. 372.) Henry Duncan, 

 writing in 1834 {New Stat. Ace. 4. 235), says of the church : ' This place 

 of worship was about a century ago a miserable building thatched with 

 heath. AVhen the present incumbent came into possession of his living 

 (in 1799) it was scarcely in a better condition ; for, though slated, it still 

 remained without a ceiling, and was of most inconvenient dimensions, being 

 within the walls 96 feet long, and only 14 broad. Soon after this period 

 it underwent a thorough change, 30 feet having been taken off its length, 

 and ten feet added to its breadth. ... [It is] still, in point both of accom- 

 modation and of architecture, much inferior to some of the neighboring 

 churches, and to the average state of these pubUc buildings throughout 

 the country.' 



The cross -was in the church at the time of Pennant's tour (1772). ' Soon 

 after this [New Stat. Ace. 4. 224], it was removed to the church-yard,— 

 the increasing population, and the improved taste of the times having ren- 

 dered necessary better accommodations to the worshippers. In its new 

 .situation, it became more exposed to injury, and when the present incumbent 

 acquired the living, he found it undergoing such rapid demoUtion, that he 

 resolved to preserve it by transferring it to a place of greater security. This 

 resolution was carried into effect in the summer of 1802, when it was erected 

 in a garden which he had begun to form in the immediate neighborhood 

 of the church-yard.' According to Henri Rousseau {Annates de la Soc. 

 d'Archeologie de Bruxdles 16. 69), the cross was thrown out in 1790, for 

 the accommodation of workmen in the church. In 1887 the cross was 

 re-erected within the church, where it now stands. 



(139) 



