Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 2 (of 2) (part 2 of 3)

Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 2 (of 2) (part 2 of 3)

The Keep, also Norman, is an unusually perfect example of a shell keep. It is in plan a somewhat irregular polygon, 64 feet north and south by 74 feet east and west within the walls, which are about 8 feet thick. Within, it has twelve sides, of irregular lengths. Without are fifteen, and each angle is capped with a broad flat pilaster, all rising from a common plinth. At about two-thirds of the height there is a set-off, common to wall and pilaster; the latter has also a bold roll moulding. The wall is 20 feet high to the rampart walk. The parapet is gone. The keep stands upon the line of the curtain, which abuts upon it at opposite sides; so dividing it that there are eight facets outside the wall, and seven inside. The main entrance is by a full-centred arch of 7 feet opening, set in a broad, projecting buttress or pilaster towards the north-east. The arch of the actual doorway and of its inner recess is segmental. There was no portcullis, and the door had a stout wooden bar. Above the outer arch is a hood-moulding, with a light Norman ornament, said to be a restoration from the original. At present a straight steep flight of steps leads up to the door, and these, though modern, probably represent the original mode of approach. There is another and smaller door, diagonally opposite to the main door, to the south-west; this is quite plain, the arches segmental, the outer boldly splayed. The opening is 5 feet 6 inches wide. There are traces of something like a third door in the eastern face outside the curtain, opening from a bay in the wall. Opposite to this, in the west wall, is another bay, also 12 feet wide, but no trace of an opening. There are no loops in the wall of the keep, no trace of any buildings within its area, nor have any foundations been discovered there. It is pretty clear that any accommodation provided there was by means of timber structures placed against the wall, leaving an open court in the centre. There are indications, on the masonry, of an upper floor. Where the two curtains join the keep, each contains, at its rampart level, a mural chamber, about 6 feet wide by 12 feet long, the floor of which is about 10 feet or 12 feet from the ground. These chambers are choked with brambles and not accessible, but they have no door towards the ramparts of the curtain, and seem to have been entered from the upper part of the keep; that to the west is a garderobe, and has a loop and shoot upon the north or inner face; the other has a loop only, and that outwards: one of them is said to have been groined and vaulted, the vaults springing from columns in the angles. This is probably that towards the east, and it may have been an oratory, as at Arundel.

The above works, curtain, gateways, observatory tower, and keep contain the only Norman masonry now extant. The curtain, for its great length, is singularly deficient in flanking towers. At the south-west angle the wall has been laid open by a wide breach, and built up, and there may have been a tower, but it is more probable that here was the junction with the city wall.

Generally, the lower two-thirds of the curtain look much older than the upper part, and the line of junction is very uneven, as though the wall had long been left in a ruinous condition. This may have been so; but, as there is no diminution in the excessive thickness, it seems more probable that the new work is confined to the facing. No doubt when the castle was taken by the county much was done to the walls; but they could scarcely, at that time, have been much lower than they are now, for to rebuild them at their present thickness would have been a great and quite unnecessary expense.

The herring-bone work is of a superficial character, confined to the facing; not, as in the Roman work, carried through the substance of the wall. Mr. Wilson, in his paper on this castle, states that, when the foundations of the curtain were laid open during some repairs, they were found to be worked in with a sort of framework of timber, tieing the whole together. Such a precaution was often taken by the Norman builders, even to the extent of enclosing ties in the superstructure, especially where the work was laid upon made ground. The cavities left by the decay of such ties are seen at Rochester and elsewhere.

There is a flanking tower capping the north-east angle of the place, an insertion, though whether replacing a Norman structure is not known. It is called “Cobbe Hall,” and is in plan very slightly horseshoe, with prolonged sides and a square rear. It is in breadth 25 feet, and in length 40 feet. It has a basement and first floor, both covered in with acutely-pointed vaulting, with deeply-splayed loops towards the field. The basement is reached by a trap-door and ladder, and the upper floor and battlements by a stone stair. It seems, from the rings let into the wall, to have been a prison. It has been called a chapel, probably because its round or apsidal end looks towards the north-east.

There is a deep well in the north side of the great enclosure, still in use, and the bottom of which has recently been enlarged into a cistern. The castle stands upon the oolite rock, and is mainly built of that material, laid as roughly-coursed rubble, but the keep, the observatory tower, and the Decorated work are mostly of ashlar.

It is difficult to form a decided opinion as to the age of the several works in masonry remaining in this castle. The two gateways and much of the curtain, especially its north and west sides, are probably early Norman. The keep and observatory tower are later in the same style. To judge from the little postern, the curtain between the observatory mount and the keep, and probably the part beyond it, are also late Norman; that is to say, the English defences of the keep were the last to be replaced, and it was a century before the isolation of its mound was broken by the carrying the curtain across its ditches, and the completion of its general enceinte. Altogether it seems probable that the lower stage of the two gateways, and the older part of the curtain, were constructed during the reign of the Conqueror, or, at any rate, before the close of the eleventh century. The keep and observatory tower were probably built, the upper floor of the gateways added, and the curtain raised and completed, in the reign of Stephen, who granted, with the castle and city of Lincoln, to Gernons, Earl of Chester, licence to fortify a tower in the castle, and to hold it until he recovered his own castle of Tickhill,—and even then, when he surrendered Lincoln, he was to retain his own tower, which his mother, Countess Lucia, had fortified, in the castle, of which also he was to retain the hereditary constableship. As the keep was the only part of the castle which could be held independently of the rest, it must be to it that the charter relates. It is curious that Tickhill should also have a mound and polygonal keep.

As to the later works, Cobbe Hall, and the additions to the observatory tower and the eastern gateway, are probably the work of Thomas of Lancaster, Earl of Lincoln, who held the castle from 1312 to 1322. The Pipe Roll of 2 John, A.D. 1200, records a charge of £20 by the constable of Lincoln Castle for the repairs of the new tower, probably the keep.

The additions directed by the Conqueror to the defences of the hill, already strong by nature and by art, rendered Lincoln, under the Norman dynasty, even a more important city than it had been under the earlier governments. Its castle was the almost impregnable fortress, held by or for the sovereign, of a very important division of England; but it was a division strong in its rivers and marshy ground, in its English and thoroughly disaffected feeling, and open to the visits of the Danes, no longer as enemies, but as allies to the cause of the people. Its position, dominating the whole shire, challenged comparison with Belvoir, which received a similar accession of strength, and Nottingham, on the brow of which a rectangular keep of the first class was then in progress; but what confirmed its central authority, and placed it far above any castled eminence of the counties of the Midland, was the recognition of the hill as the centre of an important bishopric, and the foundation by Remigius of the stately pile to which many succeeding centuries have added beauty and grandeur.

The castle long remained a part of the demesne of the Crown but was administered by constables, whose office was, at times, regarded as hereditary, and, on one very important occasion, was held by a lady. Always a strong position, it became especially valuable upon the death of Henry I., when the long civil war broke out between his daughter and his nephew, and, by one party or the other, all existing castles were strengthened and an immense number of new ones built. In such a state of anarchy a castle became a necessary of life, and the bishops vied with, and even surpassed, the lay barons in their examples of military architecture. Sherborne, Malmesbury, and the strong and magnificent Devizes were the work of Bishop Roger of Salisbury, as were Newark and Sleaford of his nephew, Alexander of Lincoln; and the castle of Ely, of Giles, another nephew, and prelate of that see. Durham, also, was held by its bishop, and the Close of Lichfield strongly intrenched.

Of the lay adherents of Matilda, Robert Earl of Gloucester, her wise and faithful brother, built the castles of Cardiff, Bristol, and Gloucester; Fitz-Alan held Shrewsbury; D’Albini, Arundel; Talbot, Hereford; Paganel, Ludlow; Brian Fitz-Count, Wallingford; D’Oyley, Oxford; Robert of Lincoln, Wareham; Mohun, Dunster; Lovel, Castle Cary; Mandeville, Walden and Plessis; and Fitz-John, Melton. Dover, much strengthened by Maminot, was surrendered to the queen. It is curious that, of all these castles, six only, Sherborne, Bristol, Ludlow, Walden, and Dover, with Hedingham, held by De Vere for Stephen, are certainly known to have had square keeps; of the others, seven are doubtful, but thirteen had shell keeps upon mounds.

Among those who at first adhered to the cause of Stephen were the two half-brothers, William de Roumare and Ranulph, Earl of Chester, who had hereditary claims upon a large Lincolnshire property, and, of some sort, upon the castle of Lincoln. These, as regarded the castle, were exercised mainly by the Earl of Chester, the younger, but, in England at least, the most powerful of the two.

Their claims dated from a period before the Conquest, and were no doubt connected with the ownership of the English fortress. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia, son of Earl Leofric, and lord of many Lincolnshire lordships, was father of the well-known Earls Eadwine and Morkere, and of Ealdgyth, widow of Gryffydd of Wales, and afterwards of Harold, and of Lucia, or Lucy, the eventual heiress of the family, and as such claiming not only the Lincolnshire lands, but, as it seems, the hereditary constableship of the castle. Mr. Nichols, in a very valuable paper upon the earls of Lincoln, has shown that Lucy married Ivo Taillebois, one of the Conqueror’s barons, a hero both of history and romance, and, in right of his wife, a great landowner in Lincolnshire. Her name occurs in his charter in 1085 concerning the church of Spalding. Ivo died in 1114, and their daughter, another Lucy, an heiress or co-heiress, and who claimed the constableship of Lincoln Castle, and fortified one of its towers, married, first, Roger de Roumare, and second, Ranulph de Briquesard, called Le Meschines, Earl of Chester, who died 1129. By each she had a son. (1) William de Roumare, afterwards Earl of Lincoln; and (2) Ranulph, called Gernons, Earl of Chester. These two half-brothers, unstable and greedy politicians and soldiers, played considerable parts in the war of the succession, and had much to say to Lincoln Castle.

Early in the struggle in 1140, Stephen acknowledged the claim of De Roumare, and created him one of his earls, called in derision “pseudo-comites,” because they had not the usual third penny from a county. Notwithstanding this favour, however, the brothers, a few days or weeks afterwards took the castle of Lincoln by surprise, turned out the royal soldiers, and held it for Matilda. Stephen, highly incensed, marched at once to Lincoln, and, supported by the citizens, laid siege to the castle from the west front, that next the city, but on which the ground was less steep than within the city itself. Earl Ranulph, on this, escaped from the place, leaving it, with his wife and children, in charge of De Roumare, while he went to persuade his brother-in-law, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, to come to their rescue. Robert accordingly led a force of 10,000 men in that direction, and the two earls, fording or swimming the Trent and the marsh lands on its margin, were met by the king in person. The result was the Battle or “Joust of Lincoln,” fought on the 2nd of February, 1141, in which Stephen was taken, to be exchanged a short time afterwards for Earl Robert. Mr. Nichols has pointed out that a certain Gilbert de Gant, a young Lincolnshire noble, being taken in the battle, was married by the Earl of Chester to his niece Rohesia, and was also created Earl of Lincoln, which title he retained till his death, in 1156. Mr. Nichols suggests that Rohesia was probably a sister’s daughter, and a co-heiress of Lucy Taillebois the first, and therefore a co-heir of Earl Ælfgar.

William de Roumare left a son, who died before him, and the grandson, though holding a large Lincolnshire estate, and in rank an earl, never assumed the title of Lincoln. He died childless, 1198, and the title of Lincoln seems to have been dropped for a time, Alice, Earl Gilbert’s daughter and heiress, being styled only “Countess Alice, daughter of Earl Gilbert.”

In 1144 also, at Christmas, Earl Ranulph was a second time besieged in Lincoln Castle by King Stephen, and also without success; but two years later, he, being at the king’s court, was made prisoner, and had to give up the castle as his ransom. Once fairly in possession of it, Stephen caused himself to be crowned at Lincoln.

In 1147 their positions were reversed, and the city was attacked by the earl, but without success; and in 1151 he became a second time Stephen’s prisoner, and so continued a few months, until, at the pacification of Wallingford, in 1151, he was set free, included in the general amnesty, and received from Stephen the grant of the city and castle already noticed, to be held until Tickhill should be restored to him.

During the reign of Henry II. the Crown recovered much of its power, and Lincoln Castle seems to have been dissociated from the earldom, although the Earl of Chester preserved a hold upon it. Richard de Hay held the constableship in fee, and it descended to his daughter and heiress, Nicholaa, who married Gerald de Camville, who received from Richard I. the custody of the castle and the farm of the revenues of the county. Gerald, however, was a partisan of Prince John, and stood a siege in the castle from Longchamp, chancellor to the absent Richard. The castle was relieved by John; but Gerard lost his office and farm in 1194, until John became king. His widow, Nicholaa, held the castle for the king against the insurgent lords. After the war, King John visited Lincoln, and Nicholaa, then of great age, received him at the east gate of the castle, and offered him the keys, desiring to be relieved on account of her age. John gracefully requested her to retain the keys, and she continued in command through the reign of John, and into that of Henry his son. Nicholaa was sheriff of the county, and a very remarkable person. In her latter days she had an assistant assigned to her, and a manor to support the charges of her office. She finally retired, and died in 1231.

In 1216, towards the close of John’s reign, Gilbert de Gant, nephew to the former Earl of Lincoln of the same name, condescended to accept the titular rank at the hands of the invading French Prince Louis, and took the city, but not the castle. He fought and was taken at the “Fair of Lincoln,” in May, 1217, by Ranulph de Blondville, Earl of Chester, a man of small stature but a great soldier, who added the title of Lincoln to that of Chester four days after the battle, and held it until he resigned it to his sister, Hawise de Quincy, in 1232. The actual relief introduced into the castle before the battle was led by the notorious Fulk de Breauté.

The descent of the constableship of the castle is at this point rather obscure. It seems, probably during the minority of De Camville’s daughter and heiress, Idonea, to have been administered successively by Philip de Lascelles, Walter Evermue, and, in 1224, by William de Longespée, Earl of Salisbury, probably as having married Idonea, daughter and heiress of Gerard de Camville. Whether their son William, who died 1257, held it is uncertain, but whatever rights he had were united to those of the Earls of Lincoln by the marriage of his daughter and heiress, Margaret Longespée, to Henry de Lacy. Henry was descended from Hawise de Quincy, whose daughter Margaret carried the earldom to her husband John de Lacy, who died 1240. Their son, Edmond, did not live to inherit; but his son, Henry de Lacy, was Earl of Lincoln, and by his marriage with Margaret Longespée, earl also of Salisbury. In the Escheat Roll, 4 Edward II., he is entered as constable of the castle of Lincoln.

Alice, the daughter and heiress of Henry de Lacy, married Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, and, in her right, of Lincoln, grandson of Henry III., and thus both the constableship and the fee of the castle became absorbed in the Duchy of Lancaster, and so in the Crown. During the wars of Charles and the Parliament, the castle was held as a military post for the king. In 1644 it fell, with the city, into the hands of the Parliament, and finally, in 1832, was sold to the county.

The Pipe and Close Rolls contain many entries in the reigns of Henry II., Richard I., John, and Henry III., relating to the castle, sometimes for repairs, sometimes for manacles for prisoners, sometimes for sustentation of soldiers. There are orders for storing corn, for “balistæ ad strumum” and “ad turnum,” the former worked by hand, the latter by a winch. In 1225, we read of repairs to the gate of the castle, to the “Tour de Luce,” and to the barbican. Even in Domesday, we have Waldin, ingeniator; Heppo, balistarius; and Ody, arbalistarius.

THE TOWER OF LLANQUIAN, GLAMORGAN.

About two miles east of Cowbridge, and half a mile or so north of the old Roman way from that town to Cardiff, a brooklet from St. Hilary Down crosses the road, and descends a deep and narrow ravine, to fall into the broad Aberthin valley, about two miles above its junction with the Cowbridge Taw, near the village of Aberthin. The ground on either bank of the ravine is very strong, and has been occupied for the purposes of defence from an early period. On the right bank is a large and irregular, and, therefore, probably British, enclosure or encampment; the defences of which, on the upper or eastern side, are two banks, each with an exterior ditch; and on the lower, or northern and western sides, a single bank, the ground below being sufficiently steep to render a ditch impracticable and unnecessary. This camp is locally known as Erw Gron, or the round acre (unless otherwise described, the acre would probably be a rectangular slip).

On the left or western bank, nearly opposite to the camp, is a rocky knoll, a little raised above the ground immediately adjacent to the west and south, but which towards the east and north slopes rapidly towards the brook and the Aberthin valley, perhaps a hundred feet below. Beyond the depression on the west and south, the ground expands into a platform of moderately level but broken ground, beyond which again is a considerable rise. Thus the knoll is both secluded from observation, and naturally strong, at least on the northern and eastern sides, and very defensible on the others. The approach was from the south-west, from the Cowbridge road, in which direction are buildings and remains of buildings, part modern, but part evidently having belonged to the outworks and outbuildings of the Tower.

The Tower, or castle proper, was a shell of masonry, circular, or nearly so, about 64 feet diameter, placed upon and covering the top of the knoll, the sides of which were scarped down to a dry ditch about 30 feet diameter, and now about 8 feet deep. Of this shell the outline of the whole foundation is to be traced, and towards the north-west are fragments of the wall and of ruined chambers; and to the north-east a small, low mound probably conceals the foundations of a mural tower.

There are the ruins of a rectangular building about 28 feet square, with walls about 4 feet thick, parts of which retain their original facing of coursed limestone (apparently lias) roughly dressed with the hammer. The walls are about 10 feet to 12 feet high, and one forms a part of the enceinte. These fragments may probably be parts of a small gatehouse, covering a narrow doorway, which would be all that could be needed for so small an enclosure. The masonry is evidently original; and the tower, probably, is of the reign of Henry III., which seems to have been the date of a somewhat similar but superior structure at Whitchurch. Llanquian then belonged to the powerful family of Nerber of Castleton in St. Athan’s, under whom it was probably held by the family of De Wintonia or De Wincestria, afterwards Wilkins, still extant, whose occupancy is preserved in the mead below, designated in the Ordnance Map as “Pant Wilkin.”

Across the site of both tower and camp are written in black letter, on the same map, the words =Twr Gron=, which appears to be a new name, compounded of those of the two very distinct remains. It is also singular that, in a map usually so very correct, the name of Llanquian does not appear.

About half a mile south-east of the Tower, a part of the Cowbridge road is still known as “Pant y lladron,” that is, via latronum, or the robbers’ way: a name indicative of the former bad character of the spot, and suggesting a suspicion that the inhabitants of the strong place either connived at the robberies or perpetrated them themselves.

THE TOWER OF LONDON.

Although Britain presents numerous examples of military works, and her Welsh and Scottish borders are very thickly set with castles, the circumstances of the country have not been favourable to the production of military buildings of the first class. Our insular position has enabled us to dispense altogether with grand frontier fortresses; and our great nobles, although they often held their own against the Crown, and even encroached upon its legitimate powers, drew their resources from estates more or less scattered in position, and seldom possessed whole provinces, or ruled over a territory sufficiently compact and extensive to justify the construction of a great castle-palace like those of France, for the defence of the lordship and the residence of the baron. The keeps of Arques, Etampes, Provins, and Vez; the towers of Coucy and Beaucaire; the walls of Avignon; and the fortresses of Château-Gaillard, Carcassonne, Villeneuve-les-Avignon, and Pierrefonds, the details of which are familiar to the readers of the exhaustive work of M. Viollet-le-Duc, are due to a period when France was divided into provinces, the rulers of which were scarcely subordinate to its Crown, and were either actual monarchs elsewhere, or held much of the state privilege and power of independent sovereigns.

It happens, however, that, in that particular class of fortress of which the quadrangular Norman keep is the type, we have less to fear comparison, seeing that castles of this description are confined, or very nearly so, to our own country and to Normandy. Whereas, on the continent of Europe, in Italy, Spain, France, and Germany, the earlier castles appear to have sprung directly from Roman, or debased Roman patterns, in Normandy a simpler and more original type prevailed, unlike what is seen in other parts of France, and which there is some reason to regard as the invention of the Normans themselves. These keeps, so remarkable for their simple quadrangular form and the immense solidity of their masonry, were erected in Normandy during the eleventh century, and are well known by such examples as Arques near Dieppe, Falaise, and Caen. By the Normans they were introduced into England.

An unaltered Norman castle is very rare, if indeed such exists at all. It is, however, certain that the keep had an enceinte defence and ditch, the latter sometimes part of an earlier earthwork; and in the base court thus formed were stabling and barracks, and other subordinate accommodations. These buildings were at first often of timber, and the enceinte a stout palisade, the object having been to afford protection to the garrison as rapidly as possible. Both at Dover and Windsor the enceinte wall, part of which is of late Norman date, stands upon the scarp of the ditch of an earlier earthwork, the solid chalk of which, as at Arques, is traversed by subterranean galleries. Where, as at Cardiff and the Tower, the wall is of great strength, and of the twelfth century, it is probable that the palisade was retained longer than usual, and the wall now seen the first constructed. No regular Norman wall would so soon have required reconstruction.

Where the Norman wall was of light construction or insufficient area, it had to be removed, and in the larger works replaced by a double and concentric ring of defences. These additions, usually due to the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I., show that military engineering had made great progress, and that less dependence was placed upon passive strength, and more upon the skilful distribution of material. Having regard to the state of the military art at that period, and to the cross and long bows, catapults, rams, scorpions, and movable turrets that formed the weapons of attack, it would be difficult to improve upon these concentric works, either in general design or in detail of construction, or to show greater skill in flanking defences than appears at Corfe, Caerphilly, Conway, or Beaumaris, or in other of the castles built in the reigns of Henry and his son. This science, so successfully grafted upon the pure Norman works, was no doubt in some considerable measure derived from the East, where Cœur de Lion seems to have acquired the skill displayed in the construction of Château-Gaillard, and which, in the opinion of M. Le Duc, places him at the head of the military engineers of his day.

When, having crossed the Thames, the Conqueror marched in person to complete the investment of London, he found that ancient city resting upon the left bank of its river, protected on its landward side by a strong wall, a Roman work, with mural towers and an exterior ditch.

The enclosure, of about 370 acres, was in general figure a semicircle; the river forming the chord. The defences, commencing on the Thames at Blackfriars, upon the east bank of the Flete, swept in an irregular curve northward and eastward, by Ludgate, Aldersgate, Cripplegate, and the line of London Wall to where, trending eastward and southward, they took the line of Houndsditch, and appear to have abutted upon the Thames a little east of or below Billingsgate. Upon the west the Flete formed a respectable natural defence, and upon the east the line took the crest of the high ground just where it begins to subside into the low lands long occupied by St. Katherine’s Hospital, and now, more suitably, by the docks of that name. Towards the north the defence must have been wholly artificial, and is reputed to have been by a ditch which, in the later reign of King John, was deepened and made 204 feet broad, but which must have been a sufficient defence even at the time of the Conqueror. Ludgate, like the later Newgate, was placed in a re-entering angle of the wall, so that the road approaching it from the west ran for a short distance parallel to, and commanded by the ramparts.

London, therefore,—

“A læva muris, dextris in flumine tuta,”

resembled in plan and mode of entrance those large half-round Celtic earthworks sometimes found upon the banks of a watercourse; nor is there known to have been attached to or within it anything of the character of prætorium or citadel.

It is related that before the Conqueror entered London he directed a fortress to be built which should command the city. This, of course, was a temporary camp, and it was probably while he was at Westminster, or in the camp at Barking, that he studied the ground and selected as the site of his future citadel a point upon the eastern flank of the city defences, displacing for that purpose, we are told, a part of the Roman wall, including the two towers next to the Thames. Recent excavations have actually laid bare part of this wall a very few yards east of William’s tower.

William was crowned in 1066, and it was from Barking, immediately after the ceremony, that he directed the actual commencement of the works, which were no doubt at first a deep ditch and strong palisade; for the keep, probably the earliest work in masonry, appears not to have been begun till twelve or fourteen years later.

The new castle thus more than supplied the place of the removed works, for it could not only protect, but overawe the city, and, if necessary, cut off its trade and supplies by water.

Such was the origin of this grand old fortress, the chief and central part of which gives mass and character to the group, and has from its earliest times caused the whole to pass under the name of “The Tower.”

The new fortress was supported by two other considerable works within the city, Baynard’s Castle upon the Thames’ strand, built about the same time by Baynard, the castellan and standard-bearer of the city, and Montfitchet’s Castle, near it, built by a knight of that name. Later kings had “Tower Royal,” in Vintry Ward, where Stephen lodged, and to which the mother of Richard II. fled from the Tower in Wat Tyler’s rebellion. Edward II. also built a strong place near Blackfriars.

The Tower, though all save the keep is later, and most of it considerably later than the eleventh century, well supplements the original design. The area enclosed and the strength of the walls and gates are in keeping with the dimensions and impregnable character of the keep; and the circumscribing ditch, though unusually broad and deep, was by no means too secure a defence against a turbulent and notoriously brave body of citizens.

The Tower, in its present form, is a fine example of a concentric castle, of mixed composition, but general harmony of design, and covering, with its circumscribing ditch, about twelve acres of ground.

Nearly in the centre, but now detached and alone, stands the keep, “La blanche Tour” of Edward III., the oldest and most stable part of the fortress. Around it is the inner ward, in plan generally four-sided, but with a salient on the north front, and contained within a wall strengthened by a gatehouse and twelve mural towers.

Encircling this is the outer ward, following the same general plan, and contained within a wall rising from, and forming the scarp of, the ditch. Upon it are bold drum bastions, at the angles of the north front; and the south, or Thames front, is protected by five mural towers, of which one covers the land and one the water gate, and two others are connected with posterns.

The ditch, which completely girdles the fortress, is divided from the river by a narrow strip of land used as a wharf, but also ingeniously contrived to cut off the water of the ditch from the tidal stream.

The space outside the ditch, forming the esplanade of the fortress, is known as Tower Hill. It was once divided by the City wall, which extended from the north to the edge of the ditch, having a postern at the junction, which still gives name to a row of houses, and to the east of which is Little Tower Hill. The ground covered by the Tower rises from the river, so that parts of the inner ward are 40 feet above the water, and the ground north of, and outside the ditch, is 8 feet to 10 feet higher. This disadvantage was neutralised by the breadth of the ditch, while the descent towards the south, or entrance side, was of material advantage in repelling an attack from that side. The object being to command the river and fill the ditch, the keep was placed as high as was consistent with these points.

It has been remarked by Sir F. Palgrave, that William, in settling the jurisdiction of his new fortress, respected, as far as possible, the limits of the City of London. Only the smaller half of the enclosure was within the line of the old wall; and, while the Tower liberties (if St. Katherine’s be included within them) extend some distance eastward, or into the county of Middlesex, on the west frontier, the authority of the constable ranges but a little way beyond the counterscarp of the ditch. The area of the liberties proper is about 26 acres, of which the western portion stands in Tower Ward and All-Hallows Barking parish, and the eastern portion in the county of Middlesex.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION.

The White, or Cæsar’s Tower, is the keep of the fortress. It stands a little to the south-east of the centre of the inner ward, upon ground which, on the north, is 40 feet, and on the south 15 feet above the ordnance mean water-mark, so that the basement is at the ground level on one side, and above it on the other. It is quadrangular, 107 feet north and south by 118 feet east and west. Its two western angles are square. That on the north-east is capped by a round stair-turret, 22 feet diameter, about one-third engaged, and having 3 feet more projection upon the north than upon the east face. The south wall terminates eastward in a bold, half-round bow of 42 feet diameter, projecting on the east wall. This marks the apse of the chapel, and is the great peculiarity of this tower.

The keep rises 90 feet from the floor to the crest of the present battlement. It is composed of three floors, or four stages. The walls are reinforced by the usual pilaster strips; on the east face two, on the north three, on the west and south four each. The round turret has four pilasters, two being at its junction with the walls, and the bow four. They vary from 3 feet to 6 feet broad, and all are of 18 inches projection. They lessen by two sets-off, at 50 feet and 75 feet from the ground, and die away 8 feet below the battlement. Also upon the flank of each front containing the two square angles is a strip 12 feet broad, two to each angle, but so placed as not quite to cover it, so that three salient angles appear at each of the two corners. These four pilasters rise from the plinth unbroken to 16 feet above the battlement, forming square turrets. A third turret, also square, is placed on the roof, where, but for the bow, would be the south-east angle. Thus the keep is crowned by three square turrets and one round one.

The loops of the basement are seen to open just below those, now windows, of the second stage. The openings of the third stage, once probably single-light windows of moderate size, but now enlarged, appear, one between each pair of pilasters, and each below a large plain round-headed and slightly-recessed relieving arch, springing from a strip of wall left as a sort of pier against each pilaster. The base of this arcade is a set-off in the wall stopped by the pilasters.

The lights of the fourth or upper stage may be of about their original size. On the south wall, between the two western pilasters, the windows, of 2 feet opening, are in pairs, having a plain baluster in common, and each pair being within a shallow, round-headed recess, so that the eight windows form a short arcade. One pair are probably the only windows in the keep that present quite their original appearance; for the baluster, long since removed, was found bricked up in the adjacent wall, and is now in its proper place. It is believed to have been from one of these windows that Bishop Flambard, here a prisoner, let himself down. The exterior has been defaced by pointing with flint chips and mortar, and the substitution of Portland for the old ashlar dressings, but the windows, though enlarged into casements, represent the old openings.

The staircase, 11 feet diameter, contained within the circular or north-east turret, rises from the floor to the summit, and communicates with every floor, and with the leads.

The basement is slightly below ground on the north, and at the ground level on the south front. The walls are from 12 feet to 15 feet thick, and the internal area about 91 feet by 73 feet. This is crossed by a wall 10 feet thick, built with much neglect of the plumb-line. It rises to the summit, and divides the building into a larger western and smaller eastern portion. The latter is again subdivided into a larger northern and smaller southern part, by another wall, also carried through, so that every floor is divided into three chambers. The larger chambers are all ceiled with timber; all the smaller are vaulted. The basement was reached only from above by the great well-stair. The west chamber is 91 feet by 35 feet; the eastern, 67 feet by 28 feet; and the vault, the lower or sub-crypt of the chapel, known in Tower phrase as “Little Ease,” is 15 feet by 47 feet, the east end being semicircular. A door leads from the east into the west chamber, and from the former into Little Ease. Bold recesses in the walls ascend to a line of loops, giving air, but very little light.

In modern times a shaft has been sunk 10 feet in the south-west angle of this floor, and a tunnel cut through its 24 feet of foundation towards the river quay, and another door on the other side of the angle has been cut at the ground level. The two larger chambers have been vaulted in modern brick. Little Ease was, until recently, fitted up as a powder magazine, and passages cut through its east and west ends. These have now been carefully made good with old stone, and the vault cleared out. The well has lately been discovered. It is a plain pipe, 6 feet diameter, lined with ashlar. It is in the floor of the keep, a few feet from its south-western angle.

The second stage much resembles the basement. The walls are about 13 feet thick, the cross-wall 8 feet. In the latter are three openings, 6 feet wide and 15 feet high, round-headed and quite plain, between a doorway at the north end, 4 feet 6 inches wide and 12 feet high, and one at the south end, 4 feet wide and 9 feet high. These five openings communicate between the eastern and western chambers. The western room, 92 feet by 37 feet, has in its west wall five plain round-headed recesses, once converging into loops, but now enlarged into windows. In the south wall is a similar recess, and in the north wall are two. Between one of these and the west angle is a small mural passage, 2 feet 10 inches wide, and bent at right angles. This is vaulted, quadripartite, with plain hips, very rough, but good. Under its exterior loop was the garderobe shaft.

The eastern room, 68 feet by 30 feet, has in its east wall three recesses for loops. In its north wall is a recess, now cut into a door, and communicating with the outside by a double flight of modern stone steps. There is also an original door of 3 feet opening, leading by a short mural passage, 5 feet wide, to the well-stair, which supplies each stage. In the south wall a door leads into the crypt of the chapel, 13 feet 6 inches broad by 39 feet long, having an apsidal east end, and 17 feet high to the crown of its very plain vault. In the north wall of the crypt, near the apse, a passage 2 feet broad leads into a vaulted cell, 8 feet by 10 feet, formed in the wall, and quite dark. In the south wall three round-headed recesses, 6 feet broad and 13 feet high, terminated in loops, as did one at the east end. This crypt was fitted up as an armoury, but has been cleared out, and the injured vaulting restored in good taste.

The two larger rooms on this stage are 15 feet high, and recently their respective open ceilings were supported by eighteen and twelve large posts in double rows. These no doubt were inserted when the rooms were given up to stores and records. They have now been removed, and the beams stiffened with iron, to carry the weight of small-arms here stored up. Possibly there was originally a single line of posts, as 30 feet and 37 feet are large spans for single untrussed beams. Recently, two plain original fireplaces have been discovered in the east wall. Their smoke was discharged, as at Colchester, by two small apertures in the wall.

Ascending by the well-stair from this stage, a Tudor door is seen cut in the shell of the staircase, and leading into the adjacent armourers’ shops. A similar door, below this, has been cut at the ground level.

The third stage, or second floor, has also three chambers: the western, 95 feet by 40 feet; the eastern, 64 feet by 32 feet; both 15 feet high, and until recently propped by posts. The cross chamber is the chapel, which occupies this and the upper stage, to the roof. The exterior walls are here 10 feet to 11 feet, and the party-wall 6 feet thick. In the latter are five openings, as below, all apparently doorways. The rebates show that the doors of the four to the south opened into the east chamber, and the north door the other way. In the north wall, close to this door, are two mural garderobes, resembling that already described, one serving the west, and one the east room.

Within the north-west and south-west angles of this stage commence well-stairs, 9 feet diameter, which rise to the roof. They do not open, as usual, direct into the room; but, by short passages, into the jamb of the nearest loop recess. The east chamber is entered from the main stair in a similar way, by a passage 3 feet wide, in the north wall. In the south wall of this room is only a small door opening into the north aisle of the chapel. In its east wall are three loop recesses, and from the jamb of one a garderobe opens, resembling those described. In this wall also is the plain round-headed opening of a fireplace, with an inclined back and vertical flue, the outlet of which has not been followed. It resembles somewhat a fireplace in Colchester keep. This room is called the “Banqueting Chamber.”

Besides its regular recesses for loops, 7 feet wide and 14 feet high, of which there are five on the west side, two on the north, and one on the south, the west room has in its south wall a round-headed opening, which is the summit and landing of a well-stair, which commences, about 15 feet above the ground level, by an external door, and thence leads to the third stage. From its head there is also a mural passage leading into the west end of the south aisle of the chapel. This was, no doubt, the private way from the palace to the chapel and state-rooms of the keep. It was at the foot of this stair, in the wall, that were found the bones supposed to be those of the children of Edward IV., and now in Westminster Abbey.

The fourth, or upper stage, is the “state floor.” Its tripartite arrangement resembles those below, and the two larger chambers have open ceilings 21 feet high, until recently supported by posts, as below. The outer walls range from 10 feet to 11 feet thick, the party-wall is 6 feet, and the short cross-wall which shuts off the triforium of the chapel is 4 feet. The western, or great council-chamber, is 95 feet by 40 feet; the eastern, 65 feet by 32 feet. Between them are three plain openings, 7 feet wide and 14 feet high, and, flanking these, two doorways of smaller dimensions. It may be remarked that the square of the two western turrets is preserved in the council chamber. The angles project about 7 feet into the room. The north-eastern angle is hollow as usual. The exterior wall of these two chambers is threaded by a vaulted mural gallery, 13 feet high and 3 feet to 3 feet 6 inches wide. One end of it opens into the west end of the south aisle of the chapel triforium, and the other end into its north aisle near the chevet. It communicates with the main stair in the north-east turret, and with those in the two western turrets. It pierces the jambs of each of the window recesses, of which there are in the west room five in the west wall, two in the north, and two in the south wall; and in the east room three in the east wall, and one in the north. Where the gallery traverses the window recesses, the vault is raised a step. In this gallery, in the south wall of the state-room, are the coupled windows already described as escaped through by Flambard. This was the royal council-chamber, at least as late as the reign of Richard III. Here Charles of Orleans, and probably John of France, were confined. And hence Edward, Lord Hastings, the celebrated Chamberlain, was taken from the council-board to execution.

The vertical section of the keep, upon a line east and west, looking south, and here given, shows on the ground floor “Little Ease,” and the lower store-room; on the first floor, the chapel crypt, and the upper store-room. On the second floor is the chapel nave and aisle, and the lower armoury; on the third floor, the chapel triforium and space above the vault, and the upper armoury or council-chamber.

The chapel, dedicated to St. John the Evangelist, is a rare, if not a singular example of such an apartment, so large and so complete, in the original and interior arrangements of a Norman keep. It is in plan a rectangle, 40 feet by 31 feet, terminating eastward in a semicircular apse of its full breadth; its extreme length, therefore, with this addition, being 55 feet 6 inches.

It is divided into a nave and aisles, the latter being continued as a chevet round the apse.

The nave, 14 feet 6 inches broad, and 40 feet long, has an eastern apse, giving 7 feet 3 inches additional for the altar. It is divided from the aisles by four columns, and a western respond or half-column, on each side; and by four columns which contain the apse. The whole support thirteen arches. The columns are cylinders of 2 feet 6 inches diameter, and 6 feet 6 inches high, with plain torus bases resting upon a square stone of two stages, giving, with the base, an additional 20 inches. The capitals vary in pattern, some being plain cushion, others a combination of four cushions, giving a scalloped or indented outline in the elevation; others, again, are chamfered at the angles; and others finished with a stiff rude volute of an Ionic aspect.

The capitals of the eight eastern columns are unfinished, having a block in the form of a Tau, or cross-potent, upon each face, evidently intended to be carved into the usual central flower of a Corinthian capital; and the astragal is set round with a row of stiff upright feathers, like a plume. Each capital has a plain abacus, with varieties of the half-round, ogee, and hollow mouldings, excepting the western responds, of which the faces of the abaci are cut into the star-pattern found in early Norman work. Beneath is a light cable bead. These capitals vary from 34 inches to 40 inches square, and are 22 inches high, so that from the floor to the top of each is 10 feet. Each capital is a single block, and each abacus a single slab.

The thirteen arches springing from these capitals in the nave are 7 feet, and in the apse 2 feet 9 inches, diameter. The five apsidal arches are stilted, the rest semicircular, the crowns of all being level. The whole are perfectly plain openings in a 22-inch wall, without chamfer or rib.

Twenty inches above these crowns is a plain chamfered stringcourse, and upon this the arcade of the triforium, each arch being exactly above, and of the same diameter with, that below. These arches spring from piers 30 inches square, and 4 feet 3 inches high, without either base or cap. As the apsidal arches are not stilted, the piers are taller, so that the crowns still range.

The nave roof is a barrel vault, commencing imperceptibly at the crown level of the triforial arches, and ending eastwards in a semi-dome. The height to the crowns of the nave arches is 13 feet 6 inches, to those of the triforium 23 feet 9 inches, and to the crown of the vault 32 feet. The vault abuts against the west wall, in which is a plain round-headed recess, 18 inches deep, 12 feet diameter, and 13 feet 6 inches high.

The aisle is 6 feet 6 inches broad. Opposite to each nave column is a flat pilaster, advanced three steps from the wall surface, and having a plain chamfered abacus, or string-cap, and from each springs a broad flat rib. The aisle is thus divided into thirteen bays, four on each side, and five in the chevet, the sides of these latter being convergent. Each bay is hip-vaulted, the vaults being groined, and entirely in rubble work. The aisle is 13 feet 6 inches high. The wall of each bay is recessed, and the recesses form an arcade. In the southern recesses are four windows, of which two open between, and two upon the exterior pilaster strips. Four of the five apsidal bays also have windows, one being to the east. There are two doors: one in the north aisle, opening into the eastern room on the third stage of the keep, and one in the west wall of the south aisle, leading by a short mural gallery to the well-stair in the south wall, and into the great or western chamber of the keep.

The triforium is 7 feet 6 inches diameter. It is a mere plain gallery, without pilasters, stringcourse, or moulding of any kind, 8 feet high to the spring of its side barrel-vault, which gives 3 feet 9 inches more.

In its south wall are three windows, one opening in the face of an outer pilaster; and in the apse are five. In the north wall, and at the west end of the south limb, are the openings of the mural gallery which surrounds the keep at this, the council-chamber level; the chapel, as has been stated, rising through the two upper stories to the roof. The walls of the aisle are 4 feet thick; of the west and east ends, 5 feet. Of the triforium, the north, south, and east walls are 4 feet, and the west wall 5 feet 6 inches thick.

This, the earliest and simplest, as well as most complete Norman chapel in Britain, must have witnessed the devotions of the Conqueror, and his immediate descendants; the church, when afterwards built, having evidently been intended rather for the garrison at large than for the sovereign. The upper gallery, communicating with the state-rooms, was, no doubt, as was often the case in domestic chapels, intended for the principal persons, the household occupying the floor below. Always architecturally plain, the walls were probably painted and hung with tapestry, and the eastern windows contained stained glass, placed there, with other ornaments, by the piety of Henry III.

Henry also, in 1261, on the death of his sister-in-law, Saunchia, Countess of Cornwall, wife of his brother Richard, charged upon the Exchequer, in favour of the adjacent Hospital of St. Katherine, fifty shillings per annum for the support of a chaplain, here to pray for her soul; he having already, 1240–1, provided a similar endowment for the sustenance of a regular priest there, with vesture, and chalice, and everything necessary for his office. The obit payment probably fell into arrear; for, in 1290 (18 Edward I.), the Brethren and Sisters of St. Katherine petition for the fifty shillings given by Henry III. for the spiritual benefit of Saunchia. This chapel was dismantled by an Order of Council, August 22, 1550, directing, in both church and chapel, all such crosses, images, and plate of gold as remain, to be melted down. The chapel thus desecrated was long employed as a repository for records. Very recently these have been removed, the walls restored to their primitive simplicity, and the whole paved with tiles of a plain and suitable character. It is due to the interference of the late Lord de Ros that this chapel did not become a tailor’s warehouse.

Above the fourth stage of the keep is the flat leaded roof, affording an area between the parapet wall, of 100 feet east and west, by 113 feet north and south. The turrets rise about 16 feet above the platform, upon which they open by doors, the north-west, south-west, and north-east crowning well-stairs. The fourth, or south-east turret, is built over the chapel wall, and contains a chamber entered from the leads. The large circular, or north-east turret, of 16 feet interior diameter, and of two floors, was used as an observatory by Flamsteed, before the construction of the present building at Greenwich. Its upper floor seems to have been entered by an exterior stair, on the south side, for the support of which the parapet, as may be seen, has an exterior projection. These turrets have been cased, but the old Norman masonry may still be detected.

There is a sort of “entre-sol” between the chapel-vault and the roof, which, over the aisles, is about 7 feet high, and capable of being turned to account. Some of the old drawings show loopholes pierced in the south wall, and there are traces in the south-west turret of a doorway, which seems, from its level, to have led into this vacant space.

The place and manner of the original entrance to the keep are unknown. One notion is that it was on the north side, at the second stage, or first-floor level, near the east end of the wall, where there is at present an entrance by stone steps, 12 feet above the ground. This, however, is certainly an enlarged loop, the interior arch of the recess remaining. A close examination of the exterior shows that the present door has been cut through masonry not intended to cover a large opening, for the joints are horizontal, and there is no relieving arch. West of this in the next, or floor above, where also a modern door has been cut, through which stores are lifted into the armouries, there are traces of an arch of relief, intended to cover an opening of unusual size, and this also has been regarded as the original entrance. But this only seems to have been an enlarged loop; the recess has been enlarged by cutting away the wall, which at the sides has been refaced. This would have been unnecessary had the recess been intended for a doorway. More probably the entrance was on the south side near the west end, where, on this floor level, is a large and original opening with parallel sides and niches in the sides. Evidently this was the main entrance. The masonry shows where the doorway jambs and arch have been cut away, and a window inserted.

Very near this doorway, to the east, is a small but original door opening into the base of the small well-stair. These two doors, being at some height above the ground, pretty certainly opened into a forebuilding which covered the south side of the keep, having its outer entrance at the east end. The armoury is now being removed, and possibly below it may be found the foundations of the Norman forebuilding.

Although much injured and obscured by injudicious repairs, parts of the original surface may be detected. The base, quoins, and pilaster strips were evidently of ashlar, very open jointed. The rest of the wall was of rubble, rudely coursed, but with a great preponderance of mortar, much resembling the earliest work at Malling Abbey and St. Leonard’s Tower. The arches throughout are semicircular, and quite plain. The vaulting, though sometimes groined, is never ribbed. It may also be remarked that there is no subterranean chamber in the keep, or anywhere throughout the fortress.

The arrangements within the keep are very peculiar, and show a prevision against surprise, carried, if not to excess, yet to a degree fatal to the convenience of the royal personages and great officers of state, for whose deliberations and occasional residence the building was designed.

The main door, supposing it to be as indicated, opened upon a very gloomy first floor, from which a turnpike stair led downwards to the basement, and upwards to the second floor. To this floor the way from the stair was along a bent and narrow mural passage, and from the inner room by two staircases to the upper story and battlements. Having attained the upper story, the entrance to the state-rooms was again only by mural galleries, admitting but one person abreast.

For purely military purposes all this was advantageous. Supposing a score of resolute men to garrison the keep, they could hold the main door and postern against an army; or supposing them, by surprise, to have lost the lower stories, they could still defend the passage to the second floor without fear of being outflanked; while above there was easy access from the state-floor to the battlements, whence the enemy could be assailed to most advantage. There remained indeed to the besiegers the last and most terrible resource of firing the place, and, once within the walls, this would be easy and irresistible. Not even this immensely solid masonry would have resisted the conflagration which a torch flung upon the wooden floors of the building would be sure to kindle.

For the purposes of state the great height of the council-chamber, its excessive coldness, the difficulty of access, the inconvenience of the frequent posts probably necessary for the support of its roof, and finally, the entire absence of privacy in a room so large and with so many lateral openings, must have been serious drawbacks. No doubt the rooms were bratticed off into smaller chambers, and hung with tapestry, but even then the presence of the floors, ceilings, and partitions must have rendered the employment of stoves and bratticed chimneys very dangerous.

Neither is it easy to understand the intention of the arches in the party wall. Where, as at Rochester, these openings were of large span, the chambers admitted, on occasions of state, of being thrown into one. Here, however, though inconveniently large for doorways, they were far too small to make the rooms common. They could scarcely be intended to economise material, else the wall might have been safely much reduced in thickness, without piercing it completely through; and below they have no rebates or recesses for doors, or wooden partitions. On the third floor, where the doors are rebated, it is clear that they opened opposite ways, so that one, if not both the chambers, was subdivided. The rebates, however, may not be original.

The absence of all ornament, the very sparing use of ashlar, and the general roughness of the work, especially of the lower floor of this keep, lead to the conclusion that it was executed in haste, and with an insufficient command of good material. The vaulting especially is very coarse, and impressions remaining upon, and the occasional fragments of oak imbedded in, the mortar, show that the centering was composed of small rough oak slabs, not even cut to lengths, but overlapping, and that occasionally the form of the arch was preserved by the intervention of a rough coat of mortar. This used to be apparent even in the vaults of the chapel, and may still be seen in the mural galleries and staircases.

Against the east wall of the keep, a large rectangular building, now removed, was constructed, it is said, by Edward III. The lower walls were thick, and its south-east angle, which remains, seems to have been rounded off, perhaps as a turret. It is evidently an addition, and had nothing to do with any raised or covered entrance to the keep.

The inner ward is enclosed within a curtain wall, having four sides, twelve mural towers, and a gatehouse. The base or longest side faces the river. The east and west sides incline inwards, so that the north face is narrower than the base. This face is broken by an obtuse angle, having a central salient.

The level of much of this enclosure is 15 to 20 feet above that of the outer ward. Possibly part of the clay from the ditch, excavated by Longchamp, in the reign of Richard I., was here piled up. By reason of this difference, the lower part of this ward wall is a revetment, retaining the ground along the west and north, and part of the south and east fronts. The inequality is seen at the gatehouse, the passage through which rises one foot in ten to the middle of the ward; and, at St. Martin’s Staircase, at the north-east corner. Where the palace stood, from Wakefield to Salt Tower, the levels are nearly equal. This ward is much encumbered with buildings, some of the age of Henry VIII., some later, while others have been lately removed. No doubt this ward was always thus occupied, as the Tower was a depôt for all sorts of military stores, and a residence for petty officers of the court and garrison. In 1213, King John ordered to be salted and hung up “bacones nostros qui sunt apud Turrim”; and, in 1224, he drew upon the Tower for thirty dolia of wine; so that pigstyes and wine-stores formed a part of its contents. Lead, and the more expensive building-materials, were also kept here.

The Church of St. Peter ad Vincula, mentioned in the reign of John, and rebuilt in the late Perpendicular period, still occupies the north-west quarter of the ward. In the south-east quarter stood the Royal Palace, destroyed, at various times, by James, Cromwell, or after the Restoration. The keep in Norman castles was intended rather for the occasional than the regular residence of the lord, whose ordinary lodgings were more conveniently placed in the inner ward. This was so at Rochester, in 1281, at Bamborough, Carlisle Porchester, and elsewhere. Here the palace stood between the keep and the ward wall, and, besides, had walls of its own; one crossing from Wakefield Tower to the keep, where were drum-towers and a gateway known as Cold Harbour, and another called the Wardrobe Gallery, crossing from Broad Arrow Tower to the keep, and having upon it Wardrobe Tower, also circular, with a circular turret. The Queen’s Gallery extended from Salt to Lanthorn Tower, on the line of the curtain, and the great hall was connected with Wakefield Tower. The whole space was occupied by small courts and gardens, lodgings, and offices; and the buildings in the reign of Henry III. seem to have encroached upon the outer ward, where were two posterns for the service of the palace. These buildings, after the manner of royal houses, were always under repair; and seem to have absorbed much of the money expended on the Tower. The main guardhouse stands on the site of Cold Harbour. The foundation of the Queen’s Gallery and great hall have lately been laid open. Norman masonry, part of the ward-wall, has also been discovered. In the earlier surveys, the palace quarter is called the “Inner Ward.” Cold Harbour was probably very lofty; for, in 1572, complaint was made that Sir Owen Hopton, the lieutenant, allowed his prisoners to meet and walk on the “leads of Cold Harbour”; and about that time the Earl of Southampton stayed leaping upon the tower, his wife being on the opposite side of the ditch.

Of the twelve mural towers of this ward one caps each of the five angles. Two were intermediate on the south face, as two still are upon the east, and two upon the north, one on each side of the salient. The west, or shortest face, has one large intermediate tower. The gatehouse, called the Bloody Tower, stands considerably west of the centre of the south front, and opposite to Traitor’s Gate. It is contiguous to Wakefield Tower, which flanks it on the east, and probably determined its position and that of Traitor’s Gate.

Commencing with Wakefield, and passing westwards, the towers are, Bloody, Bell, Beauchamp, Devereux, Flint, Bowyer, Brick, St. Martin’s or Jewel, Constable’s, Broad-Arrow, Salt, and Lanthorn Tower, now destroyed.

Wakefield Tower deserves very close attention, its lower story being next to the keep in antiquity. It is also known as the Record Tower, records having been kept there from an early period until a short time ago. In the survey of Elizabeth it is called the Hall Tower, from its proximity to the royal hall, destroyed during the Commonwealth.

It is in plan a cylinder of 50 feet diameter, and is about 50 feet high. Its projection from the line of the south curtain is about 22 feet. Whether it was originally intended to cap an angle, is uncertain. No doubt the curtains from Lanthorn Tower on the east, and Cold Harbour on the north, abutted upon it on two faces, and were coëval with it; but it is unknown whether the third curtain from the west, now replaced by the gatehouse, was of the same date; and, in fact, whether the original design included the present inner ward.

This tower has two, and had three, stages. The basement, the floor of which is upon the ground level, contains an octagon chamber, 23 feet from face to face, with walls 13 feet 6 inches thick. In each face is a recess, 6 feet broad, having a semicircular head, the edge of which has a double chamfer, with an angular recess between. The northern and the three southern recesses are 8 feet deep, and have a flat end also 6 feet across, so that there is no splay. In the end is an opening, round-headed, and about 4 feet across, which contracts rapidly to a loophole. The north-east and north-west recesses are 7 feet and 6 feet deep, and are blank, without loops. The west recess is only 2 feet 6 inches deep, and was probably closed when the Bloody Tower was built. The eastern recess is the present entrance, but the curtain must have abutted on this side, so that it is not improbable that the original entrance was in the north-eastern recess. The chamber is, however, so dark, and the recesses so obscured and encumbered by stores and brick walls, that it is difficult to examine them minutely.

The chamber is 10 feet high. It has a flat timber covering, which, if not original, is very old, and may well represent the original. Probably it actually dates from the rebuilding of the upper story, in the reign of Henry III. In the centre of the chamber, upon a plain stone cheese-like base, is set up an oak post, 18 inches square, with the angles taken off. Upon this rest two beams, 11 inches square, at right angles, crossing the chamber east and west, and north and south. Parallel to the former, 2 feet from it on each side, are two other similar beams also crossing the chamber. There are, therefore, left outside these beams, and divided by the north and south beam, four quadrants, and these are filled up each with five beams, also 11 inches square, which radiate fan-like towards the walls, where all seem to have rested upon a stone ledge or wall-plate. The radiating beams are mortised into the main beams. All this work is original. These timbers have rotted at the wall ends, and to support them, and the load of records above them, two octagonal frames have been placed beneath, one close to the wall, and one half-way between the walls and the central post, and these are supported each by eight props, so that the interior of the chamber is disfigured by a regular forest of seventeen posts. East of this tower the foundation of the old curtain has been laid open.

Since these lines were written, all this timber work has been swept away, and the tower has been converted into the jewel office. On the north-east side of the tower is a later well-stair, 6 feet 6 inches diameter, which ascends to the first floor and the battlements.

This upper or first floor, also an octagon chamber, is of 30 feet diameter, and has a recess in seven of its eight faces. Of these three to the south, and that to the north-west, terminate in modern enlargements of the old windows, as does that of the west, of which the opening is skewed, to avoid the Bloody Tower. In the north face is a fireplace, probably representing an original one. The north-east recess is closed at 4 feet deep, and that to the east is occupied by two openings; one, the present door, evidently not original; close north of which, beneath a drop arch, is the original entrance from the palace, 5 feet 5 inches broad, and at 2 feet 6 inches deep reduced to 4 feet broad, where it forms a lofty doorway, now closed. These recesses have each a drop arch, supported by a plain chamfered rib.

The south-east recess was intended for an oratory, and its sides are produced inwards by two walls, buttressed in tabernacle work at their west ends, and connected above by a bold plain drop arch, rather light, and flatter than the rest. This no doubt is the chapel mentioned in 1238. It is possible that the recess to the north-east was the royal door, and that the narrow eastern opening led to the stair and to the rampart of the curtain.

The south recess also differs from the rest, in having within it a second rib, of 3 feet opening, as though above a doorway, and the opening is twisted to bring it opposite to the door of St. Thomas’s Tower, between which openings, 18 feet apart, there was evidently either a cross-wall or a light bridge, giving a short cut from the palace to the ramparts of the water-gate.

The intention was to vault this chamber, and in each angle is a semi-octagon pier, with a rude base, and without a cap. The total height of the ceiling, now flat, is 25 feet, so that the vault was to have had a high pitch with eight cells. It is clear that this never was executed.

This tower has now undergone complete restoration, all the interior fittings have been cleared out, the masonry laid bare, and the two floors vaulted, and the bridge suggested as having led to St. Thomas’s Tower has been actually built.

A line of blocked-up arches in the outer wall shows that an uppermost story was contemplated, and probably constructed, since in St. Thomas’s Tower is a second or upper door, evidently intended for a second bridge, or a passage along a cross rampart, above that already mentioned.

The arch-rings within, and the whole of the basement story without, of this tower, are of finely-jointed ashlar, and it appears from the decay of some of the stones, and from other indications, that the joints were not mere face-work, but were equally fine through the whole depth of each outer stone, a degree of precision not common now, and rare at any age. The upper story is of uncoursed rubble. It has been pointed and stuck over with chips of flint, but the acute relieving arches over the windows are seen, both of the first and second floor. The parapet is of brick, and encrusts an older wall of stone.

The basement of Wakefield Tower is probably late Norman, perhaps of the reign of Stephen, or Henry II., although this is no doubt early for masonry so finely jointed. The superstructure is early in the reign of Henry III., perhaps 1220–30, as in 1238 mention is made of the chapel in the new tower next the hall, and towards the Thames. The records of the realm were lodged in the New Temple as late as 20 Edward I., but 33 Edward I., they were in the Tower, no doubt the keep, whence “extra magnam turrim,” to make room for King John of France, they were removed, 1360, probably to this tower. In August of that year the clerk of the works was to repair the roof, doors, and windows of the house provided for the records, and this is repeated next year for the tower in which are the Chancery rolls.

The Wakefield Tower was the subject of a restoration in 1867, when all its modern disfigurements were removed, and the original masonry exposed. The brick casing was stripped from the parapet, the roof taken down, the interior fittings cleared away, and the brick and stone work with which the loops, enlarged into windows, had been made good, was removed.

The clearance included certain public garderobes, built against the north face of the tower, and a private garderobe, niched into the junction with the Bloody Tower, and thus was shown the original base of the latter, and the remains of a bold cordon encircling it 6 feet from the ground. Here also was exposed a loop and a curious hole, about 3 feet diameter, and 3 feet or 4 feet deep, of doubtful use. Besides the removal of these additions, the timber work of the ground-floor was cleared out, and the double circle of posts shown to be of modern date, inserted to support the additional weight of the records. The timbers of the ceiling were original. The main beams of oak, 6 feet by 6 feet, went deep into the wall, and were evidently laid when the upper floor was added by Henry III. They rested upon fragments of early roofing tiles.

The central post, also of oak, was found to stand upon a plain stone cylinder 2 feet 6 inches diameter and 3 feet 6 inches high. This again rested upon a thick square slab of oak, which was placed upon the head of a short pile, only partially decayed. Beneath the floor was laid 2 feet of broken tiles, and below this, gravel, so charged with moisture that a pit sunk 5 feet stood with 2 feet of water.

Of the arched recesses the masonry was sound, save a crack in the spandrels of that to the west. It was clear that the three southern recesses had contained original loops. That to the west seemed to have been walled up when the Bloody Tower was built. The northern recess was different, as though the loop had been lifted on account of the exterior ground having been raised.

The vaulting ribs of the first floor did not seem to have been completed. The north-western recess had been a fireplace, which the original herring-bone fire-back showed to have been very shallow, so as to require a hood, which two holes in the wall indicated to have been of timber. The south-eastern aperture was double. There was a small window with a drop arch and hollow chamfer, and steps up to it, and by its side a doorway pointing to the Water Tower, and no doubt intended to open on a small bridge.

The eastern recess now shows the oratory. The original window was narrow and drop pointed. On the wall are traces of fresco painting. There is also a piscina and a locker, and on each side a recess as for a sedile. That in the north wall has been cut as though for a doorway. The original door to this floor seems to have been in the north-east side.

There was evidently a floor above this. In the exterior wall are some cylindrical holes about 2 feet deep and 2 inches diameter. Their use is not clear. There were gurgoyles below the embrasures of the parapet. It is well to rebuild the bridge to the Water Tower, but to vault the ground-floor would be a mistake. The lower floor covering was always timber, and of a curious pattern. It should be replaced.

The Bloody Tower is the gatehouse of the inner ward. It stands in the south front, west of the centre, opposite to the earlier Traitor’s Gate, and it abuts against the also earlier Wakefield Tower. The exterior face ranges with the curtain. Its position was no doubt determined by the Traitor’s Gate, and by the advantages offered by the flanking defence of Wakefield Tower on the outside, and Cold Harbour Wall on the inside.

It is rectangular or nearly so in plan, 25 feet broad and 38 feet deep, and pierced by a vaulted passage, the axis of which has a twist to the east. It is of three stages, and 47 feet high from the outer gate cill to the parapet, which is modern, and of brick.

The portal, 15 feet wide, opens under a low-browed drop arch, 8 feet high at the spring, and 14 feet at the crown; 3 feet 6 inches within the entrance is a 6-inch portcullis groove, working through the vault in a chase 2 feet 6 inches broad, so as to admit a heavy wooden frame. Then follows a double chamfered gateway, reducing the passage to 11 feet 8 inches. Next is the body of the gatehouse, 21 feet long and vaulted, having a pair of gates at each end, and on the right a porter’s lodge. The inner pair of gates are succeeded by another chamfered gateway of 11 feet opening, and this by a second portcullis, with a chase only 1 foot 4 inches broad, followed by a portal of 15 ft. opening. The passage rises about one foot in ten, and this rise, giving a great advantage to the defenders, is continued to a point opposite to the White Tower, where it ends in a short flight of steps.

The vaulted space occupying the central part of the passage is about 22 feet long by 13 feet broad, and is divided into two not quite equal bays. The vaulting ribs spring from four corner and two intermediate corbels, representing lions’ heads, each supporting an octangular bracket.

Each bay is divided by four main hip ribs into four cells, and along the axis of each cell is a ridge rib, longitudinal and transverse. These cells are subdivided each by a secondary rib, springing also from the six corbels, and, with the ridge rib, dividing each cell into four compartments. Thus, besides the two wall half-ribs, from each intermediate corbel spring seven ribs, and from each angle corbel three ribs.

There are no regular bosses, but at each point of intersection the ribs abut upon an open circle, the centre of which is occupied by a lion’s face, dropped in from above. There are, therefore, three main and eight smaller circles, besides six half-circles at the junction of the ridge and wall-ribs. The ribs and circles, though of one pattern, are of two sizes. All have been clumsily cobbled with Roman cement.

The porter’s lodge, on the east side of the entrance, is a vaulted chamber, 10 feet square, with a window of two lights, no doubt replacing a loop towards the south or front. A door, now closed, on its north side, seems to have led into a staircase to the upper floors. About 4 feet of this lodge is excavated in the thickness of the wall of Wakefield Tower.

The entrance-way, on passing the gatehouse, lies between a retaining wall on the left, or west, and the main guard, which supersedes Cold Harbour wall, on the right. A modern staircase, no doubt representing an old one, ascends in the substance of the west wall, and opens on the parade before the constable’s house, and here also is the entrance to the first floor of the gatehouse.

This is by a Decorated, or early Perpendicular door, leading into a chamber 28 feet by 18 feet, having a large double-light window in the west wall by the door, and in the east wall a loop towards Cold Harbour, and a passage which, through a Caernarvon-headed door, leads into a small vaulted and ribbed garderobe on the left, and onward into what is no doubt the well-stair from below, now closed; and which seems to have ascended to the roof.

This, which was the portcullis chamber, has also windows at either end over the portals, and across its south end a low four-centred arch, in which are fastened two sheaves carrying the portcullis, which rises through a chase in the floor, and is lifted by a rude long wooden windlass worked by three sets of capstan bars.

The northern portcullis was lighter, and perhaps never actually inserted. The only trace of its working arrangements is a part of a flat-topped recess, from which it might have been suspended.

An upper floor, reached by a well-stair cut in the wall between this and the Wakefield Tower, contains a room 25 feet long by 18 feet broad, at the south end of which is walled off a passage 26 feet long by 4 feet broad, at the west end of which a door, now walled up, opened upon the ramparts, showing that this curious passage made a part of the rampart walk, which accounts for a door and loop which opens upon it from the gatehouse upper floor. The well-stair is continued to the leads of the tower, 10 feet above the curtain.

The doors, window, and portcullis arch in the first floor, all have a deep bold quarter-circle hollow, replacing the angle, instead of the usual chamfer.

This gatehouse is generally attributed to Edward III., who may have constructed it in the later part of his reign; or it may be the work of Richard II. The vaulting and portcullis-arch appear of later date than the walls, but the whole is probably of the transition period between Decorated and Perpendicular.

In the survey of Henry VIII. this is called the Garden Tower, being close to the constable’s garden, now the parade. In the survey of 1597, it is called by its present name; and popular prejudice, rather than Tower tradition, has attributed that name to the murder of the sons of Edward IV., idly said to have been perpetrated here.

As Garden Tower, this building was a well-known Tudor prison. From hence to Bell Tower, 150 feet, the original curtain remains, of its full height of about 40 feet, and its base thickness about 10 feet. It is, however, so defaced outside, and inside so encrusted with houses of the Tudor period, that but little of its detail can be seen. It is pretty clear that there is no range of loopholes in its substance. A cell, recently a stable, is really a Tudor brick vault built against it.

Near to Bell Tower is an original mural chamber, probably a garderobe, lighted by a recess and loop. This recess shows the original wall, about 7 feet thick; and an interior addition of 3 feet more. The original recess has an acute, and the addition a drop arch. The one may be early English, and the other of Decorated date. Above this the full thickness of the wall is seen in the great modern window, cut through it, in the constable’s lodging.

Bell Tower is so called from the alarm bell once suspended from its summit. The bell now discharges the less exciting duty of summoning the garrison to St. Peter’s Church, and the bell turret has been replaced by a gazebo. The tower caps the south-west angle of the ward, and stands 40 feet within the Byward Gate, which it commands. It is in plan an irregular octagon, about 35 feet mean diameter, and 60 feet high, from the level of the outer ward. Five and a half of its sides project beyond the curtains. Above, the angles are rudely rounded off, and the upper 20 feet is cylindrical, and may be an early addition. The two southern faces have a chamfered plinth, 6 feet high. The walls have been stuck over with chips of flint, and the parapet is a brick addition; but it is evident that the basement was originally of fine jointed ashlar, almost equal to Wakefield. Five cruciform loops mark the line of the interior basement, about 14 feet above the exterior ground.

The lower 10 feet of this tower is solid, and above this are two stages. The basement, now a cellar and boot-hole, is of irregular plan, and may be called a rectangular figure with inclined ends. The walls are from 9 feet to 13 feet thick, and contain four pointed arched recesses with loops, and a mural chamber, also looped. The entrance passage from the gorge is bent at right angles.

This chamber is vaulted and ribbed, its outer end terminating in a rude pentagon, traversed by five hip-ribs, of plain rectangular section, and meeting by a high-pitched arch, in a central boss. This boss and the capitals whence spring three of the ribs are of early English character. The shafts are wanting.

The upper chamber is rudely circular, and about 18 feet across. The walls are 8 feet thick. From the well-stair, which commences at this level, a short passage opens into a rectangular lobby, also vaulted, 4 feet by 5 feet 6 inches, from which a door leads into the chamber, and another into a small flag-roofed mural gallery, which threads the south wall for 22 feet, and has two loops, one raking the south curtain, the other lighting a garderobe, which seems to have another opening direct into the tower.

The main chamber was lighted by four loops, of which two have been converted into windows, and two stopped up. These recesses are of irregular breadth, with high drop arches, the crowns 10 feet 3 inches from the ground, with traces of a broad moulding above each. The north loop rakes the west curtain, and has cupboards right and left under flat drop arches for archers’ tools. Another has a lateral squint towards the south, and another, with a hole in its arch, widened by the rubbing of the old bell-rope, has evidently been used as a doorway. No doubt it opened upon the gatehouse, now removed, which crossed the outer ward at this point, close north of the Byward gate. This chamber is rudely domed in with overhanging courses of tile stone and flat rubble, like an ancient dovecote. No doubt a proper vault was intended. To the spring of the dome is 14 feet, to its crown 22 feet.

It was in this chamber that, in 1830, was discovered an inscription commemorating the imprisonment here, 20th June, 1565, of Lady Mary Douglas, Countess of Lennox, on account of the marriage of her son, Lord Darnley, to the Queen of Scots.

The well-stair ascends from this floor to the battlements; and at its foot a narrow door, set in a square recess, opens upon the rampart wall of the west curtain, leading to the Beauchamp Tower. The Bell Tower has been the subject of an interesting paper by the Rev. Thomas Hugo, read in Suffolk Street, in 1858. It may safely be attributed to the reign of John, or even of Richard I., that is, to the last twenty years of the twelfth century.

The curtain, from Bell to Beauchamp Tower, 138 feet in length, 37 feet high above the outer, and 18 feet above the inner ward, and 10 feet thick, is very perfect, but still much encrusted by dwelling-houses. The exterior of this wall shows eleven loops about 12 feet from the ground, and 12 feet apart, and these are found within to represent eleven recesses of 7 feet 4 inches opening, with drop arches of 3 feet 4 inches rise, so that the curtain was pierced by an arcade intended for the defence of its base against the outer ward, but which would have been fatal to the security of the heavy superstructure, had the most ordinary battering engine been brought to bear upon it. The recess next to Beauchamp Tower seems to have been walled up when that tower was built. At the base of the parapet was a stringcourse, now much mutilated. The rampart walk remains open, but a part of it lies between the roofs of houses. The loops are of one pattern, of about four inches opening, and cruciform. The three upper ends are square; the lower expands into a round oillet.

This mural arcade is very singular. Such of the recesses as are accessible are found to be lined with brick, and can scarcely, in their present form, be earlier than the reigns of Edward IV. or Richard III., if so early. In fact, they much resemble the work of Henry VIII. The openings themselves are, however, original. They evidently exist also beyond the Beauchamp to the Devereux Tower, as the loops are visible, although the back of the wall is so shut in with dwelling-houses and the vaults of the church, as to be inaccessible. Nothing like them has been detected between the Bell and Bloody Tower, or in the fragments of the original curtain on the east side, about the Broad Arrow Tower. In the short low cross curtains connected with Salt Tower, something like these recesses may be seen, and apparently of early date. In rebuilding the curtain next to Broad Arrow Tower these recesses have very judiciously been copied.

The Beauchamp, or Cobham Tower, stands towards the centre of the west wall, into which it has been inserted, either as an addition, or more probably in place of an earlier tower. Its plan is a semicircle of 36 feet exterior diameter, and 18 feet projection beyond the curtain. The exterior wall is 8 feet, and the gorge wall 4 feet thick, and ranging with the inner face of the curtain.

This tower is of three stages, not vaulted, the middle being at the rampart level. A well-stair, 9 feet diameter, in the curtain, close south of the tower, opens from the inner ward, and communicates with each floor, the curtain ramparts, and the battlements of the tower. The stair is looped toward the field, and its passage has a small window towards the inner ward.

The middle chamber is that possessing most interest, from the number and quality of the memorials cut upon its walls by its distinguished prisoners. Its plan is rectangular, with a western bow of three sides of an octagon. In the gorge wall is a large modern restored window, and in the bow two loops and one central window, no doubt once a loop, towards the field. One face is occupied by a fireplace, perhaps of modern date. Though used as a prison, it was evidently constructed for defence only, as a place d’armes upon the rampart. Hence the rampart walk is continued right through it, and from the passage opens a small mural chamber 6 feet by 8 feet, with a loop to the field, and near it a small mural garderobe, 5 feet by 4 feet. The staircase on the south, and these chambers on the north, occupy the two square turrets which flank the Beauchamp Tower.

Beauchamp Tower is in the Decorated style, and the work of the fourteenth century, probably of Edward III. It is evidently later than the contiguous curtain into which it has been inserted. Its name of Beauchamp is probably derived from Thomas Earl of Warwick, who was imprisoned here towards the end of the fourteenth century, and it has also been called “Cobham,” from the well-known prisoner of that name, who was lodged here in consequence of Wyatt’s conspiracy. It is built of uncoursed rubble, much resembling St. Thomas’s and Salt Tower, and very different from the basements of Wakefield, Bell, and Martin towers. The rubble is broken into vertical compartments by lines of ashlar, or single stones, set like coign stones, though on a plain surface.

The curtain from Beauchamp to Devereux Tower is 148 feet in length, and about 30 feet high outside, the rampart being level, and the ground rising. It is original, and about 10 feet thick, except where it expands to 14 feet on joining the Beauchamp Tower. The cells in its base are indicated by their exterior loops. Near to Devereux Tower this curtain has been altered and renewed, and a raised platform, covering the church vaults, and a brick chamber, annexed to the tower, have been built against it.

Devereux Tower caps the north-west angle of the ward. In plan it is about three-quarters of an irregular circle, 35 feet across at the gorge, and of about 30 feet projection. It is of two stages; the lower 10 feet or 12 feet being solid. A well-stair at its junction with the north curtain leads downwards from the church platform to the basement, and to a vaulted garderobe, 7 feet 10 inches by 6 feet 7 inches with two exterior loops, and one towards the inner ward. This is in the curtain.

The basement is of an irregular figure, a sort of polygon of four very unequal sides, with a curved outer end. It is vaulted, and its outward portion has three, and its inward four hip-ribs, plain, chamfered, and 13 inches broad, springing from the wall without pier or corbel, and meeting irregularly in mitred joints at the crown. The wall is about 12 feet thick, and in two of the sides and the curved end are three round-headed recesses of 7 feet 6 inches opening, intended for loops, but now fitted with windows. The ring-stones of these recesses appear original, and much resemble those in Wakefield Tower.

The entrance door from the stairs has a slightly drop arch, and near it another similar but larger door, set in a deep recess, opens into a vault about 22 feet by 16 feet, looped outwards. This vault is a Tudor casemate of brick, but half of it is in the old curtain, and probably old, though lined. As the door is certainly old, this may have been an original mural chamber, or it may have opened on the “terre-plein” before the church vaults were built. The vaulting of the tower is chalk, the ribs and coigns of harder material. Possibly the walls and recesses of this tower are late Norman, of the age of the Wakefield, and the ribs and vaulting early English, or later additions, or, which is more probable, the whole is of one date, Richard I., or John. It is a very curious structure. Bayley says that courses of tiles were seen in the masonry like those found in the adjacent city wall, of the fragments of which it may certainly have been constructed. If the whitewash were removed, and the exposed masonry examined, we should probably learn whether the base of the tower be a part of the ancient enceinte of the fortress, the work of Henry II. or his son.

The survey of 1597 shows two circular turrets at its junction with its curtains, and calls it “Robyn the Devyll’s Tower,” or, later, “Develin Tower.” Its present appellation is derived from Robert Earl of Essex, confined here in 1601. The superstructure is modern.

Flint Tower was taken down in the last century, and rebuilt of brick, and was again rebuilt in stone, a few years ago. In its present form it is a rectangle, 40 feet square, having a slight interior and bold exterior projection, and its outer face is rounded. The survey of 1597 shows the interior projection and the usual flanking turrets, but the whole of the present tower appears new, and even the exterior base is either new or has been cased. In the curtain, close west, is a modern staircase in the wall.

The curtain from Devereux to Flint Tower, 90 feet, though capped with a modern parapet, and casemated within, seems in substance to be old; as does the curtain, also 90 feet, from Flint to Bowyer Tower.

Bowyer Tower caps the salient of 160 degrees which breaks the north front of this ward. It is in plan half-round, flat-sided, of 45 feet diameter, 28 feet projection from the exterior of the curtain, and ranging with its interior face, here thickened by the addition of modern casemates. It had in 1597 one circular turret at its junction with its east curtain. The basement is original, and only altered by the substitution of windows for loops. In plan it is rectangular, with a bow of three faces, in each a recess for a loop, the walls being 10 feet thick. There is also a blank recess in the west wall. The entrance door is in the south side, and close east of it is a smaller door, communicating with a chamber in the east wall. Above the entrance door is a trace of a large closed-up arch in the wall. The arches are all drop pointed. The chamber is vaulted, and from its angles, without piers or corbels, spring four plain, heavy, chamfered hip-ribs, which meet, without boss or ornament, in the crown. They are of the pattern of those in Devereux Tower, and no doubt of rather early Decorated date, and probably of the reign of Edward III.

The upper floor is wholly new, as is the whole casing of the exterior.

Bowyer Tower was, from an early date, the residence and probably workshop of the royal maker of bows. In 1223, Grillot was making “balistas corneas”; and, for his encouragement, he had, in 1224, a robe for his wife. Soon afterwards the Archbishop of York had orders to send up Roger Balistarius, with all his implements, to the Tower, paying his expenses. Bayley gives a good perspective drawing of the interior.

From Bowyer to Brick Tower, 62 feet, the curtain is lined with modern casemates, but seems in substance original, though capped with a new parapet, and cased at its exterior base.

Brick Tower, in 1532 Burbidge Tower, was, in 1597, shown as a half-round, with a circular turret upon its eastern flank, in the base of which was a mural chamber, and no doubt a staircase. It appears to have been recently rebuilt from the foundation, and is now a horseshoe tower, of 44 feet diameter, and 42 feet at the gorge, applied to very ignoble purposes. Its projection from the curtain is 36 feet.

The curtain from hence to Martin’s Tower, 65 feet, seems to have been rebuilt. It is casemated, and, close to the latter tower, is pierced for a staircase of twenty-seven steps, which ascends from the outer to the inner ward, and shows the point of greatest difference of level between them.

Martin’s, or Jewel, formerly Brick, Tower, was, until recently, the residence of the keeper of the jewels. It caps the north-east angle of the ward, and is in plan an irregular circle 40 feet diameter. Its base for 12 feet or 14 feet, seen in the outer ward, is solid; but, unlike the other towers, is mere rough foundation work, evidently intended to be covered up. Possibly Brass Mount, a bastion of the outer ward, just in front of this tower, was a small mound or cavalier, and extended backwards to the tower. But, however this may have been, the outer ward, at the base of this tower, was certainly 10 feet to 12 feet higher than it now is.

Above the foundation, the wall of the tower, some way up the basement floor, is of fine close-jointed ashlar, like that of Bell Tower. Still higher, the wall is rubble, with vertical lines of ashlar, as described in Beauchamp Tower.

The interior of this tower is so disfigured with lath-and-plaster partitions, and linings of wood, and so cut up into small domestic apartments, that little or nothing can be made of its original details, which probably remain but slightly altered. The basement floor, until recently the jewel-house, and now a kitchen, is circular, or nearly so, in plan, with three loops opening beneath pointed arch recesses. This floor has plain chamfered ribs. The entrance was at the gorge; and on the right, or south, is a well-stair; and on the left traces of a mural chamber. These, no doubt, occupied the two circular turrets shown appended to this tower in the view of 1597. The first floor is evidently original, though still more obscured than that below. This tower is probably of the reign of Henry III.

The jewels seem to have been moved here soon after 1641, from the south side of the White Tower, then used as a powder-magazine, which it was feared might be endangered by the adjacent chimneys.

The Crown jewels, regalia, and the public treasures were originally lodged in the New Temple. King John, however, employed the Tower as a treasury; and sent 4,000 marks thither in 1212. The Bishop of Winchester was his treasurer there in 1215. In 1218, when De Faukenberg was treasurer, money was kept both here and at the Temple. 37 Henry III. (1252–3), the royal jewels and treasure were kept at both places. But, in that year, the regalia were sent, sealed up, to the Tower; and, from this reign, the treasury was here. Thus (14 Edward III.) certain jewels are described as “En la Blaunche Tour deinz la tour de Londres.” And (18 Edward III.) are mentioned: “Claves interioris cameræ juxta aulam nigram in Turre Londˢ. ubi jocalia Regis privata reponuntur.” And (30 Edward III.) we hear of the “Tresorie deinz la haute Toure de Londres.” Long afterwards there were, perhaps, two strong places; for (20 James I.) occurs: “His Majesty’s secret Jewell house in the Tower.”—[“Kal. of the Exch.,” iii. 197, 208, 225, 424.] And such entries are numerous.

It was in 1673, while the regalia were in Martin’s Tower, that the attempt of the notorious Colonel Blood was made upon them.

Constable’s Tower stands 102 feet south of Martin’s Tower. It seems to have resembled Broad Arrow Tower in pattern and dimensions; but it has, to all appearance, been recently rebuilt from the foundations. It is now a half-round tower of 32 feet diameter, rising a story above the curtain, which seems also to have been rebuilt. It bore its present name under Henry VIII., and was a prison at least as early as 1641.—[Harl. MS., 1326.]

From hence to Broad Arrow Tower, the curtain, 102 feet in length, seems, for the most part, to be old; but it is completely locked in, on both faces, by houses.

Broad Arrow Tower, though obscured by modern buildings, does not seem to have been much altered. In general arrangement it resembles Beauchamp Tower, but has only two stages, and is much smaller, being 26 feet diameter, with a projection on the curtain of 13 feet. Its inner face is flush with the curtain. On each flank is a small square turret. That on the north contains a steep narrow stair, not a well, entered below by a Caernarvon doorway. That on the south contains a small chamber, probably a garderobe. The ground floor is entered from the gorge, and is a rude, half-round chamber with three loops under drop-pointed arches.

The upper chamber seems to have had four outward faces, and a loop in each; and another in the gorge wall. The mural chamber, 6 feet by 4 feet, has a lancet vault and door, and a loop commanding its curtain southward. A passage from the rampart traverses the upper floor, making it a place d’armes. The stair is continued to the battlements. In 1532, this was “the tower at the east end of the wardrobe,” and as late as the reign of Elizabeth, the wardrobe gallery abutted on this tower, extending from it towards the keep.

The curtain from Broad Arrow to Salt Tower, 156 feet, is so completely locked in by high buildings on each face, that its rampart walk serves as a gutter between the two lines of roof. It is evidently original, about 30 feet high, and 12 feet thick at the base. It does not appear to contain any cells like those in the west curtain.

Salt Tower, in 1532 Julius Cæsar’s Tower, caps the south-east angle of the ward. It is circular in plan, 30 feet in diameter, and 62 feet high. It is constructed of uncoursed rubble, with vertical lines of ashlar, resembling coigns, as in Beauchamp Tower.

The ground floor, entered from the inner ward between the two curtains, is an irregular pentagon with five loops beneath drop-arched recesses. The door opens into a short passage at the north end of the west wall under a segmental arch, against which abuts a similar but half arch in the north wall, under which a small door with a drop-arch leads into the ascending well-stair. The arch-rings are all of good ashlar, but the room is not vaulted.

The well-stair, which lies between the tower and its north curtain, at a height of about 10 feet, leads by a narrow branch to a niche or recess in the curtain, having a drop-arch, reinforced by a plain chamfered rib. This recess is open in the rear, and has a loop raking the outside of the tower and the cross-wall of the outer ward.

The stair goes on to the first and second floor and leads. The first floor, also a pentagon, has on the south face a good but plain early Decorated stone chimney hood, with scroll moulding and plain corbels. In the two eastern faces are loops. In the west is a large two-light window, a modern restoration, and close to it a lancet opening, no doubt once a door leading to the south curtain. The staircase door enters on the north side, and close to it is a loop pointing north along the face of the curtain. From this floor a passage leads along the curtain towards the Broad Arrow Tower; from it opens a small garderobe.

There is a third stage, and above it the battlements.

Salt Tower was the meeting point of four curtains. These were the east and south walls of the inner ward, of equal height and thickness, and two walls of smaller dimensions, of which one ran east, and traversed the east member of the outer ward, and one ran south to Well Tower, and traversed the south member. Each of these had a gateway, opening into the space between them, and leading to the Iron Gate postern. Of the five loops on the ground-floor of Salt Tower, two opened north-eastward upon the outer ward, two south-westward upon that ward towards Cradle Tower, and one south-eastwards towards Galleyman Tower and the postern.

Salt Tower has undergone recent and complete restoration. Its original features, however, seem to have been preserved.

A section of the curtain between Salt and Lanthorn Tower seen against the wall of the former show it to have been 10 feet thick and about 20 feet high, but the rest of it was probably removed before 1532 to make way for the Queen’s Gallery. This curtain terminated in the Lanthorn Tower.

The Lanthorn Tower has been long since pulled down, but its foundation has lately been discovered. It formed a part of the palace, and contained the king’s bedchamber and private closet. It was circular, and probably originally of the age, size, and fashion of Wakefield Tower. As in 1532 it was called the New Tower, it may have been rebuilt in that or the preceding century. It was injured by fire in 1788 and pulled down, with a contiguous gateway which traversed the outer ward at this point.

Lanthorn Tower is stated in the survey of 1532 to have been 106 feet distant from Wakefield Tower. The actual distance occupied by Lanthorn Tower and its curtains, that is from Salt to Wakefield Tower, was 343 feet.

The Outer Ward is a strip of from 20 feet to 110 feet in breadth, which completely surrounds the inner ward, and is itself contained within the ditch, of which its wall forms the scarp. This wall, though generally, is not strictly, parallel to the inner curtain. Like it, its east and west faces are straight, and the north face has a salient angle near its centre. The river front is also bent, though slightly.

On the south side this ward varies in breadth from 20 feet to 80 feet; on the east from 60 feet to 90 feet; on the west from 60 feet to 70 feet; and on the north, the salient of which is rather bolder than that behind it, and a little nearer to the east end, the breadth ranges from 90 feet to 110 feet. The lengths of the faces upon the ditch in the same order are, 750 feet, 580 feet, 460 feet, and 620 feet, being a girth of 800 yards.

The wall has been so altered and strengthened by modern casemates, and so encrusted by buildings, that it is difficult to arrive at its original dimensions. The height varies from 15 feet to 20 feet inside, and is about 12 feet more to the bottom of the present ditch. The usual thickness is about 6 feet. On the river front the wall was only 10 feet high, and apparently only of moderate thickness.

The north-east and north-west angles are capped by drum bastions, parts of circles of about 80 feet diameter. They are called Brass Mount and Legge’s Mount, probably from cavaliers once upon them. Legge’s Mount has the lesser projection, and seems to be solid. The lower part of its exterior wall looks as old as the adjacent curtains, but the upper part is new, and contains a casemate pierced for six guns. Brass Mount, that towards Little Tower Hill, is pierced by a well-stair from above and a cross gallery below. This leads from a door in the gorge to the middle of a circular gallery, vaulted in brick, which envelopes the bastion and has numerous loops for musketry, and others altered to suit small cannon. This gallery is probably an addition of the Tudor period, excavated within the old retaining walls. The salient between these two mounts has recently been capped by the north bastion, an additional and perfectly new work, being two-thirds of a circle of about 60 feet diameter, with flattened sides, and containing three tiers of casemates, each pierced for five guns.

The only regular towers of the outer ward are upon the south front, where the ditch is narrow and the palace buildings were most exposed. These are five, Develin, Well, Cradle, St. Thomas’s, and Byward Tower.

Develin Tower, in 4 Richard II. “Galighmaies Tower,” when no cart or dray was to come before it into St. Katherine’s unless the brethren paid a fine to the constable, was, in 1549, Galleyman, and in 1641, Iron Gate Tower. Until recently it was a powder-magazine, and not to be entered with a light. These conditions are not favourable to the study of its interior. It is a long rectangular tower, 18 feet by 32 feet, and built wholly in the ditch, one end being applied to the face of the curtain, so that it projects like a buttress from the south end of the east curtain, while its south side is a prolongation of the river front. The exterior has been partially cased, but it is evidently old, and in substance as originally built. Its basement is solid, but about 10 feet above the ditch is a line of loops on the north and south, or two longer faces. There has been an upper story, the walls of which remain, but seem later than the lower. At this level, in the east face, is the outline of a door, which, if a postern, opened 20 feet above the ditch. The view of 1597 shows a double wall, probably an embattled dam serving as a bridge, extending from this tower across the ditch, and crowned on the counterscarp by a small work, called the “Iron Gate.” If this drawing be correct, the roadway was through the basement chamber, and the upper floor led to the rampart of the wall. This gate led into the precinct of St. Katherine’s. The tower is probably the work of Henry III., and connected with an original dam for keeping up the water of the ditch. Forty feet west of Develin is Well Tower.

Well Tower, also rectangular, forms a part of the curtain, and has a projection into the ditch 10 feet by 16 feet wide. Its basement, below the present level of the inner ward, and scarcely above the water level of the ditch, contains a chamber, 14 feet by 10 feet, vaulted at a high pitch in two unequal bays, the north the larger, parted by a transverse rib. Each bay is vaulted in four cells, with four hip-ribs meeting in a plain mitred joint. There is a half or wall-rib in the gable of each cell. The ribs are 7½ inches broad by 6¾ inches deep, with a plain chamfer, and spring from four corner and two intermediate circular bell corbels, the tops of which are 3 feet 4 inches from the floor. The height of the chamber is 11 feet 6 inches. There are four loops, one pointing northwards into the ward, and the rest opening towards the ditch. All are under drop arches. In the west side is a door of 3 feet, opening in a drop-arched recess, which may have led into a mural cell in the curtain, or have been an entrance from the ward. On the east side a rectangular appendage, entered by a square-headed door, contains a well-stair of 6 feet 3 inches diameter, looped upon the inner face of the curtain and the ditch. This stair leads to an upper room on the rampart level, not vaulted, 15 feet by 10 feet, looped to the field and upon the face of the west curtain. In its north wall an original door, 2 feet 3 inches wide, opens on the rampart. The second floor is modern. Well Tower is a good example of the early English style.

Well Tower stands due south of Salt Tower, and a short curtain, with a gateway, connected them. Part of it remains, 12 feet high and 6 feet thick, pierced with loops at the ground level, and embattled against an attack on the east. This rampart was reached from Well Tower, and did not communicate with Salt Tower. A similar cross curtain connected Salt Tower with the outer ward wall westward. This also was looped, had a central gate, and was embattled for defence from a south attack. These two curtains thus enclosed the approach to the Iron Gate postern, and prevented either part of the outer ward from being entered by surprise. These arrangements are evidently as early as the time of Henry III., and are shown in the view of 1597.

Cradle Tower comes next west, at 118 feet distant. It stands on the outer wall, and projects 9 feet into the ditch, with a breadth of 16 feet. It is a gatehouse, and though of small dimension very complete in its design, and of excellent construction. It stood nearly in front of the bye-gate of the royal quarter, and allowed a direct passage thence to the quay.

It is in plan T-shaped, the portal running through the main limb, which projects into the ditch, and the lateral wings, each containing a lodge, forming a gorge or main front of 26 feet width, and flanked by two diagonal buttresses, which cap the angles and project into the ward. Between these is the doorway, and on each side of it a small lancet window, cinquefoil-headed. One of these windows is quite unaltered.

The doorway is 7 feet 2 inches broad, with a drop arch and light chamfer moulding. Two feet in is a portcullis groove, succeeded by a doorway of 5 feet opening, of which the valves move inwards. The wall is 4 feet 7 inches thick. The passage is a chamber of two squares, 7 feet broad, and 12 feet 6 inches high. It is vaulted in two equal bays, parted by a transverse rib. Each bay has four hip-ribs, and a straight rib takes the crown line of each vaulting cell, so that eight ribs meet in the centre of each bay, the point of junction being a hollow circle. There is besides a wall-rib in each gable. The rib parting the two bays, and the longitudinal rib, have a plain mitred junction. The rib and circle-mouldings are the same. They are light and bold, 5 inches broad and 7 inches deep. The base of the rib has a hollow chamfer, and its apex is an ogee. The ribs spring from four corner and two intermediate corbels, the tops of which are 7 feet from the ground. These are octagonal and embattled. The bracket below is much defaced.

The doorway in the south end, of 4 feet 6 inches opening, had gates opening inwards, and outside them is a second portcullis groove.

The lodges open from the central passage close to the ward entrance, by doors, 2 feet 10 inches wide, one of which has the remains of the cusps of a cinquefoil in the head. They are 12 feet broad by 8 feet 9 inches long and 12 feet high, having the small windows already noticed towards the ward. They are hip-vaulted in chalk, with four cells, having four ribs 7 inches broad by 7 inches deep, springing from corbels, now knocked off, but the tops of which were 7 feet above the floor. There are no wall ribs. The portal arches of the main passage are drop in recesses, of which one is so low as to be nearly, and the other is quite, segmental. The vault-arches are equilateral, or nearly so.

On each side of the part of this tower that projects into the ditch, on the outside, is a recess, on the west face 4 feet 6 inches, and on the east face 3 feet broad, and 1 foot 4 inches deep. Possibly these were the shoots of garderobes from the upper floor and battlements, now removed. On each side, at the old water level, is a half-arch admitting the water of the ditch below the drawbridge or cradle.

In the curtain, close west of this tower, is a well-stair, leading from the west lodge to the roof.

The superstructure of Cradle Tower is said to have formed a part of the palace quarter, and the view of 1597 shows it as a water-gate, with a square turret on its west flank, where was the supposed staircase. It shows also, west of this, a considerable tower extending across the ward, here very narrow, to the Lanthorn Tower, and which no doubt contained the Lanthorn Gate.

The details of Cradle Tower are rather Decorated than early English; and if, as is historically probable, it be the work of Henry III., it must be late in his reign, and was perhaps completed by his son. Owing to the cumbrous character of the sluices and gates of St. Thomas’s Tower, state prisoners were sometimes admitted by this gate, then fitted with a cradle or drawbridge.

St. Thomas’s Tower, better known from its ancient function as Traitors’ Gate, is the water-gate of the Tower, and also contained and commanded the communication between the Thames and the main ditch. It is, in fact, a barbican, and a very singular one, placed astride upon the ditch, here 40 feet broad, and perforated by a passage leading from the river. It stands considerably west of the south front, being in advance of the Bloody Tower 30 feet, the breadth, at this point, of the outer ward.

The quay, in front of this tower, is traversed by a channel, 28 feet broad and 13 feet 6 inches deep, partly arched over and newly lined with granite, which opens from the Thames, through an archway 21 feet broad, into a rectangular basin or pool, 66 feet by 40 feet, and 18 feet deep, lined and paved with stone, and containing, when the gates are opened, about 8 feet of water at high water. A flight of steps from the water, on the inner or north side of this basin, landed the prisoner within 30 feet of the gateway of the inner ward.

The tower proper is placed above the outer 18 feet of this basin, but its side walls are prolonged backwards, so that both the front and sides of the basin are protected. The south wall, 9 feet thick, is pierced below by a low-browed water portal, already mentioned, beneath a drop arch, ribbed and chamfered. Between the ribs is a groove, 6 inches broad, for an iron sluice or portcullis, worked in the building above; and in the jambs are two holes, 6 inches diameter, lined with iron, for the passage of a chain. Within this, on the inner face of the portal, were folding gates opening inwards.

Seventeen feet within this outer wall the basin is crossed by an arch, supporting a light wall of brick and timber, which was the rear wall of the tower. This arch is a very remarkable piece of construction. It springs from two half-octagonal piers, and is segmental, of 61 feet span and 15½ feet rise. The voussoirs form two ribs, and the inner one is composed of seventy-five stones, united by a simple joggle or rebate. The rectangular tower, which thus rises from the walls of the outer half of the basin, is 86 feet east and west by 18 feet north and south, and capped at its two Thames-ward angles by light cylindrical turrets, three-quarters engaged, and rising above the parapet of the tower. The side walls, prolonged backwards an additional 30 feet, terminate in two square turrets, which occupy the northern angles, and also rise above the battlements.

Two doors on the north faces of these turrets, on the ground level, open into a mural gallery in each wall, looped on one face towards the ditch and on the other towards the basin. These galleries communicate with the southern turrets, and are continued within the south wall, having each two loops towards the Thames and two towards the basin. They do not meet, being stopped by the jambs of the sluice-gate. They were also used to receive the slack of the chain when drawn up.

The floor of the tower, which is above the level of these galleries, contained the machinery for lifting the sluice, which must have been heavy. The walls of this floor are also pierced with loops, and contain two garderobes. In the river-front are two early Decorated windows, of two lights each. The two upper chambers in the south turrets open into this floor, which is reached by a winding stair in the north-east turret, and by an exterior stone stair in the north-west turret.

The four chambers in the two cylindrical turrets are of excellent design and delicate workmanship, as may be seen from the plate in the “Vetusta Monumenta.” They are in plan octagons, having slender columns, with high bases and bell caps, all cylindrical, and slightly engaged, in each angle, from each of which springs a light chamfered rib, meeting in a plain joint at the centre. There are thus eight cells, each with a lancet gable, supported by two half-ribs. Three of the faces have windows or loops, and another is occupied by the door. In the lower rooms the loops have chamfered recesses beneath drop arches. In the upper, the loops are larger, but still square-headed, and their recesses have an arch-rib with a hollow chamfer. The south-east upper chamber was an oratory. The window-sills on each side the east windows are Purbeck slabs, hollowed into bowls,—on the south for a piscina, on the north for holy water. Both slabs projected, and have been broken off when the walls were wainscoted.

There is a second floor, reached by a well-stair in the square turrets, which ascend further to the roof, but it contains nothing of interest. The well-stair in the north-east turret leads to a door that opens on the north face, 20 feet from the ground, and which opened outwards, and was barred on the outside. The meaning of this is only explicable on the supposition that a bridge, or perhaps an embattled cross-wall, connected this door with the corresponding opening in Wakefield Tower, 18 feet distant. By this means a person leaving St. Thomas’s Tower, and barring the door behind him, would reach Wakefield Tower, and therefore the palace, and cut off pursuit. In the second floor of St. Thomas’s Tower is another door, above and similar to the first, which in like manner communicated with the top floor of Wakefield Tower; so that either there were two drawbridges, or a wall pierced by a mural gallery at 20 feet high, and with a rampart walk at its summit.

St. Thomas’s Tower was, until lately, occupied by a water-engine, to the great injury of its walls. The upper rooms were cut up into lodgings by means of wainscot and lath and plaster. All has lately been cleared out, and the tower restored in good taste.

St. Thomas’s Tower is attributed, and no doubt justly, to Henry III.; but, although the octagon chambers have an early English aspect, the grand arch, the staircase doors, and the windows towards the river are decidedly Decorated, though probably early in that style. If, therefore, this tower be of one date, it must be very late in the reign of Henry, but more probably it was completed and the grand arch turned in that of his son. The material is a rag-stone laid in uncoursed rubble masonry, like Beauchamp and Salt Towers, with ashlar dressings. The pool below was extensively repaired by Henry VIII. There is some reason to suppose that this was the tower that fell twice while being built.

The curtain along this front is original, though capped and patched in modern times. It seems to have been about 20 feet high above the water, and from 12 feet to 14 feet on the inner side. In parts it was 12 feet thick; but the addition of brick casements in Tudor times, to enable the ramparts to carry cannon, prevents an accurate examination. It is no doubt the work of Henry III. From St. Thomas’s to Byward Tower is 160 feet.

Byward Tower is the great gatehouse of the outer ward, and is placed upon the scarp of the west ditch, at its junction with the south ditch. It is in plan rectangular, 50 feet broad by 24 feet deep, and its two outward angles are capped by drum towers, 23 feet diameter, one quarter engaged, which rise out of the moat. Between them is a curtain of 14 feet, pierced by the main entrance. The towers, below the roadway, are solid; above it they are of three stages, and 49 feet high to the crest of the parapet, which, with most of the casing, is modern.

The portal opens from the bridge by a low drop arch, 12 feet broad and 12 feet high, reduced by two deep chamfers to 10 feet opening, followed by a broad jamb, in which are loop openings from the lodges. This is succeeded by a 6-inch portcullis groove, with a chase of 16 inches in the vault, to allow of the passage of a heavy wooden grate. Then follows a heavy rib, pierced with three round holes, which slightly converge, and are probably for the beams of a stockade, supposing the gates to be forced; and behind is a rebate with hinges for the valves of a door, opening inwards. The middle portion of the portal, which begins here, has a flat timber roof, 18 feet high. In it is a second portcullis groove, and the doors of the warders’ lodges. Finally is the inner archway, without jambs, but with a bold triple rib forming the arch.

The south lodge door enters a lobby, 8 feet by 4 feet, vaulted in chalk, with a southern loop raking the postern. A pointed door on the left or east face opens into a garderobe, with a loop to the east, now closed. Opposite, a short passage, also vaulted, and with a cross rib, leads into the south or warders’ lodge.

This is an octagon, 15 feet 9 inches from face to face. In each angle is a slender octagonal pier, engaged on a face and two half-faces, with a sort of bell-cap and stilted base, both octagonal. From each pier spring a main rib and two half-ribs. The former meet in the centre in a plain joint; the latter form lancet arches at the gable of each cell. All are narrow and plainly chamfered. Of the eight vaulting cells the ridge lines are horizontal, and have no ribs. The ribs and piers are of freestone, the vaults of chalk. From the floor to the pier caps is 6 feet 11 inches. The total height is 17 feet.

In each of the faces is a recess. That on the north-east is the entrance. The south-east is occupied by a fireplace, no doubt representing an original one; The other six are looped.

The north lodge is entered through a lobby, 7 feet 9 inches square, and 15 feet high, vaulted in four cells, with four slender chamfered hip-ribs, springing from octangular corbels, one at each angle. There is no boss. Each cell has a profile half-rib in its gable.

In the east side is a long two-light window beneath a segmental recess, which seems original. This window, and the proportions and general elegance of this chamber, point to its possible use as an oratory. Those who entered the Tower might well need to be met by spiritual support on the threshold.

In its north wall is a small lancet doorway, leading to a well-stair, but probably always closed. A west door leads through a short passage into the lodge, now a police barrack. This lodge resembles closely that on the south side, save that the east recess is closed up, and the fireplace, the brackets of which are original, occupies the north-east face. The upper part of this chamber, towards the ditch, has been pierced, probably for musketry, so as to command the approach from Tower Street. In the north-east angle of this gatehouse is a well-stair, entered by a separate door from the east and outer side.

The first floor contains two large octagonal chambers in the towers. The staircase opens into one of these in the north-east angle, and a chamber 8 feet square occupies the south-east angle. The rear wall between these two turrets is wanting, so that this gatehouse, with its portcullis chamber, was intended to be open in the rear, or was closed, as now, by a lath-and-plaster brattice. There was a small window to the west, over the entrance-gate, looking on the bridge.

The arrangements of the second floor are still more simple. The staircase remains, and the two octagon chambers, but the small south-east chamber is wanting. The rear is open.

At the battlement level the staircase and its turret cease. There is now nothing above the parapet.

In the rear of and attached to the south-east part of this gatehouse is a low tower, of later date, intended to cover a postern bridge, traversing the south ditch, and dropping on the quay. The tower is rectangular in plan, 14 feet broad and 29 feet long, besides an acute salient of 12 feet more, which projects into the south ditch, and prevents it from being raked.

It is pierced north and south by a portal 6 feet 9 inches broad, which commences by a square cell, vaulted, with a cross and longitudinal rib, chamfered, and pierced at the intersection by an octagonal cavity. Two door jambs then reduce the opening by a foot, and between them, in the vault, is a hole 9 inches diameter, apparently intended for a chain which passed out over the rib of the further door, and worked, still within the tower, a light bridge, the recess for which is seen outside the door. The chamber here widens by 3 feet, to allow space for those defending the east wall. When this bridge was down, a way was opened to a door in the west wall, outside which is a platform, whence a second bridge dropped southwards across the ditch. The upper story of this postern tower was one large chamber for working the inner bridge. A door leads from it upon the rampart walk of the east curtain. Above this were the battlements of the postern, two stages below that of the contiguous tower. In the Tudor reigns these buildings were encumbered with additions in brick, timber, and plaster, which still remain, and much obscure the original details. This postern tower is Perpendicular, perhaps the work of Richard II.

Besides the bulwarks and towers just described, the inner ward was strengthened against surprise by several cross walls and gates, breaking it up into independent sections. One of these gates crossed from Bell to Byward Tower, and another, it is said, crossed north of Beauchamp Tower. There were walls with gates across the ward, on either side of Traitors’ Gate, so that prisoners could be brought in by water and led across into the Bloody Tower gate, without any chance of rescue in the outer ward, and indeed without being seen. Another gateway of a stronger description, and with towers, extended from Lanthorn to near Cradle Tower; and another also, already mentioned, opened in the small curtain between Salt and Well Tower. There was at least one more gateway in the short curtain east from Salt Tower. The ward, between all these gates, must have been intended to be open; but, at least since the Tudor reigns, it has been encumbered with private houses. Here the operations of the Mint were carried on with much inconvenience; and the north and west limbs of the ward still bear the name of Mint Street, and the east limb, of Irish Mint Street.

The curtain or scarp wall of this ward was, no doubt, the work of Henry III., and much of the wall is still original. In the west wall, near Byward, below a modern battery of two guns, are six loops, probably old, but lighting modern casemates, and beneath each an air-hole. Also, on the north front, close west of the new bastion in the wall, is a pointed arched door, long closed up, but probably an original water-gate. West of this also is an original loop, no doubt marking the place of a mural chamber not now accessible.

The modern additions to this curtain consist in a line of casemates, storehouses, canteens, magazines, and workshops, built against and concealing its inner face, and giving a rampart or platform of 30 feet width.

This exterior wall has been built with great care on a broad and deep foundation, since it shows no sign of settlement, though built in what, until recently, was a deep and muddy ditch. At one part indeed, close south of Brass Mount, it has been strengthened by three very clumsy buttresses of 12 feet in breadth and 22 feet projection. One covers the internal angle of the bastion; the next is about 40 feet distant; and the third, at about the same space, is in fact a rectangular mural tower resembling Galleyman, and contains a small chamber having two loops on each of its three free faces. Its parapet is new, and pierced for two guns.

Middle Tower is the outwork of Byward Tower, and a barbican covering the landward entrance to the fortress. It stands on the counterscarp of the ditch, at the outer end of the bridge, and was originally enveloped by a special ditch of its own, a loop from the main ditch of the place, filled up in the eighteenth century. In design and execution it resembles closely Byward Tower, though rather smaller, its breadth being 40 feet, and its height 30 feet from the roadway. It is evidently of the date of Byward, and like it was open at the rear. It also has been cased with Portland stone. Its portal has a double portcullis, gateway, vertical holes, side loops and lodges, and its central part is ceiled with timber. In neither tower is there now any trace of a drawbridge. The lodges are tolerably perfect; the stair in the north-east angle is in use, and corresponds to the Byward oratory; and in the south-east turret is a lobby and a garderobe, and above these a chamber 7 feet by 8 feet 6 inches, and again on the leads another chamber 7 feet 4 inches by 10 feet 10 inches.

Between the two gatehouses the ditch is traversed by a stone bridge, 130 feet long, and at the narrowest 20 feet wide. As the towers are not precisely opposite, the line of the bridge is broken by a slight zigzag. In the centre appears to have been an opening of 20 feet, now a stone arch, once the place of a drawbridge, as shown in old drawings.

The Quay does not appear to have had any permanent parapet wall, which indeed would have interfered with its uses. It was sufficiently commanded by the defences of the outer ward. It was probably the work of Henry III., in the twelfth of whose reign it is first mentioned, and called “Kaia Regis”; and John de Crumbwell, custos 8–9 Edward III., had then an order for 300 alder poles from Windsor forest for repairing it. The quay is in length about 1,130 feet, that being the full frontage of the Tower.

The Ditch.—This, by far the most formidable of the defences of the Tower, varies in breadth from 100 feet on the east to 110 feet on the north, and 120 feet on the west or City side. Along the south or river front it is only 40 feet broad, probably because on that side it was covered by the wharf, the narrow limits of which did not permit any great force of assailants to be drawn up upon it; besides which the tower covering Traitors’ Gate, and the two small postern bridges which it was convenient to have towards the wharf and river, did not allow any great breadth of ditch.

The ditch was not only broad, but of great depth, so that when filled to the level of high water it was scarcely to be passed, and indeed when the water was low, the mud which accumulated there, and which made it of late years an unhealthy nuisance, must have been quite as formidable as a defence. Nevertheless, care was taken to cleanse it, and the “Liber Albus” informs us that, in the reign of Edward III., the penalty for bathing in the Tower fosse, or in the Thames near the Tower, was death! (vol. i., p. xlix.) Its exterior circuit is computed at 3,156 feet.

Also, from the great height of the ground to the west and north, the counterscarp is so very high as to be in itself a considerable obstacle to crossing the ditch, although, no doubt, this was in other respects advantageous to besiegers. Besides the main bridge, the ditch was crossed by St. Thomas’s Tower and the dam between Galleyman and Iron Gate, all of which served to hold up the water. There were also the posterns of Iron Gate, Byward, and Cradle Tower.

No doubt the Conqueror’s ditch, even when deepened by Longchamp, was fed by the Thames; and the water rose and fell with the tide. The intervention of the wharf and the St. Thomas’s sluice-gate were devised to make the water in the ditch independent of the tide, and thus add materially to the strength of the defences. The ditch was drained and its bottom raised and levelled by the Duke of Wellington during his constabulate. There are seen in the modern brick revetment of the counterscarp a number of walled-up arches, resembling sewer-mouths, which appear to have been intended to facilitate the mining the glacis in the event of a siege.

The outwork in advance of Middle Tower, though its ditch is filled up, and its other buildings removed, is still indicated by a line of stockades, which contain the ticket-office and a small engine-house. Here stood the Lion Tower, and the Royal Menagerie; and this whole tête-de-pont was further protected by a smaller tower and drawbridge of its own, shown in some of the early drawings.

Lions were a part of the royal state, and lodged in the Tower bulwark, in the reign of Henry I. The Emperor Frederick, in 1235, sent Henry II. three leopards; and, in 1252, Henry III. received a white bear from Norway, for whose sustenance, with his keeper, the sheriffs of London provided fourpence daily, with a muzzle and iron chain, to keep him when “extra aquam,” and a stout cord to hold him when a-fishing in the Thames. In 1254, Louis of France sent the king an elephant. He was brought from Sandwich to the Tower, where the sheriffs were to build him a strong and suitable house, 40 feet by 20 feet, and to support him and his keeper. Edward I. and Edward II. kept lions here. At a time when the allowance for an esquire was one penny per day, a lion had a quarter of mutton and three-halfpence for the keeper; and, afterwards, sixpence was the lion’s allowance; the same for a leopard, and three-halfpence for the keeper. In 16 Edward III., there were a lion and a lioness, a leopard, and two cat-lions. In 1543, the Duke of Najara saw here four large and fierce lions, and two leopards. The menagerie was finally closed about the year 1830. Its establishment on this particular spot was probably due to Henry III.

The whole outward space was, in 1597, called the Bulwark, and sometimes the Spur-yard.

HISTORY.

Having decided to build an “Arx Palatina,” and having some years’ experience of the value of the proposed site as a temporary camp, the Conqueror at length determined to erect a regular castle, and entrusted the work to Gundulf, a monk of Bec, who, in 1077, soon after his arrival in England, was consecrated Bishop of Rochester.

Gundulf brought with him from Normandy some reputation as an architect, which vocation he pursued in this country. Rochester Keep, that strong but graceful tower, placed so judiciously above the ancient passage of the Medway, and long attributed to the bishop, is now known to be of later date; and the only existing buildings, besides the White Tower, which can safely be attributed to him, are the north tower of Rochester Cathedral, parts of the old crypt, and perhaps a small part of its west front; also the very perfect and unaltered shell of Malling Keep, known as St. Leonard’s Tower; possibly the broad, massive tower of the adjacent church, and, it may be, the Norman portions of that of Dartford. These remains, however, the White Tower, and the testimony of many generations, may be regarded as sufficient for the confirmation of his fame.

A direct evidence for the employment of Gundulf upon the White Tower is afforded by the “Textus Roffensis,” written about 1143, or within eighty years of the Conquest, and printed by Hearne. This record preserves incidentally the fact that Gundulf, while so employed, lodged at the house of Eadmer Anhœnde, a burgess of London, and a donor to the bishop’s church at Rochester, where he directed his body and that of his wife to be buried, and to have an annual obit.[5]

Gundulf was appointed bishop in 1077, and probably his first attention was given to his cathedral, so that it is supposed he did not commence the Tower until 1078, up to which time the ground was occupied by certain temporary defences.

Gundulf reached the age of eighty-four, and lived till 1108, that is, through the reigns of the Conqueror and Rufus, and to the ninth of Henry I.; it is, therefore, certain that he lived to see the keep completed, perhaps by Rufus; and he most probably made some progress in the walls of the enceinte, and the buildings of the palace, and perhaps of the Wakefield Tower.

The fortress designed by the Conqueror no doubt included very much of the space within the present walls. Less would scarcely suffice to contain a citadel, a palace, and an arsenal; and the liberties were evidently of no greater area than was necessary.

The west boundary line runs but a few yards outside the counterscarp of the ditch, and includes only what may be called a narrow glacis, and nothing of the open space or esplanade usually reserved around a fortress. It is, however, probable that no permanent exterior defences were executed by the Conqueror, and that those first commenced were the curtains from the Wakefield to the present Broad Arrow Tower, and the cross walls of the Wardrobe Gallery and Cold Harbour, which, with the keep, included the space set apart for the palace. This was for many centuries known as the inner ward; and the Wardrobe and Lanthorn Towers and those of the Cold Harbour Gatehouse, all now destroyed, are represented in the reign of Elizabeth as cylindrical, and resembling in design the Wakefield Tower, which is late Norman. It is, therefore, probable that the old inner or palace ward was first completed.

The rest of the enceinte, forming what is now known as the inner ward, could not, however, have been much later. According to the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” Gervase, and Le Livere, Rufus was, in 1097, building about the Tower a wall of sufficient magnitude, with the new hall at Westminster, to be the cause of heavy taxation, and the subject of general discontent, augmented, no doubt, by the impregnable character of his work. The existing curtain of the inner ward, being from 9 feet to 12 feet thick, from 39 feet to 40 feet high, and of sound but rude masonry, cannot be later than John, by which reign the wall of Rufus could not have fallen into decay. It is far more probable, and quite consistent with the dimensions and character of the work, that this was the actual wall commenced by Rufus, and upon which he was employed in 1097.

Bell Tower, indeed, which seems to bond into the curtain, and the base of which presents masonry very like that of Wakefield, is octagonal, and its vaulting can scarcely be earlier than John; but Devereux Tower, which is cylindrical outside, and has round-headed recesses in its polygonal basement chamber, may be as old as Wakefield, and therefore in substance the work of Rufus. The vaulting is later, but both may have been, as at Wakefield, taken down to the first floor at a later period, to which the vaulting may belong. Beauchamp, Bowyer, and all the other towers on this wall are evidently later insertions; but the wall itself, where it remains, as on the west and part of the east and south fronts, is of a very early character, and not unlike the wall of John at Corfe and the earlier one attributed to Robert Consul at Cardiff.

Most of the chroniclers record a violent storm that swept over London towards the close of the eleventh century. Le Livere dates it Friday, 27th October, and Malmesbury, 28th November, 1091, and says it unroofed St. Mary-le-Bow, and destroyed 600 houses, as houses then were.

Stowe adds that the White Tower was damaged “by tempest and winde sore shaken,” and that it was repaired by Rufus and Henry I.; but he gives no authority for this statement, which the extreme solidity of the building renders very improbable. The outworks, however, both wall and towers, if in course of construction, with scaffolding up, might very well have suffered severely.

The Tower, therefore, of the close of the reign of Rufus, and of those of Henry I. and Stephen, was probably composed of the White Tower with a palace ward upon its south-east side, and a wall, probably that we now see, and certainly along its general course, including what is now known as the inner ward. No doubt there was a ditch, but probably not a very formidable one.

Ralph Flambard, Bishop of Durham, and the faithful and rapacious minister of Rufus,—“pacitator Ranulphus, vir pessimus,”—by his severe exactions greatly promoted the works of the Tower. Singularly enough, he is the first person known to have been imprisoned there. Henry, on his accession, and by the advice of his council, 15th August, 1100, shut up Flambard in the Tower. Palgrave says he was lodged in the uppermost or council-chamber of the White Tower, under the custody of Walter de Magnaville, the hereditary constable. Probably his imprisonment was only intended to satisfy the popular cry, for two shillings, at that time a considerable sum, was allowed for his daily sustenance. He employed it, as is said, in feasting his keepers; and having received a rope in a flagon, took advantage of their drunken state to let himself down from the window of the south gallery, on the night of the 4th February, 1101, taking his pastoral staff with him. The rope proved too short for the descent of 65 feet, and he was injured by a fall, but he escaped in safety to Normandy, and, as is well known, lived to recover his see of Durham, where he completed the cathedral, added a moat to the Palatine castle, founded Norham on the Tweed, built Framwell Gate bridge, and endowed the hospital of Kepyer. The Tower was probably from the first a state prison, for in 1106 the Earl of Mortaigne, taken with Robert Duke of Normandy by Henry I., was, says Eadmer, shut up there. The Pipe Roll of 21 Henry I. records “£17. 0s. 6d., inoperatione Turris Lond.”

In the time of Stephen the Tower was regarded as impregnable. Geoffrey, grandson of Geoffrey de Magnaville, the companion of the Conqueror, and the third hereditary constable, was created Earl of Essex by the king, who in 1140 kept Whitsun in the Tower. “Eodem anno, 1140, in Pentecoste resedit Rex Londiniæ in Turri, tantum modo Episcopo Sagiensi presente: cæteri vel fastidierunt, vel timuerunt venire.” [R. de Hoveden.] The new earl proved false, and shifted his allegiance to the empress, who, by charter in 1141, confirmed him in his earldom and the constableship.

When the power of Maud declined, the citizens, to whom Geoffrey was as odious as his fortress, laid siege to it. Their efforts were so unsuccessful that on one occasion the earl made a raid as far as Fulham, and captured the bishop.

In 1143 the earl trusted himself in the royal presence at St. Alban’s, depending on the king’s word. The temptation to obtain the Tower was too great,—“magis ex necessitate quam honestate,”—he was detained, and the Tower was his ransom. Stephen held it until 1153, close upon the conclusion of his reign, when, by the Treaty of Winchester, he gave it up to Richard de Lacy, the Justiciary, who was to hold it until Stephen’s death, when it was to pass to Henry, which accordingly was done in 1154. It is clear, therefore, that at that time the fortifications of the Tower were both complete and strong; and this, in the absence of a wet ditch, which it will be shown did not then exist, could scarcely be the case with walls of inferior strength to those now seen.

Henry II. is said to have placed Becket in command of the Tower, the government of which had ceased to be hereditary. But there is no proof of this, or that Becket repaired it; though at a later period, indeed, one of his demands, as archbishop, was the custody of Rochester Castle and the Tower. By this time “London’s lasting shame” had attained its gloomy reputation, and Fitz-Stephen describes the “Arx Palatina” as “great and strong, with encircling walls rising from a deep foundation, and built with mortar tempered with the blood of beasts.”

The Pipe Rolls of this reign contain frequent entries of large sums issued for the repair of the king’s houses in the Tower, his chapel, and his gaol. In 2 Henry II., 6s. 1d. was paid for carrying the king’s breastplates to the Tower; but the regular series of accounts does not begin until 13 Henry II., and ends with 34. The entries for Westminster and the Tower are also much mixed up together, though sometimes distinct. Thus in 13 Henry II. the king’s houses in the two places and the queen’s chamber cost £64, and, in 19 Henry II., £60 was paid for the repairs of the Tower and of the houses in it. In the preceding year the king’s houses in the bailey of the Tower cost £21. In 20 Henry II., Alnod, the engineer, had £6. 13s. 4d. for works at the Tower, and afterwards 100s. Similar payments continually occur, sometimes for lead for the repairs of the chapel, sometimes for carriage of timber and planks, sometimes for the kitchen, the gateways of the gaol, the repairs of the houses, and sometimes for the Tower itself.

The necessity for each expenditure is often certified to by the view of two officers, Edward Blund and William Magnus; the works were executed by the engineer Alnod; and the brief, authorising payment, was signed either by the king himself, or by Richard de Lucy or Ranulph de Glanville, no doubt as justiciars. The sums paid varied from 1s. 4d. to £64, and the total for the thirteen years of which the rolls remain, is £215. 15s. and 50 marks.

When in February, 1190, Cœur de Lion departed from Normandy to the East, he placed the Tower in charge of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely and Chancellor, sharing the power of chief justiciary with Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, to which the Pope added the office of legate. These combined honours seem to have turned Longchamp’s head. Always of intense activity of character, he spurned all colleagues in his power. His first act on reaching England seems to have been to provide for his personal security by girdling the Tower with a wall and deep ditch, which he proposed to fill from the Thames. In this, however, he failed, after spending a large sum of money.[6]

The wall was probably that of the outer ward, which would be necessary to retain the banks of the ditch, and the commencement of that which still remains. The failure could scarcely be in the admission of the Thames, which required only a certain depth of excavation, but was rather in the retaining it full at low tide, so as to make it really a wet ditch. This important object was attained in a later reign, by a new and ingenious arrangement. In his excavations, Longchamp encroached upon land belonging to Trinity Church, East Smithfield, and took a mill from St. Katherine’s Hospital. These trespasses were much complained of, and seem to have been the same on account of which a compensating rent-charge was afterwards paid by Edward I. There is still a small burial-ground on the east glacis of the Tower, which is said to be a part of the land then taken. There was also an earlier trespass on Church lands by the constables, for Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, took by force from Trinity Priory, in East Smithfield, land near the Tower to make a vineyard, which was not restored to that church until towards 1137.

Longchamp, whose patent directed the lieges to obey him, even as the king himself, commenced by imprisoning Bishop Pudsey, his rival justiciar. His unpopularity was fostered by Prince John, who headed a party against him, and took occasion of his ill-treatment of the Archbishop of York to summon Longchamp to appear before a council at Loddon, by Reading. Longchamp refused compliance, but retired before John’s superior force to London, where he entered the Tower with all his train, pressed by the citizens, who took part against him and blockaded the fortress by land and water. John, with many barons and bishops, reached London on the 8th of October, 1191, and held a council in the chapter-house, in St. Paul’s Churchyard, on the 9th, summoning the people by the sound of the bell. Here the Archbishop of Rouen and William Mareschal produced Richard’s declaration from Messina, limiting the independent powers of the justiciar, whom the meeting then deposed by acclamation. Four earls and as many bishops conveyed this sentence to Longchamp, who fell senseless upon the floor. On the following morning, at an early hour, John assembled an immense host in East Smithfield, a great green plain near the Tower, and summoned the justiciar to a parley. He surrendered upon terms at once, far too soon for his credit, and marched out with his followers and household stuff to Bermondsey, whence with much difficulty and through various dangers he reached Normandy.[7] The Archbishop of Rouen then took charge of the Tower; but the chancellor, as is well known, retained or resumed his office, and on November 21, 1194, the well-known William Fitz-Osbert impleaded his brother Richard in the Curia Regis (“Rot. Cur. Regis.” xi., xvii.) for having said, “In recompense for the money taken from me by the chancellor within the Tower of London, I would lay out forty marks to purchase a chain in which to hang both king and chancellor.”

Various entries in the Pipe Rolls of Richard show that the usual repairs of the Tower, and especially of the royal apartments therein, still went on. Unfortunately, although the sums are given, the detail of their outlay is very generally omitted.

The entries extend from the first to the tenth of the reign, and relate to nine years, during which about £610 was spent on the Tower and its houses. The recipient was sometimes Wm. Puincell, the constable; at others, Jordan de Turri, Richard le Duc, John Fitz-Erlecum, and others. Sometimes under the king’s brief, sometimes the chancellor’s. In one year, lime cost £46. 9s. 6d. In the first of the king, 50 marcs were spent upon the “Royal Chapel in the Tower.” The ditches are mentioned 5 Richard I.

Longchamp’s reign was so short that it is difficult to understand how he managed to execute as much as he undoubtedly did. The rolls of the early years of Richard I. do not indeed show above one or two hundred pounds of outlay, but the chancellor had the command of other funds; and one cause of his excessive unpopularity with the citizens was the avidity with which he took upon himself to tax them.

Prince John, when he succeeded to the throne in 1199, was not inattentive to the wants of the Tower. In his two first years, Elias, the engineer, was employed upon the king’s houses and works, and similar entries appear in the fifth, tenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth years. In the sixteenth the sum was considerable—£117. 15s. 8d.; and in the seventeenth the charge, £12, is for building the mud or “clay wall between the Tower [precinct] and city,” which wall is often referred to in later surveys. On the whole, the Pipe Rolls of the reign are scanty as regards the Tower, but they are in some degree replaced by entries upon the Mise, Close, and Patent Rolls, which show that it was kept up as a royal residence, and that the king occasionally stayed there.

In 1209 and 1210, 9s. 4d. were given in alms to one hundred poor there; and in the latter year Osmund, a knight bound for Poictou, received a gift of ten marcs, and, to buy a horse, a hundred shillings from the king. This was given in the “Church of St. Peter at the Tower of London”; and is the earliest known mention of that building. Here also, on Sunday, the morrow of St. Philip and Jacob, Steffan, the messenger of the emperor, received half a marc on his return to his lord, and other payments were made here.

In 1212 the Archdeacon of Durham and Philip de Ulecote are ordered to send in all haste to London thirty carratas (cartloads) of lead for covering the Tower; and, in 1213, among orders for repairs for the castles of Rochester, Canterbury, and Guildford, is mention of carriage of timber and “busca” (faggots), for the works of the Castle of Dover and the Tower of London. It was about this time that the city ditch was deepened, and widened to a breadth of 200 feet. In 1215, Henry de Nevill was to supply ten oaks for the works at the Tower, five from within Havering Park and five from outside it.

It was also in 1215 that the barons seized upon London, and that the Tower was given over to be held by the Archbishop of Canterbury until Assumption Day as a pledge for the king’s performance of certain engagements. The rights of either party to the Tower were suspended, and the king was not to reinforce the garrison. The great charter was signed 15th June. The barons, however, continued virtually in possession until the arrival of the Dauphin, to whom it was given up in 1216, and by him held until he left the kingdom.

Mr. Hardy, in his valuable “Itinerary of King John,” shows that he executed instruments at the Tower upon seventy-two days during his reign of seventeen years and a half. In 1204, he was there 28–30th January, 27–30th May, 2–3rd November. In 1205, 28th April and 13–16th August. In 1207, 2nd July. In 1208, 21st January, 10th, 19th–21st February. In 1209, 9th October. In 1210, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 19th February, 2nd May, and 27th October. In 1211, 1–3rd and 18th April. In 1212, 18–20th May; 2–4th June; and 20–22nd September. In 1213, 16th and 17th April; and 21–23rd, 26–29th December. In 1214, 2–5th, 12th, 13th January; and 29th–31st October. In 1215, 1–6th and 14–18th March; and 19th April.

As Henry III. has usually been regarded as the builder of much of the Tower as it now stands, and did undoubtedly execute considerable works there, it will be convenient here to examine into the probable condition of the fortress at the time of his accession.

It has been shown, from structural evidence, that the Wakefield Tower, and probably the shell of Devereux Tower, and perhaps that of Bell Tower, are at least as old as the reign of John; and that there is great reason to regard the original Wardrobe and Lanthorn Tower and its curtains, and the Cold Harbour wall and Gate towers, and the contained palace, all now destroyed, as of the age of Wakefield Tower. Also, as St. Peter’s Church existed in the reign of John, and was “apud Turrim,” or within the walls, these, between the Bell and Devereux Towers, where they pass close to the church, were also then existing. We should thus have the wall of enceinte of the present inner ward, from Lanthorn Tower to Wakefield, Bell, and Devereux Towers, as the extent of the fortress on the south and west fronts. The north curtain, now mostly destroyed, seems to have been of the same date as is the east curtain, though probably some of the towers upon these—the Bowyer, Jewel, Constable’s Broad Arrow, and Salt—are of later reigns.

Then there was the ditch deepened and widened by Longchamp, with a wall on the line of that of the present outer ward. The quay and the river front, from Iron Gate to Byward, with St. Thomas’s Tower, were not then constructed, nor was the Bloody or Gatehouse Tower. Probably the inner ward wall abutted direct upon the river shore.

Henry III. began his reign in 1216, and the attention of his prudent guardian, the “rector regis et regni,” seems at once to have been turned to the Tower. In 1217 the sheriff of Essex and Herts is to pay to Nicholas Rowland £10 for repairs of the king’s houses in the Tower; to which is added, in the next year, £8. 9s. 11d. and £19. 9s. 11d., also to the same Nicholas. About the same time (2 Henry III.) 6s. 1d. is paid for the transporting the king’s breastplates (loricas) to the Tower; 3 Henry III., £9. 13s. 1d. is paid for repairs of the king’s hall, and the broken wall of the chamber; and the houses within the ballium of the Tower are to be repaired upon the view and testimony of certain lawful men; and (5 Henry III.), at a cost of 17s., four tables “ad mensam,” for the use of the king, are to be placed in the Tower. The year before this (4 Henry III.), the Pleas of the Crown, in the City of London, were heard before the justices in the Tower.

In 1221, Peter, Bishop of Winchester, was to have £11. 10s. for the repairs of the king’s house, executed when the Tower was in his hands; and Richard de Munfitchet was to supply Stephen de Segrave, the constable, with timber of the best quality, from Havering, for planks for the completion of the “jarellum” [jarolium, barrier] about the Tower.

The king was there in person in these years, for his expenses for five days there, in 1219, were £19. 1s. 7¼d.; and next year 100 marcs were paid towards his expenses there during Lent, and 200 marcs repaid to Pandulph the legate, then Bishop of Norfolk, advanced on the same account. In that year, also, the king had at the Tower a supply of 10 lampreys, part of a debt due from the city of Gloucester to his lamprey-loving father.

1221 was a busy year at the Tower. Many military implements and stores, and seven cartloads of prisoners, were brought in by Alex. de Sabrichtsworth, from Biham, the surrendered castle of Wm. de Fortibus, at a cost of 5s. 10d. Henry was there 28th February and 5th March. The next year also included several accounts connected with the siege of Biham. The works were also continued. Stephen de Segrave had 30 marcs for the repairs of the ballium wall; and Peter de St. Edward, with Andrew Buckerell, the chamberlain, 70 marcs of the amerciament levied on the London vintners, for works at the Tower. 8th December, 1221, Nicholas Mazon, who made the well, had five marcs. Timber and materials were sent in by the sheriffs of Essex and Bucks.

In 1222, 8s. 1d. was paid for the repairs of the wardrobe in the king’s chamber at the Tower, and for making a chimney in the same, and 10s. for a robe for Robert le Champenies, clerk of the works. Chimneys in those days were not always flues within the wall, but shafts of wood, or other temporary material, placed against it.

7 Henry III., 1222–3. The Close Roll credits Richard Benger and Thomas Lamberde with £10. 12s. 1d., which they paid by the king’s precept to Peter of Poictou and his companions, keepers of the works of the “New Turrelle,” or turret, of the Tower of London, for the work of the said turret. Mr. Hugo applies this entry to the Bell Tower; it may, with equal or more probability, be applied to the superstructure of the Wakefield Tower.

Pandulph the legate appears to have been custos in 1223, and in that capacity entertained at the Tower John de Brienne, titular King of Jerusalem, and the Grand Master of the Hospital, then in England to promote a crusade. In this year the king acknowledged the receipt of “unum austurcum” (a goshawk) at the Tower. John de Monmouth and the vendors of “cableicium,” or underwood, in Dean Forest, out of the king’s gift thereof to the Priory of Llantony, are to find 40 chevrons for the repairs of the Tower; and the sheriffs of London are to restore the “palum coram postico,” or “gallows before the postern” of the Tower, and the gallows outside of the Tower. 26th May, 1224, the king’s crown was lodged in the Tower by the treasurer.

The Pipe Roll of 9 Henry III., 1224–5, contains various entries relating to the Tower:—34s. 1d. was paid for “pro husciis de cute et de feltrio [housings of hide and of felt or compressed wool, or gambeson], ad balistas Regis, etc., cooperiendas,” for housing the king’s balistæ which are in the Tower; and for iron and steel (ascero) delivered to the constable for the works there, 2 marcs. Also for charcoal (carbo), for the king’s smiths’ work there, 8s. 6d.; and to Thomas de Blunvill, 50 marcs for the king’s works; and for charcoal for making the king’s “quarells” (cross-bow bolts), &c., by “Thomas Faber” (the smith), in the Tower, 8s. 7d.; and for mending the king’s houses in the Tower, 29s. 7¼d.

In the tenth year, besides the sum of 42s. and 3s. 11d., for charcoal for works, Thos. de Blunvill received the value of £12. 3s. in six caretatis, or cartloads, of lead, “ad novam turrellam turris Lond: cooperiendam,” and four loads, value £8. 0s. 19d., for the same purpose; so that the lead on the roof of the new turret cost at least £20. 4s. 7d. At this time Blunvill had £40 per annum as custos.

In the two next years, 1226–8, 96s. 11d. was paid for charcoal, Thomas Faber being the master-workman; and Henry Fitz-Alchi had 100 marcs for the Tower works. For the three following years the rolls are silent. In 1232, Hubert de Burgh had a fee of £50 per annum as constable; and in 16 Henry III., 113s. 10d. was paid for iron, steel, and charcoal, purchased and delivered to Roger le Smith, in the Tower, for making quarells and other work.

In 1233, the Tower became the enforced residence of Isabel, the king’s sister, until her marriage with the Emperor Frederick, in 1235; and 28th April, 1236, Henry adopted the unusual course of adjourning a council of his magnates to the Tower. The assembly, as was to be expected, was but thinly attended, and in consequence was further adjourned to Westminster.

On 2nd March, 1238, 22 Henry III., the Liberate Roll contains an entry, which is repeated as follows in the corresponding Pipe Roll:—“Et in cameris Regis in turri Lond: reparandis et chimenee Camere Regine perficiendis et uno spiro de bordis bono et decenti faciendo inter cameram et capellam nove turrelle eiusdem turris prope aulam Regis versus tamisiam xvi_li._ iij_s._ viij_d._ per breve, etc.” “And for repairing the king’s chamber in the Tower of London, and completing the chimney in the queen’s chamber, and for making a good and fitting spur [partition] of boards between the chamber and chapel of the new turret of the same Tower, near the King’s Hall, towards the Thames, £16. 3s. 8d., by brief, &c.” This is one of the few notices of repairs the precise place of which can be identified. The new turret is undoubtedly the first floor of the Wakefield Tower, known to have been near the King’s Hall and towards the Thames, and of which the chapel, or oratory, still remains.

In the same 1238, 23rd November, the Liberate Roll shows the king to have ordered the constable to cause the walls of the queen’s chamber, “which is within our chamber at the Tower, to be whitewashed and pointed,” and within the pointings to be painted with flowers; “and to cause the drain of the privy chamber to be made in the fashion of a hollow column, as our beloved servant John of Ely shall more fully declare to thee.”

In the 24 Henry III. is a charge of £30. 16s. 4d. for purchasing and conveying to the Tower “una navata,” or shipload, of marble, and four shiploads of Purbeck marble, for the works of the Tower. It is only in the cills of the two windows of the sacrarium of St. Thomas’s Tower that Purbeck stone has been discovered in position; but much of this material remains upon the rampart walks and in other places in the fortress, whither, no doubt, much of it was imported in this reign, and especially at this time, for the works then in progress, which in 1239 were considerable. A good deal of Kentish rag was used, and both Ryegate and Caen stone for ashlar. Often the material for building was brought a great distance. Henry II. and Edward III. used Egremont stone for Windsor. Matt. Paris describes the treasury as well filled, which unusual condition, and looming troubles of the realm, probably disposed Henry to add to the security of his stronghold. The new works were unpopular in the city, the citizens fearing, and not without reason, that they would be employed in some way to their detriment. On this subject they addressed a remonstrance to the king, who assured them that the works were not intended to be employed to their injury. “I only,” said he, “imitate my brother, reputed a wiser man than I, in rebuilding my castles.”

It seems that a fine gateway and a wall were completed, but fell suddenly on St. George’s night (23rd April), 1240, and were immediately rebuilt by the king. A year later, in 1241, the same structures, or as much of them as had been rebuilt, again fell down, and this time the citizens found a supernatural reason for the event. On the night of the second fall, says Matt. Paris, a certain grave and reverend priest saw a robed archbishop, cross in hand, who gazed sternly upon the walls with which the king was then girdling the tower, and striking them sharply, asked, “Why build ye these?” on which the newly-built work fell as though shattered by an earthquake. The priest, too alarmed to accost the prelate, addressed himself to the shade of an attendant clerk, “Who, then, is the archbishop?” “St. Thomas the Martyr,” was the answer, “by birth a citizen, who resents these works, undertaken in scorn and to the prejudice of the citizens, and destroys them beyond the power of restoration.” On which the priest remarked, “What outlay and labour of the hands he has destroyed!” “Had it been,” said the clerk, “simply that the starving and needy artificers thence promised themselves food, it had been tolerable; but seeing that the works were undertaken, not for the defence of the realm, but to the hurt of the citizens, even had not St. Thomas destroyed them, they had been swept away utterly by St. Edmund, his successor.”

That night the priest told his tale, and next morning the walls about the tower, built at a charge of about 12,000 marcs, were seen upon the ground, to the surprise, but by no means to the grief, of the citizens, to whom they had been as a thorn in the eye. Notwithstanding the prediction of St. Thomas, the works were at once resumed, and this time with complete success.

No doubt the wall and gateway were St. Thomas’s Water-gate and the adjacent curtain along the south face of the fortress, and upon the bank of the river, where the wet ground and the treacherous character of the London clay, exposed more or less in the old city ditch and that of Longchamp, would render the archbishop’s task an easy one. The story may be taken to show that in 1239–40 Henry was engaged in extensive works about the Tower, including the outer ward wall and tower, the quay, and the present ditch; and the present works show that they were of sufficient importance to be replaced, at whatever cost, when destroyed by an accident. Probably the architect learned experience by the event; for it is remarkable that no serious mark of settlement from defective foundation has been observed either in the work of the outer ward or in any other part of the fortress, and this is more singular because part of the masonry must have traversed the line of the old city ditch. This stability is probably due to the great breadth of the foundations, and to the fact that the fortress contains no underground chambers, the towers below the ground level, and sometimes far above it, being solid.

The resumption of the works on the wall and west gateway did not lead to the neglect of the royal residence within. 24th February, 1240, 24 Henry III., the king, according to the Liberate Roll, thus addressed the custos of the works:—“We command you to cause the chamber of the queen, in the aforesaid tower, to be wainscotted without delay, and to be thoroughly whitened internally, and newly painted with roses; and to cause to be made a wall [partition] in the fashion of wainscot between the chamber and the wardrobe of the same, and let it be entirely covered externally with tile; and also cause one great chamber in the same tower to be entirely whitewashed and newly painted, and all the windows of the same chamber to be made anew with new wood and bolts and hinges, and to be painted with our arms, and barred with iron where needful. Moreover, repair and mend all the glass windows in the chapel of St. John the Baptist within the said tower, where necessary; and repair all the windows in the great chamber towards the Thames with new wood, with new bolts and hinges, and bar them well with iron; and in the corner of the same chamber make a great round turret towards the Thames, so that the drain of the last chamber may descend into the Thames; and make a new cowl on the top of the kitchen of the great tower.”

The Liberate Roll of the same year, January, 1240, orders “a mantel” to be painted in the Tower, with a personification of Winter with a sad visage and miserable contortions of the body.

And on the 10th December following (25 Henry III.) the keeper is further ordered, “To repair the granary within the same tower, &c., and to cause all the leaden gutters of the great tower, through which rain-water should fall from the summit of the same tower, to be carried down to the ground; so that the wall of the said tower, which has been newly whitewashed, may be in no wise injured by the dropping of rain-water, nor be easily weakened. And make on the same tower on the south side, at the top, deep alures of good and strong timber, entirely and well covered with lead, through which people may look even unto the foot of the said tower, and ascend, and better defend it, if need should be. And also whitewash the whole chapel of St. John the Evangelist in the same tower, and make in the same chapel three glass windows, one, to wit, on the north part, with a certain small figure of Mary holding her child; the other, on the south side, with the [subject of the] Trinity; and the third on the same south side, with St. John the Apostle and Evangelist; and paint the cross and beam beyond the altars of the same chapel, and with good colours. And cause to be made and painted two fair images, where they may be best and most decently made in the same chapel, one of St. Edward holding a ring and giving it to St. John the Evangelist. And whitewash all the old wall around our aforesaid tower.”

From these orders, we learn that the chapel in the White Tower was whitewashed, glazed, had three painted windows, and a painted beam and rood behind the altar, besides painted figures, no doubt in fresco, on the wall, of St. Edward and St. John the Evangelist. The great chamber towards the Thames, being enumerated in conjunction with the chapel, might be supposed to be the state-room in the White Tower; but “the great round turret towards the Thames, with the contained drain,” could not apply to the White Tower, nor indeed to any of the existing towers on the Thames front. It may have been the Lanthorn Tower.

The White Tower is spoken of as newly whitewashed. This was no doubt intended to make good any irregularities in the masonry, for 28 Henry III., the tower at Corfe was ordered to be pargetted with mortar where necessary, and the whole exterior to be whitewashed. It is not quite clear what were the alures, so minutely specified, on the top of the south front of the White Tower; probably a bretasche or hoarding, since no other work would enable the defenders to see the foot of the wall. It might have been supposed that at so great a height no extra defence from missiles would have been necessary, and supposing the inner ward to be taken, it would be from the higher ground on the north, rather than on the south side, that the effect of archery or warlike engines would be the greatest.

In this same 25 Henry III. Peter Bacun and Richard de Fresingfeld and their fellows, keepers of the Tower works, had £36; also £24. 40d. was paid for twenty breastplates and twenty halbergeons, purchased for the defence of the Tower, and delivered to the constable. So important were the works at this time that an order was made that “before closing the Exchequer the barons were to audit the accounts of the custos of the works of the king’s Tower of London.” In 26 Henry III. the chaplain ministering in the Tower chapel had 50s. per annum.

Among the regulations in use about this time were several relating to the legal position of the Tower, recorded in the Liber Albus. Thus, when the Exchequer was closed, the mayor was to be presented at the Tower, and the Pleas of the City with the crown were sometimes held there; and when this was the case the city barons were to place their own “janitors” outside the Tower gate, and the king’s janitor was to be on the inside. They further had an “ostiarius” outside the door of the hall where the pleas were held, to introduce the barons, and the king had an “ostiarius inside.” The hall was no doubt the building afterwards superseded by the office of Ordnance, and the entrance to which is thought to have been by the modernised doorway close east of the Wakefield Tower.

The next entry discovered is upon the Liberate Roll, 29 Henry III., 3rd December, 1244, by which the constable of the Tower is ordered to deliver to Edward Fitz-Otho as much lead as shall be necessary to execute certain specified works at Westminster. It was in this year that Griffith-ap-Llewelyn, in attempting to escape by a rope from his prison in the Tower, fell and broke his neck. Griffith was corpulent, and the White Tower whence he let himself down was lofty. His rope was composed of bed linen and the like, and broke. 30th April, the king publicly declares this unfortunate accident, and attributes the neglect to the attendants, whose duty it was to take charge of the prisoner.

31 Henry III., 1246–7, the constable had sixty marcs for constructing “quandam turrellam,” a certain turret; and next year forty marcs more were paid for making a certain turret, a privy chamber, and other works. 33 Henry III., fourteen cartloads of lead were purchased for £32. 9s. 10d., and delivered to Peter Blund, the constable.

In 34 Henry III. the Pipe Roll shows Edward of Westminster and the constable to have had sixty marcs for Tower works, and the keepers thirty marcs for repairing and covering the king’s houses and for lead for the works. Next year, 1250–1, ten marcs went for repairing and covering walls and turrets, and £4. 8s. 6d. for two loads of lead for the same operation upon the king’s houses.

37 Henry III., Adam de Lamburn, master of the Tower works, had £10, and the keepers, also for works, £30, and Adam again £12, and next year the keepers for works fifty marcs more. 39 Henry III., 1254–5, £22. 20d. was paid for a house for the king’s elephant, 40 feet long by 20 feet wide. This was a present from the King of France, and is said by Matt. Paris to have been the first elephant seen north of the Alps. There was also paid for repairs of houses and turrets, £59. 6s. 2d. Next year, £52. 11s. 3d. was paid for works begun by the sheriff of the year preceding, and for Tower shortcomings £37. 2s. 9d.; and 41 Henry III., £90. 14s. 9d. for stones for completing the already commenced Tower quay, and for the Great Wardrobe and other deficiencies.

42 Henry III., 1257–8, two sums of 101s. 8d. and £4. 12s. 6d. were paid for lead gutters and other repairs; and 43 Henry III., £36. 3s. 8d. for repairs of the king’s houses, and for making a new stable and repairing an old one, and gutters, and a “claustura,” or partition, for the same tower, £17. 15s. 7d.

This was the year, 1258, in which, under the Provisions of Oxford, the barons seized the Tower and placed in it Hugh le Bigod as custos. There was in this year a brief,—“In emendacionem planchicii[8] turris Lond: et turrella ejusdem turris versus aquam cooperienda, etc.” Henry soon afterwards, by the permission of the pope, broke faith with his subjects, and regained the Tower, where he was resident in February, 1261, and ordered 40s. to Theodore de Castell for iron for the King’s Tower works, taken from him.

The circumstances of the country forced the king into active measures for the conservation of the fortress. He spent Christmas, 1260, there with his queen, and employed the money at his command in completing the defences. Probably it was about this time that the water-gate was ready, and the tidal ditch converted into a wet moat. Matt. Paris mentions the efforts now made to strengthen the place, and how the king at this time invited the citizens to swear fidelity to him, and to take service in his army then mustering outside the city. He also again named the Tower as the place of meeting for a Parliament to be holden 21st February, 1261, 45 Henry III.

The councillors did not respond to the summons. The king kept Easter in the fortress, whither the bailiffs of Gloucester were directed, 18th March, to send up daily as many lampreys as they could take; and, 17th April, the bailiffs of Waltham were to supply 60s. worth of good fine bread and loaves of four for a penny, and to send them to the royal pantler at the Tower for the usual dole on Easter eve. Similar perquisitions were addressed to the bailiffs of Barking and Dartford, to those of Kingston and Watford, to the extent of 40s., and to the mayor and sheriffs of London to £20. In all, £33 worth of bread was to be distributed. There were also orders for 164 tunics on the part of the king and queen, to be delivered to the royal almoner, and 21 tunics on the part of the royal children; all to be distributed to the poor according to custom. Henry remained at the Tower till about the 20th April.

Prince Edward returned to England in that year, but did not act with his father, whose advisers he distrusted. The king, however, seems to have held the Tower, and kept Christmas of 1261 within its walls. Thence, leaving John Mansell in charge, he went to Dover, and so by Rochester to Winchester for Whitsuntide. There, however, the barons prepared to seize him, and he retired to the Tower, where he remained till October. Christmas of 1262 he again spent at the Tower.

After some time passed beyond sea, and a Christmas at Canterbury, Henry failed to meet his enemies at Worcester, and returned, 47 Henry III., to the Tower, where, with his queen, Prince Edward, and the King of the Romans, he consulted with the mayor and aldermen of London on the subject of de Montfort, and soon afterwards with that nobleman himself. One result was the placing Hugh le Despenser in charge of the Tower. It was in this year that the queen, leaving the Tower by water to join the prince at Windsor, was hooted at and pelted by the populace on the bridge, and forced to put back. In the same year, John Sperling, at a cost of £7, erected a “palicium,” or palisade, between the Tower and the city wall; and two years later he had altogether £25. 10s. 3d. for covering-in the king’s houses, repairing the king’s garderobe, &c.

Henry was again at the Tower in 1265, after the battle of Evesham; and in 1268 the fortress, then commanded by Hugh Fitz-Otho, and containing the papal legate, Ottobon, was besieged by Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester. The Jews, who with their families had been harboured in the Tower, contributed personally to its defence. Gloucester threw up earthworks and attempted a blockade; but in May and June, Henry, approaching by Windsor and Stratford, encamped there for two months, and, throwing in a reinforcement, brought out the legate by the south postern towards the river, and established him with the army at Stratford, forcing Gloucester to sue for peace.[9]

The hall of the Tower and other houses cost £20 in repairs in 1268–9, and in other repairs £12 in the next year; but nothing is recorded concerning the following and two closing years of the long reign of Henry III.

With the death of Henry and the earlier years of his son the history of the Tower, as a specimen of military architecture, may be said to decline, and its history as a state prison, if not to begin, to preponderate. Edward at once continued and completed the works commenced by his father, and probably was thus employed for ten or twelve years. In 1274, 2 Edward, the treasurer was to pay 200 marcs towards the work of the ditch, then nearly made, about the bulwark. This was the loop ditch surrounding the barbican, planned by Henry III., but no doubt then first excavated. Besides this, in 1287, the main ditch seems to have been under enlargement, and its encroachment upon St. Katherine’s land was valued in 1302 at 73s. per annum. The clay taken out was sold by the constable to the tylers working in East Smithfield. In 1289, it yielded 20s., but had averaged £7—about £100 in our day. Bayley tells that 600 Jews were at one time imprisoned here by Edward, 1281–2, as clippers of the coin. On 8th October, 1303, the king, then at Kinloss, ordered the Abbot of Westminster and his 80 monks to be imprisoned in the Tower, on a charge of stealing £100,000 of the royal treasure. The following mandate, of three years’ later date, shows the form in which prisoners were committed. It relates to a Scottish gentleman of rank. “Mons: P: de Graham et vadletz, soient enveez, par bon conduyt, a Londres, et livrez au Conestable de la Tour illueques: et q’il les face garder en fers, en bon et sur lieu, denz meisme la Tour, si sauuement, et si surement, come le Conestable voudra respondre de eux, corps pour corps; et q’il lor face trouver lor sustenance meanement.”

In 1307 occurs a curious sanitary order. “Whereas Margaret, Queen of England, is about to dwell awhile in the Tower, the mayor and sheriffs, to prevent infection of the air, ‘per accensionem rogorum,’ are to prohibit and punish any one ‘burning pyres’ or doing anything by which the air can be corrupted.” Dated, Carlisle, 28th June.

Edward II. was more dependent upon the Tower for personal safety than as a prison. His eldest daughter, hence called “Jane de la Tour,” was here born. In 1312, he put the Tower in a state of defence against his barons; and, in 1324, shut here the two lords, Roger Mortimer of Wigmore and his namesake of Chirk. Their escape is described in the “Opus Chronicorum.” They were shut up “in eminentiori et arctiori loco Turris,” which should mean the White Tower. They drugged the drink of their keepers, and in a stormy night escaped by breaking the wall, and thus reached the annexed palace kitchen, from the top of which, by a rope-ladder, and aided from within the walls, they reached the Thames and thus fled the country.

Two years later, Mortimer of Wigmore returned with the queen, and took arms against Edward, who put the Tower in order, sending thither 100 coats of mail (Pell Rolls, 158), and there, 20th June, he received the city authorities. On the 2nd October he fled, leaving his son, John of Eltham, in the Tower, and Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, in charge of the city. The citizens, as is well known, rose and beheaded the bishop, and next day, falling in with John de Weston, the constable, they extorted from him the keys, and entered the fortress. They seem, however, only to have freed the prisoners, turned out the officials, and appointed their own men, under the nominal authority of Prince John.

The first years of Edward III.’s reign were spent, perforce, in the Tower, until he put down Mortimer and assumed the government. Probably the Beauchamp and Salt Towers, and perhaps the Bowyer, were his work. In the ninth of his reign, by commission, dated Berwick, 16th October, 1336, he ordered a survey of the defects of the Tower to be made, and a jury to be empanelled to declare what repairs were needed. This return was made without delay, and is printed by Bayley. It mentions the gate towards St. Katherine’s, the steps and passages upon the wall, a chamber over the Water-gate; “Corande’s” Tower and “Le Moneye” Tower; the chapel of the Tower; the king and queen’s chapel; two turrets over the old gate, one called “La Plummerye”; and the quay opposite the Thames, with the little postern at one end and “Petywales” at the other. Beauchamp, Bowyer, and most of the other towers are not named,—probably because some were not then built, and others, the work of his grandfather, did not need repair. “Le Blanche Tour” seems not to be the keep, called then “Alta turris.” The other parts named are numerous, but evidently belonged to the palace ward, now destroyed. The result of the return was, that the Tower, next year, was put in order and garrisoned. The Close Roll (10 Edward III.) mentions that, in 1337, the sheriffs of London were to pay £40 out of the farm of the city, to be spent on “the great Tower,” then in great need of repair; and the sheriff of Kent was to bring oak from Havering for the works. The sheriffs of Surrey and Sussex also had to provide £20 for the same service.

The Tower was Edward’s chief arsenal. Thither, 1337–8, the sheriffs of London were to send “5 millia ferri et 200 bordas de Estland [Baltic planks], ac centum quarter carbonum maritimorum” (sea-coal), for making anchors for the “Christopher” and “Cogge Edward,” and for certain works on the Tower. (“Abb. Rot. Orig. II.,” p. 116). Edward was at this time much engaged in preparing for foreign wars, and it was to the Tower that he returned suddenly from Tournay, towards midnight, 30th November, 1340, and punished the constable for negligence. Also between 1340 and 1342 he was much at the Tower, and one of his daughters was born here. The records also show that the Mint had a considerable share of the royal attention.

Mr. Hunter has shown (“Arch.,” xxxii., 380) that, as early as 1347, bills were paid for the manufacture, probably two or three years earlier, of “pulvis pro ingeniis”; and in 1346, “ad opus ipsius Regis pro gunnis suis,” 9 cwt. 12 lb. of saltpetre and 886 lb. of quick sulphur were had; so that gunpowder was then, no doubt, manufactured in the Tower.

About the same time the Tower received the first of a series of illustrious foreign prisoners of war. David, King of Scots, taken at Neville’s Cross, was brought here in January, 1347, and remained here eleven years; so late as 1357–8, £2. 12s. 9d. being paid for medicines supplied to him. Later, in the same year with David, came Charles of Blois, nephew to Philip of France; and still later John de Vienne, governor of Calais, and the twelve brave burgesses of that town. Finally, in 1350, here was lodged John, King of France, and the nobles taken with him, and in the same place of safety the £47,171. 1s. 4d., the first instalment of his ransom.

In 24 Edward III., 1350–1, John de Alkeshull had commission to take, throughout the kingdom, “petram, buscam, carbones, maeremium, plumbum, vitrum, ferrum, et tegulam”; that is, stone, wood, coal, timber, lead, glass, iron, and shingle, and all things needful for the king’s works at Westminster, Windsor, and the Tower. How these materials were divided is not known. Windsor probably received the chief share of them.

In 1354, the king proposed to alter the constitution of the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula at the Tower, and incorporate it as a college, with a dean and three canons, instead of a rector and chaplains. This, however, does not seem then to have been effected, as both Richard II. and Henry IV. nominated a rector to the “Free Chapel of St. Peter.” The actual incorporation did not come to pass until the last year of the reign of Edward IV. It was in 1354 proposed that the standards of weight and measure should be kept at the Tower; and this year the king ordered the city ditch to be cleansed, and prevented from overflowing into the Tower ditch. In Stowe’s time the filth was taken off by a sewer from the City ditch.

Appointments of armourers, bowyers, engineers of the war-slings, &c., show that the store of weapons of war continued to be considerable. In 33 Edward III. all the bows, strings, arrows, “hancipes [two-handed winches] pro balistis tendendis,”[10] in the custody of W. Rotherel, in the Tower, are ordered to be packed in chests, quivers, butts, pipes, and barrels, and sent to Sandwich to cross the water with the king. In 1360–2, various sums were spent in repairs of the king’s record-house in the Tower containing the Chancery Rolls: probably the Wakefield Tower.

Richard II. fulfilled the usual custom of lodging a short time in the Tower before his coronation, that he might proceed in state to that ceremony through the City. Here also he took refuge during Wat Tyler’s rebellion, after which Arnold Brocas was paid £3. 6s. 8d. for repairing the door broken open by the common rebels within the Tower. In 1380–1, a code of regulations was drawn up for the better government of the place. In 1385–6, cannon were sent hence to Porchester. In 1387, Richard came here to escape his uncle the Duke of Gloucester, and at Christmas in that year he was blockaded by the rebel lords, to whom he gave audience within the fortress.

Two years later, in 1389, it was from the Tower that the king went to hold a great feast and tournament in London; and here, in 1396, his new queen, Isabel of France, was lodged before her coronation. Here, finally, Richard signed his abdication in favour of Henry of Lancaster. No work at the Tower can positively be attributed to this reign, or the succeeding one of Henry IV.

It appears from the Issue Roll and the Pell Records of 1 Henry V., that breakfast was provided at the Tower at a cost of £2. 16s. 8d. for Thomas, Earl of Arundel, Henry le Scrop, Lord de Roos, and the Mayor of London, commissioners for trying traitors. This Lord de Roos was William, seventh baron, ancestor of a late lieutenant-governor, whose ancestors on the male side—the Fitzgeralds—also frequently partook of the hospitality of the Tower, though in the less agreeable capacity of prisoners.

Henry V. revived the old glories of the prison by sending hither Charles, Duke of Orleans, taken at Agincourt. An illumination of the period, given by Lord de Ros, shows the duke to have been lodged in the state rooms in the White Tower, and shows also the four windows of the great hall, which adjoined Wakefield Tower on the east.

The strong monarchs employed the Tower as a prison, the weak ones as a fortress; and under Henry VI. it appears in this latter capacity. In 1460, Lord Scales, the king’s governor, was besieged by the Earl of Salisbury, Lord Cobham, and Sir John Wenlock. The city men attacked the west front; Wenlock, from St. Katherine’s; and Cobham, with the artillery, from the Southwark shore, firing across the river. When the south ditch was cleared out and levelled in 1842–3, several round shot of iron and about thirty of Kentish rag stone, from 4½ inches to 10 inches, and in one case 17 inches, diameter, were found, which are supposed to have fallen there on this occasion.

Edward IV. is reputed to have built a bulwark outside the west gate by the Lion Tower. In the eleventh of his reign payments were made for arms and ammunition for the defence and for work upon the fortifications of the Tower. The workmen were brought from Calais. In the same year money was allowed for the expenses of Henry VI., then prisoner in the Tower. Richard III., during his brief reign, pressed masons and bricklayers to complete certain repairs at the Tower.

Probably the walls and towers were allowed to decay by Henry VII.; for Henry VIII., in 1532, ordered a survey to be made with a view to a general repair, which was executed shortly afterwards. The repairs were very considerable, and the masonry was executed in Caen stone backed with brick, and, unfortunately, very much of the Tower seems to have been so faced or cased, and otherwise very seriously altered. The survey is very minute, and throws light upon much that is now destroyed. Mention is made of “Burbedge Tower,” on the wall between Bowyer and Brick Towers, evidently the present Brick Tower, the then “Brick” being the present Martin Tower. “St. Martin’s” Tower was then the outer gate, now “Middle” Tower. The present Salt Tower was then Julius Cæsar’s Tower, and the old Lanthorn Tower was called New Tower. Wakefield is called “the tower where the king’s records lie,” and “Bloody” was then Garden Tower. “Byward” was “the Wardyng Gate.” Two timber bridges, evidently drawbridges, were to be renewed at the west entrance. The keep was then, as now, the White Tower, distinguished by its four turrets.

Byward Tower had a narrow escape in 1548. A Frenchman who lodged in “the round bulwark called the Warden Gate, between the west gate and the postern, or drawbridge,” blew up the bulwark, and himself, with gunpowder. It was rebuilt. There was also in the reign of Edward VI. a drawbridge between Iron and Traitors’ Gate, evidently Cradle Tower. This was used for the reception of great prisoners, the strong iron gate (St. Thomas’s) being almost out of use.

The buildings of the palace probably had fallen into decay in the reign of Elizabeth, by whom, or by James, the Great Hall was removed. Other buildings followed. Many were destroyed by Cromwell and many by James II. to make room for a new Ordnance office, and the remains of the Lanthorn Tower were taken down late in the last century. The White Tower underwent a final disfigurement at the hands of Sir C. Wren in 1663, who Italianised its openings, cased a part of its exterior, and rebuilt two of its turrets. Sir Christopher’s work may be traced throughout the fortress by the Portland stone introduced by him, just as the work of Henry VIII. is indicated by the use of brickwork and rough-cast, and the practice of closing the joints of the masonry with chips and spawls of flint. The ditch was cleansed in 1663, and the quay refaced.

The Tower, at the commencement of the present century, was an extraordinary jumble of ancient and later buildings, the towers and walls being almost completely encrusted by the small official dwellings by which the area was closely occupied. A great fire in 1841 removed the unsightly armoury of James II. and William III. on the north of the inner ward, but the authorities at the time were not ripe for a fire. The armoury was replaced by a painfully-durable Tudor barrack, and the repairs and additions were made with little reference to the character of the fortress. More recently, the general improvement in public taste has made its way even into the Tower. Mr. Salvin was employed upon it until his death, and more recently many modern buildings have been removed, many ancient foundations laid open, and very extensive repairs and some absolutely necessary restorations have been effected, under the skilful and very judicious care of Sergeant-Major Andrews.

Thus much of the Tower as an ancient and very curious military structure, which, throughout the additions, alterations, and subtractions of eight centuries, still preserves the character of an early fortress, and very much of original and peculiar work. It may be that, in some respects, the Tower cannot be compared with others of the great feudal castles of England. It does not, like Dover and Bambro’, stand on the edge of a lofty cliff, commanding an equal expanse of land and water. It has not the solitary grandeur of Corfe, nor its old associations with the Anglo-Saxon times. It does not, like Conway, Caernarvon, Beaumaris, and Harlech, bear the impress of one mind in its design, of one hand in its execution; neither can it boast the rich surroundings of Ludlow, Warwick, or Kenilworth, nor the proud pre-eminence of Windsor, the present residence of the sovereign, the seat of the oldest and most illustrious order of Christian chivalry, the cynosure of four fair counties, rising amidst a rich mantle of forest verdure diversified with the silver windings of the Thames, and the venerable walls and courts of Eton.

The Tower of London can put forth none of these various claims to our attention, but it is not the less the most interesting fortress in Britain. It is the work of the great Norman conqueror of England, founded by the founder of her monarchy. It is the citadel of the metropolis of Britain, and was long the most secure residence of her greatest race of kings. Here they deposited the treasure of the empire and the jewels and regalia of their crown. Here they secured the persons of their prisoners, and minted and stored up their coin. Here the courts of law and of exchequer were not unfrequently held; here the most valuable records were preserved; and here were fabricated and preserved long-bow and cross-bow, sword, lance, and pike, armour of proof, balistæ, scorpions, and catapults, then the artillery and munitions of feudal war. Here, too, as these older machines were laid aside, was first manufactured that “subtle grain,” that “pulvis ad faciendum le crak,” and these “gonnys and bombards of war,” which were to revolutionise the military art, until they themselves should be superseded by later inventions, of which the ancient keep is still the grand storehouse and armoury of the country.

But the Tower has memories surpassing even its associations with the military glories of the state. It has been the prison and the scaffold of not a few of the best and bravest of English blood. Percy and Mortimer, Hastings and Clinton, Neville and Beauchamp, Arundel, Devereux, Stafford, and Howard,—those “old stocks who so long withstood the waves and weathers of time,”—have here found a grave. Here the great house of Plantagenet flourished and was cut down. Here England’s Elizabeth learned the uses of adversity; and here Raleigh solaced his confinement with the composition of that History which has made his name great in letters as in naval enterprise.

Here, too, captive within these walls, and through these gates led to death, were More and Fisher, martyrs for the ancient, and Anne Askew for the purer, faith; Lady Jane Grey, the most innocent and accomplished of victims; Strafford and Laud, firm for the old tyranny; Sir John Elliot, who died broken-hearted in the prison for the new liberty.

No other fortress, no bastile in France, no bargello in Italy, no prison-castle in Spain or Germany, is so deeply associated with the history of its nation, or with the progress of civil and religious liberty.

LUDLOW CASTLE, SHROPSHIRE.

Ludlow Castle is the glory of the middle marches of Wales, and first in place among the many military structures by which the great county of Salop has been adorned and defended. It is a noble specimen of military, palatial, and even ecclesiastical architecture, of high antiquity and of historic fame. It is probably without rival in Britain for the sylvan beauty of its position, in which wood and water, and meadows of wide expanse and rare fertility, are combined with rugged and lofty crags, of which the walls and towers seem to form a component part, so natural are the tints of their lichens, so thick the foliage, and so close the embrace of their ivy. Nor are its associations with the past unworthy of so bright a scene. Here, in the age of chivalry, the Lacys and the Mortimers achieved many of those feats of arms which filled the border counties with their renown. Here Stephen exercised his great personal strength on behalf of the heir of the Scottish throne, who was about to be hauled up into the beleaguered castle by a somewhat uncouth and unusual engine of war; and against these formidable walls the wild tribes of Wales flung themselves for two centuries, only to fall back, like the surge of the sea, broken and scattered. The Castle of Ludlow was the early residence of Edward IV., and the cradle of his infant sons; and here died Prince Arthur, the elder brother of Henry VIII. In rather later times within these walls sat that celebrated Council of Wales of which Henry Sydney was long the President, and which the chambers of the building, ruined and roofless as they are, show to have been lodged so splendidly. Here, too, towards the close of that brilliant but vicious provincial court, the attractions of which were felt even by the austere Baxter, Butler wrote a part of his immortal satire, and the masque of Comus was first given to the world. The history of Ludlow, however, both castle and borough, has already been written,—for its early period, with scrupulous accuracy by Mr. Eyton, and at greater length, and down to a later period by Mr. Wright; and the object of the present paper is only to describe the particulars of the castle, or at least of the military part of it, and thus to supply an admitted deficiency.

The Castle of Ludlow crowns a rocky promontory which projects at a height of above a hundred feet over the union of the Corve with the Teme. Eastwards, and in its immediate rear, and rather lower than the castle, but much above the adjacent plain, stands the grand cruciform church with its lofty central tower, and about and below it the quaint old town. To the north, far below the walls, the Corve and the Teme are seen to wind across the meads which they fertilise, while to the west opens the deep and narrow ravine down which their combined waters flow to the distant Severn. Formerly, when the mead was a morass, and the ravine choked with fallen timber and the irregularities of an obstructed drainage, the defence on these two most exposed quarters must have been peculiarly strong, and an addition, by no means unnecessary, to the security of the march.

The promontory is in plan rather more than a right angle, and its two sides are protected by nature. At a radius of about two hundred feet from the angle a broad and deep ditch has been excavated from cliff to cliff, and thus, as at Norham, encloses an area in plan a quadrant, though not of extreme regularity. This forms the middle ward of the castle, and the inner ward is carved out of it in its south-western corner. The outer ward lies to the east and south, covering the middle ward on its townward side. To form it, the northern and western sides were projected along the cliffs about another two hundred feet, and were connected by a second ditch, now filled up, and which formed the outer defence of the place upon its weakest but least exposed sides. This ditch, the line of which may be inferred from its curtain-wall, was not exactly concentric with the inner ditch, but lay in two irregular lines nearly at right angles to each other, so that the whole area of the castle is in form roughly rectangular, and about 130 yards east and west by 150 yards north and south; including, therefore, about four acres.

The town also was walled, and its walls abutted upon the castle, which thus, as usual under such circumstances, though provided with its own defences, formed a part of the general enceinte. The town-wall may still be traced from the south-western angle of the castle, above the river, to the south gatehouse, which, though encrusted with late building, and disfigured in the manner characteristic of the last and preceding centuries, stills shows a portcullis-groove, and an archway which seems to be in the early English style, and probably of the time of Henry III.

The castle is composed of an inner, middle, and outer ward. The inner ward occupies the south-west angle of the middle ward, and is roughly rectangular, 32 yards east and west by 16 yards north and south. The south wall divides it from the outer ward, and its western is part of the general enceinte. Its two other walls divide it from the middle ward. This ward has three towers, the keep, the bakehouse, and the postern, at its south-east, south-west, and north-west angles. In it is the well.

The middle ward contains a pile of Tudor buildings over and about the gateway, built against the south curtain, which is of Norman date. They abut also upon the keep. Along the north curtain is the grand mass of the state and domestic buildings, composed of the buttery tower, the hall, the state and private rooms, and the square tower, which occupies the north-east angle of the ward. This group forms the grand feature of the castle, being of mixed Norman and Decorated date, of great height, and of lordly dimensions. On one side of the ward is the kitchen, built against the inner ward wall; and opposite to it the well-known Norman chapel, the circular nave of which stands detached, but which formerly had a chancel which abutted upon the curtain.

The outer ward contains at present but few buildings. Near the centre of its curtain is the outer gatehouse, and on its south side a range of Tudor buildings, probably stabling. One square tower, of early date, stands on the east wall, and indicates the boundary of the Norman castle; and another, later and semicircular, on the west wall above the river, bears the name of Mortimer. There were some later buildings, including probably a chapel, at the south-west corner of this ward; but these are in part pulled down, and this quarter of the ward has been walled off, and a public footway made across it. This footway passes through two modern doorways in the outer curtain, the thickness of which is thus seen. The ditch covering the middle is, of course, actually within the outer ward. It is cut in the rock, 13 yards broad, 4 yards deep. 150 yards long, and in part revetted; the revetment being, no doubt, a long subsequent addition. It is crossed and closed at each end by the curtain, and must always have been dry, or nearly so. The general position, and to some extant the plan, of Ludlow, suggests a comparison with Barnard Castle, the outline of which is also Norman.

Before considering the interior of the castle, it will be convenient to bestow a few words upon the walls as seen from the exterior, especially along the road and north fronts. Commencing with the south-west angle, where the front wall branches off towards the river bridge, first comes Mortimer’s Tower, half-round in plan, and in the early English style, in which Hugh Mortimer is said to have been imprisoned in about 1150, but which seems of later date. It has a close gorge-wall, a basement at the ground level, and three upper floors. The basement is vaulted, groined, and ribbed, but the ribs and a large window are insertions. There is a well-stair in the north-east angle, and the upper floor communicates laterally with the curtain, which is lofty. Just below the line of the parapet is a row of corbels intended to support a wooden gallery or brétasche. This tower is of early English or early Decorated date, with additions of the Perpendicular and Tudor periods. Next to this, upon the wall, is the bakehouse tower, placed at the junction of the exterior curtain and that of the middle ward, and to be described with the keep. Beyond this tower the original Norman wall has been raised to 40 feet. In it is what seems to have been a sewer-mouth. Next follows the postern tower, a small Norman tower, square, of bold external and no internal projection, having a Norman door in its gorge; and another, the postern, of 4 feet opening, in its northern face. This tower is closed up and inaccessible. The upper part seems an addition. It marks the junction of the inner and middle wards. From it the curtain is continued northward at the same height; the lower part, at the least, being original. Inside, various buildings, now removed, were placed against this wall, and the wall itself is pierced by chambers and galleries not now accessible. Upon it is corbelled out the vent of a mural garderobe, which has been supplemented by the addition of a hollow shaft placed as a buttress below the corbels.

At the north-west angle is a group of towers, forming the angle, and which contain the buttery. The first has a rectangular projection, in the base of which is a round-headed sewer of 2 feet opening. Connected with this is a second tower, a half-octagon in plan, much patched and added to, but the lower part of which is Norman, and the upper early Decorated. This group is very lofty, and has a battering base, so that the weight is thrown backwards well within the edge of the cliff. Across the hollow angle, between this last tower and the north curtain, is turned a Norman squinch arch, in the soffit of which is the vent, and above, the loop window of a garderobe. This curtain forms the wall of the great hall and adjacent building. A large stone spout marks the buttery, and beyond are the three exterior windows of the hall. This wall crowns a cliff of about 40 feet, below which a broad platform has been cut in modern times, and from which a second steep slope of 50 feet or 60 feet descends to the meadows. The hall wall ends in a half-octagon, within which is the staircase to the private apartments; and beyond this again is the garderobe tower—a large rectangular mass of great height and breadth, and very bold projection, and entirely of Decorated date. In each of the three faces, at the base, are two large shoulder-headed recesses, each containing a vent, the sloping shoot from which is 6 feet long. In the floors above are various windows, of one light with trefoiled heads, and above rises the lower part of a handsome octagonal chimney shaft.

Beyond the garderobe tower is the wall of a part of the private apartments, mainly of Decorated date, but much altered. In its base are three large early Perpendicular windows of two lights, trefoiled, with tracery in the heads; and above are various Tudor insertions of inferior taste and workmanship, and the timbers of two balconies. This face of the middle ward ends in a square tower of Norman date, which stands at the junction of the walls of the outer and middle ward. From hence the wall is of the outer ward, and seems to have been rebuilt partly in the reign of Elizabeth, to which belongs a small square-headed door, outside which are some ruins upon a platform of rock about 30 feet broad. From hence the wall is modern, nearly to the Norman tower, from which to the gatehouse it is probably Norman. Beyond the gatehouse, to the river cliff, the wall is 5 feet to 6 feet thick and 40 feet to 50 feet high. It is old, but probably not original. The ditch is filled up, and trees have grown along its line, two or three of which must be above a century old.

The Inner Ward.—The keep stands on the higher part of the enclosure, but at some distance from the river cliff, nor has it any natural advantages for defence. It was not intended to stand alone, but, as is often the case with keeps of that age, is placed upon the enceinte, and so forms part of the general line of defence. It is peculiar in that its original plan, though rectangular, had two slight ears or projections, and it was, in fact, slightly ⟙-shaped, and had communications right and left through the arms of the ⟙ with the curtain wall on which it stood. This is very unusual, and quite an exception to the jealousy with which the entrances to Norman keeps are usually guarded. In this respect it is rather a large mural tower than a keep. It has been much altered at various periods, both within and without, and the history of these successive alterations is by no means easy to unravel. The keep is 40 feet long on its south face, which projects about 7 feet beyond the curtain into the outer ward. This is the cross limb of the ⟙. The stem projects from the curtain into the inner ward about 30 feet, and is 31 feet broad.

In the original building there was a basement nearly at the ground level and a lofty upper floor with an open roof. The exterior was plain. It had a low plinth, but no pilaster strips, save that at the end of the east wall there is a sort of pilaster 6 feet broad by 1 foot deep. On the south face a string of half-hexagonal section runs a little above the level of the first floor, and on the east and west faces, a little higher up, are sets-off of 5 inches. The upper story is marked by a similar set-off all round. The north, south, and west walls at the base are 7 feet 6 inches thick, and above it 5 feet. The east wall, containing the staircase, is 9 feet 6 inches thick. Two additions have been made, which much affect the ground plan. On the west, the hollow angle of the ⟙ has been filled up by a building 11 feet broad by 24 feet long, which is carried up to the top, and enters partly into the composition of a north-west turret. The wall of this building is only 3 feet thick. The corresponding hollow angle on the east face is also filled up by a mass of masonry 9 feet thick, but which goes no higher than the first floor. It contains a cell, the porter’s prison, and a passage leading from the main gate to the well-stair of the keep. The porter’s prison is barrel-vaulted, is not bonded into the keep, and is probably very late Norman. There is in the keep wall, partly seen in the vault, a loop or window, though there is no indication inside from whence it opened.

The existing keep is composed of a basement and three floors. At present the basement chamber is entered by a door in the north wall from the inner ward, the first and other floors by a well-stair in the east angle, entered from the main gate. The basement is three steps below the ground level. It is 31 feet north and south and 14 feet 5 inches wide. It has a high-pointed vault, a loop in the south or outer end, and in the north end a loop, and above it a window, and by their side the door from the inner ward. The window recess is slightly pointed, that of the door more decidedly so, but the exterior facing of both door and window is late Perpendicular, four-centred in a flat head. In the side walls, at their north end, on each side is a Norman arcade of two arches, plain and shallow, springing from plain detached columns with fluted and cushion capitals, the whole resting on a low bench. The arcades begin a foot from the north wall, and the arches are full centred, but of unequal span, 4 feet 3 inches and 5 feet 11 inches. The western arcade has been walled up and is only partially seen. On the east side, at the southern arch, the column is gone, and the lower half of its nook is occupied by a sort of altar of square stones, having a large flat stone on its top. The whole work is rude. There are no drips or hood mouldings, and a mere attempt at an incised ornament. The arcade is recessed about a foot. In the east wall, near its south end, are two square-headed doors of 2 feet opening and 7 feet 6 inches apart. Each opens into a passage 3 feet 7 inches long and 2 feet 7 inches broad, and these end in, and are connected by, a cross gallery 12 feet long and 2 feet 6 inches broad. These passages are lined with ashlar and are 6 feet 7 inches high, and flat-topped. The roof is formed of rubble, wedged tight and plastered. Also, each doorway has a rebate and bar-hole, showing that the door opened inwards, and was fastened on the inner side or from the passage, into which, however, there was no other way. It appears also that the great chamber was formerly divided by a cross wall, so placed that one of these doors opened into each chamber, and a step in the rubble vaulting shows where this wall crossed, and that there was a slight difference in the height of the vault on its two faces. The southern of the two doorways has been mutilated and a Norman pier has been inserted, but this seems modern, and a clumsy device to support the roof. It is difficult to understand for what purpose this very curious passage was constructed. It afforded a way from the outer to the inner room, but this does not account for the position of the bar-holes. Moreover, as regards the large room, the arcade seems strangely out of place. It was certainly confined to two arches on each side; and as the room lies north and south, it could scarcely have been a chapel, neither is it likely that it was a room of state. The wall seems at one time to have been lined with ashlar, and there are ashlar bands in the vault, a part of which is built of hammer-dressed stone, and part of very ordinary rubble. The arcade and probably the substance of the building are rather early Norman, and the vault and north wall seem additions in the early English period. This chamber has no communication with the additions either upon the east or the west front.

The first floor is exactly above the basement, and measures 30 feet by 17 feet 6 inches. In its south end is a Tudor window, no doubt replacing a Norman loop; and in its north end are two windows in Tudor recesses, and between them a Tudor fireplace. In the west wall, north end, a round-headed door opens into a side-chamber 8 feet by 13 feet, vaulted, but with a timber floor, having windows to the north and west, and in its east or keep side two round-headed recesses of 3 feet 8 inches opening, and 3 feet deep. In the south end of this room a narrow passage leads into a garderobe chamber, 7 feet 6 inches by 5 feet, with a loop to the west. Between the two rooms is a block of masonry which contains the shafts of the garderobes from the upper story. In the other or south end of the west side of the main room, a lofty full-centred arch of 5 feet 10 inches opening, is the mouth of a vaulted lobby, 13 feet 7 inches long; at first 5 feet 10 inches wide, and then reduced to 3 feet 2 inches. This opens upon the south curtain, west of the keep. In the south wall of the lobby is a small round-headed window in a plain recess, and outside, flanked with nook-shafts, the only ornamented Norman window in the keep. Opposite, in the east wall, is a door, of 4 feet 3 inches opening, which leads into a vaulted and groined chamber, 8 feet square, with a loop to the south, and to the east a short passage 4 feet wide, which opens upon the south curtain and leads to the upper floor of the gatehouse. In the north wall of the chamber is the head of a straight staircase, which threads the east wall of the keep, and was the original entrance from the ground level to the first floor. The staircase is of ashlar, barrel-vaulted, and fifteen steps are still to be seen. Returning to the main chamber, there remains to be noticed a door at the north end of the east wall, which opens into a well-stair, and from it by an outer door into what was the first floor of the gatehouse. This well-stair occupies the north-east angle of the keep. It is entered by a vaulted rising passage in the east wall from the main gate at the ground level, and the staircase rises to the ramparts, opening upon the first and two upper floors. At present its door and window openings are Tudor, but the staircase itself is probably much older. It is evident that here was the original entrance to the keep, as at Chepstow and Carlisle, whence a straight stair led up the centre of the wall to the first floor; but when the lower part of the well-stair was inserted, the straight stair was walled up, and so remains. At Chepstow and Carlisle, besides the staircase, there was a door which gave entrance to the basement floor. This could not have been the case here, for it would have cut the arcade. The cill of the south-east door shows the floor of the first floor chamber to have been slightly raised, which was, no doubt, done when the vaulting was inserted. There are two square holes in the floor, intended to give air to the main room below, and probably late insertions. This story was 12 feet 6 inches high. From it seventeen steps in the well-staircase lead to a Tudor door into the second floor.

The second floor is of the same dimensions with the first. In its south wall is a Tudor window, no doubt replacing one of Norman date; and in the north wall two windows, square-headed, but in round-headed though not Norman recesses. In the east wall, besides the staircase door, is a Tudor fireplace, possibly only refaced in that style. This wall has been much altered and patched, and the fireplace is probably an insertion. In the west wall, at its north end, a door opens into a lateral chamber, above that appended to the first floor, and in it are two garderobes. It has a square-headed loop to the north and three to the west, the central one in a round-headed recess. On a level with this chamber, and probably opening from it, is a small chamber over the west lobby. This has a loop to the west, but is not accessible. There is a similar chamber over the east lobby, but how entered does not appear. This second floor is 11 feet 10 inches high, and from it nineteen steps ascend to the floor above.

The third floor, also entered by a Tudor doorway from the staircase, is of the same dimensions with the floor below. In the east wall is a fireplace, also Tudor, and in the west wall, at the north end, a square-headed door, opening into the third floor of the appended chamber. This chamber has a Decorated window in its north wall, and had a timber floor and ceiling, and is crossed by a round-headed arch which supports the south wall of the north-west turret. A weather-moulding in the south wall shows that this appendage had at first a lean-to roof.

The south wall of the main chamber has also a weather-moulding, showing that this wall was once a gable, and that the keep had originally a high-pitched roof with a central ridge. A Tudor window has been inserted into the wall, and cuts through the moulding. The north wall is pierced by two round-headed recesses, in which are trefoil-headed windows of one light, and apparently of Decorated date. There is no weather-moulding at this end, one of the many indications that this wall has been rebuilt. This floor, like that below it, is 11 feet 10 inches high, and from it nineteen steps ascend to the battlements, opening by a Tudor door at the stair-head. The stair ends in a rectangular turret, 15 feet by 9 feet. The north-west turret, 8 feet by 10 feet, has no opening from the ramparts. The two southern turrets are larger, and both have exterior staircases of twelve stairs leading to their flat roofs. The south-west turret is 15 feet by 14 feet, and the south-eastern, not now accessible, is about 15 feet square. The north and south walls are here 5 feet thick, two being occupied by the embattled parapet. The east wall is 9 feet thick, and contained a double chimney-flue. The west wall is double, the inner 4 feet thick, being the wall of the keep, and the outer 3 feet to the wall of the appendage. The space between, 5 feet 8 inches broad, was covered by a flat roof, so that the rampart here was 12 feet 8 inches broad within the parapet. There were two embrasures on each face of the keep, and the roof last laid upon it was flat.

The keep seems originally to have been built by Roger de Lacy, 1086 to 1096, as a plain ⟙-shaped tower, upon and a part of the curtain wall. It had a basement floor at the ground level, and one upper floor of considerable height, with an open, high-pitched roof, of which the north and south walls, nearly if not quite of their present height, formed the gables, just as in the Norman gatehouse of Sherborne Castle. Probably the side walls were nearly as high as the gables, so as to conceal the roof. The basement was entered at the ground level by a door in the north wall. It had at least two arches of an arcade in each of its side walls, and was probably divided by a cross wall into two chambers, the inner being entered by the passage in the east wall. The entrance to the upper floor was also on the ground level, but in the east wall, and therefore in the middle ward. It was by a small door and short passage, from which, on the south or left, a staircase threaded the east wall, and landed in a vaulted lobby at the level of the first floor. This lobby and one opposite to it led out upon the curtain. How the keep battlements were reached is uncertain, possibly by the present well-staircase, which, in that case, then commenced at the first-floor level.

The first alteration made in the Norman period was probably a century later than the original building. This consisted in the addition of a building on the west front, filling up the hollow angle of the ⟙. It contained a basement, which seems to have been a cesspit, and is now entered by a breach, and is vaulted. The roof was a lean-to. To enter the first floor of this building a door was opened in the wall of the keep. Also on the opposite or east side a mass of masonry was built into the hollow angle of the ⟙. This, however, stopped at the first-floor level, and was probably intended to give a second passage between the first floor and the gatehouse. In the block was a vaulted prison cell for the porter, and a passage which led into and covered the entrance of the keep.

At a later date, during the early English period, still greater changes were made. The north wall was either rebuilt or refaced, the basement was vaulted, and the north-east angle was taken down and rebuilt, a well-stair being probably inserted into it. At the same time the lateral walls and the west appendage were raised, the first floor fitted with a flat ceiling, and two floors inserted above it, with doors into the western appendage, and two turrets were carried up at the two northern angles of the building.

The next and final alteration occurred in the Tudor period, when the vault of the eastern entrance was rebuilt, and faced with an outer door-case, the well-staircase fitted with doors and loops, and the old straight staircase walled up, and fireplaces inserted in the walls. Also the north door and window of the basement were refaced. Of course all this is a matter of opinion only, the alterations having been so great, and of so complete a character, that it is difficult to form even a theory concerning them. This is one of the most curious and perplexing Norman keeps now standing. It is much to be desired that its owner would cause an accurate plan and section of it at each floor to be made and published.

The curtain connecting the keep with the Bakehouse Tower is 36 feet by 38 feet long, 7 feet thick, and about 20 feet high to the ramparts, but it had a covered passage, and rose towards the tower, probably having a narrow staircase communicating with the second floor, while the main gallery opened into the first floor. The tower is rectangular, about 23 feet by 27 feet. It projects 16 feet into the ditch, and its interior measures 15 feet by 11 feet. It was originally open at the gorge into the inner ward, the masonry being replaced, as at Cologne and Avignon, and as in the later gatehouse of the Tower of London, by a timber partition. A large oven has been built at the ground level, filling up the whole area, and an arch turned at the first-floor level, supporting a wall, which replaces the timber work in the upper floors. In this wall are a fireplace, small oven, and window. A door in the east wall opens from the curtain, and in the west wall another door opens into a mural passage in the west or outer curtain, in which it has a loop. On the left, or south, is a garderobe chamber, 6 feet by 5 feet, with a loop to the south, and in the opposite direction the passage runs 11 feet, descending four steps. It probably was continued in the substance of the curtain to the postern tower, but is now walled up. The upper or second wall of the tower is not accessible. It seems to be on the pattern of the first floor, and is entered by an exterior staircase from the south curtain, and on the other side has a garderobe and passage opening upon the rampart of the west curtain, towards the postern tower. The bakehouse tower is Norman, and of the age of the keep. Its floors were of timber.

The Postern Tower is spiked up and inaccessible. It is about the size and height of the bakehouse tower, and of the same date, but its gorge was always closed. At the ground level a small door opens from the inner ward, and there is a similar door on the north and outer face of the tower, which is the postern. Both are full centred and plain. This tower has no internal projection. In the ward, close to the tower door, in a most inconvenient position, is the well, with a shaft worked roughly in the rock, 8 feet in diameter. It is now partly choked up.

The cross curtain from the postern is carried straight to the north-east angle of the ward, and thence turns south, till it abuts upon the keep. This wall, though probably Norman, is not so old as the keep or main curtain, so that in the original castle the inner and middle ward seem to have been one. There is a round-headed door in the curtain near its north-east angle, which opens between the inner and middle ward.

The Middle Ward is the most important division of the castle. In it are the domestic and state buildings, the chapel, the kitchen, and the great gatehouse. The principal buildings occupy its north side, resting upon and partly forming the exterior curtain wall. Near the centre is the hall. This was a noble apartment, 60 feet long by 30 feet broad, and 35 feet high to the springing corbels of its open timber roof. The recesses for the hammerbeams remain, and the corbels on which the principals rested. Owing to the low springing of the main timbers, the roof had from within the appearance of a very high pitch, which the water table shows not really to have been the case. The hall is on the first floor, and approached from the court by a broad exterior staircase, opening in the south wall near its west or lower end. In the north wall are three long narrow windows of one light each, trefoiled, and crossed by a heavy transom, and in the east end of this side a small door leads, probably, into a garderobe. The view from these windows is up the Teme and Corvedale. In the south wall are three large windows looking upon the court; they are of two lights, trefoiled, and crossed by a transom. Their recesses have equilaterally arched heads, and the angles are replaced by filleted beads. One window only has a stone seat. The great door, towards the west end of this side, matches with the window recesses, though a little lower. In the west end are two buttery doors of unequal size, and at the north-west corner a door opens, as at Pembroke, into a well-stair to the roof. In the east end of the hall, near the north-east corner, and high up, is a combined door and window—a sort of hatch, by means of which those in the upper state room could either look into the hall or step down into the gallery that ran across above the dais. The central south window has been blocked up, and converted into a late Tudor fireplace. No doubt the original grate, as at Penshurst, stood in the middle of the hall.

West of the hall is the buttery tower, a very fine group, which occupied the north-west angle of the ward. Part of it projects boldly, and caps the north-western angle of the curtain. The part within the ward is also rectangular. The part connected with the curtain is Norman, and was a large rectangular tower with an open gorge. In its base are two round-headed doorways, now nearly buried, whence mural passages led to garderobes in the curtain. The older part has been raised, and a pointed arch turned, and upon it a wall built, closing the gorge at the second floor. This tower has had large additions on its inner face, and is now a part only of the building, of which the basement seems to have been a store, and the first floor, 33 feet by 27 feet, a serving-room and buttery attached to the hall. This room was entered by a side-door on the great hall staircase, so that the dishes were brought from the kitchen up the great stair, but not through the great door of the hall. In the buttery is a large fireplace.

At the other or east end of the hall are the state rooms, contained within a grand and lofty structure, rectangular in plan, and projecting beyond the hall. Whether the foundations are Norman, or whether, like the superstructure, the whole is of Decorated date, is doubtful. The material is excellent ashlar. There are a basement and two upper floors. In the first is a grand fireplace; but the principal apartments were on the second floor. The door and window openings are numerous and varied. Some are excellent Decorated, with lancet and segmental arches; others are insertions in florid Perpendicular; and others, in wretched taste and of base materials and workmanship, are of Tudor date. The upper room has also a large fireplace, and the abutments of the hood are two carved heads. The north window is of one light, and of great length, divided by transoms. The south window is of similar character, but has two lights. This upper room had an open roof of low pitch, supported by three pairs of principals.

Next to these rooms, on the east side, is a smaller pile of buildings, also rectangular, which fills up the space between the state rooms and the north-eastern tower. This, probably, was appropriated below to servants’ apartments, and above to the principal bedrooms. There are, in the basement, three fine early Perpendicular windows of two lights, trefoiled, and with the centre mullion carried through the head. Windows of this size, so low down in an outer wall, are rare, and what is also curious, they open from two rooms by no means remarkable for size or ornamentation. This part of the suite, originally Decorated, on perhaps a Norman foundation, seems to have been remodelled or rebuilt in the Perpendicular period. Connected with these buildings and with the state apartments, and abutting upon both, is the garderobe tower—a grand rectangular structure projecting from the curtain, and wholly of ashlar, and of Decorated date. It is composed of a basement and four upper floors. The basement is occupied by several garderobes, the spacious outlets of which have already been described. The upper floors seem to be connected with the state rooms, and in the walls are many small chambers not accessible. The windows are of one light, trefoiled, usually with a transom. Between this building and the hall, projecting outside the curtain, is a multiangular turret containing a staircase.

The north-eastern tower caps the angle of the ward. It is rectangular in plan and of Norman date. It forms a part of the two curtains of the middle and outer ward, standing upon each. In its base a door leads into a mural passage in the east curtain, now blocked up with rubbish, and in its first floor is a garderobe in the north wall.

The kitchen, wholly of Decorated date, is a large rectangular building, placed against the wall of the inner ward, but free on the other three sides. It has two large windows to the east, and an excellent door in the north wall opposite to the hall staircase. The flagging of the floor remains, and parts of the large fireplace on the west side, with a couple of small side ovens. It has had divers Perpendicular additions. The back kitchen was to the west, and it is probable that a breach in the adjacent wall of the inner ward represents a late doorway, communicating with the well and the great oven.

The Gatehouse is approached from the middle ward by a bridge over the ditch, of which the inner end was broken by a drawbridge, flanked by walls with loops. The gateway has a low-pointed arch, on a tablet above which are the arms of Elizabeth and those of Sir Henry Sydney, with the date 1581. As the curtain is 7 feet thick, and bonded into the keep, it is evidently original, and the door fittings are an insertion. There is no portcullis. The entrance door opened into a passage, having the porter’s prison and the entrance to the keep on the left, and on the right the gatehouse chambers. The building is of the age of Elizabeth, and very inferior to the older work. Probably the original entrance was by a mere archway in the curtain, as at Kenilworth and Bridgenorth.

The Chapel, dedicated to St. Mary Magdalen, is the most remarkable part of the castle. It stands out in the centre of the middle ward, between the gatehouse and the hall. All of it that remains is the circular nave. This is 28 feet in interior diameter, with walls 4 feet thick. It has an entrance door to the west, and a large chancel arch to the east. The rest of the interior is occupied by a mural arcade of fourteen arches, seven on a side, resting on a low stone bench. The arches are alternately chevron moulded and beaded, the capitals cushion-shaped and roughly ornamented. Above the arcade was a timber gallery resting upon twelve corbels, of which one is decided Norman and one early English. Light was admitted by three windows, to the west, north, and south. That over the door was round-headed, with plain flanking detached shafts, and round the head a chevron and double billet moulding. Outside, these windows rest upon a billeted string, the flanking shafts are engaged, with small plain caps and bases, and the ring-stones, of considerable breadth, rest upon an abacus, and are worked in chevron and billet mouldings. The north and south windows are quite plain.

The west door is a fine example of enriched late Norman work. Outside, it stands in a double recess, having detached nooked flanking shafts, two on each side, with fluted capitals, and the semi-circular spaces above the flutes are covered with a small indented pattern, a sort of hollow nail-head. Of the four, all the caps and one shaft remain. The actual doorway has plain, square jambs. Above, a bold, simple abacus, the under chamfer of which is hollow, has the face carved with the rudimentary dog-tooth ornament. Over the door is a deep chevron moulding. The next ring, over the inner shafts, has a bold beading, and the outer, and much the broadest ring, has a chevron moulding reduplicated, and above it a double billeted drip.

The chancel arch is large, round-headed, and of three ribs, beneath a double billet moulding. The style of ornamentation resembles generally that of the west door. On the west face are two nook shafts on each side, and in addition two half shafts are placed as pilasters in the actual archway supporting the middle rib. This arch and that of the door have become slightly flattened by settlement, as is shown by the gaping of the soffit joints near the crown. The east face of this arch is quite plain, save that the abacus is returned. The original chancel, 42 feet long, had a high-pitched roof, and there is a mark of a second and later one less steep. The side walls are gone. The curtain formed the east wall, and has no window. Outside, the nave is divided into two stages by a billeted string, on which the windows rest, and which is considerably above the top of the door. Above is a plain battlement of no projection, with embrasures one-half the breadth of the merlons.

Two arches of the nave arcade have been pierced for Tudor windows, and a third, to the north, has been converted into a doorway. The north window has also been made a doorway, and it is evident that a light gallery of two stages was laid from the domestic apartments to the chapel, the upper one opening on the circular gallery. The original way to this circular gallery must have been by a wooden stair within the building. The chancel was standing in the reign of Charles II., and had two Tudor windows in its north wall and windows in the roof, also the nave had a saddleback roof, of which the gables were east and west. The material of the chapel is coursed rubble. South-west of the chapel was, in Elizabeth’s time, a fountain. This chapel is, with great probability, attributed to Jocelyn de Dinan in the reign of Henry I. (1100–1135), the Temple Church, which it resembles, dating from 1127.

The Outer Ward.—The gatehouse has been much altered and mutilated. In front it presents the appearance of a gateway, with a low-pointed arch, in a curtain about 6 feet thick and 35 feet high, of which the merlons are pierced by plain loops. On each side the gate is a flanking wall, 3 feet thick, and projecting 8 feet, which, no doubt, covered the drawbridge. The arch looks Decorated, as is probably the curtain, though the battlements are probably modern. The ditch has been filled up, and large trees grow along its course. The only buildings in this ward are placed against the curtain, and have already been noticed.

There is no evidence, material or by record, of any castle here before the Norman Conquest. The “low” or mound known to have been removed from the churchyard, and the memory of which is preserved in the name of the town, is the only ancient earthwork connected with the place, and was, no doubt, sepulchral. The original Norman castle seems to have stood on the present lines. It was composed of a keep, placed close to the entrance, and forming a part of the enceinte. Westward, the keep was connected by a short curtain with the south-west or bakehouse tower, rectangular, of moderate size, and having its inner face or gorge open. From thence the curtain passed at right angles northwards along the edge of the rock to a second tower, also rectangular, and containing a postern. From thence, still along the edge of the rock, the curtain, probably 25 feet high, reached the north-west angle, where it was capped by a tower nearly rectangular, but placed diagonally, so as to cap the angle, and which was open in the rear. Thence the curtain passed eastwards, along the north front, to the north-east angle, where was a tower, square, or nearly so. No doubt the Norman domestic buildings were placed upon this curtain, and probably there was a central tower on the wall near the present garderobe tower. From the north-east tower to the keep was the curved curtain, probably then, as now, free from buildings, and outside of this a ditch, still remaining, and extending from cliff to cliff. Of this original castle there at present remain the keep, the bakehouse and postern towers, the base of the buttery, and much of the north-eastern tower, and more or less of the curtain.

Later in the Norman period certain changes were made. The keep was raised and enlarged, the curtain forming the inner ward was built, and probably the well was sunk, and in the middle ward the chapel was built. The outer ward may have been part of the original design, or it may have been a late Norman addition; that it was not of later date than this is shown by the square mural tower. All the rest, curtain, gatehouse, and Mortimer Tower are later.

The next changes were in the Decorated period, when very important alterations were made in the older parts, amounting almost to a reconstruction of the fortress. Very early in the period, perhaps before it, the north door and window of the basement of the keep were inserted, the vault turned, and probably the gateway remodelled. At a later date, but still early in the Decorated period, the hall, buttery, and domestic apartments were built along the north front and the kitchen.

The works in the Perpendicular style are few, and are confined to alterations in the domestic apartments, and in the entrance passage to the keep and the kitchen.

Then came the Tudor period, in which the castle had to be converted into a palace for the Presidents of the Marches. The base of the keep became a prison, the well-stair was probably inserted, the rooms fitted with Tudor windows and fireplaces, and the gatehouse was built. Much was done in fitting up the hall and domestic apartments, though in a slight and flimsy manner, so that most of this work has disappeared, and stables were built in the outer ward. The extinction of the Council of Wales, and the civil wars, put a stop to any outlay upon the place, and for some time it seems to have been freely pillaged, until it became a complete ruin, without floors, or roofs, or any kind of fittings in lead, iron, or timber. Of late years it has been so far cared for as to be protected against all injuries save those of time and weather, while at the same time it is freely open to all visitors. What is wanted for antiquarian purposes is that the mural passages should be cleared out, and a plan made of each floor.

HISTORY.

Ludlow is apparently a purely Norman fortress. Its earthworks, such as they are, or were, have nothing in common, either in position or character, with the hill forts of British origin, so common in that district; neither do they at all resemble the later and English works attributed to Æthelflæd and her countrymen in the ninth or tenth centuries, and of which Wigmore, Richard’s castle, and Shrewsbury are adjacent types. In plan, indeed, Ludlow is not unlike those works by which headlands and promontories on the seashore were frequently defended, it is supposed, by the Scandinavian sea kings, and of which the entrenchment at Flamborough Head is the finest example on record; but these are seldom, if ever, found far inland, nor is there anything in the two concentric segments of ditches which constitute, or did formerly constitute, the earthworks of Ludlow, inconsistent with the notion that they are Norman works.

There is no mention of Ludlow in Domesday; but that record gives three places in the district bearing the name of Lude, of which one, belonging then to Osberne Fitz Richard, is demonstrated by Mr. Eyton to be the later Ludlow. The termination necessary for its distinction was derived from a large “low” or tumulus, probably sepulchral, and which stood until 1190 on what afterwards became the burial-ground of the parish church. “Lude” or “lud” is thought by the same author to mean a ford, as, by a common pleonasm, in the adjacent “Ludford.” The two other Ludes were distinguished by the names of their lords, and known as Lude-Muchgros and Lude-Sancy.

Mr. Eyton has further shown, almost to demonstration, that Fitz Richard’s tenant in Lude was the much more considerable Roger de Lacy, and that when he decided here to build a castle, he obtained the lordship from Fitz Richard, and founded the castle within ten years after the survey, or about 1086–1096. Roger was a good type of a Marcher lord. In 1088 he was in rebellion against William Rufus, on behalf of Courthose, and again in 1095, when he took part in the Mowbray rising, was exiled, and so died.

Rufus allowed his estates to pass to his next brother, Hugh, who, however, died childless between 1108–1121, when the estates fell to the Crown by escheat. Henry I. granted Ludlow to Pagan Fitz John, who also held Ewias Lacy, and who was slain by the Welsh in 1136, leaving no male issue. Stephen seems to have seized his lands, and to have placed as castellan in Ludlow a certain Sir Joyce or Gotso de Dinan, evidently a Breton knight. Shortly afterwards, Joyce was in rebellion, for in April 1139, Stephen, accompanied by Prince Henry of Scotland, laid siege to the castle, and constructed against it two “counter-forts.” It was at this siege that Stephen rescued Prince Henry, by his personal strength, from the grasp of a grappling-iron, thrown over him as they walked rather too near to the walls. It would seem that the castle was not taken.

Joyce’s most dangerous foe was his neighbour, Hugh de Mortimer of Wigmore, of whom he obtained possession by means of an ambush, and detained him prisoner in the castle; a tower of which has been supposed by its name to commemorate this event. Joyce died, also without male issue, about 1166, after which event Henry II. gave or restored Ludlow to Hugh de Lacy, a descendant, though not in the male line, from the former family; Emma, the sister of Roger and Hugh de Lacy, having been the mother of a certain Gilbert, who took his mother’s name, and died 1135, leaving Hugh de Lacy, the new grantee of Ludlow. This Hugh, who was a very powerful lord in Ireland, held both Ludlow and Ewias, and was custos of Dublin. Henry II. feared his power, and in 1181 seized upon Ludlow. Hugh was assassinated in Ireland in 1185, and left Walter, his son and heir, to whom Henry, in 1189, restored his father’s lands; but seems to have retained the castle and tower of Ludlow, which thence came to King John, to whom, in 1206, Walter de Lacy paid 400 marks, to be reinstated at Ludlow.

John, however, again seized the castle in 1207, and gave it in charge to William de Braose, and for a time to Philip de Albini, and then to Thomas de Erdington. Nor did the king restore it till 1214, when Ingelram de Cygoigne was directed to render it up, which he did, though unwillingly. Walter, like his father, was chiefly occupied in Ireland. In 1224 he gave up Ludlow to William de Gammages; no doubt to hold as a pledge for his own good conduct. He died in 1241, leaving Walter, his grandson, as his heir, who died under age. Walter left two sisters, of whom Matilda married, first, Peter de Geneva, one of the Provençal favourites of Henry III., and who had the custody of Ludlow. Peter died childless, but in 1234 he made over to William de Lacy the constableship of the castle in fee. Lacy was to keep it in repair, and to maintain there a chaplain, porter, and two sentinels, and the expenses were to be allowed. In time of war, the lord was to garrison the place, and live in the inner, the tenant living in the outer, ward. Peter de Geneva died in 1249. His widow then married Geoffrey de Genville, a Poitevin, who was living in 1283, and who held the castle and half the manor, the other half belonging to Margery de Lacy, sister and co-heiress with Matilda, and who had married John de Verdon. During that period, and immediately after the battle of Lewes, when Simon de Montfort visited Wales in 1264, he took Ludlow Castle, which, however, he could have held but for a short time.

Although Peter de Genville, son of Geoffrey and Matilda, died before both his father and mother, yet he had the castle at his death in 1292. His daughter and heiress, Johanna de Genville, married Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March, who, in 1316, was joint lord of Ludlow with Theobald de Verdon, grandson of John de Verdon and Margaret de Lacy.

The Mortimers held what they probably made the lion’s share of Ludlow for five generations, through some of the most turbulent times in English history; but under their rule Ludlow gave place to Wigmore, their chief seat, and the centre of their oldest estates and main power. Roger, the paramour of the she-wolf of France, received the young Edward III. at Ludlow soon after his father’s death with great magnificence, and not long before his own fall, attainder, and execution. Edmund, his son, recovered this and his other castles in 1354, six years before his death. His grandson Roger, the fourth Earl of March, obtained the long separated moiety of the Lacy property by exchange with William de Ferrars, who had inherited it from the Verdons, and thus transmitted the whole of Ludlow to his son Edmund, the fifth earl, in whose time Sir Thomas Beaufort, afterwards Duke of Exeter, held the castle against the insurgent Welsh. The fifth earl died childless in 1424, when Ludlow Castle and the earldom of March descended to his nephew, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, who held it through the wars of the Roses, and transmitted it to his son, King Edward IV. The borough of Ludlow profited by the assumption of the castle by the Crown. The townsfolk were steady Yorkists, and if they occasionally suffered, and that severely, from the fortunes of war, on the whole they were gainers. Their ancient franchises, dating at the least from the commencement of the thirteenth century, were confirmed in the reign of Henry VI. by Richard, Duke of York, and in 1461 and 1478 Edward IV. gave them an extended charter, under which they were removed from dependence upon the castle. In 1472 the king sent his two sons to remain in the castle, where the Council of Wales established by him, sat in the name of the elder, the Prince of Wales, then but an infant in arms. They remained at Ludlow until 1483, when they were removed to a prison and a grave in the Tower. Henry VII. also sent Prince Arthur, his infant son, born in 1486, to Ludlow, and was himself a frequent visitor here till the prince’s untimely death in 1502. After that event the Council of Wales was established on a more regular footing, and placed under a lord president, who at first was a bishop. Money was granted for the repairs and maintenance of the castle, which, it appears from Bishop Lee’s report, in 1535 was in a ruinous state.

In 1559 Queen Elizabeth appointed Sir Henry Sidney as lord president. He held the office twenty-seven years, keeping considerable state at the castle, where, on his return from Ireland, he passed the latter years of his life. He built the gatehouse within the middle ward, which the inscriptions inserted on the gate show to have been completed in 1581. He built also a bridge leading into the castle, probably one to the outer gate, for the description does not accord with that now standing, and which leads to the middle gate. Also he repaired the chapel, and brought water into the castle, and did much in the way of general repairs, and of buildings and enclosures, to facilitate the business of the council and the custody of its prisoners. The keep, called then the porter’s lodge, was their prison, and the inner ward their court for exercise. Sir Henry died in May 1586. Whatever the Council may have been in his time, it became, in the reign of James, a source of great expense and scandal, and Richard Baxter has left on record the condition, moral and social, to which the purlieus of this provincial court were reduced during his youth. It fell, and it was time, with the surrender of the castle to the parliamentary army in 1646. The place was dismantled, and in 1651 the furniture and fittings were inventoried and put up for sale. At the restoration an attempt was made to revive the Council, but the actual revival was nominal only, and even this was abolished on the coming in of King William. The Crown appointed a governor of the castle, and it would seem, by an inventory of goods there in 1708, that part of it at any rate was in very tolerable repair, especially the rooms of state. The final ruin was commenced under an order by George I., when the lead was removed from the roofs. Buck, whose account was published in 1774, speaks of many of the apartments as still entire, and probably it was not absolutely roofless until the end of the century. In 1811 a lease held by the Powis family was converted by purchase from the Crown into a freehold.

ST. LEONARD’S TOWER, WEST MALLING.

This tower, apparently the earliest built and the last part remaining of the residence of Bishop Gundulf, is probably one of the first Norman keeps, perhaps one of the earliest military towers in masons’ work, after the departure of the Romans, constructed in England. With these pretensions, it deserves more attention than it has hitherto met with.

It stands about a quarter of a mile south-west of the parish church of Town, or West Malling, in Kent, the plain heavy tower of which is also attributed to the bishop; and a little further from the remains of the religious house founded by the same skilful and magnificent prelate, and a remaining part of which seems also to have been his actual work.

The tower stands upon a ledge of horizontally-bedded sandstone rock, of a friable character, which juts out from and forms the east side of a short narrow combe, the defence of the castle on its western front, and which opens upon a stream tributary to the Medway, which stream receives a further addition from a spring which rises from beneath the rock about 100 yards south of the tower, and has been employed to strengthen the defences of the place on that side.

The tower is a very plain rectangular structure of the early Norman type, about 32 feet square at its base, and about 60 feet high on its northern and eastern, and about 70 feet on the two other faces; the difference being produced by the greater depth of the rocky shelf. The walls rise from a plain plinth, the top of which is at the ground level on the east face and north-east angle, and 10 feet above the level on the south and west, so that the plinth is on these sides 10 feet high. The tower is flanked at the end of each face by a pilaster strip, which rises from the plinth, and each adjacent pair meet and cover the contained angle. At three of the angles these strips have 6-inch projection, and are 3 feet 6 inches wide, reduced by two sets-off to 2 feet 6 inches at the base of the parapet, into which they probably died. The pilasters covering the fourth, or north-east angle, are 7 feet broad, and of 18 inch projection. These also have two sets-off. This increased breadth and projection is to accommodate a turnpike-stair, which rises from the base to the roof, and was evidently crowned by a square turret, but whether there were turrets at the other angles is doubtful, though, if present, they must have been of rather smaller dimensions. In the centre of the west face is another pilaster, 3 feet broad, and of 6 inch projection. This also rises from the plinth, but stops at the level of the uppermost floor, at the base of the window, of which it forms the cill. Of the sets-off, that at the level of the first floor is carried round the tower; the upper one is confined to the pilasters. The parapet is gone, and the wall at the head of the staircase, being weakened by it, is somewhat broken down. The tower wall is described as battering, or inclining inwards; if so, the degree must be very slight, for its appearance is vertical, the set-off reducing it by about 6 inches or 8 inches, so that at the summit the dimensions cannot be less than 30 feet square, and the wall appears, from below, to be about 6 feet thick.

The basement is without windows, but in the south face, near the east end, was a round-headed doorway, quite plain, without a portcullis or any moulding, and of about 3 feet 6 inches opening. This is now, and evidently has long been, walled up, so that any rebate it may contain for the door is concealed. It opened on the top of the rock, and probably was approached by a wooden exterior stair, which must have been 10 feet high. The present entrance is opposite to it at the same level, which, there, is that of the ground. This seems to have been a later opening, broken through where the wall was reduced in thickness by a sort of lobby at the foot of the staircase. This is a very common treatment with Norman keeps, the ordinary doorway becoming inconvenient, and the times ceasing to demand extraordinary precaution.

The first floor has a plain round-headed flat-sided opening, that is, without splay, or what in the North is called flanning, placed in the centre of the north, south, and east faces. On the south face this window is in the centre of a plain arcade, having on each side of it two similar arches, about 3 feet broad and 2 feet deep. The singular thing is that these niches are in the outer face of the wall, not, as would seem natural, and as occurs at Chepstow, in the inner face. In the west wall are four similar niches, but the central space is solid, occupied by the pilaster. There are two narrow round-headed loops on the north face, lighting the staircase at two levels.

The second and upper floor has four windows, one in each face. These are round-headed, quite plain, flat-sided, of about 4 feet opening and 8 feet high to the springing. The three floors seem to be,—the basement, 15 feet high; the first or main floor, 30 feet; and the upper floor, 15 feet. The floors were all of timber. There is no visible fireplace, nor do there seem to be any mural chambers or galleries. The walls at the base are 8 feet thick. The staircase communicated with each floor, and with the roof. The line of the lower floor cut off the head of the original entrance doorway, as at Chepstow.

The masonry throughout is of a very sound and solid, though of a rude description. It is evidently original, and does not appear ever to have been repaired or even pointed. It is of rubble, the stones being pretty much as they came from the quarry, of all shapes, but rarely containing more than a foot cube. The work is roughly but decidedly coursed, with a slight tendency to the herring-bone pattern. The joints are very open, and the mortar has been very freely used. The quoins and window-dressings are of a tufaceous ashlar, with wide joints.

It is difficult to form any safe conclusion as to the plan or area of the castle, of which this tower was certainly the keep. No doubt it lay to the north-east and east, where the ground forms a table-land a little above the keep level, and where there are traces of some rather extensive earthworks. There is a short piece of curtain wall projecting a few yards from the south-east angle of the keep, and pointing eastwards. It looks of early masonry, but of rather later date than the keep, against which it is built without bond. It is about 25 feet high. According to this evidence the south and west faces, at the least, must have been the exterior, which, considering the arcades on their faces, and the position of the entrance-door, is curious. Probably the other end of the curtain abutted upon the north-east angle, but if so it did not bond, and has been destroyed, leaving no trace of its presence. This keep stands in three separate premises, two of which are, or rather were when these notes were taken, jealously closed. The only entrance is by the modern door, which was fastened and the key judiciously mislaid; nor, at that time, was there a ladder to be found within reach of the tower. The garden containing the earthworks, and within which probably stood the hall and lodgings, was attached to a private lunatic asylum. It is much to be desired that the Kent Archæological Society should take this curious tower in hand, and obtain proper plans and elevations of so very remarkable a building, with a good photograph of its masonry.

THE KEEP OF MIDDLEHAM CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.

Although the size and extent of Middleham Castle are but moderate for the figure it has made in local story, and the rank and power of the succession of great barons who built, augmented, and have inhabited it, it is in itself a remarkable building, and presents much of antiquarian interest. It is placed on the southern edge of the town of Middleham, and a little above it. Its immediate position presents no great natural advantages, but for the general defence of Wensley Dale, it is not ill chosen, standing between the Yore and the Cover, about a mile and a half above the junction of the two streams.

In plan Middleham is rectangular, composed of a keep about 100 feet north and south, by 80 feet east and west, and to the base of its parapet about 55 feet high, which is placed in the centre of an enceinte, also rectangular, 240 feet north and south, by 190 feet east and west, so that the area of its only ward is but limited. The enceinte is a curtain wall, about 30 feet high. At its north-west and south-east angles, it has rectangular towers of slight external projection, which rise above the curtain. Its south-west angle is capped by a drum tower of three stages, and on the north face, but at its north-east angle, is the gatehouse, rectangular, of slight projection, but four stages high, basement included. The east curtain has been destroyed. Upon the south and west curtains are many exterior projections, buttresses, and near the centre of each a rectangular tower. The domestic buildings were chiefly placed against the curtains on the north, west, and south sides, and thus the ward is reduced to a mere passage between these buildings and the keep.

The gatehouse is about 25 feet deep by 50 feet broad. It has in its exterior front a central portal, round-headed, beneath a pointed arch of relief. This is flanked by buttresses, 2 feet broad by 1 foot deep, and the adjacent angles of the building are supported by similar buttresses, two being set on each. At the first story these pass into a single buttress, which caps the angle,—a pleasing arrangement, giving variety to the outline. The entrance vault, like the gateway, is round-headed, with ribs for doors, and it has a single portcullis groove at its inner end. It is all of one date, and in the Decorated style. This gatehouse, and the buildings of the ward generally, are Decorated, and require far more examination than the writer has been able to bestow upon them.

The Keep is reinforced at the four angles by broad, flat-capping buttresses, of variable breadth and projection, and which, no doubt, rose above the battlement into rectangular turrets. The buttress on the north-east angle has a breadth of 26 feet on the north, and a projection of 7 feet, and to the east a breadth of 16 feet, and a projection of 1 foot. It contains the chamber communicating with the battlement of the outer gate of the fore-building, and below is solid. The buttress on the north-west angle has to the north a breadth of 22 feet, and a projection of 3 feet, and to the west a breadth of 12 feet, and depth of 1 foot. On the south-west angle the breadth of the west face is 14 feet, and of the south 11 feet, and the depth of each is 1 foot.

The south-east angle, as at Rochester, contains the staircase. It has no projection on the east face, being covered by the fore-building. On the south its breadth is 20 feet, and its depth 6 feet. This alone preserves the remains of a turret above the battlements. Excepting the stair-turret, the angles of the keep seem solid below, though worked into chambers on the first floor.

There are also projections on the west and south wall. That on the west has a depth of 12 feet, and a breadth of 18 feet. The lower story is broken away; it was hollow, and looks as though meant for a gigantic cesspit. The upper part hangs unsupported save by the cohesion of its cement, and greatly needs conservation. This turret is about 51 feet from the north end, and 31 feet from the south. The projection on the south wall is 12 feet broad, and 8 feet deep. It is placed 24 feet from the west, and 44 feet from the east angle, coinciding with the partition-wall within. This turret is hollow, and forms a great shaft for garderobes in the upper stories. In its face, at the ground level, is a round-headed arch, of 3 feet opening, and 4 feet high, the outlet of the sewer, but above ground. These two turrets at present cease at the level of the parapet, but probably rose sufficiently above it to cover a garderobe. The keep has a plinth on the north, west, and south sides. The east face is covered by the fore-building. The walls are about 9 feet thick.

The keep has a basement floor at the ground level, and a first or state floor, and on the east side an upper floor. It is divided by a wall 9 feet thick into two unequal parts, that to the east being 29 feet, and that to the west 24 feet broad, each being about 84 feet long. A well-stair 12 feet diameter, ascended in the south-east angle from the basement to the battlements, lighted by loops, and with doors to each floor.

The east chamber into which this stair opens by a large and apparently round-headed door, now broken, was vaulted in two lines, each resting upon five cylindrical piers, about 3 feet 6 inches each in diameter, and averaging 14 feet from centre to centre. The vault seems to have been a barrel, groined. At each end were two square-headed loops, high above the floor, with stepped recesses. The east wall contains only three square lockers, and the door of the staircase. The west or partition-wall side is pierced by five openings, about 4 feet broad, and round-headed, three to the north and two to the south of the thick solid central part. Probably these were introduced to lighten the work, and all but one or two thinly walled up. One must have been a doorway, as from the eastern lay the only communication with the western chamber.

The western chamber seems to have been spanned by a single vault, apparently slightly pointed and groined in six bays. In each end is a single square-headed loop. On the west side are seven loops, the central part being occupied by the unpierced rear wall of the turret already described.

First floor, east side. This was evidently the hall. It is very lofty, and in its north end is a round-headed window of 2 feet opening, and 7 feet high to the springing. In the south end are two similar windows, but about 14 feet long, and a curious water-drain between them and the door. This, the door from the stair, is plain round-headed, and of 6 feet opening. Close north of it is a similar door, of 7 feet opening, quite plain, and without a portcullis. This is the main entrance, and opens from the barbican tower. Beyond this is a short window, and then three long ones, like those at the north end, so arranged as to open clear of the exterior barbican stair. The west wall has an opening at each end, the bulk of the wall being solid. The northern of the two openings was probably the great door of passage between the rooms; the southern communicated with the garderobe in the south wall. In the north-east angle is a very curious mural chamber, 12 feet east and west, by 9 feet north and south, vaulted in a single groined bay, round-headed, and springing from half-octagon brackets in the angles, each the cap of a detached shaft, now removed. In the north wall are two and in the east one loop. A door in the south wall opens into the north end of the hall, and one in the east wall passes obliquely through the wall, and evidently led to the battlements of the outer gate of the barbican, over the foot of its staircase. This room is much broken, but its fittings are original, and late Norman. If the hall had a fireplace in masonry, it was in the west wall, at a part recently repaired. It is not clear how the hall was roofed; possibly the original covering was a high-pitched roof, with the battlements above, but at present the side walls carry a table, with corbels of a plain billet moulding, on which an upper wall, about 12 feet high, is advanced 6 inches. In these walls are large window openings, with segmental arches, three on each side, which must have opened clear of the roof of the west chamber, and upon the battlements on the east side. In the south end, above the two narrow windows mentioned, is a third smaller one, as though to light a roof of high pitch. There are no corbels for principals, and no holes for main beams, but above the corbel table on each side is a range of holes, about 9 inches square, and as much apart, neatly stopped with ashlar, as though an original flat roof had been removed, and a roof of high pitch introduced. However this may have been, the windows of the side walls are clearly additional, and belonged to a second floor. Altogether the history of this roof is very obscure, and demands a close local investigation. The upper door in the well-stair is not at a level to suit a second floor, nor consistent with a high-pitched roof.

First floor, west side. In the north end is a round-headed window, 2 feet opening by 7 feet high, and a door into a now inaccessible mural chamber in the north-west angle. At the south end are two similar windows, and a door into a chamber in the south-west angle. In the east wall are the two broken doorways already mentioned, and the broken tunnels of two, if not of three, large fireplaces, the shafts of which, much broken, still rise clear of the roof. The fireplaces are gone, and the wall has been much patched recently to give it support. There are two rather curious lockers in this wall. In the west wall there seem to have been four round-headed windows of 2 feet opening and 7 feet high, and near the middle is a door opening into the middle buttress tower, which contains two chambers of unequal size. These are not accessible, but one was probably a large garderobe, and the other may have been the way to a small drawbridge, opening from the keep upon a rectangular tower in the ward, not 12 feet distant, so as to give direct passage from the keep to the outer walls. In the keep wall, north of this tower, is a large segmental-arched window, evidently an insertion, probably the work of Richard III. In the north-west and south-west angles, as already mentioned, are mural chambers, not accessible. There do not appear to be any galleries in the wall.

This west chamber was probably divided by a brattice, and the north part used as a withdrawing-room from the hall. There does not appear to have been a second floor on this side. It is, however, curious that there should be no corbels, nor any of the usual indications of the principals of an ordinary open roof. In each side wall, high up, is a row of holes, about 9 inches square and 18 inches from centre to centre, so that probably the roof was flat, or at any rate, was composed of heavy rafters, without principals.

The east face of the keep was occupied by the fore-building or barbican, and which, as was not uncommon, contained the chapel.

The approach seems to have been, as at Rochester, Scarborough, and elsewhere, by a flight of stone steps built against the wall, commencing, in this case, about 10 feet from its northern end, and rising about 20 feet to a vestibule, upon which opened, right and left, the great door of the keep, and that of the chapel. The staircase was about 9 feet broad, and 45 feet or 50 feet long to the vestibule. It seems to have been protected by a side wall, reducing the actual stair-breadth to (say) 5 feet or 6 feet, and to have been either vaulted or roofed with timber. Its lower gate must have opened beneath a small tower, the battlements of which were reached from the chamber in the north-east angle of the keep. About half-way up the staircase past what, from the appearance of the wall, seems to have been a second gate in the keep wall, is a large cavity capable of holding comfortably twenty men, evidently as a guard in case the entrance should be forced. Higher up, where the staircase landed on the vestibule, there seems to have been a third door.

The vestibule is part of the second floor of the usual rectangular barbican tower, built against the keep, about 12 feet from the south end of the east face. This tower measures about 33 feet north and south, and about 48 feet east and west. It rose about two-thirds of the height of the keep, and is divided into a basement or sub-crypt, an upper crypt, and a chapel and vestibule floor.

The basement is at the ground level. Next the keep, or rather, next the solid mass of masonry which supports the stair and vestibule, is the sub-crypt, 20 feet north and south, by 24 feet east and west. Beyond, that is, east of it, a passage runs right through the building, 5 feet broad, with a door at each end; and beyond this are the ruins of a small chamber, which probably reached to the outer curtain wall. The passage gave a communication between the north and south parts of the ward, otherwise divided, on this side, by the barbican tower, and from this passage a door led into the sub-crypt. This room was vaulted in two lines in eight bays, springing from a central line of three columns now gone. The arch gables show that the vault was round-headed. In the south wall at the west end is a well-stair leading to the upper crypt, and the only way to it. The sub-crypt is lighted by two small round-headed Norman windows in each of the two open faces, one on each side of an exterior plain pilaster buttress, 3 feet broad by 3 feet deep.

The first floor, or upper crypt, extended eastward over the passage the whole length of the barbican and was 20 feet broad, and probably 40 feet long inside. This also was vaulted, but the vault spanned the whole breadth, and formed two bays only. The ribs of the groining sprang from half-round mural pilasters. In the north wall, near the east end, is a fireplace. This floor has no communication with that above it. It was not uncommon for the basement of the barbican to be quite independent of the keep, and to be entered, as here, by an outer door of its own.

The second floor of the barbican contained the chapel and the vestibule, this floor being on the level of the great entrance to the keep. Whether the vestibule was vaulted is uncertain, probably it was. It is about 20 feet north and south, by 9 feet east and west, the entrance stair arriving at the north end, the keep door being on the west, and the chapel door on the east side. The chapel was loftier and vaulted in a lighter style than the crypts below. Its walls were 7 feet thick, and its area about 20 feet by 40 feet. It was vaulted in two bays in a light style, probably early English. The great door of the keep was plain Norman, but chamfered round the head and jambs. There are traces of caps, and probably there were two flanking shafts, but no mouldings or drip-stone. The walls of the barbican are, no doubt, mainly original, though the vaulting of the sub-crypt and crypt may have been renewed. The chapel probably replaces an earlier building.

Middleham seems never to have had any works beyond the enceinte wall, save a slight ditch, of which traces remain on the south side only. On the east, a field road has superseded the ditch, as have some modern buildings on the west side. There is no present trace of either ditch or drawbridge on the north or town front.

The keep is built of coursed rubble, with ashlar groins and dressings. The Decorated and later work is mostly of excellent ashlar.

As regards the age of the several parts of the castle, the keep is plainly late Norman, and, likely enough, the work of Robert Fitz-Ranulph, Lord of Middleham, in 1190; and to his immediate descendants are certainly due the earlier alterations, especially the chapel, before the extinction of the male line, in 1271.

No doubt the exterior ward is built on the site of a Norman enceinte, and some of the original work may remain; but this part of the fortress was completely recast by the Neviles, who married the Fitz-Ranulph heiress, and, no doubt, either by Robert, called the Peacock of the North, who had Middleham, &c., from his grandmother, and who died before 5 Edward II., 1331, or by Ralph, Lord Nevile of Raby, his brother and successor, who died 41 Edward III., 1367.

Of the later residence of Richard, Duke of York (Richard III.) the traces are the large window opening on the west face of the keep, and perhaps the upper story on the east side of the same building, and certain details added to the ward.

Middleham was a part of the broad territory granted by the Conqueror to Alan Fergaunt, the founder of Richmond Castle, and lord of that extensive Honour, stepping thus into the seat of the English Earl Edwin, which he shifted from the adjacent Gilling. His younger son, Ribald, had Middleham for his especial lordship, by the gift of the second Alan, his brother. Ribald was followed by Ralph, his son, and he by Robert FitzRalph, or Ranulph, who married Berta, niece of Ranulph de Glanvill, and is the reputed builder of Middleham Keep in 1191, 2 and 3 Richard I.

Ranulph FitzRobert was the founder of Coverham Abbey, “Near his manor-house of Middleham,” and was there buried in 1251 (31 Henry III.), leaving Ralph Fitz Ranulph, his son, who appears to have been lord of Middleham Manor in an inquisition for the partition of his lands (55 Henry III.), the year of his death. He left three daughters, co-heiresses, of whom Mary, the eldest, married Robert de Nevile, and had Middleham. Ralph died (55 Henry III.) 1271. It appears, by an inquisition under the name of Peter of Savoy, that Middleham was a fee owing suit of court to the Honour of Richmond. 18 Edward I., Maria de Nevile is styled Domina de Middleham, and 13 Edward II. she had the manor. She lived till 14 Edward II. (1320), having held Middleham for life.

Their son was Ralph Nevile, who died 5 Edward III., (1331), and who appears in an inquisition (1 Edward III.) as holding Middleham Manor and Castle. His son, Robert Nevile, the Peacock of the North, had from his grandmother the castle and manor of Middleham. He died, without issue, before his father, leaving Ralph his brother and heir, who died 41 Edward III. This Ralph, Lord Nevile of Raby, took a very active part in all the public transactions of his time, both in war and peace. He died seized of the castle and manor of Middleham, and was the first layman buried in the Cathedral of Durham.

The next lord was John, his son, also a great soldier and diplomatist. He died 12 Richard II., 1388, leaving Ralph, his son and heir, who added to the wealth and power of the family, and also held the castle, manor, and lordship of Middleham at his death in 4 Henry VI., 1425. John, son of Ralph, died before his father, 1423, who was succeeded by his grandson, Ralph, Earl of Westmoreland, who died 2 Richard III. Middleham, however, had passed to Richard Nevile, Earl of Salisbury, son of Earl Ralph, who died 4 Henry VI., by his second wife, a daughter of John of Gaunt. The Earl of Salisbury, by an inquisition of 12 Richard II., had then Middleham. This is the earl who, in 37 Henry VI., marched with 4,000 men from Middleham into Lancashire on his way to London, to obtain redress from the king and queen for injuries done to his son. On this earl’s forfeiture, before 38 Henry VI., his Lancastrian kinsman, Sir John Nevile, was made constable of Middleham Castle, then in the Crown. Sir John fell at Towton, 1 Edward IV., and his son Ralph became Earl of Westmoreland. But Middleham remained in the Crown.

At Middleham, then in charge of Nevile, Archbishop of York, Edward IV. was confined by Richard, Earl of Warwick, the prelate’s brother. Edward escaped when hunting in the park. After Barnet the castle was granted to Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to the exclusion of the male heirs of the Marquis Montagu, Warwick’s brother. Richard was much here; raised the rectory to a deanery, with a view to the foundation of a college; and here his son Edward, Prince of Wales, was born. After Richard’s death, Middleham fell to the Crown, and was leased to various persons. Finally it was sold to Mr. Wood, of Littleton, ancestor of the present owner. Recently the keep has been partially cleared of rubbish, and some of the most dangerous portions have been under-pinned; but a little more assistance of the same character is much needed to save some of the most prominent features of the ruin from destruction.

MITFORD CASTLE, NORTHUMBERLAND.

This is one of the most remarkable of the Northumbrian castles. It is situated about two miles above and west of Morpeth, on the right bank of the Wansbeck, which here makes two very sharp bends, the larger and higher of which includes the castle, the church of St. Andrew, the new Hall, and the ruins of the old one. The church, the nave of which was long roofless, has been repaired, and is now in good order. It is the burial-place of the ancient barons and modern lords of Mitford. The chancel is early English; the nave rude but good Norman, with a pointed south door in the same style. The old Hall, of which a tower is standing, was a Tudor building, constructed by the Mitfords, in part from the materials of the castle. The present Hall, the Mitford residence, is modern.

What remains of the castle occupies the summit of a knoll of sandstone rock, rising about 70 feet, on the north side abruptly, and elsewhere more or less steeply, from a marshy meadow, which on the north, east, and west is encircled by the folds of the Wansbeck, and on the south by a sweep of a tributary stream, which joins the river just below the castle. Each watercourse flows beneath a steep and high concave bank, thickly wooded, and the result is a sylvan amphitheatre of great seclusion and much beauty.

The castle knoll, at its summit, is about eighty yards across, irregularly circular. Along its brow runs the enceinte wall of the place, much broken down, but which seems to have been about 20 feet high and 7 feet thick. It may be traced all round, save at one point on the south face, where it is encroached upon by a quarry opened for the materials of the new Hall in 1810. Towards the north the wall is tolerably perfect, though more or less riven, and without its battlements. The inclosure is now an orchard.

The northern portion of the area is somewhat higher than the rest, and has been parted off by a cross wall, creating an inner ward, of small dimension, semi-circular plan, and considerable strength. In this ward stands the Norman keep, a square of about 36 feet, but having its north side in two oblique faces, forming a salient. It has, therefore, five sides, a rare and certainly original departure from the usual Norman plan. The walls are about 7 feet thick, and the interior area 22 feet 6 inches square. This space is divided by a cross wall, north and south, into two equal parts, each barrel-vaulted, with a plain, round-headed arch springing from a plain chamfered abacus. The north face of each chamber is oblique, to match the exterior salient. Of these chambers, one has a loop in the north gable, and the other, in the corresponding place, two small stone spouts, about 3 feet from the floor, as though for the admission of water. Both chambers are ruined at the south end.

All the keep above the ground-floor walls is destroyed, and the rubbish conceals the exterior wall face, but the whole is clearly of excellent ashlar. From and within the west wall a small mural stair descends, turning the south-west angle to a door in the south wall, opening into the west vault. This door has a flat segmental arch. The outer entrance seems to have been in the west wall in the floor above the basement. It is said that an exterior stone stair is concealed by the rubbish. This keep stands upon the rock, here, perhaps, 20 feet above the rest of the area. It blocks up the triangular, or rather segmental inner ward, standing about 50 feet from one angle and 30 feet from the other. Its salient extends to within 10 feet of the northern, or corresponding salient of the ward, and its southern face is about 6 feet within the cross wall. In the curved outer wall of this ward, towards the north-west, is a very remarkable window recess, 8 feet broad and of the same height, to the plain Norman abacus, whence springs its round-headed arch, over which is a hood-moulding of the same pattern, the only attempt at ornament. The wall here is 8 feet thick, but as the outer 2 feet are not original, the window-case is gone. It was probably of two lights, and opened upon the cliff.

Close south of this window, in the inner face of the same wall, are a number of curious holes, irregularly placed, more or less rounded, as though half a soda-water bottle had been thrust into the green mortar. They occur at the joints, and the best marked are where three joints meet. They are certainly not putlog holes, being too irregular and too shallow.

The inner ward was entered from the outer by a small strong doorway in the cross wall, now much ruined, a few feet west of the keep.

The outer ward had probably a chapel on its south side; many graves, some covered with slabs, and one containing a stone coffin, having been laid open when baring for the quarry. In the west wall is a good plain Caernarvon-headed postern door of 5 feet opening, below a pointed relieving arch. The main entrance to this ward was on the east side, near the inner ward wall, and commanded by the keep. The gateway, said to have been 15 feet deep, is now a ruin, but it opened upon a small platform, a little lower than the ward, and defended by a wall, under cover of which the road wound up from below. Some broken ground on this side is said to indicate an ancient quarry, probably that employed when the castle was built.

On the north-west quarter was also a spur from the hill, but lower and narrower than the former one. This has been converted into a thin falciform bank, concave to the castle, by the cutting of a deep ditch in its rear, probably to provide a covered way to the postern, up which cattle could be driven with safety.

The castle hill seems to have been girt, a few yards from its base, by a wet ditch, in part artificial, which covered its north-west and south sides, and communicated at each end with the Wansbeck, which completed the circle on the east side. Whether there was a wall within the ditch is uncertain, probably not, but it was guarded towards the north-east by a gatehouse and enclosed space, in front of which, below the present bridge, was the old fosse-bridge, by the tenure of guarding which Walter de Swinhowe, in the reign of Edward III., held forty acres of land.

A knoll so defined as Mitford, so secluded, and so protected by a river and by marshy ground, was likely to have been a British camp as well as a Saxon or English dwelling-place, and there is high probability of the truth of the tradition that asserts the Barony of Mitford to have been held in the reign of the Confessor by John of Mitford, whose daughter Sybil is said to have carried it in marriage to Richard Bertram, a follower of the Conqueror, and of the stock of Baliol. The first recorded lord is, however, Roger Bertram, who held the Barony in 1155, and certified to its having been held by his father and grandfather. At that time the Barony extended over five parishes, and received payment of castle-guard from nine manors, itself paying scutage to the castle of Newcastle.

The Bertrams who, like the Baliols, bore an orle for their arms, retained Mitford for eight generations, when Agnes, their heiress, sold the estate, in 1275, to Alexander de Baliol, from whom it passed by various changes to de Valence, and thence with part of his estate to the Earl of Athol, one of his heirs general. There remained, however, in the district a family who bore the surname of Mitford, and claimed descent from a brother of John, whose daughter married the Bertram. Their representative, William, in the tenth generation, held lands in, and his son was actually of Mitford, and seems to have recovered the castle, and to be the direct ancestor in the male line of the present Mr. Mitford, of Mitford, and of his distant kinsman, Lord Redesdale.

The castle, though of no great magnitude, played, from its position and strength, rather an important part in Border warfare. William the Lion, who reigned from 1165 to 1214, dated a charter from hence, 28th December, 1215. King John is said to have burned the vill, though whether he took the castle is unknown. The public records, however, make him visit Mitford from Berwick in 1216, and stay there the 24th, 25th, and 26th of January, going on the latter day to Newcastle. Alexander, King of Scotland, failed to take the place in May, 1217, when he lay in leaguer before it for seven days. Local history is silent concerning it during the active reign of Edward I., but in the wild times consequent upon Bannockburn, a notorious Border freebooter, Sir Gilbert Middleton, made Mitford his stronghold, and here imprisoned Henry, Lord Beaumont, while his brother Lewis, Bishop of Durham, was shut up in Morpeth Castle.

The castle, by its present condition, affords evidence of the vicissitudes it has undergone. Still, ruined as it is, careful observation finds much from which its original plan, and even part of its details, may be ascertained. Its general plan, the keep, and the most part of the enceinte wall, are evidently original, and late Norman, probably the work of Richard Bertram early in the reign of Henry II. The postern is, of course, later, either early Edwardian or of the reign of Henry III. It is unusual to find so small a keep divided by a cross-wall, or to find any Norman keep with an original vaulted basement, though of this there is apparently an example in the late Norman Keep of Norham. The salient on one side is unknown elsewhere.

A good ground-plan and photographs on a large scale of the masonry are much needed, and a very moderate amount of excavation in the inner ward would probably throw light on the original structure of the keep. In point of recorded history the very complete account of Mitford, given in Hodgson’s “Northumberland,” leaves nothing to be desired; it is only to be regretted that a corresponding industry and critical acumen have not been brought to bear upon its architectural remains.

MONTGOMERY CASTLE.

It is by a singular chance that a rude and artificial mound of earth, in an obscure part of a foreign province, should have given its name to a British county and to the town that forms its capital. The proper names of places in Britain are usually either British or English. Once given in the latter tongue, they have but seldom been changed. New creations, as Battle and Jervaulx, and some other ecclesiastical houses, bear, indeed, new names; but these do not appear to have displaced any already existing. Pontefract is a name probably derived from an accidental circumstance; but Richmond and Montgomery are solitary instances of a shire or a capital town deriving its name from the inheritance of a Norman lord.

The castle of Montgomery is registered by that name in the Domesday survey, and placed in the hundred of Wintentrue, in the county of Salop. “Ad castellum de Montgomeri habet comes iiii carucas et vi libras denariorum. habet de uno fine de Walis pertinente ad ipsam castellariam. Rogerius [Corbet] habet ibi ij carucas, et de Walis, cum fratre suo habet xl. solidos.” And further on, “Ipse comes construxit castrum, Muntgumeri vocatum. Ad quod adjacent lii. hidæ et dimidia quas tenuere Seuuar, Oslac, Azor, de rege Edwardo, quietas ab omni geldo; ad venandum eas habuere.” Here, then, we have the name of the castle, its inclusion in an English county, its castelry, its chief lord, Earl Roger, and the fact that in the time of the Confessor, three Englishmen held 52½ hides about it as a hunting-ground. The Englishmen are entered, a few lines on, as Thanes. Seuuar was, no doubt, like Siward, a very great, as was Azor a considerable, landowner in the same county. “De fine de Walis” shows that Earl Roger’s territory included Welshmen with his English tenants, just as the names of places, and especially of parishes, in the district, show a great and early establishment of English there. The castelry included twenty-two members, at no great distance from the castle rock, and the castle was one of about fourteen strong places mentioned in Domesday as then existing in Hereford, Monmouth, and Salop. It only differed from most others, and especially from such as Clun, Ludlow, Caus, Oswestry, or Whittington, in being held by the earl himself, and not by one of his secondary barons.

Earl Roger, the “comes” of the above entry, upon the fall of Morkere, added Shropshire to his Sussex earldom, and to him, with powers equal in many respects to those of royalty, was committed the safety of the middle march, with its extensive but imperilled English settlement there. On the site of the British Pengwern and of the Saxon Shrobsbury, folded securely within a remarkable convolution of the Severn, he established his chief seat upon, and at the base of, the English mound, which still looks down upon the deep and wide river; and with its connected fragment of the ancient city wall forms a striking contrast to the bustle and action carried out upon the railway and within its ephemeral buildings at the foot of the slope. There is a tradition, founded, however, upon error, that the earl’s lieutenant in the more advanced frontier of his dangerous territory, was a certain Baldwin, whose name is preserved in the Welsh appellation of Tre-Faldwin for the town and castle, and of Frydd-Faldwin for a remarkable encampment on the summit of an adjacent hill. But Baldwin, though not an uncommon name with the Normans, does not occur in Shropshire among either the tenants-in-chief or the under-tenants, in Domesday. There was indeed a William Fitz-Baldwin, Lord of Rhydcors, in the reign of Rufus, but he was a South Wales man, and unconnected with Earl Roger. But whether as Tre-Faldwin or Montgomery, whether named from the hand or the head, it is clear that the castle stood in a position most offensive to the pride and patriotic feelings of the Welsh. The vale of the Severn from Welsh Pool to a little short of Llanidloes, had for centuries been a field of bitter contest. The Roman, the Dane, and the Englishman had done violence to the “virgin daughter of Locrine,” and stained her molten crystal with blood. Its broad band of flat and fertile meadow made Powys-land a prize of great value, and the steep and lofty hills between which it was contained, were highly favourable to both the sudden attack and safe retreat of the Welsh. The plain and its lower eminences, traversed by the dyke of Offa, are thickly studded with moated mounds and earthworks, thrown up in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, and which show how far-reaching was, even in that remote period, the Mercian and English power. The mound thrown up by Æthelflaed in 916, at Chirbury, is destroyed; but those of Moat Lane, of Newtown, of Hên-domen, of Kerry, and Nant-cribba, remain, and are as large and as well-defined as that of Shrewsbury itself, and of the very type of those more famous royal residences in Elmete and at Laughton-en-le-Morthen, or of the works near Livarot, whence Earl Roger derived his name, and which have survived all subsequent additions in stone and lime.

That Earl Roger, between his acquisition of the earldom and the year of the Domesday survey had built a castle, is on record, but what sort of a castle may be a question. Norman towers were plain, solid, of durable design, and excellent workmanship, too stout and too useful to be intentionally pulled down, and usually, as at Wattlesborough, outlasting all later additions; but assuredly there is now no trace of any work of Earl Roger on the castle rock, nor anywhere near it; for it has been supposed, without shadow of probability, that his castle was placed, not upon the rock, but somewhere in its neighbourhood. It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that Earl Roger’s castle was of a less durable character than is usually supposed, and that this will account for its quick destruction in 1095, two years after his death, by the Welsh, accompanied by the slaughter of his successor’s (Earl Hugh) garrison. This was the event that brought Rufus into the district, to the earl’s aid, in 1096, when, though he did but little, he seems to have recovered the site of the castle, and to have given the earl an opportunity of rebuilding or restoring it. Earl Hugh is said to have done so, but however this may have been, Montgomery is not mentioned among the castles held by his elder brother, but successor, Robert de Belesme, the wicked earl, on his ruin and banishment in 1102. Here, again, the probability is that any castle then standing was of a light and not very durable character, not worthy of being mentioned with Shrewsbury or Bridgenorth.

With the fall of the house of Montgomery, the earldom escheated to the Crown, and with it its castle and castelry. Henry I. upon this remodelled the hundreds of Salop, and raised Montgomery into an Honour or barony, throwing into it the greater part of the adjacent seignory of Chirbury, and several other manors. The valuable, and, on the whole, compact territory thus constituted was at once granted by Henry to a certain Baldwin de Bollers, who was the husband “Sibillæ nepotis regis,” whatever relationship, legitimate or illegitimate, that word may indicate. This lady is also designated, possibly from her mother, as “Sibil de Faleise.” All that is known of Baldwin is that he already held five knight’s-fees of the honour of Warden. He held the new Honour, in capite, of the king, per baroniam; his under-tenants holding of him, most of them, as set forth in the Hundred Rolls, by castle guard. Baldwin began his reign by the very necessary act of building a castle, though what he actually constructed is uncertain, for there is no existing masonry that can be attributed to him or his immediate successors. Still, he is reported to have built a castle, and that he did so is probably just as certain that it is his name, and not that of any lieutenant of Earl Roger, that is identified with the rock by the Welsh. It is also reported that while Baldwin was preparing this castle, he occupied the British camp above, known, in consequence, as Ffrydd-Faldwin. This is most improbable. The camp, a very large and very fine specimen of a British work, would hold five or six thousand men, and could not well be defended by less than a third of that number, for its front is extensive, and its slopes, though steep, are by no means so steep as to stop, or materially to check the onset of a tribe of light-armed mountaineers. Baldwin’s force was more likely to be 500 than 5,000 men, and no doubt depended for its power far more upon its arms and discipline than upon its numerical strength. The castle rock would have held such a force with great security while the operations of a castle were in progress, and probably did so.

The descendants of De Bollers, incorrectly given by Dugdale, have been disentangled by Mr. Eyton, the real historian of Montgomery, with his usual patience and skill, and seem to be as follows:—

Baldwin de Bollers, Lord of Montgomery, 1121, married, (1) Sibil de Faleise, and had also a second wife. By Sibil he had Stephen de Bollers, 1160, Lord of Montgomery, who married Maria, and had Robert, who died young. Matilda, Sibil’s daughter, married Richard Fitz-Urse, 1130–58, and had Reginald Fitz-Urse, one of Becket’s murderers, and Margery.

On Stephen’s death the Honour seems to have passed to Almeric de Bollers, probably a son or descendant of Baldwin, by his second wife, and who had it in 1162. He was succeeded by Robert de Bollers, 1176–1203, who died childless, but left a widow, Hilaria Trusbut, who had dower till 1241. The heir was Robert’s brother, Baldwin, 1203–7, who also died childless, and whose widow, Wenllian Tet, had dower till 1243. This ended the male line.

The next heirs were the Fitz-Urses. Reginald, Becket’s murderer, had a daughter and heiress, who married Robert, and had William de Courtenay, Lord of Montgomery, who died 1214, childless, leaving Ada a widow with dower, who died 1217. The next heir was the descendant of Margery, sister of Reginald Fitz-Urse, who married Richard Engaine, 1177–85, and had Richard, 1185, father of Vitalis Engaine, 1217, who claimed the Honour on the death of William de Courtenay, but only obtained a portion of it. Thomas de Erdington was a rival and more successful claimant. He held the castle, 1215–18, but much of the Honour was granted, in 1216, to William de Cantilupe, with certain reservations. In 1225 the king, who had all along treated the castle as a royal fortress, claimed the Honour as an escheat, and the whole was taken by the Crown, the dowers being allowed. Erdington, who had been the custos of the king’s castles of Shrewsbury, Whitchurch, Shawardine, Morton, Clun, Montgomery, Moreton, and other Shropshire strongholds, was repaid the outlay he had made upon them. Some sort of castle undoubtedly occupied the rock of Montgomery between 1102 and 1225, and it is said to have been twice taken and destroyed by Llewelyn, who, on the death of John, gained some advantages in Wales, and was allowed the custody of all the land that had belonged to Gwenonwhyn in “Wales and Mungumer,” of which he had been disseized during the war between John and the Barons. This he was to hold till Gwenonwhyn came of age. Probably the result was that when Henry entered he found the rock laid bare, for, from that time the Sheriff’s accounts show annual and very considerable payments for military works there for many years, and we read of the king’s new castle of Montgomery. As early as 1225, when the Welsh war made the place of great importance, nearly £1,000 is paid out; £1,100 in 1224; and above £500 in 1225. Master carpenters are sent to construct defences of timber, brétasches, to strengthen the castle, and miners or quarrymen from the Forest of Dean, no doubt to prepare stone, and to hew out the cross ditches. A fit chaplain is to be appointed to serve in the castle chapel, under the parson of Montgomery, and the king is to decide about the emoluments or “obventions” of the chantry. These were afterwards allotted to the mother Church, that is to the parish church of Montgomery, which was the mother church of the chapel; of the whole district Chirbury was the mother church. To the parson was also given the corn tythe of the land newly cultivated, of which he already had the small tythe. Sums of money are also allowed for assisting in clearing the lands of underwood and harbours for robbers; and on one occasion the king alludes to the time “when we took in hand our castle of Montgomery.” Henry himself was there in 1224, and all the masonry now standing is pretty evidently his work, and of this period.

1223 was the year of Llewelyn’s submission, and Godescal de Maghelines was castellan, and received drafts of miners and carpenters, and quarrels from St. Briavel’s forges. Henry, the king’s brother, and other knights, formed the garrison; and the chapel was in use.

In 1224 the king granted an annual fair in “our manor of Montgomery,” and Hubert de Huse was coupled with Godescal as custodes of the castle, honour, and vale of Montgomery, and soon after Baldwin de Hodnet was seneschal, and William de Cantelupe had seizin of the fees of the knights and free tenants annexed to the Honour. A fair was also proclaimed to be held under the castle, and protections were granted to those attending.

In 1227 Henry changed his policy, and granted the castle to Hubert de Burgh, with 200 marcs yearly for its custody for life, and an augmentation in war time, which speedily occurred; for in 1230, Llewelyn, having hanged William de Braose, marched towards Montgomery, the garrison of which suffered from an ambuscade near Kerry, whither they had gone to cut down a large wood. The Welsh followed them to the castle, and besieged it. Henry came to their relief. In 1233 de Burgh lost Henry’s favour, and with it Montgomery, and a constable was appointed by the king. A windmill was erected near the castle, to grind for its use. In 1235, a tower beyond the castle wall had been repaired, as had the town walls, for which nine wooden turrets were provided. Wine and various stores were sent to the castle, which, in 1245, was attacked by the Welsh under David, and, notwithstanding all the money so recently spent upon it, was found not to be in good repair, as appears from an inquisition held upon it in 1249, which specifies particularly the donjon or keep; the chamber and chapel; the wooden turret or brétasche, and the bridge near the chapel; the balister’s house; the wooden turret next the town; the stable; the wooden turret beyond the outer gate; the grange and wall round it; the pentiscie, pent-houses, or lean-to’s, carrying the woodwork belonging to five wooden turrets; the small tower or garrit, outside the gate; the “barrier” (jurullum) near the chapel; and the porter’s lodge. For the repairs of these is wanted £59. 3s. 8d. At this time there is also a water-mill connected with the castle, “Stanlawes Mill,” which only worked in winter.

In 1254 Henry granted Montgomery to Prince Edward, who, with the consent of the king and council, appointed a custos. In 1264, after Lewes, Henry, then in durance, ordered Adam Fitz-Philip to surrender the castle. Adam, however, refused, unless the order was backed by Prince Edward. In 1267, 29th September, Henry was here, and received Llewelyn’s homage, and recognised his principality, for which he was to pay 30,000 marcs.

Edward I. let the castle in farm to Bogo de Knovill, for £40 per annum, which rent was mostly expended upon the town defences, the town being a royal borough, under a charter from Henry III., in 1227, strengthened by one from Hubert de Burgh, by which leave was given to enclose it within a wall and ditch, of which the four gates remained in Leland’s days. In 1274 Prince Llewelyn was summoned to meet Edward’s Commissioners at the ford of Montgomery, a favourite trysting-place in that reign: but the Welsh prince did not attend.

The reduction of the principality by Edward I. necessarily destroyed the value of the castles along the march, as bulwarks against the Welsh, and the strong domestic government of that sovereign put an end to the continued rebellions of the Marcher Barons. Under these circumstances the border castles were either allowed to fall into decay, or were employed only as county prisons. In any case they had little or no military value; nor, with the exception of a few passages in the reign of Edward II., and for a while, during the Glendower rebellion, were they regarded as defensible or so employed. Long afterwards, indeed, during the wars of Charles and his Parliament, such of these castles as remained tolerably perfect were garrisoned, defended, usually taken and retaken, and finally slighted or blown up by the prevailing party. Montgomery seems to have had its share of these misfortunes, and no doubt its walls and towers suffered; but in all probability, here, as elsewhere, far more damage has been done by the use of the ruins as a quarry in modern times of peace and prosperity than by the violence attendant upon war. Here, as in most other border castles, the military history of the building closes with the reign of Edward I., up to which point, or nearly so, all that can be said of the castelry, honour, and descent of the castle, has been collected from the original records, combined, digested, and recorded by Mr. Eyton, in his admirable “History of Salop.” For the later history of the castle, may be read with advantage a paper by the Rev. George Sanford, recently printed in the Montgomery Transactions.

The position of Montgomery Castle is formed by nature, and needed only to be seen to be recognised as very suitable for a border fortress. A narrow and lofty ridge of rock, lying nearly north and south, rises abruptly between two valleys; that to the east very suitable for the town which has sprung up within it; that to the west, narrower and equally steep, but rising on its further side to far loftier elevations, one of which is crowned by the encampment of Frydd-Faldwin, and the other, rather lower and more to the south, is occupied by a much smaller work of very different, and, probably, English type. The ridge is in length about 500 yards, and that part of its summit occupied by the castle and its works about 330 yards. Its greatest breadth is about 60 yards, of which the castle may occupy about 40 yards. The ridge is reached from the south-east, or town quarter, by a steep road, but towards the north it terminates in a sharp point, whence a very steep slope falls to the top of a cliff of rock, the whole height being perhaps 250 feet. The contiguous sides are also very steep, so much so that a stone set rolling from the top does not stop till it reaches the gardens and orchards 150 feet or more below. The parish church stands within the town upon an eminence opposite to, but lower than the castle. The view from the ridge extends over the plain of the Severn to the Welsh mountains in one direction, and to the Shropshire hills in the other. Below, in the direction of Chirbury, Offa’s Dyke may be discerned about a mile distant, the castle being upon its outer or Welsh side. The ridge is traversed by three ditches quarried in the rock, and dividing it into four platforms, which formed the four wards of the castle, each of which appears to have been enclosed by walls or palisades, and connected with the others by bridges of timber. The northern and strongest ward is also by some feet the highest ward, and formed the donjon, or citadel; keep there was certainly none. This ward was about 52 yards north and south, by 32 yards east and west. It is nearly rectangular, and its four faces are scarped and revetted, that portion of the wall being about 15 feet high. Upon this stood the curtain and the outer walls of the contained buildings. A considerable building stood on the west face, along the southern half of which a wall remains about 9 thick, which supported a basement and two upper floors, of which holes for the joists are seen. In the first floor is a recess with a window and two garderobes, with shafts in the wall. The window was pointed, and that is all that can be ascertained. In the upper floor is also a garderobe. Connected with this fragment of wall is half a horseshoe tower, 30 feet in diameter, projected 25 feet from the wall. This also had a basement, and two upper floors, but little of it now remains. In the outer side of its wall, to the north, are the remains of another garderobe shaft, and, high up, part of a straight mural staircase. From hence, northwards, is a mere curtain. On the three other faces only the revetment, or traces of it, remain. A heap of rubbish at the south end may be the foundation of the gatehouse. There is no trace of a well, hall, or chapel. The only ashlar remaining is a sort of quoin in the substance of the great wall, and in a window jamb in the horseshoe tower. The masonry is rude but coursed rubble.

Between this and the third ward was a ditch about 20 yards broad, dammed up at its lower or west end to form a pond, probably for the benefit of the castle cattle. There is no trace of a bridge of masonry here. The third ward is a regular oblong, carefully scarped, and probably revetted all round. Only the eastern face is visible, and there the wall is about 20 feet high, with the remains of three half-round solid buttresses, 6 feet in diameter, and something like traces of two more. There is no masonry above the surface of the platform, which is about 40 yards north and south by 35 yards east and west. A ditch of about 8 yards broad divided it from the second ward.

The second ward is roughly oval, about 50 yards long by 30 yards broad, and its southern end is occupied by a rocky mound. There is no trace of masonry connected with this ward, which may have been defended with timber. The ditch dividing this from the first ward is not above 4 yards or 5 yards broad, and very irregular, the depression being apparently in part natural.

The first ward is smaller than the rest, irregular and rocky. It bears traces of dry walling, and upon its platform are the foundations of a rectangular building, and at the south end of a sort of tower, indicated only by a heap of earth. It may have been about 25 yards by 15 yards. It may be that the first and second wards were merely natural platforms palisaded with timber brétasches, as they are called in the close roll, but the third and fourth wards were certainly walled and must have been strong. To the north, 20 feet to 30 feet beyond, below the north ward, is a level triangular platform of turf about 60 yards in the side, and protected by a light bank on which may have been a fence. This platform, by nature so strong, was probably intended for a pasture for cattle. At the other or south end is also a platform, 20 feet or 10 feet below the level of the first ward, and now occupied by a cottage. Here was the entrance, which probably was covered by some sort of tower, protected in advance by a palisade.

Scanty as are the remains of this castle, it may safely be concluded that they present no masonry of Norman date, whether early or late. The plan of the works is, of course, dictated by the natural outline of the rock, and it therein resembles Bere, though that is a little earlier than Henry III., and Dolforwyn, probably a work of that king’s reign. Henry III.’s border castles had no keep. They were mostly mere enclosures, the curtains being set rather thick with towers.

Altogether this castle, as it now stands, seems to be the new castle referred to by Henry III., and built early in his reign, nor is there any trace of any earlier work, although there is every reason to believe that such there was, and that it or they stood on this site. Moreover, as to these earlier works, tempting as is the position, there is nothing in the way of earthwork upon it which can be safely attributed either to the Welsh or the English. That Earl Roger constructed a castle of some kind at or near the present site is certain, and it is very improbable indeed that with a position so convenient, and made so strong by nature, he should have selected any other, nor is there in the immediate neighbourhood any trace of any other work likely to have been constructed later than the Conquest.

It has been mentioned that the borough of Montgomery had licence, in the reign of Henry III., to enclose the town within a wall and ditch, and although gates and ditches do not necessarily imply the more costly addition of a wall of masonry, it is certain that the town was fortified, and Mr. Sandford’s view of 1610 shows a wall including an area somewhat wider than the present town, and, what is very unusual, this wall includes the castle, instead of the castle forming a part of the circuit. No traces of any wall of masonry are known to exist, but outside it, to the west, and at the foot of the slopes of the castle, is a bank with a ditch, looking very much like a local dyke of the age of that of Offa, but which is reputed to be what remains of the town wall. The curious thing is that this dyke, which, while opposite to the castle is commanded and therefore strengthened by the castle rock, passes southwards along the steep slope of an opposite hill, and is there commanded from the outside, and would be utterly untenable. This is often the case with Offa’s dyke, which, though laid out with a bank and outer ditch, was really rather a boundary than intended at every point for defence. Its defence was obviously the general fear of the Mercian power, rather than the apprehension of an armed force at every point along its line. It may be that the town wall was placed upon this bank, but the bank itself seems older and part of an earlier boundary.

For the plan and section of the castle and castle rock which accompany this paper, and add materially to any little value that it may possess, the author and his readers are indebted to the skill and kindness of Mr. Mikleburgh, of Montgomery.

MORLAIS CASTLE, GLAMORGAN.

Upon the northern limits of the county of Glamorgan, and above the eastern and lesser of the two sources of the Taff, stand the ruins of the castle of Morlais, so called from a small brook which rises a little to its north-east, and which, after receiving the Dowlais, flows into the Taff, within the adjacent town of Merthyr.

The castle is placed upon the edge of a considerable platform of mountain limestone rock, quarried extensively during the present century for the neighbouring ironworks, and about 470 feet above the Taff Vechan, which, descending through a steep and narrow gorge of considerable beauty, the boundary of the ancient districts of Brecheinioc and Morganwg, as of the modern counties of Brecknock and Glamorgan, escapes below the castle, through the defile and over the fall of Pont Sarn, to join the Taff a little above Merthyr.

The position, strong upon the north and west, is open upon the east and south; thus, in its want of complete natural defences, resembling in position the Norman castles rather than the Celtic or Saxon camps. It commands an extensive view over much of the upper Taff, and of the Merthyr basin, and was, on the whole, well placed to guard this frontier of Glamorgan against the inland tribes, to give notice of their approach to the garrisons of the plain, and to cut off any spoilers who, having invaded the vale, might be returning by this route to their native fastnesses.

The ancient trackway of Heol Adda, still a parish road, the shortest, and within memory the ordinary, way from Gelligaer and Merthyr to Brecon, passes about half a mile north-east of the castle, and was completely commanded by it.

The ground-plan of Morlais is very simple. A court, of an irregular oval shape, 140 yards north and south, by 60 yards east and west, is enclosed within an embattled wall capped by five or six circular towers, and encompassed on the north, east, and south sides by a moat, discontinued on the west side, which was always steep, though recently quarried into a cliff. The only remaining entrance to the court is on the east side, through a narrow archway in the curtain, which could only have admitted infantry, and which is approached by a steep path and a causeway across the moat. A broader causeway across the moat at its south end seems to have led to a larger gateway, probably commanded by a tower, connected by a curtain with the main wall; but this gateway, if it ever existed, is completely buried beneath the ruins.

The court seems to have been divided by a wall into a northern and southern portion, in the latter of which is the well.

Proceeding to details, A is the southern or keep tower, of two stories. The lower, a polygon of twelve sides, 28 feet in diameter, has a central column, with corresponding facets, branching into twelve fan-ribs, which, forming pointed arches, support the roof, and terminate on the containing wall in as many pilasters. The ribs are of limestone, but the upfilling of the vault is of a calcareous tufa, light, and very strong, and found in situ below a calcareous spring on the Heol Adda road, towards Pont-Sticcill. The whole chamber, though extremely elegant, is quite plain, the mouldings being a mere chamfer with no other decoration. There are neither windows nor loops, and the entrance is by an acute lancet-headed doorway, 5 feet wide by 13 feet high, which occupies the northern facet, and is approached from the court by a descending flight of steps. The upper chamber was probably not vaulted. Like Castell Coch, it seems to have contained several large fireplaces, as well as a garderobe chamber. It was approached by a winding stair, which appears to have terminated below upon a sort of drawbridge across the stairs leading to the crypt, and thus to have communicated with the eastern walls by another stair, exterior to the tower, and also leading to its battlements. In the curtain wall, close north-east of the keep, is a singular cavity, the use of which, if one it had, has not been discovered.

The opposite or northern tower, B, was of much less elaborate construction. It appears to have been a mere shell, 37 feet in internal diameter, of two stories, divided by a timber floor, entered below from the court on the level, and above probably by a winding stair on its north-east side, communicating also with the ramparts of the eastern curtain.

The east entrance, I, 5 feet broad, which was provided with a portcullis, and had a sharply-pointed arch, destroyed about twenty years ago, is placed between two smaller drum-towers, C and D, about 16 feet in diameter, each with its subsidiary well-stair. The northern tower, close to the door, completely commanded its exterior, and the southern, at some distance from the door, but nearly opposite to the causeway, K, commanded that passage, and the steep way up to the gate.

The western wall, probably 6 feet thick, was altogether weaker than the eastern, which was about 12 feet, and instead of two, it seems to have contained but one tower, a chamber of, or perhaps a drain from which, still remains. South-west of the keep are two heaps of rubbish which evidently indicate the position of two towers, one upon the curtain, and the other some way in advance, which latter seems to have terminated a sort of spur wall, projecting 60 feet from the curtain, and intended to cover the principal entrance by the southern causeway.

The well, N, is a singular excavation, rough and unlined, 27 feet square, and now about 44 feet deep. A few years ago it was partially filled up, and it is said before that to have been 70 feet deep. However this may be, it is certain that no water would be reached here at less than 400 feet, a depth which was not likely to have been attained. Close to the well, at O, is an oblong chamber, 44 feet by 24 feet, with broad steps, which appears to have been a tank, probably for rain-water. Near this tank is an oval oven, 11 feet by 15 feet, very perfect, and, singularly enough, formed of limestone. Near to this are the foundations of the kitchen. The wall dividing the court crossed just north of the well, opposite to which are traces of a large bow, and east of this of a doorway. In the southern court, against the east wall, were ranges, probably of barracks, roofed with shingle or tile-stone, with leaden trimmings, the stones and lead having been turned up in the ruins. Near the well is a large heap of mixed iron slag, coal, charcoal, and clinker, probably from a smith’s forge, near to which fragments of iron have been found. The heap is evidently old, inasmuch as it contains crystals of selenite. It also contains chlorine and sodium in various combinations, proving, or thought to prove, that common salt has been used in the operations of the forge, or perhaps in smelting the ore here.

The moat, which ranges from 14 yards to 40 yards from the walls, is about 40 feet broad and 14 feet deep, and its total length is about 370 yards. It has been quarried out of the rock, and its contents no doubt were used in building the castle, which is almost wholly of limestone.

In the moat, at Q, is a driftway, now much broken down, but which it is just possible may have been a private passage into the court. The area covered by the castle, measuring from the exterior edge of the moat, is about four acres.

Exterior to the moat, at its south side, is a sort of semi-circular space inclosed within a mound, and probably intended for the protection of cattle. East of the moat are various holes and ruined inclosures, the former probably old places for burning lime, and the latter shepherds’ huts and folds.

This castle, in 1833, was partially excavated by Lady C. E. Guest, when a metal seal was discovered in an adjacent field. The legend is, S . INON . FILI . HOWEL . GOR .; but the names of Einon and Howell are exceedingly common in Glamorgan pedigrees, and the concluding abbreviation, no doubt a distinguishing cognomen, has not been explained, unless it may be read “Goch” or “the Red.” Coins have also been occasionally picked up. Very recently there were found together several silver pennies of Edward I., and one of Alexander I. of Scotland.

The castle at this time is a ruin, only the mere outline of the walls, and the débris of the towers remaining. The keep alone is above ground. The foundations are, however, tolerably perfect, and have been excavated and traced very recently with a view to the annexed plan. There is reason, from the disposition of the rubbish, to infer that the walls and towers were regularly pulled down from the top, and not, as usual in later days, blown up; so that the castle was probably deserted and dismantled at an early period. Mr. Stephens, whose general authority is in this instance strengthened by accurate local knowledge, was of opinion that this castle was never completed; and this may certainly have been the case.

In the course of the recent excavations a few discoveries were made. The oven was before unknown, as were the staircases of the two eastern towers, and the chambers in the wall of the upper story of the keep, and in the western wall. Very many cut stones, parts of door and window-cases, brackets, &c., were dug up, but all were perfectly plain, having only the chamfer moulding.

The brothers Buck engraved a view of Morlais from the north-west in the last century, which shows the keep, and a small part of the curtain, in a much more perfect state than at present.

The details of Morlais, though good, are, as became an obscure castle, so bare of ornament that it is difficult to refer the building to any precise date. Still the general proportions of the openings, the character of the crypt, and, perhaps, the general plan of the building, point with tolerable certainty to the latter period of the early English style, or the close of the thirteenth century, as about the time of its construction.

The history of Morlais is scanty, but it corroborates the internal evidence supplied by its architecture, and connects it with one of the most remarkable legal struggles between the Crown and the lords of the Welsh marches.

It appears from the public records that, towards the middle of the reign of Edward I., a quarrel arose between Gilbert de Clare, the Red Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, Lord of Glamorgan, and Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, Constable of England and Lord of Brecknock. Both were powerful peers, and De Clare, during the quarrel, had married, 29th April, 18 Edward I., 1290, Joan, the king’s daughter, while De Bohun’s wife, Maud de Fienles, was of kin to the queen. De Clare was the elder, and had the wardship of De Bohun.

The cause of quarrel was a castle, which De Clare had built upon his frontier, and, it was said, upon land belonging to De Bohun. That Morlais was the disputed castle is certain from the general tenor of the evidence, and from the mention of Penderyn Church, which is near to no other fortified place to which the particulars given would apply.

The trespass was the subject of a suit at law, and the king in Parliament, eight days before the Purification of the Virgin, 18 Edward I. (25th of January, 1290), gave a formal order to the two earls to abstain from hostilities. This order they disobeyed, and the new offence, of a far more serious nature than the original one, was at once noticed by the king, and the proceedings upon it are recapitulated with great minuteness in the parliamentary record, made on the occasion of the sentence, on the 7th January, 20 Edward I., 1292.

It appeared from the complaint of De Bohun, that De Clare’s retainers, headed by William de Valers, Richard le Fleming, and Stephen de Cappenore, with horse and foot, and the earl’s banner of arms displayed, had made three forays into Brecknock.

The first time, on Friday (3rd February) after the Purification, 1290, marching from the contested ground, they entered two leagues; the second time on Monday (5th June), before St. Barnabas, five leagues; and the third time, on Monday (27th Novem.), before St. Andrew, they entered seven leagues.

In these incursions they lifted and carried home 1070 head of cattle, 50 farm horses and colts, and sheep, goats and swine unnumbered. Also they wasted the land, and killed several people. The damage was rated by a jury at £100. Of the spoil, De Clare, according to the custom of marcher war, received one-third.

On other occasions, following this example, the loose rogues, “latrones et esketores,” of the district, perhaps some of those who gave name to “Bwlch-y-Lladron” above Aberdare, and “Rhyd-y-Milwr” above Rhymney, repeated the forays; and, besides other outrages, burned the house of “Tyraph,” and the church of Penderyn, taking from the latter a chalice, certain ornaments, and other matters. The earl and his captains were not charged with any knowledge of, or share in, these robberies or sacrileges.

It seems probable that the league (leuca) was not above an English mile, and that their depredations were confined to the south side of the Beacons. If so, that tract of country must have been at least as well stocked as it is now. And it may be doubted whether the modern church of Penderyn, with its hassocks and cassocks, and old prayer-books, would yield as much to any modern “esketores.”

Upon the receipt of this complaint, the king appointed by letters patent William de Luda Bishop of Ely, whom Nicholas calls Lord Chancellor (a statement unconfirmed by the very accurate Foss), William de Valence the king’s uncle, John de Mettingham the honest Chief Justice, and Robert de Hertford one of the judges of the Common Pleas, to inquire into the matter, and especially as to whether the outrages were committed after the royal inhibition. They were to summon witnesses from the counties of Hereford, Caermarthen, and Cardigan, and the parts of Gower, Ewyas, and Grosmont, and they were to report to the king by fifteen days from Easter (22d April), 1291.

The sheriff of Berkshire was to summon the Earl of Gloucester, and Robert de Typetoft, justiciary of West Wales, was to summon his captains. The sheriff of Hereford, the justiciary, Geoffrey de Genville and Theobald de Verdun bailiffs of Ewyas, and Edmund the king’s brother’s bailiff of Grosmont, were to provide the jury. Strathwelly, in Brecknock, was to be the place; and the Monday (12th March) after Quadragesima the time of meeting. Also, to prevent any collusion, the inquiry was to proceed, even should one of the parties withdraw.

The following magnates were also summoned by the king as jurors: John de Hastings, John Fitz-Reginald, Edmund and Roger Mortimer, Theobald de Verdun, John Tregoz, William de Braose, Geoffrey de Cammill (no doubt “Camville,”), and Roger Pycheworth, together with the king’s Welsh seneschals, and his brother’s seneschals of Monmouth, Grosmont, Skenfrith, and Whitecastle. Also were summoned the sheriffs of Hereford and Gloucester, and the seneschal of Crickhowel, so as to provide a jury of twenty-four knights and others. The preparations were not unsuitable to the rank and power of the offenders, and to what it is clear our English Justinian regarded as the excessive heinousness of the offence.

On the appointed Monday, Hastings, then Lord of Abergavenny, and his companions, met the commissioners at Brecknock, and were adjourned to Wednesday, at Laundon; but the commissioners proceeded the same day to Strathwelly, which they reached about three o’clock.

The Earl of Hereford was punctual, but Gloucester and his captains were not forthcoming, though the sheriff and Typetoft proved their summons. It was, perhaps, the probability of this contumacy that had caused the previous adjournment to Laundon, to which place the commissioners next proceeded.

Here, his opponents being still absent, the Earl of Hereford stated his complaint, and demanded an inquiry. Upon this the magnates were called upon to swear, placing their hands upon the book. Hastings and the rest unanimously refused compliance. Their ancestors, they said, in those parts, had never heard of a compulsory oath, except in certain march affairs, sanctioned by custom. They were admonished that the king’s power was supreme, but they still, each for himself, declined, without consulting their peers.

The excuses of certain jurors were next stated. De Braose did not appear, because his lands were in the king’s hands. Pycheworth was a name unknown; but Pychard, who came, was not received. Genville had enfeoffed his son Peter with his Welsh lands. The seneschal of Abergavenny had received no summons. Certain Crickhowell jurors came unsummoned, as their seneschal testified. Roger de Mortimer held his Welsh lands under the Earl of Hereford, and of course could not act; and Edmund’s lands were far off, so no summons had found its way thither. From Tregoz and Camville came neither jurors nor seneschal.

The inquisition then proceeded, and the jury found that the three forays had occurred, and the robberies, &c., as stated; but that John de Creppyng, who had been indicted as a captain, had not been present in person, but had sent his men, and shared the booty.

Before the commission broke up, the charge to the earls to keep the peace was repeated.

The next step, the commission having apparently reported, was taken by the king in council, who summoned the two earls to appear at Ambresbury, on Monday (3rd September) preceding the Nativity of the Virgin. Thither accordingly they came; and as it was well known that there had been new and repeated breaches of the peace, the matter had become still more serious. With a view to fresh evidence on this point, the king further adjourned the inquiry to Abergavenny, where he, his council, the jurors, and the two earls, finally met about Michaelmas.

The Earl of Hereford was asked whether he had disobeyed the royal order either before or since the Laundon meeting; but the Earl of Gloucester, having absented himself, was taken as guilty of the former charge, and invited to meet only the latter. To this he pleaded not guilty; but he was permitted to take objections to the former judgment, and, by special favour, to hear read the previous proceedings.

The points he raised were ingenious, but rather fine spun. He took objection to the writ of scire facias, under which he was summoned, as not having been issued through a court of law in the regular way. This was overruled, on the ground of the importance of the case, and the pressing necessity for action. Next, he objected to the commission itself as an ex officio proceeding, and not binding upon him. Then he advanced that his father, under the orders of the late and present king, had slain or done various injuries to the parents and kin of many of the jurors from Caermarthen and Cardigan, which disqualified them from sitting on the inquest. These also were overruled, the latter on the ground that judgment had gone by his non-appearance. He then said that, between the date of the original prohibition and the first foray (25th January to 3rd February), there had not been time to communicate with his distant and scattered retainers. This also was pronounced invalid.

As to the second foray, the earl pleaded that he was not responsible for it, as the king had at that time seizin of his Glamorgan lands. This was no doubt on the occasion of his marriage, with a view to which event he surrendered, 18 Edward I., his estates, and, after the marriage, took a regrant of them to himself and his wife, under new limitations. It appeared, however, from the records, that the earl had received seizin nine days before the second foray; so this also failed. As to the third foray, he pleaded the recent enfeoffment, which, being entirely new, removed the effect of any prohibition issued to the old feoffee. This, however, was met by a declaration that the prohibition was not territorial but personal; consequently the verdict of guilty was confirmed against himself and his captains.

The breaches of the peace after the Laundon meeting were then inquired into. It was proved that, on the Thursday (29th July) before St. Peter ad Vincula, the Earl of Gloucester’s people having put certain averiæ, or “plough bullocks,” to feed in the disputed ground, the Earl of Hereford’s bailiff and retainers appeared in force. Upon this, De Clare’s men retired with the cattle into their own lands. The others followed, slew some of the men, captured and drove off the cattle, and lodged them in Brecknock Castle. De Bohun had not known of this; but, on its being reported, he directed the cattle to be retained and ransomed. At the time of the inquiry some of them had been killed, and others were in custody at Brecknock.

Further, on Monday (9th August) after the Assumption of the Virgin, the Earl of Gloucester’s men went by night, like robbers, into the Bohun territory. The Bohun retainers, alarmed, drove them back three leagues into their own lands, recovered all the cattle they had stolen, and took several others besides, which they brought home and still kept. Of these expeditions the Earl of Gloucester was entirely ignorant. The Bohun leaders were John Perpoynt, seneschal of Brecknock Castle, and the earl’s bailiff, John Deucroys, or Everoys, Philip Seys, Howell Vaughan, and Howell ap Trahern. Their earl, however, not only did not approve of this second expedition, but on hearing of it, he bound over his captains to bail, under which they still remained. Also, it was shown that, on receiving the royal order, the Earl of Hereford caused it to be proclaimed at church, and market, and other public places. Nevertheless, as he had sanctioned the retaining of the captured cattle, he was also found guilty.

The Earl of Hereford, however, had not offended before the Laundon meeting, neither had the Earl of Gloucester after it.

In each case the jury notice with reprehension that the earls allowed proceedings in the marches which elsewhere would, as they knew, have been punished.

Both earls, with their followers, were committed to jail, and their Welsh franchises taken in hand by the king.

Upon this Edmund, the king’s brother, William de Valence, his uncle, Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and John de Hastings, gave bail for Gloucester; and Reginald de Grey, Robert Typetoft, Robert Fitz-Walter, and Walter de Beauchamp, for Hereford; and, while thus at large, they were permitted to hold their franchises. The earls themselves, thus bailed, were permitted to become bail for their followers, and thus passed 1291.

The parties appeared again at Westminster on the morrow of Epiphany, 1292, but sentence was not finally pronounced until Thursday (17th January) after the octaves of Epiphany, when the parties again appeared before the king at Westminster.

With regard to the Earl of Gloucester, his whole franchise or royalty, totum regale, in Morganwg, was declared forfeited. But whereas he had married the king’s daughter, and had by her offspring; and whereas she had an equal share in the franchise, the earl having a life interest only, he could not forfeit more than his own rights, neither was it lawful to punish the innocent for the guilty. His forfeiture therefore was to be for life only. He was further to be imprisoned during pleasure, and to pay £100 damages to the Earl of Hereford.

The Earl of Hereford’s Welsh franchises, being held by him without limitation, were forfeited altogether, and he also was remitted to prison. But, inasmuch as his offence non est ita carcans, nor deserving of punishment so heavy as that of his brother earl, and as he had married a kinswoman of the queen, who made the marriage, so that the earl’s children and the king’s children would be of kin, his forfeiture also was limited to his life.

The obvious unfairness of the punishment seems to have been in some degree adjusted by the fines under which the earls were restored, Gloucester paying 10,000 marcs, and Hereford 1,000 marcs.

Neither earl long survived this transaction. Gloucester died in the castle of Monmouth in 1295, and Hereford in 1298, but not before he had on more than one occasion made a bold and successful, and strictly legal, opposition to his sovereign.

The retainers were let off lightly, on the plea that they had not been warned by their lords of the royal prohibition. John de Creppyng was fined fifty marcs; his securities being Richard de Creppyng, of co. York, and John Wogan, of Somerset.

Richard le Flemyng was fined £20; his securities were John le Waleys, of Somerset, and Stephen Haucumb, of Cornwall.

Stephen de Cappenore was fined twenty marks; his securities being Robert de Typetoft, and John Lovel, of co. Northampton, at ten marcs each.

William le Valers was fined £10; his securities were John de Creppyng, of Lincoln, and Robert Fylliot, of Cumberland.

Perpoynt and his fellows were left to the ordinary course of law, with a hint that their punishment was not likely to be very severe. And thus ended one of the most important transactions in the history of the Welsh marches; a trial evidently pressed forward by Edward with a view to break down the great, ill-defined, and ill-exercised power of the Lords Marchers, intended to be regulated by the celebrated statute of Rhuddlan.

No apology is necessary for introducing this event at some length of detail into the history of a march castle; besides which, the names contained in it show who were at that time the great lords of the district. They show also, that while De Bohun’s captains were native Welshmen, for the Perpoynts, descendants of Giles Perpoynt, had become naturalised at Gileston a generation or two earlier, De Clare’s affairs were in the hands of strangers to the soil, men whose names, with the exception of Flemyng, do not appear then or since in Glamorgan pedigrees. (“Rolls,” i., 70; Carte, “History of England,” ii., 221; Dugd., “Bar.,” i., 182; Jones, “Brec.,” iii., 143; “Rot. Fin.,” 20 Edward I.)

The original cause of dispute seems to have been overlooked in the consequences, for nothing more is heard of the contested boundary. It is, however, noteworthy, that very near Morlais the county boundary quits the well-defined Taff Vechan, and crosses the mountain in a direction unmarked by any natural features, so that, until an amicable arrangement was arrived at twenty years ago, the actual limit of each county continued to be subject of dispute between the manorial lords on either side.

Morlais, though thus founded amidst contentions, seems, on the whole, to have enjoyed a peaceful, if not an ignoble, existence. No doubt the settlement of the country under the long reign of Edward III. destroyed its value as an outpost, and led to its neglect, or perhaps destruction. No mention of it has been discovered until the days of Leland, who says,—

Morlays Castelle standith in a good valley for corn and grass and is on the ... ripe of Morlais brook. This castelle is in ruin and longith to the king.—(“Itin.,” iv., 39.)

Leland probably had not visited the spot which he thus somewhat incorrectly describes, but his evidence as to the proprietorship is likely to be correct.

The circumstances that led to the construction of Morlais are sufficiently evident from its general position. The lower part of the county was protected not only by the lord’s castles of Cardiff, Llantrissant, and Kenfig, but by a considerable number of lesser castles belonging to private persons, and intended, primarily, for the protection of their estates. It remained to guard against the sudden inbreaks of the Welsh, who, descending from the north, and moving with great rapidity, and having, besides, the advantage of what strategists call “interior lines,” could readily select their point of attack, and cutting off detached parties, or sacking an occasional village or castle, could retreat through paths and at a rate which rendered useless any pursuit by the heavily armed Normans.

To check such marauders, or at any rate to cut them off in their retreat, other castles were constructed by the marchers, such as Castell Coch on the Taff, the tower of Whitchurch a little below it, and finally, at the head of the two great valleys of the Nedd and Taff, and at the apex of this contained triangle of mountainous country, Morlais.

Caerphilly belongs to the same class of defences. It was built hastily, and probably decided upon hastily also. It never was, and Cardiff being the chief seat of the lord, it may be doubted whether it ever could have been, of an importance at all commensurate with its extent and cost. Morlais, on the contrary, seems to have been solidly constructed, and to have been in all respects suited to the purpose it was intended to fulfil.

Local tradition, the tendency of which is, naturally enough, to ascribe all considerable works to the native lords of the soil, attributes this to Ivor Bach, a celebrated chieftain of east Glamorgan, late in the twelfth century, who is reputed to have fallen in fight upon an adjacent spot, still called “Pant-Coed-Ivor.”

That Morlais, like Caerphilly and Castell Coch, was built on the territory of the family of Ivor Bach is no doubt true, since he, his ancestors, and his descendants, as Lords of Senghenydd above and below the Caiach, possessed the whole tract of country between the Taff and the Rhymney, from Cardiff northwards to the Brecon border; but it is clear, from the position of the work, that it was not built by, but intended to curb the aggressions of, those turbulent native chieftains, among whom Ivor and his son Griffith, and their neighbour Llewelyn Bren (1315), played in their day a conspicuous part.

Moreover, the residences of Ivor and his descendants, said to have been anciently at Castell Coch, but known to have been afterwards at Brithdir, at Merthyr, and finally at the Van, have never been recorded as at Morlais, nor is it at all probable that they would have constructed so expensive a dwelling upon the very verge of their domain, and upon a spot far too high and rocky for ordinary cultivation.

It may be objected that, had Morlais been built by the Earls of Gloucester, it would have remained, like Caerphilly, in the hands of the chief lords; for the site of Caerphilly, seized upon by De Clare in the reign of Henry III., still remains an isolated part of the Cardiff lordship in the midst of the Van estate; but it may well be that, while the size and importance of Caerphilly, and its later use as a prison, caused the lords of Cardiff to retain it in their possession, Morlais, from its moderate dimensions and distant position escaping notice, would be dismantled, and the site allowed to revert to the descendants of its original owners, who still held the surrounding estate. It was probably soon after Leland’s time that the Crown allowed its right, as the then Lord of Glamorgan, to fall into disuse.

The Morlais property, including the castle, passed from Ivor Bach’s male descendant, Thomas Lewis of the Van, by the marriage of his daughter with an Earl of Plymouth, to the Windsor family, in which family it still remains.

NORHAM CASTLE, DURHAM.

The castle of Norham-upon-Tweed, “Old Norham,” the Queen of Border fortresses, and the most important stronghold between Carlisle and Berwick, was long the “Castle Dangerous” of that contested territory, and the strongest place on the Marches. It is a lasting monument of episcopal magnificence, founded, restored, and maintained by Flambard, Pudsey, and Beke, three of the most powerful prelates who sat in the chair of St. Cuthbert, and as an example of a great Norman keep is not unworthy to be named with Bamborough itself. The natural strength of the ground led to its early occupation for purposes of defence, and the traditions of Norham are in keeping with its architectural grandeur. Here the Roman legions paused in their progress northwards, and threw up earthworks which may still be recognised, and which were probably abandoned when, under the military occupation of the country, a permanent road was laid out a few miles to the eastward, near to the mouth of the river. An early settlement of the Saxon kings of Deira seems to have been on the steep side of Yevering Bell, the ancient Gebrium, a spur of the Cheviot range, about twelve miles south of Norham, where there yet remain formidable earthworks, which Mr. Raine regarded as traces of the residence of the celebrated Eadwine, King of Deira (585–633), the disciple and friend of Paulinus, but who derived his knowledge of Christianity and probably his taste for a hill residence from Cadvan of Gwynedd, by whom he was educated. Hence, in later times, his successors moved their seat to Millfield, a place near to the Till, and scarcely nine miles from Norham. Probably it was from here that the Saxon kings guarded the pass of the Tweed, then called Ubbanford; and it may well be that their handiwork remains in the banks and ditches, not to be confounded with the camp of the legions, but incorporated with the later castle, and which much resemble in their figure and strength other well-known residences of the ninth century. Here, near this “Northern home” of the successors of St. Cuthbert, Bishop Ecfrid of Lindisfarne founded the parish church dedicated to that saint, towards the middle of the ninth century, and placed in it the remains of Ceolwulph, king and saint. The two contiguous shires of Norham and Island, probably given by Oswald of Northumberland to Lindisfarne, are reputed the oldest possessions of the see of Durham, and detached from the body of the bishopric, presented a bold and strongly-fortified front of twelve miles, from Coldstream to Berwick, to the Scottish invaders. Early in the twelfth century arose the castle, of which the ruins are still so grand, and for the possession of which English and Scottish kings contended for centuries with varying success. The great Edward, “Malleus Scotorum,” made much use of Norham in his wars, and here, both in the church and in the castle, were assembled before him the competitors for the Scottish throne, of whom he selected one rather on the score of his subserviency than of his worthiness. It was also from Norham that Surrey and Dacre and the warders of the middle march directed that formidable raid which, following upon Flodden, carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Edinburgh. But although the broad stream of Tweed still flows at the base of the castle rock, and the scaurs and ravines that constituted the strength of the position still remain unaltered upon its southern frontier, all else is widely changed. The lofty, though ruined, battlements, rising far above the tufted trees, still, indeed, remain the landmark of the local shire, but they no longer look out over wasted lands and ruined villages, harried alternately by Englishman and Scot, “galling the gleaned land with hot assays.” In no part of Britain are the fields more skilfully cultivated, the rickyards more richly stored, the byres stocked with cattle of a higher breed, the farmhouses indicative of greater ease, or the agricultural labourer better able to care for his own interests. All shows plainly to the eye of the experienced traveller what has been achieved by the sturdy northern agriculturist, under the invigorating influence of an unfettered trade.

Norham occupies the hollow of a grand bend of the Tweed, which here cuts “a huge half-moon, a monstrous cantle,” out of the English bank to bestow it upon that of Scotland, in the form of a broad and fertile meadow. The castle stands upon a rocky platform, the south-western extremity of a cliff which forms the river bank for a considerable distance. A deep ravine cuts off the higher ground to the north-east, and is joined by a less marked depression, which, deepened by art, sweeps round and forms the southern defence until it opens upon the steep slope which descends to the river and forms the north and north-western front of the castle. Beyond this ditch, which contained the approach from the village of Norham, and more to the south, is a broad and level platform, also defended by deep ravines, upon which may be traced the remains of the Roman camp and the less regular banks and ditches of some of the besiegers of the castle. Both in its choice and in the manner of occupation of the position are shown much strategical judgment and engineering skill. It is both locally strong and well selected for the defence of St. Cuthbert’s and the Northumbrian frontier from Scottish inroads, as well as for the cutting off such invaders as, having advanced southwards, might be forced to retreat. The description of Simeon of Durham is both concise and accurate. Writing of Flambard, he says: “Condidit castellum in excelso præruptæ rupis super Tuedam flumen, ut inde latronum incursus inhiberet et Scottorum irruptiones. Ibi enim, utpote in confinio regni Anglorum et Scottorum, creber predantibus ante patebat excursus, nullo ibidem, quo hujusmodi impetus repellerentur, præsidio locato.”

The glories of Norham, indeed, have been honourably recorded in every stage of its stirring existence. Its sieges, misfortunes, reparations, and their particulars and cost, are entered in considerable fulness in the sheriffs’ accounts and in those of the Palatine see, and, finally, in its neglect and decay, it has been honoured with Scott for its poet and Raine for its historian.

The plan of the castle is irregular, following the general outline of the ground. Like Barnard Castle, its form is a sort of quadrant, the north and east faces 143 yards and 108 yards long, being nearly at right angles, and more or less straight, and the border to the south-west a curve of 223 yards, connecting the two sides. Of the area thus enclosed, the north-eastern portion is occupied by the upper or inner ward, the plan of which is roughly square, 57 yards east and west by 47 yards north and south, covering, therefore, within its walls 2,680 square yards. The north and east sides of this ward form part of the common curtain of the whole. In front of the other two sides is a broad and deep ditch, which extends from the eastern ravine to the northern steep, and is contained wholly within the outer ward, the available area of which is thus considerably reduced. The whole was contained within a curtain wall which, where it belonged to the inner ward, was high and strong, but where to the outer ward was unequal, being high where it crossed the ends of the inner ditch and along a part of the north front, but elsewhere either very low or of but moderate thickness. Most of the care of the engineer was lavished upon the inner ward.

The keep, the great, and, though a mere ruin, the best-preserved feature of the fortress, is rectangular, and measures at its base about 64 feet north and south by 86 feet east and west, and is or has been about 90 feet high. The walls range from 12 feet to 15 feet thick, and appear to be 8 feet to 10 feet at the summit, which is inaccessible. The east end is a part of the exterior line of defence, and ranges with the curtain. The south face looks into the outer, the two other faces into the inner, ward. The exterior faces have certain peculiarities. The south-east angle is capped by two pilasters, 11 feet broad and of slight projection, which, like the similar pilasters at Kenilworth, rise from a rough, bold, sloping plinth, 12 feet high, continued all along the east end. These pilasters have various sets-off reducing them to 10 feet at the summit. They meet at and cover the angle, which is solid. Near the centre of the east end is another somewhat similar pilaster, only 10 feet broad, and beyond this the wall has been pulled down to the first floor. The part left, forming the north-east angle of the keep, had no pilaster, but is bonded into the northern curtain, which is of its age. The southern curtain is not in the line of the keep, but sprung from its south face about 25 feet west of the south-east angle, where it is seen to have been 7 feet thick and of the height of the first floor of the keep, or about 30 feet. This also was of the age of the keep. The southern face of the keep, so far at least as its outer face is concerned, is of two dates. In the centre, but belonging to the eastern or older part, is a pilaster, 8 feet broad, but without setts-off. Between this and the south-east angle, above the curtain, and also without sett-off, is another pilaster, only 3 feet wide. A flat wall, without pilasters, but with two setts-off near the summit, occupies the next 36 feet westward. The base seems old, but the upper part is certainly later, into which the Decorated windows are probably insertions. Near the west end, about 16 feet from the angle, is a plain pilaster, 3 feet broad and 6 inches projection, which ascends to the second floor level, and stops at the cill of a small pointed doorway in the second floor; above this, in the two upper storeys, are two similar but rather smaller doors. It is probable that these opened from mural lobbies into garderobes of timber, projected from the wall: at least, it is difficult to suggest any other reason for doorways so placed.

The west face is all of one date; the doors and windows are of the Decorated period, but the wall itself is Norman. The curtain of the inner ward abuts upon the south-west angle, and is about 30 feet high and very thick, with a mural closet high up within it, which may be the garderobe, completed probably soon after 1431–2. There are two pointed doors, both at the ground level; one leading into the south chamber of the keep, the other, near the centre, into a well-stair, 10 feet diameter, which ascends in the wall to the summit, and terminates in a raised square turret, a marked feature in every view of the keep. Six loops, one over the other, show the line of this staircase, and a few feet from the top, and over the door, are four or five corbels, which evidently supported some kind of brétasche of timber to protect the doorway below. Above are various windows, three of two lights, trefoiled, square-headed, but Decorated, and others of one light, with square labels. Towards the south end of this front, at the first-floor level, is a large round-headed doorway, evidently the original main door of the keep, the outer stair leading to which is removed. No doubt this stair ascended from the north end, and the chamber in the curtain, now inaccessible, was either an oratory or a garderobe, opening from the vestibule before the door. This end, like the south, is tolerably perfect.

The north front is almost all removed. About 15 feet from the west end there remains one jamb of a door at the ground level. Beyond this, about 26 feet is level with the ground. The remainder, about 45 feet, remains to the level of the first floor, and is pierced by two loops from the basement.

The interior of the keep shows it to have contained a basement and four floors, the whole divided east and west, or longitudinally, from bottom to top, by a party wall 5 feet thick, of which only the lower part remains. The basement, at the ground level, is composed of a north and south chamber, each 60 feet long, the northern 20 feet and the southern 15 feet broad. The southern was divided by a cross-wall into two chambers, both barrel-vaulted, the western rather the longer. The eastern has a loop to the east, high up, set in a splayed, round-headed recess; and in the north wall is a door leading into the north chamber. In the south wall, here 12 feet thick, is a breach 8 feet wide, at the ground level, which probably represents a loop. The western chamber has a loop in the south wall, the recess of which runs into the barrel, producing a groin. In the west end is a doorway and passage through the wall, here 15 feet thick, and by its side a loop. There must have been a door between these southern chambers, in the cross-wall.

The northern chamber seems to have been one room only, broken into four compartments by groined vaulting, between each bay being a broad flat band. There is a loop at the east end, and two others near it, in the north wall. The two western bays are broken down. In the west wall is a loop, and near it, in the north wall, the jamb of a door of entrance, probably the stone doorway into the dungeon vault made in 1429–30, and fitted with an iron gate. This basement vaulting is about 10 feet high to the springing, and is original, as at Bamborough, Mitford, and Newcastle, and the walls and loops all round, seen from within, seem also original, and their interior face work is excellent open or jointed ashlar. The remains of the cross-wall show the first floor to have contained two chambers, both probably vaulted; the southern certainly so. Each was entered by a door from the western staircase. The north and much of the east wall of this north chamber is gone. In the west end is a Decorated window in a large round-headed recess, flat-sided, and near it the entrance from the staircase. In the east end was a loop in a splayed recess. The southern chamber was probably a lower and lesser hall. In its east end is a door from the well-stair, and another door, large and round-headed, once the main entrance. Against the south wall are seen the remains of the vault, of four compartments, groined, the bays divided by cross arches springing from corbels. In the most western bay was a fireplace; in each of the three eastern a round-headed window in a splayed recess. In the east end is a pointed recess and a large lancet window, the whole evidently an insertion. The height of this floor was about 12 feet to the spring of the vault.

The second was the floor of state, and, in the original keep, also the uppermost floor. The two rooms had low-pitched open roofs, of which the weather mouldings are seen, as at Porchester, in the end walls. These rooms were entered, each by its own door, from the well-stair, but the northern door has been built up and a loop placed in it. Of the north chamber there only remains a large window in the west wall, in a drop arch, a Decorated insertion. If there was any fireplace, it must have been in the dividing wall. The south chamber was evidently the great hall. In its east end is a large full-centred Norman recess, containing a Norman window. In the west wall, besides the staircase door, here pointed below a square label, is a pointed recess and window. In the south wall are two bold, round-headed recesses splayed to small lancet windows, and west of these a pointed door, probably entering a mural chamber, and communicating with the door already mentioned, in the outer face of the wall.

Originally there was no third floor, and to provide this the hall roof was removed, and for it substituted a flat ceiling supported by nine joists, the holes for which remain. On these were laid the planks of the third floor. Of this the north chamber had in its west end a segmented arched window recess and the staircase door, now blocked up. In the north chamber, west end, was a similar staircase door and a pointed window recess. The east wall was not pierced, neither was the south wall, save by one window, and near it a small pointed door, near the west end. The covering of this storey was composed also of nine joists, which carried the planks of the fourth floor.

Of this floor the remains are but slight. It also was composed of two chambers. Of the north the west wall remains, but it contains neither window nor staircase door. The south chamber has in its west end a window, and in its south wall a fireplace. Of this wall only about 6 feet in height remains, so that probably about 4 feet to 6 feet of its upper part is gone. Considering the thickness of the walls, the absence of mural chambers and galleries in this keep is remarkable.

The keep was certainly built originally by Ralf Flambard in 1121, and the eastern end and adjacent halves of the north and south sides were certainly of the same date. It is also pretty certain that Flambard’s keep was of the same size with the present one, and the whole basement, and the vaulting of the first floor, seems original. Probably there was but one entrance, that in the west end at the first-floor level, and there would be, in that case, an exterior tower or fore-building, covering the staircase, and of which there seem to be traces in the face of the curtain against which, as at Kenilworth, it must have abutted. The entrance is quite plain, and without a portcullis. Bishop Pudsey, who ruled from 1158 to 1174, is said to have rebuilt the western half of the ruined keep. Possibly he only restored it, for it is scarcely probable that half of so very substantial a building should have been pulled down, either with the means or in the time at the disposal of any band of invaders; still, it must be admitted, that the western half differs materially from the eastern. In the latter, the plinth is bold and high, and the pilasters marked features. In the western part are no pilasters, and no plinth of any consequence, and the setts-off of the wall are at a different height. If Bishop Pudsey rebuilt the western half, he did so in the late Norman style, so that the work harmonises inside with that of Flambard. Pudsey, no doubt, raised the walls somewhat, converted the ridge roofs of the second story into a flat covering, and, in the space thus gained and created, added two more floors, as was done to the extent of one floor, at Porchester, Kenilworth, and Richmond, and in many other Norman keeps.

In the Decorated Period great changes were certainly made. Doors were opened at the ground level in the north and west walls. The fore-building was removed, and in its stead a well-stair inserted in the centre of the west wall, so as to provide a new and convenient approach to each floor; and this was carried up to the end in a raised turret, adding somewhat to the view. The entrance to this staircase was at the ground floor on the outside, but it did not lead into the basement. The whole of the west wall and the contiguous half of the south wall were faced with ashlar, and window-cases of the period inserted. All this may well have been the work of Anthony Beke, “Presul Magnanimus,” called “the maist prowd and masterfull Busshop in all England,” in that period—

When valour bow’d before the rood and book, And kneeling knighthood served a Prelate lord.

The window recesses all through the building are mostly in the Norman style, and therefore in almost every case much older than the windows which they contain.

The three ends of the curtain abutting on the keep are of the same workmanship with, and bond into it, and are about 30 feet high. That proceeding northwards is capped at the north-east angle by a stout bastion, with a salient angle of 110 degrees, two faces of 17 feet, and shoulders of 4 feet. This is evidently a rebuilding after the introduction of artillery, and probably the work of Sir George Bowes. This curtain is continued 30 feet further along the river face, and is thence broken down. The kitchen seems to have been in the angle, the hall next to it, and then the chapel, all built against the north curtain. The curtain now standing corresponds closely to what the survey of 1515 calls the long high wall from the Dongeon to the north-west end of the kitchen (44 yards long and 30 feet high, contremured, so as to be 28 feet thick). We are told that in 1551 the chapel was 30 feet by 18 feet, with walls 8 feet thick, and with a crypt below capable of stabling 20 horses, and a “closet” above, and that the battlements above this closet and of the long wall were of the same height, and so extended from the north-east angle of the keep round to its south-west angle. In Sir George Bowes’s very able report upon the castle, he advises strengthening this wall by filling the hall and other buildings with earth, and forming a hall in the first floor of the keep, which seems then to have been much such a ruin as at present. Passing to the south-west angle of the keep, whence springs the southern curtain of this inner ward, also 30 feet high and very thick, this is continued 50 feet, and then broken by a nearly rectangular bastion tower of 40 feet projection, and 30 feet breadth, the “little Bulwark” of 1551;—a Decorated insertion to give a flanking defence where it was much needed. In the rear of this tower, which probably was of the nature of a bastion, that is not higher than the curtain, are remains of buildings. Beyond it, a high bank of earth and rubbish marks the line, but conceals the remains of the rest of the curtain. In this bank, towards the west, a gap marks the position of the gatehouse. The well remains near the north-east corner of the ward, and indicates the general position of the kitchen.

The Outer Ward, or that part of the castle outside the ditch of the inner ward, is of a lunated figure, 50 yards at the widest part. This ditch was crossed at each end by the curtain. The lower part of the wall at the east end still remains, and is about 8 feet thick, and 30 feet high, pierced by a Norman arch, probably for a postern, as at Carlisle. The curtain along the northern front is gone. The slope is there very steep, and in Sir George Bowes’s time this was trusted to, and the wall was a mere low breastwork. More to the west, as far as the lower gatehouse, the wall has been rebuilt. It is in parts about 15 feet thick, and 10 feet high inside, and from 15 feet to 20 feet outside. It probably rests in part on a Norman foundation, but the superstructure looks Decorated or later. It was pierced by deep recesses 11 feet broad under a flat arch, splayed to a loop, and intended to flank the approach from the town to the outer gate. Three of these recesses remain, and probably there were two more.

The lower gatehouse is a rectangular block 40 feet long by 20 feet broad, and of 30 feet projection within the curtain. It is pierced by a passage 15 feet wide, reduced at each end and in the centre by gate piers to 12 feet. These piers carried ribs to stiffen the barrel vault of the passage. The arches were round-headed. There was no portcullis. In front of the gate, as at Tickhill, are two projecting walls, between which there was probably a drawbridge. There was an upper floor. This gatehouse is evidently Norman, and no doubt Flambard’s work.

From the gatehouse eastward for about 130 yards the curtain is represented by a high and steep bank of earth and rubbish, which, no doubt, contains its foundations. The ground rises, and the original bank, as well as the curtain upon it, were evidently raised to command the platform opposite and beyond the ditch, which seems to have been the favourite position for besiegers. The curtain recommences, and is continued for 80 yards along the high ground, forming the east end of the southern front. This part of the curtain is very curious, and not a little difficult to understand. Upon it are the remains of one, or perhaps two, polygonal bastions, but in the line of the wall, between them, are six round-headed arches of about 12 feet span, springing from square piers about 3 feet or 4 feet broad. Most of the masonry is so rough that it evidently was intended, as at Southampton Castle, to be covered with earth, though why, while the foundation was excellent, this mode of supporting the curtain should have been employed, is not clear; but the first, that is, the most western, of these arches is of ashlar, and seems to have been a gateway, and is probably the gateway mentioned in the history of the castle as having had its gates unskilfully hung upon gudgeons so placed that they could be lifted off from the outside. Beyond these arches and bastions the curtain makes a sharp turn, and proceeds northwards to 60 yards, to cross the ditch and join the keep.

In front of the lower gate is a small platform, beyond the ditch, and which was, no doubt, stockaded to cover the entrance and enclose the barriers.

The archway described as probably a gate may have been intended to facilitate the entrance of the villagers and their cattle, in the event of a raid. The outer ward was intended by Flambard, it is said, to afford this shelter, and the deep outer ditch was also so employed. In late times a complaint is made, that whereas formerly the castle ditch was, under all circumstances, a place of security for the villagers and their property, now they are attacked and captured by the Scottish rievers under the very walls of the fortress.

The southern and outer ditch is said to have been used as a mill-pool, its mouth being closed by a dam. This ditch is reputed to have been excavated in 1495; but though it may have been then deepened and a dam formed, it must always have been part of the original defence.

Although there is no record of any fortress or residence here before the time of Flambard, it is most probable, looking to the position and the earthworks, that it was so employed by the Saxon kings of Deira. These earthworks and the general treatment of the position are thoroughly English, just as the manner in which they are incorporated with the works in masonry is thoroughly Norman.

The authentic history of the castle begins with 1121, when Bishop Flambard is recorded by Hoveden to have commenced it. Probably Flambard’s keep much resembled in outline and dimension, save that it was from 10 feet to 20 feet lower, that we now see, and his inner and outer ward must necessarily have been the same with the present, and in great part within the existing walls. Fifteen years later, in 1136, the castle was taken by David, King of Scotland, and held for his niece, the Empress Maud, for some months, until, under a treaty with Stephen, it was restored to the bishop. David, however, again attacked and took it in 1138, when it is said to have suffered much injury, and to have been dismantled.

Bishop Hugh Pudsey, or Puisét, reputed to have been Stephen’s nephew, succeeded to the see of Durham in 1153, and probably at Stephen’s suggestion restored the keep. What he did it is very difficult to determine, since the lapse of forty years had not materially changed the style of architecture then in use, but whatever it was, it was confined to the western parts of the keep, and did not affect the eastern end. His funds were raised by the sending his archdeacon round the country provided with a fragment of St. Cuthbert’s winding-sheet, to be shown to subscribers only. Puisét’s labours were only too successful, for, being suspected of a leaning towards the party of Prince Henry and the Scots, he was called upon by Henry II. to give up Norham, together with Durham and Northallerton Castles, and did so in 1174–7, when his castellan, Roger de Conyers, was superseded by William de Neville. Soon afterwards, upon paying a fee of 2,000 marks, the castles of Durham and Norham were restored to the see: Northallerton had been destroyed. On the bishop’s death in 1195, Norham again fell into the king’s hands, and £29. 6s. 8d. was paid for its maintenance.

King John was here, it is supposed, four times during the vacancy of the see, and the consequent holding of the castle by the Crown. First, 4th August, 1209, the only visit recorded in his itinerary, when he was preparing to invade Scotland. He stayed at least three days, for, as Mr. Raine has pointed out, an instrument given in the “Fœdera,” as dated 7th August, Northampton, is clearly from Norham. A little later he seems to have negotiated a treaty here with William the Lion, which was confirmed at another meeting about November, 1211, when William brought his son Alexander to do homage. He is also said to have paid another visit. All that can be shown is, that in April, 1210, he was at Durham, and in 1213 at Warkworth, places within easy reach of Norham.

In 1215, the castle was besieged without success for forty days by Alexander, King of Scots, who thence advanced into England, leaving Norham and Bamborough unsubdued in his rear. He retired before John, whose followers harried the Scottish border up to Edinburgh.

Early in the reign of Henry II., in 1219, Norham was visited by Pandulf, the legate, who had recently consecrated Bishop de Marisco to the see. With him came Stephen de Segrave, on the part of England, and King Alexander, to settle disputes between the two kingdoms. On the bishop’s death, 1226, and even after the consecration of Bishop Poer, 1228, Norham was held by the Crown. In 1258, Robert Nevill of Raby was constable for the Crown. Bishop Anthony Beke succeeded to the see in 1283, and held it till 1310. He was rather a warrior and statesman than a priest, and bore a prominent part in Edward’s northern transactions. In May, 1291, Edward I. was at Norham, attended by a large muster of northern barons, to meet, hear, and decide between the claimants of the Scottish crown. Edward resided in the castle; the Scots were quartered at Ladykirk, then Upsetlington, beyond the Tweed. The proceedings were opened on the 10th of May with great state in the church of Norham, and in the same church, that now standing, Edward, on the 3rd June, received the recognition of his authority by the claimants. The court was then adjourned to Berwick, and Baliol, who was said to owe his selection to the bishop’s interest, rendered homage for Scotland at Newcastle. In 1296, Bishop Beke raised the banner of St. Cuthbert, and attended his sovereign into Scotland, at the head of 140 knights, 1,000 foot, and 500 horse, he himself leading them in armour. The roll of Caerlaverock describes him as—

Le noble eveske de Doureaume, Le plus vaillant clerk de Roiaume.

These troops formed the van of the royal army, and penetrated as far as Aberdeen. He was present also in later campaigns, and in one was wounded. His power and arrogance were, however, too great for a subject, and excited the ill-will of Edward, whom, however, he survived, dying 1310. Beke was a magnificent builder, and it is probably to him that must be attributed the facing of the part of the keep which had been restored by Pudsey; and the insertion of the great well-staircase and Decorated window-frames. In 1314, the castle was conceded by Bishop Kellow to the Crown, and Edward II. is said to have executed some repairs there. In 1316 it was restored to the see. Norham had its full share of the troubles of the border during the weak reign of Edward II. Its captain, Thomas Gray, was twice besieged in form by the Scots, once by blockade for twelve months and once for seven months. On one occasion the outer ward was taken, but as, after three days’ possession, the enemy could produce no impression upon the inner ward, they retired from so dangerous a proximity. Later in the reign, 1322, it was taken, but recovered by Edward in person after a siege of ten days. In 1327, the night of the coronation of the new sovereign, it was near being taken by treachery, but the plot was frustrated by Thomas Manners, then captain. Edward II. is reputed to have executed great works at the castle.

Edward III. found Lewis Beaumont in the see of Durham. The bishop recovered Norham, though with some difficulty, but Barnard Castle remained alienated. In 1335, his successor, Bishop Bury, held an ordination at Norham.

In 1356, ten years after the battle of Nevill’s Cross, the Scots burned Norham, probably the village, and surprised the town, but not the castle, of Berwick, which held out till the arrival of Edward III. from Calais, when the affront was amply avenged, and Bishop Hatfield attested Baliol’s surrender of the crown at Roxburgh Castle in 1357. During the reigns of Henry IV., V., and VI., Norham was well maintained, and played a part in all the great transactions on the Border. The accounts kept by the Bishops of Durham are very copious, and contain many curious technical and local words. The outer bridge was repaired with timber in 1405, as was the roof of the Pex or Pox hall within the castle. A wheel was made for the well, with an axle, gudgeons, and a bucket. The great and other chambers and the kitchen were leaded. Mention is made of the chapel and of the chaplain. The nights being long and cold, extra wages were paid to the watchers, lights were allowed for the chapel, and repairs effected for the whole castle, excepting the great tower. In 1408, the west gate was wholly rebuilt in 298 days, at a cost of £37. 6s. 7d. This can scarcely be the lower or outer gate at the extreme west, which is much older, and was probably the inner gate, which is also to the west of the keep. “Les skafald” is mentioned, and a paling of wood round the tower. In 1422 was built the “new tower within the castle,” and in 1426–7 four iron doors were brought from the bishop’s forges at Auckland.

In 1429–30, during the episcopate of Cardinal Langley, “quædam nova latrina” was appended to the west side of the great tower, a work not completed in 1431–2. Also a great doorway in stone was made under the vault of the Dongeon of the great tower, probably the door in the north wall, of which one jamb remains. The doorway was fitted with an iron door. The draw-well had a new wheel, and a new horse-mill was constructed within the castle.

Hitherto the bishops, when in possession of the castle, had occupied it by their own officers, but in 1435 the cardinal introduced the practice of letting it for a term to some powerful captain who was bound to maintain and defend it, and received a good payment for so doing. This practice was found convenient, and resorted to not infrequently afterwards. The lessee seems sometimes to have been invested by the bishop with the offices of constable of the castle and sheriff and escheator of the see. Bishop Fox began his rule in 1495 by deepening the outer ditch, and, indeed, the aspect of the times rendered prudent all possible precautions for defence.

In that same year, Henry VII., alarmed at the reception of Warbeck in Scotland, prepared for war: a commission of array for the Marches was issued to the bishop, and Lord Surrey took the command north of Trent. King James crossed the Border from Scotland in two successive years, and in the second, 1497, appeared in person before Norham. It was strong and well garrisoned, and by some accounts the bishop threw himself into the fortress, within which shelter had been afforded to all the country round. During sixteen days of fierce assault the outer defences were much injured, but the place was not entered, and Surrey came to its relief. The bishop then laid aside the temporal arm and excommunicated Redesdale and Tynedale. In September, 1498, he was at Norham, and lifted his censure from the borderers who submitted. Hamerlin and Garth, his lieutenants, during the siege, were pensioned for their bravery in the defence.

In 1513, 22nd August, the year of Flodden, King James crossed the Tweed in force, and on the 29th Norham, imperfectly garrisoned, was surrendered to him and very roughly handled. The king then

Wasted his time with Heron’s dame,

while his army took Etal, Wark, and Heton, and the lesser holds of Tilmouth, Shoreswood, Twisel, Duddoe, and Thornton. This gleam of success was succeeded by the defeat of Flodden, after which, in 1514, Lord Dacre ravaged the Scottish border to beyond Borthwick. If the bishop’s garrison showed want of courage during James’s attack, the main body of the forces of the bishopric redeemed its character at Flodden, where they led the van under Sir William Bulmer. It was the last appearance of St. Cuthbert’s banner in the open field, and often as it had been displayed, it had never been attended by defeat. Bishop Ruthal once more put the castle in repair; the inner ward and the keep were made safe, and much money expended in masons’ and carpenters’ work on walls and roofs. The castle had been “prostratum et disruptum ad terram” by the Scots, a phrase which, however, is not to be taken literally. Bishops-Middleham is said to have been stripped for materials for Norham. By 1515 the castle was in order, victualled, and garrisoned. The walls were countermined as a precaution against “sawting,” or blowing up. The outer walls were buttressed and provided with “Murderers,” a well-known piece of ordnance of that day. When all was done, the masons were despatched to pull down Home Castle.

Nothing seems to have lasted very long at Norham, for William, Lord Greystoke, the captain, found the outer ward so ruined as to be defenceless. Its four towers were too low, but the inner ward was regarded, “with the help of God,” as impregnable. At this time the long wall between the inner gate and the nether gate next the water was ready to be embattled. The four towers were to be raised with ashlar, and quarry rubbish was ready to fill up three of them. Wolsey held the see from 1522 to 1528, but does not seem to have troubled himself about the castle.

About 1530 the Scots appeared before Norham, but the castle was saved by the valour of Archdeacon Franklin, who had a special coat-of-arms assigned to him by Henry VIII. for this service. At this time there was regular stabling for 60 horses, a byre for cattle, which, if necessary, could hold 50 more horses, and there was room beneath the chapel for another 20, or 130 in all. Besides stores of salt meat, fish, and grain, 6 fed oxen and 400 sheep lay nightly beneath the castle wall. The garrison was composed of 59 men, besides children. This state of defence was probably stimulated by a whisper of treason, which caused the Privy Council to direct the Duke of Norfolk “to look to it.” Bishop Tunstal seems to have maintained the defences during the reign of Mary.

In the next few years, however, great changes took place. In 1542, the castle was finally put in order by Bishop Tunstal; but in 1551 the bishop was deprived, and the castle was reported again to need repairs. The wall of the inner ward towards the Tweed was rotten, the water having got into it on the removal of the lead from the adjacent buildings, and in such a state that a very light battery on the Scots’ bank would suffice to bring it down with the hall and kitchen. Half the keep had some time since fallen. The reporter, Sir George Bowes, points out the weakness of the place, and then, at great length, how an old castle was to made defensible in modern warfare. He especially dwells on the absence of flanking works. The outer ward wall, on the east, west, and south, is old, thin, and weak, and its small ward towers badly placed as flankers. The north wall was a low parapet, and the outer ward gates so hung that they could be lifted from the outside. He advises filling hall and kitchen with earth to support the river ward wall, and constructing a hall in the ruins of the keep. He is said to have lowered the keep one storey, reserving only the stair turret as a look-out. Probably it was at this time that the north-east bastion was built, and the embrasures made in the outer ward wall.

In 1557 there was a fray in front of the castle, in the space between the bridge and the iron gate. There were but four men in the place. In 1559, Tunstal died, and the castle was finally and by law detached from the see of Durham and held by the Crown, Lord Hunsdon having a lease of it from Elizabeth. Lord Hunsdon’s representatives, the Careys, were induced by James to part with their lease to Home, Earl of Dunbar, in whose favour the property was converted into a freehold to be held by socage tenure of the Crown. As late, however, as 1583 it was kept up as a place of defence, probably for the police of the border, and had an establishment of a captain of horse, an ensign bearer, a trumpeter, a porter and assistant porter, a master-gunner, a quartermaster gunner, 16 gunners, a chaplain, and a surgeon, costing not less than £1,703. 6s. 8d. per annum.

The history of Norham Castle and Shire will be found given in great detail and with great accuracy in the history of North Durham, by the Rev. James Raine.

NOTTINGHAM CASTLE.

The annexed drawing, taken from the Illustrated London News, represents admirably, in Nottingham in the sixteenth century, the appearance of a very perfect castle of the first class. The Norman keep is seen on the curtain between two wards. The smaller or inner ward is original and Norman. It was enclosed in a lofty and strong curtain, following the outline of the rock on which it stood, and strengthened at its three most exposed angles by rectangular towers of no exterior projection. On two sides of the court were lodgings, and in the wall was a postern with exterior steps. The main gate of this ward was placed in the face next the tower, near the keep, and was covered by the middle ward. To the original castle was added, probably in the reign of John, or that of Henry III., a second or middle ward, having an entrance through the base of a square tower, so placed as to cover the least protected angle of the original castle. A square tower serving as a gatehouse shows the arrangement was an early one, probably not later than the reign of John. This ward was contained within a strong curtain, with cylindrical mural towers of bold projection, and was so placed as to cover one side of the inner ward, and had its own ditch. Again, outside the two preceding wards, and applied so as to cover them on two sides, and the keep-ward on one side, was a large outer ward calculated to contain a small army. This ward was also walled with round bastion towers, that is, towers on the wall, but not rising above it. It also had two, or probably three, gatehouses and a ditch. The utter destruction of so noble a remnant of early military architecture is much to be regretted.

The drawing shows the Trent and the castle mill, but not the two Burhs, mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon “Chronicle” as guarding the river.

ODIHAM CASTLE, HANTS.

About a mile north-west of the town of Odiham, in the tything of North Warnborough, stands what remains of this ancient castle. It is placed on the left bank of the Whitewater, a rather copious stream, which rises about two miles south, and flows northwards to fall into the Loddon at Swallowfield. About the castle the ground is low and flat, and, in consequence, very wet. The Basingstoke canal has been carried across the marsh, and being now abandoned and choked with weeds, adds to the dreariness of the scene. The place, no doubt, was always one of strength, and the open woodland about it was favourable to the preservation of game, and to the wilder kind of sporting in which the Plantagenet monarchs took great delight.

Whatever may have been the extent of the castle in its great days, its remains in masonry are confined to a single tower, now in a very dilapidated condition. This tower is an octagon, described within a circle of about 29 feet radius, the faces, not quite equal, averaging 22 feet 6 inches. The walls, casing included, were 10 feet thick; the interior faces, therefore, average 14 feet 9 inches, and the interior diameter from face to face is 38 feet. At each angle is set a buttress of 4 feet projection and 2 feet breadth, rising to the summit, or nearly so, of the building, now about 60 feet high, and which, the parapet and part of the wall being gone, may have been 8 feet higher. As the tops of some of the upper windows remain, it may be inferred that the height, when complete, did not exceed 68 feet.

The material of the tower is a conglomerate of small flint nodules grouted in a large quantity of very good mortar. The whole exterior seems to have been faced with small ashlar blocks, possibly of Caen stone. The casing is gone, but the mortar has preserved the beds of the stone more or less perfect. The same stone was used in the interior for dressings for the openings, and for a band about 4 feet high at the base of the wall, and for the groining of the internal angles. In these two latter positions, some of the ashlar has been left undisturbed. About one-third of the tower, including most of the two western faces, has fallen; but though the remainder is very rough and a mere mass of flint conglomerate, held together by the excellence of the mortar, the cores of the buttresses remain, and enough of the recesses of the window openings to show something of their original form and dimensions.

The tower is composed of a basement and two stories. The basement floor is about 6 feet below the exterior ground level. It was about 12 feet high, and six of its eight faces appear to have been pierced. Of these openings, five commence within at 4 feet from the floor. They were round-headed and 4 feet wide. They converged upon an ordinary loop, and as the cill rose by six steps, the base of the loop was about a foot above the exterior ground level. Three of these recesses are tolerably perfect; another, judging from an appearance in the wall above, may have been the door into the base of a well-stair, ascending in the wall to the summit. Such a stair there was likely to have been, and the hollow in the wall is more like that for a staircase than for a chimney-shaft or a garderobe vent, and the weakening of the wall by such staircase would account for its having fallen on this side. The stair, if such it was, occupied the south end of the south-west face. Two of the openings in the basement have been called doorways of entrance from without. What remains scarcely leads to this conclusion, and it is exceedingly improbable that there should have been a door on the ground level when there certainly was one on the first floor. Sir E. Home’s plan, mentioned below,[11] shows a sort of staircase in the centre of the tower, as though descending to a sub-basement floor. Of this not a trace is visible, and in so wet a soil a chamber much below the surface would be usually full of water. As regards the ground-floor entry, it is very possible that here, as usual, a basement window may, in modern times, for the convenience of entry, have been converted into a door, and so the present appearance produced.

The first or state floor was about 30 feet high. Its south face was occupied by a very capacious fireplace, with a bold hood and mantel-piece of ashlar, now gone, and it had a round back and a large circular chimney-shaft carried up vertically in the thickness of the wall. Of the other seven faces, two are gone, and four are pierced with lofty, round-headed arches, about 8 feet broad, and slightly splayed. These, no doubt, terminated in small coupled windows. In the east face is an opening without splay, evidently a doorway, and, no doubt, the main entrance, with an exterior stair, as at Brunless and Coningsburgh. In an adjacent face is a large square locker.

The upper floor also had a fireplace, a smaller one above that on the state floor, and in front of its chimney-shaft. This lesser shaft seems to have been of ashlar. The arch of the fireplace is of three rings, each of large, thin red tiles, having a very Roman aspect. In this floor the window recesses were ranged in pairs, two in each face. Of these, three and a half pairs, or seven window arches, remain. In the east face is a small locker. This story may have been 18 feet high.

The floors were of timber, and composed of large beams, laid about 6 inches apart. As the wall is the same thickness throughout there are no setts-off, and the walls are pierced with square recesses for the beams. As these recesses are not parallel but radiating, it is clear that the floor rested, as in the Wakefield Tower in the Tower of London, upon a central pier or post.

There are no traces of any mural chamber of any kind.

The history of this tower, the character of its casings, the thickness of its walls, and the round-headed figure of such arches as remain, point to the Norman, or commencement of the early English, period. Nevertheless, it is in plan very unlike the usual Norman structures, and the buttresses, clearly original, are characteristic of a very much later period. If it be Norman or transitional, it is very late indeed in the style; as late as the reign of Richard I., but it must be confessed that the buttresses are much more in harmony with the date of Richard II.

The tower stands near the centre of a roughly-circular platform, about 38 yards diameter, slightly raised above the marsh, and surrounded by a ditch. Beyond this ditch there is, on the north-east front another enclosure with its ditch, and the canal seems to have been carried through something of the same character. All this looks as though there had been an earlier fortification of earth and timber, possibly the seat of the Saxon Odo, of whom nothing is known or surmised but his name.

There are no traces of any other masonry than the tower, and if it stood alone this would account for the otherwise marvellous exploit of the castle having been held out by thirteen men for many days against the Dauphin’s army. Of course, the extent of wall which so small a garrison could defend would be very limited; but with a tower such as Odiham, well-victualled, and a fireproof door, an army, especially unprovided with mining tools or military engines, as with an invading force would not be improbable, could do but little. Nevertheless, some of the records relative to the castle indicate other buildings besides the tower, though all traces of them are now gone.

Odiham has no history before the time of Domesday. That it was the seat of a Saxon lord is to be inferred from its name, though some authorities repudiate “Odo” and his “Hame,” and substitute for him Woodyham, Oodyham, Odiham, an etymology, no doubt, applicable enough to the district.

In Domesday, King William is recorded as holding Odiham in demesne; Earl Harold had held it. It is twice mentioned in that record, and was in the hundreds of Edefele and Bermesplet, though a hundred of Odiham is also named. Nothing is said of a castle, nor does the name of the Bishop of Winchester, to whom it has usually been attributed, occur, either then or afterwards, in connexion with the lordship, borough, or castle. Among the royal tenants occur certain “Taini regis,” who were represented in the reign of Edward I. by the “Homines et sokemanni regis,” who then had common of pasture in Odiham.

Richard I. held Odiham. In the first year of his reign certain payments are entered upon the Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer connected with it. Roger Fitz-Renfrid accounted for 20s. for a cowhouse or vaccary there; William de Bend for 100s.; and the sheriff accounted for 12d. for land held by Richard de Rollos. The town also fined 20s. for a murder.

Odiham is frequently mentioned on the same rolls in the reign of John, who was there nineteen times in nine years, for at least forty days in all. In 3 John, William de Bend is probably represented by Adam de Benderges, who appears with Richard de Rollos.

5 John. The men of Odiham had a charter concerning the manor, and they held the vill in fee farm at a fine of 100 marks or £35. 4s. rent.

6 John, 1204. King John was here on the 28th July. Probably he had a palace here, for such there certainly was a little later at Odiham, and it is said to be represented by a farmhouse still known as “Palace” or “Place Gate.” 11th March, Hugh Fitz-John was to have his corn at Odiham, then in the king’s hands, and (26th May, 8 John, 1206) John Fitz-Hugh was allowed in his rent the value of his chattels which the bailiff of Robert de Vipont had taken, saving the stock sold from the same manor for the king’s use by his orders.

9 John, 1207. On the 23rd June the king was at Odiham; and on the 29th, John Fitz-Hugh was to take and hold the manor until the men there had paid the debt due to the king. 10th August, the same John was ordered to have 20 marcs from the king’s treasure for the works at Odiham; and 26th October, a new bed was ordered for Woodstock and another for Odiham, in which, no doubt, King John slept when there in December for three days. There also was an order for payment for making the ditches there at the king’s command (Close Roll, p. 94 b). In 11 John, £50 was ordered for works there. In February, May, and October, of the same year, 1210, John was at Odiham; in 14 John, 1212, he went from Lambeth to Odiham, and arriving on Sunday, 6th May, tested documents there. On Monday, 3s. were paid for the hire of three carts, travelling two days and resting one, conveying the wardrobe from Lambeth; also 13d. to Ferling the huntsman and Thos. de Porkericiis, with the hounds, for their expenses and sleeping one night on the road. John then left, but returned to Odiham on the 10th. While absent on the 8th at Freemantell, he paid 6s. for the heads of six Welshmen,—ghastly trophies sent to him. On the 10th, 5d. were paid for cords bought at Winchester to string the cross-bows, besides expenses for hiring carts. John was seven days at Odiham in the May of this year, and afterwards in December. On 25th May, he paid 5s. to Stephen de Guildford for a wolf caught by his master’s dogs at Freemantell.

15 John, 1214. Money had been spent by John Fitz-Hugh on repairs of the king’s castles of Windsor and Odiham. The king was at the latter place in January.

Magna Charta was tested 15th June, 1215, 17 John. In the preceding May the king was at Odiham, from the 21st to the 25th, and from the 28th to the 30th, seven days. On the 29th, he addressed the letter to Pope Innocent, in which he pleaded the contumacy of the barons as the reason why he could not go to the Holy Land. On the same day the castle of Devizes was ordered to be repaired, and Hugh de Beauchamp’s lands were to be taken possession of if he was with the rebels. From the 31st of May to the 3rd of June, the king was at Windsor. On 4th June, he was at Odiham, whence he went to Winchester and was there from the 5th to the 8th. He thence paid a hasty visit to Merton, but was at Odiham on the 9th, it is said, with seven knights only. On the 11th, he was at Windsor, and there remained, visiting Runnymede, from thence to grant the charter, and returning to Windsor till the 21st, when he was again at Runnymede. And so to and fro till the 26th, when he was at Odiham for a day. In that year there was also a charge for putting garrisons into Odiham and other castles.

At this time John seems to have been preparing for the struggle by collecting what he had portable of value. The prior of Reading brought to him at Odiham, on the 26th June, a silver cabinet and an ivory cabinet with precious stones and reliques, a gold cup given him by the Pope, much silver and silver-gilt plate, various rolls of the royal chamber and of the Exchequer and his seal, all which had been deposited in Reading Abbey. On the following day he was at Winchester, and there received by Adam, the cellarer of Merton, more plate and jewels, sapphires, balas rubies, &c., which had been in keeping of the convent there, and again on the same day a very much larger quantity also of plate and jewels, brought by Michael, a canon of Waltham, from the custody of the house there. The details of all these valuables are given at length on the Patent Rolls. From Winchester he went to various places in Wiltshire and the south of England.

In the following year, 1216, 17 John, the king was at Odiham for the last time for five days in April, and on the 15th ordered twenty tuns (“dolia”) of his prisage wines to be sent there from Southampton. He issued thence an immense number of instruments, and finally left for Farnham on the 18th. On 21st April, the manor of Odiham was to be transferred by Bartholomew Peche to the seneschal, Engelram de Cygoyn, or his attorney, who seems to have been John Fitz-Hugh, to whom it was again transferred on the 29th. The transfer, however, was confined to the manor, for by a mandate of the 31st of May, directing seisin to be given to Fitz-Hugh, the castle was specially retained in the king’s hands.

How strong the place was appears from the resistance it opposed in this year to the Dauphin Louis and the invading army. Marlborough, a very strong castle, had surrendered, when the French appeared before Odiham. The tower, says Wendover, was held by three knights and ten soldiers, who were besieged in form. On the third day when such engines as were with the army were in place, and an assault had been made and failed, the garrison sallied out and captured a number equal to their own as prisoners. After eight, or, as some accounts say, fifteen, days, the thirteen surrendered on terms, retaining their horses and arms and their liberty. Wendover says the tower belonged to the Bishop of Winchester, but all the evidence seems to show that neither the castle nor domain were ever alienated from the Crown.

The first mention of Odiham in the reign of Henry III. is an order to de Cygoyn to allow Bartholomew de Peche to hold the rents of the vill for his sustenance in the king’s service (18th April, 1 Henry III., 1217). John Fitz-Hugh appears to have been in opposition and to have been dispossessed, for on 12th August he returns to his fidelity, and is allowed seisin of the manor and hundred of Odiham. The great earl marshal’s policy was to pardon and reward all who gave in their adhesion to the new sovereign. The castle was kept up, even to storing the ditches with fish, for John de Venuz was ordered (4th April, 1222, 6 Henry III.) to allow to de Cygoyn twenty breams from the king’s marsh of Woolmer for stocking “our ditches at Odiham.” On 2nd May, 1222, 6 Henry III., two tuns “dolia”) of the king’s prisage wines were ordered from Southampton to Odiham. 16th November, 1222, 7 Henry III., the king had let the manor of Odiham to farm for £50 per annum, but regard was to be had to the rights of the “Men of Odiham.” 15th January, 1224, 8 Henry III., the Archbishop of Canterbury, who holds the castle of Odiham, is directed to give up to Engelram de Cygoyn all his chattels and farming stock at the castle (Close Roll, p. 581); and again, on 20th February, the constable of Odiham is directed to permit Engelram to remove all his chattels, stock, mares, &c., from the park of Odiham, and what he bought with his own money. This done, the king seems to have taken to farming on his own account, for on 23rd February following, the treasurer is directed to pay to Walter de Kirkeham and Walter de Brackel £100 to defray their expenses, and to Ralph Brito 50 marks for the purchase of oxen for the king’s ploughs at Windsor and Odiham, and for seed for the lands there. Further, on the 5th of May, by virtue of an order directing the distribution of wine from Southampton to certain of the royal residences, a tun (“dolium”) of spiced wine was sent to Odiham. On 4th June, in the place of Henry de Feslegh, deceased, Gilbert de la Dene is appointed a verderer in the forest of Odiham, and is to take the usual oath.

In 18 Henry III. the royal forests of Windsor and Odiham were committed to the care of Engelram de Cygoyn—then a very old servant of the Crown, and (20 Henry III.) he had also the park of Odiham. In 21 Henry III., Alianor, Countess of Pembroke, the king’s sister, had the castle, and afterwards (33 Henry III.), as Countess of Leicester, the manor. Meantime, however (28 Henry III.), her husband, Simon de Montfort, held the park as the king’s tenant. In the same year, de Cygoyn had a writ of “allocate” for £40, due to the king for two years’ rent of the manor of Odiham; also in the same year, however, de Cygoyn was dead, and the sheriff was to receive from his executors all his ploughs and stock, and to deliver them to de Montfort.

In 30 Henry III., Richard le Male held the manor. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had a grant of three acres of land out of Odiham to augment the park of Dogmersfield. In 34 Henry III., John, the representative of the de Beninges family, long connected with Odiham, had been outlawed, and inquiry was directed as to what he held in chief there, which appears to have been three virgates. In 35 Henry III., William de Synago had a grant of Stapelegh in the parish of Odiham, and Gilbert de Eversley appears among the tenants, as (38 Henry III.) does William Villiers for two acres.

It appears from a document of this reign, printed by Rymer, that upon William, the son of Durandus Nanus (the dwarf), proposing to become a monk, the king allowed his land to pass to his cousin Margaret, wife of Alexander de Barentin. The land lay in Warnburn (Warnborough) and Odiham, and had been purchased by Durandus “de suffacio” in the time of Henry I. with the king’s consent. The land carried with it certain rights of herbage, cutting firewood, enclosing within hedges, &c., and the whole was evidently held direct from the Crown.

The chief interest of Odiham ceases with the reign of Henry III. Edward I. was much engaged in the north and west, and the value of fortresses in the interior of England was small under a prince whose sway no Englishman ventured to contest. His visits to Odiham were but few. The park or forest seems to have been kept up, but only as a place of diversion, and the castle probably was allowed to fall into decay.

2nd September, 1274, 2 Edward I., the king was at Odiham. In the third year of the reign, John de London, the king’s escheator, was to hold the castle during pleasure. He probably did not hold it long, for (10 Edward I.) it was committed to Nicholas le Gras in succession to Ralph de Sandewych, and in 12 Edward I. Hugh le Despenser had it. In 27 Edward I. the castle, park, town, and hundred of Odiham were included in the ample jointure settled on Queen Margaret, and described as “Castrum et villa de Odeham et appruamentum [emolument] parci ibidem”; or, in another schedule, “The castle and vill, with the park and hundred and appurtenances in the county of Hants.” In 33 Edward I., John de Beauchamp of Fyfhed held the manor.

Edward II. appears to have seen little of Odiham. In 5 Edward II. the castle, which Queen Margaret had, was committed to Robert le Ewer during pleasure. In 9 Edward II., Robert atte Burgh had licence to enfeoff for Stapelegh Manor and Odiham Manor with suit of court, and a document of this date throws some light on the extent of the hundred of Odiham, which, it appears, included the vills of Odiham, Greywell (now Grewell), Monks Hartley, Helvethan (now Elvetham), Wynchesfelde, Dogmersfelde, Bynteworth (now Bentworth), Brocham (now Burkham), Lassham, Shaldene (now Shaldon), Weston-Patrik, Horefeld, and Lys—the two last only not having been identified, unless Lys be the present chapelry of Lyss-Turney. Of all these, Odiham only belonged to the king. Next year (10 Edward II.) Thomas de Warblyngton held the manor, and (12 Edward II.) Ewer again held the castle, manor, vill, hundred, and park. The change was perpetual—inspired probably by perpetual distrust. In 13 Edward II., Hugh le Despenser, junior, held the castle and manor, and (15 Edward II.) the former was again committed to Ewer. In this year the king’s circumstances probably led him to look to his strong places, for William de Kyngeston, clerk, is made receiver and keeper of provisions, stores, &c., within the castle. In 17 Edward II., Margery de Burgh held the castle and suit of court, as had (18 Edward II.) John de Loxle and Constantia, his wife. In this year is an order to repair the king’s houses within Odiham Castle.

Edward III. seems to have turned Odiham to account as a place for breeding horses, and he kept up the castle. At his accession, John de Meriet and Maria his wife had the manor, and (4 Edward III.) John de Mohun had it, and it was in the hands of Joan, widow of John, 6 Henry IV. The custody of the castle was then in John Wodelok—he paying for it £60 per annum, and Nicholas de la Beche had the reversion after the queen’s death. In 5 Edward III., the king committed to Master William Mareschal the care of the great horses, and the supervision of the royal stud in the park at Odiham. The king himself was there October 25th. In 7 Edward III., Sir Bernard Brocas had a grant of the lordship for life. In 14 Edward III., Richard de Rokeland was keeper of the colts (“pullanorum”) in the king’s park at Odiham. In 1346 (19–20 Edward III.) the battle of Nevill’s Cross was fought and King David Bruce was taken prisoner and committed to Odiham, where he stayed the better part of fifteen years. In 25 Edward III., John atte Berwe held twelve acres in Odiham of the castle of Winchester, and William Talemache and others held four virgates of land there; and (33 Edward III.) the sheriff is to provide oats, litter, and carriage for the support of the royal stud in the parish of Odiham, and there is a specified allowance for grooms, their robes, and their shoes. In 38 Edward III., the people of Odiham had been making free with the boards and timber purchased for the king’s work at the park. Five years later (43 Edward III.), Walter Walsh holds the castle, vill, &c., providing carpenter, park-keeper, and tiler for the repair of the houses outside and inside the castle, except the covering of the great tower and the working stone for the castle walls. He was also to feed the beasts in the park. In 46 Edward III., Elizabeth, wife of James de Wyndesor, held the manor.

It appears from a record (2 Richard II.) that Odiham contained places called Shepcote, Smethes, Romeles, and Dunton. We read also of the “campus de Odiham”—probably the common field. In 5 Richard II., Henry Esturmy held the manor—probably the son of a man of that name who had it 33 Edward I. In 15 Richard II., Alianore, wife of William Fremelesworth, has Le Potte and other lands in the parish.

The castle does not seem to have attracted the notice of royalty during the reigns of Henry IV. or V. In the former reign Lord Beaumont had it for life, probably after the death of Joan de Mohun. The domain was still held by the Crown. In 19–23 Henry VI., a jury affirms that within the king’s manor of Odiham was a house called “le Shippe,” which Joan, Queen of England, held in dower. Also, in 1450 (28 Henry VI.), the lordship, manor, and hundred of Odiham, for which £21. 7s. 3d. is paid by John Basket, Esq., form an item in the royal civil list; and in 1454 (32 Henry VI.) the “Castrum, dominium, manerium, et hundredum de Odyham,” form a part of the jointure settled on Queen Margaret, who, indeed, seems to have had a previous settlement (22 Henry VI.). Later in the reign (35 Henry VI.) William Warbleton has a grant in fee of the office of constable of Odiham Castle and park.

In 1467–8 (7 & 8 Edward IV.), Odiham again was included in a royal jointure in favour of the queen of that prince.

In 1 Richard III., the king took advantage of his brief power to appoint Richard Hansard constable and porter of the castle, parker and warrener of the lordship, and steward for life. Whatever might be the arrangements as to its mesne lords, the principal officers seem to have been always appointed by the Crown, and in the Act of Resumption of 1485 (1 Henry VII.) is a saving clause in favour of the right of Nicholas and John Gaynesford to the offices of steward of the manor, constable and porter of the castle, and keeper of the park and warren—all held for their lives. The interest of the Crown was not finally extinguished until the reign of James I., who alienated the whole.

OSWESTRY, SHROPSHIRE.

OSWALDESTRE.

The hundred of Oswestry, though but of moderate extent, represents a tract of country which was for centuries a field of contest between the Britons and the men of Mercia, the Welsh and the English; for it was placed within the old Welsh district of Powys-Fadog, in the centre of the English march, and itself a marcher lordship. Its changes of name have been numerous, adopted as either language prevailed, or as any event occurred which seemed to the party in possession worthy to be commemorated.

The earliest known name of the district is “Maesdir,” compounded of the Welsh maes, a meadow, and tir, land, which in the hands of the English, and, no doubt, upon becoming the seat of a burh, or strong place, became Maesbury, and afterwards Maserfield, an unconscious but not uncommon reduplication of the same idea in the two languages. It was so called when here was fought the great battle between the Christian Oswald and the pagan Penda, about A.D. 642, in which Oswald fell; and his members are said to have been suspended to a cross or tree, in remembrance of which the place was long afterwards known as “Croes Oswald” and “Oswaldestre,”—a not very probable etymology. No doubt the former name really indicated a cross erected in memory of the Christian king; and the latter, also part Welsh and part English, meant “Oswald’s strong place.” The old Welsh maes possessed much vitality, and may be recognised in “Mersete,” the name of the hundred in Domesday, and probably in “Meresburie,” the name of the manor.

The next change was consequent upon the erection of a handsome Norman church, the precursor of the present structure, when Oswaldestre became Blanc-Minster, or, in the language of the records, “Album Monasterium.” Later on, however, as Oswald’s fame as a martyr gained ground, his name took the ascendency, and both town and hundred became known as Oswestry. The church was probably transferred from the Saxon foundation of Maesbury.

The oldest work of man in the district is, no doubt, a British entrenchment placed on high ground a little north of Oswestry, and known as “Hên Ddinas,” the old fortress, and which in later days has been called, for no sufficient reason, Old Oswestry. “Hên Ddinas,” however, though the British, did not become the Mercian centre; this was probably in the first instance at Maesbury—a name found about 3 miles south of Oswestry—but, so far as is known, not connected with any earthwork, the usual mark of an early residence. This evidence is found on a large scale at Oswestry, which, therefore, there is reason to suppose was the English centre at least as early as the tenth century.

The contention for the possession of the district does not seem to have commenced in the Roman times,—at least there are no Roman remains at or very near to Hên Ddinas. The Welsh assert that, before the departure of the legions, the district was held by Cunedda Wledig, a prince of the Strathclyde Britons, 328–89, who gave it to his son. However this may have been, it would seem that in the seventh century the Cymric Britons had retired from Hên Ddinas, and it had become part of the Mercian territory, so that Penda (635–55) held it, and fought the battle of Maserfield against the Northumbrian Oswald. This was a short time before the Mercians accepted Christianity. That the English held the district in the latter half of the eighth century is evident from its position within the Dyke of Offa (759–94); but as it is just outside of, or slightly intersected by, Wat’s Dyke, generally regarded as a few years earlier than that of Offa, it may be that the possession was at that time but recently settled. No doubt, after the construction of the greater dyke, the boundary, though often transgressed by either people, on the whole, in ordinary times, served its purpose, and established what the English at least came to regard as a right. The greatest, and before the arrival of the Normans the last, Welsh incursion was that of Griffith ap Llewelyn in the eleventh century, in alliance with Algar, the rebel Earl of Mercia. The result of their frequent and severe attacks was to lay waste the whole country, which, like Irchenfield in Herefordshire, so remained, and is so recorded in Domesday. The long period of English occupation is marked here, as all along the border, by frequent and strong earthworks in the fashion employed by Edward the Elder and Æthelflaed in the tenth century, of which those at Oswestry and Whittington are among the chief; and those of West Felton, Aston, and Belan Banks, though smaller, are said to be of a similar pattern. Maesbury was, no doubt, at one time the caput of the English lordship; but it is evident, from the fashions and dimensions even of the poor remains of the earthwork at Oswestry, that it became the chief place at least as early as the commencement of the tenth century, and so remained, although not actually designated in Domesday.

The Domesday hundred of Mersete and the later of Oswestry are very nearly identical, the addition being Ruyton, and the subtractions, Cynllaeth and Edeyrnion. Mersete extended from Weston-Rhyn, on the Morlais brook, in the north, to Melverley, at the junction of the Vyrnwy with the Severn, on the south; and from, or a little beyond, the Cynllaeth brook on the west, to Wykey on the Perry, to the east; about 12 miles each way.

Domesday calls Meresberie the caput of the lordship; but this, though a corruption of Maesbury, must be taken to indicate Oswestry. In it were five berewicks which are not specified, but which evidently included about twenty-four manors, of which nearly all bear English names. Two centuries later an inquest was taken, which gives the lordship as composed of two parts, Oswestry proper and the Welshery. In the latter was included nearly the whole of the hundred, five manors, Weston and Coton (now Weston Cotton), Mesbury or Maesbury, Middleton, and Treveleth or Treflach. Of vills there were very many: Blodnorvawr, now Cefn-Blodwell, Blodowanan or Blodwell, Brongarth, Bren or Bryn, Clanordaffe or Glyn-yr-Afon, Crucket or Crickheath, Dudleston, Fenches and Juston (now lost), Kahercohon or Carrechova, Radioners or Rhandir, Swine or Sweeny, Tibeton (now lost), Travereleuche or Trefar-Clawdd, Treveltholnel or Treprenal, Trevenen or Trefonen, Weston or Weston-Rhyn, Wigeton or Wigginton, and Yston, now Ifton-Rhyn. The lord’s advowsons were the chapel of the Castle of Blanc-Minster, and the churches of Blodwell and Llanmenagh or Llan-y-Mynech. In this latter parish, though in an island of Denbighshire, was the celebrated Castle of Carreghova. This township, however, was a later addition to the hundred, and never belonged to its lords. Osbaston seems at one time to have been in the lordship. In it was Knockyn, the celebrated castle of the Lords Strange, a fief held indirectly of Oswestry. There was also a castle at Kinnerley, also in the lordship.

Mersete, in the reign of the Confessor, and probably much earlier, was a royal domain, and under the names of the hundred of Mersete and manor of Maesbury was included in the grant by the Conqueror in 1071, on the forfeiture of Morcar and Edwin, to Earl Roger of Montgomery, who sub-granted it to Warin the Bald, his sheriff, and second in command, who held seventy manors in Shropshire, and by the earl’s niece Arnieria had a son Hugh. Warin died 1085, just before Domesday was compiled, and the shrievalty was given to Rainald de Bailleul, who married his widow, and built a castle. The entry under Meresberie is, “Ibi fecit Rainaldus Castellum Luure,” which is explained as Luvre or “l’Œuvre”, the work par excellence of the district. It is clear, however, that, as usual, Rainald’s castle was upon an earlier foundation, and not improbably was only an adaptation of existing works. Rainald dwelt at Oswestry, and either he or Warin granted its church of St. Oswald, with the tithes of the town, then for the first time mentioned, to Shrewsbury Abbey. It is uncertain on what tenure Rainald held his office, but it seems to have been held for a short time by his stepson, Hugh, son of Warin, till his early death; and on Hugh’s death, it was to Alan FitzFlaald, the ancestor of the succeeding lords, that the shrievalty and the fief were granted a little before the death of the Conqueror.

The Welsh claim to have recovered and held the lordship for a space about this time, and state that it was given, as part of Powys-Fadog, by Meredith ap Bleddyn to his nephew, or son, Owen, who destroyed Rainald’s castle and rebuilt it in 1148; and that the tower, in memory of Meredith, was called Tre-Fred. However this may be, the Welsh occupation must have been very brief, and Alan must have recovered possession. At this time the house of Montgomery had, in England, become extinct, and Oswestry was held of the Crown direct, as a marcher lordship, by the tenure of the defence and maintenance of the castle and the defence of the march.

Mr. Eyton, the extent of whose information concerning the early history of Shropshire is only equalled by its accuracy, has thrown great light upon the descent of this Alan, whom he shows with more than probability to have been the son of Fleance, and grandson of Banquo, Thane of Lochaber, killed about 1048–53. Fleance, or Flaald, seems to have married Gwenta, daughter of Griffith ap Llewelyn, Prince of North Wales, by Aldith, daughter of Algar Earl of Mercia. Alan, who was dead in 1114, was unquestionably direct ancestor of the houses of Fitz-Alan of Oswaldestre, and of the royal house of Stewart.

Alan FitzFlaald, lord of Oswaldestre, was father of I, William; 2, Walter, steward of Scotland, who died 1177, having married Eschina, daughter of Thomas de Londoniis, “hostiarius” or “durward” to the King of Scotland. He was father of “Alanus Dapifer,” whose great-grandson, Walter, who died about 1320, married Marjory Bruce, and had Robert Stewart, King of Scotland.

William Fitz-Alan, the head of the house, born about 1105, and who died 1160, acquired with Isabel de Say, his second wife, the lordship of Clun, which long remained united with Oswaldestre, in the person of their descendants, the FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel, and afterwards by the female line in the Howards.

On the death of Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, in the reign of Henry V., a curious question arose. He died childless, and his sisters, Joan, Lady Bergavenny, Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, Margaret, Lady Lenthall, and Alice, Lady Powis, became his heirs general; but his heir male was John Fitz-Alan, called Arundel, Lord Maltravers. The Duke of Norfolk, John Mowbray, claimed the earldom in right of his mother; but when the earldom was adjudged to Lord Maltravers, he was allowed the baronies of Clun and Oswaldestre with it, nor did the duke claim them. So also when Earl John’s descendant, Humphrey, Earl of Arundel, Lord Maltravers, Clun, and Oswaldestre, died childless, 16 Henry VI., the baronies were not claimed by Amicia, Lady Ormond, his sister and heir general, but passed to William Fitz-Alan, with the earldom, as heir male.

A good deal of constitutional, or rather peerage, lore has been exercised upon these two baronies, which were borne among the long train of titles which at various times have accrued to the houses of Arundel and Howard, and so appear upon the garter plates of Thomas, Earl of Arundel, in 1611, and of Henry, Duke of Norfolk, in 1685, with other and Parliamentary baronies. Nevertheless, these do not appear to be like Fitz-Alan, Mowbray, Greystoke, and the rest, really Parliamentary baronies, but land baronies only, which strictly should only be appended to the name of the possessors of these manors. However, after their alienation, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, heir general of the FitzAlans, was, by Act of Parliament, 1627, created Baron Fitz-Alan and Lord of Clun and Oswaldestre—in right of which, and of that date, and under the then limitation only, these titles are borne by the Dukes of Norfolk, his descendants.

THE CASTLE.

The visible remains of this ancient fortress, so celebrated in border story, are very scanty, and are confined to the central mound, and to some fragments of the rude but substantial keep which was placed upon it. The castle stood on ground rather higher than, and on the north-western edge of, the town, completely commanding it; and it is only of late years that its site has been nearly surrounded by buildings. The church is about half a mile distant to the south, the town intervening between the two. From the mound, the view to the east and south is very extensive; to the west it is shut in by the wooded heights of the Denbighshire border, crowned by Offa’s Dyke, at a distance of about two miles. To the north, a mile or so distant, is the detached hill and camp of Hên Dinas, or Old Oswestry, which is in part obscured by the still nearer but lower eminence of Llwyn. No water enters into the landscape, nor is there any considerable stream near at hand. Wat’s Dyke lies close to the east.

The castle mound, though standing on high ground, is wholly artificial, and rather oval at its summit, which is about 60 feet by 100 feet. It is about 30 feet high, and perhaps 200 feet diameter at its present base. On its table top are some fragments of masonry, composed of large rolled boulders, laid in a thick bed of mortar; very rude but very strong work. One fragment, which in places is about 8 feet thick, is 9 feet or 10 feet high; and near it are two other large masses, one of which at least is overthrown. The keep was of the shell type, and probably polygonal. The slopes are covered with bushes, much obscuring the surface, but there seems to be a further trace of masonry on the south-west side. The moat, out of which the mound rose, has been completely filled up, and all trace of the outer ward, its ditches, banks, or buildings, has been utterly removed. Nothing is known of a well. The entrance was probably on the south-west side. Gallowtree bank—a name preserved in the southern suburb—preserves the memory of the lord’s power, as does Oswald’s well of the ecclesiastical legend.

It is probable that the masonry remaining is the work of William Fitz-Alan, who, after 1155, confirmed a previous gift of the church of Oswestry to Shrewsbury Abbey. He died 1160, in which year the Pipe roll designates Oswestry as “Blanc-Minster.” On his death, Guy L’Estrange became custos of the Castles of Clun, Ruthyn, and Blanc-Minster, and works were in progress at the latter. The livery allowed for the garrison was £18. 5s. per annum. In July, 1165, Henry II. was encamped near Oswestry, but his advance was checked by the Ceiriog river, on which he retired to Chester.

Guy L’Estrange continued to be custos of the Fitz-Alan estates and castles until 1175, during which time very large sums were expended by the Crown upon Oswestry, apparently about £2,000. A well cost £5. 8s., palisades 40s. and £2. 6s. 8d. A house was built within the walls. The regular garrison was a knight, two porters, two watchmen, and twenty men-at-arms, costing £48. 13s. 4d. per annum. In 1188, William Fitz-Alan received Archbishop Baldwin and Giraldus in the castle. On his death, in 1210, King John stepped in, and Robert de Vipont was in charge in 1212, and in 1213 and 1214 John Mareschal and Thomas de Erdington, who had purchased the wardship during the minority of William Fitz-Alan, who, however, died under age at Clun in 1215. In 1216, King John was before Clun, and (August 16) burned the town of Oswestry, and attacked the castle, but probably without success. In 1226, Oswestry was named for the place of conference between Llewellyn and the lords marchers, but the king, distrusting John Fitz-Alan, sent Hubert de Hoese with nine knights to attend it. In 1240, John Fitz-Alan’s death placed the castle again in the care of the Crown.

In 1257, Oswestry was again named for the meeting of a Welsh and English commission, and John Fitz-Alan, the new lord, had license to levy customs dues for five years, to pay for a wall round the town. At his death, in 1267, the castle was valued at £44. 12s. 5½d. per annum, and mention is made of the “walcheria” or Welshery. The wall probably proceeded slowly, for, in 1283, King Edward issued a patent, licensing the bailiffs to levy customs for twenty years, to complete the wall. Probably this was in consequence of an attack by the Welsh, who actually held the town for a short time. In 1302, on the death of Richard, Earl of Arundel, it was found that he held Oswestry Castle and its lands by the tenure of two and a half knights’ fees. There were one hundred and forty acres of demesne land and four water-mills, but the castle was worth nothing; and its maintenance cost £10 per annum. The mills were Bailey, Weston, Cotton, and Cadogan.

PENMARK CASTLE.

Penmark Castle is about a mile east of Fonmon, and two, three, and four miles from the castles of East Orchard, Barry, and Wenvoe.

It was originally built by Sir Gilbert de Umfreville, soon after the conquest of Glamorgan, but the present ruins are scarcely older than the thirteenth century. It is probably of the reign of Henry III. or Edward I., with some trifling additions of later date; but it exhibits no traces either of a Norman keep or of any of the usual Perpendicular or Tudor additions. It is, and has been for some centuries, a complete ruin.

The castle stands along the brow of a steep bank, about 100 feet above the meads of the Duffryn brook, which, with its marshy banks, formed an excellent defence on the north or Welsh front. It is composed of two courts.

The inner court was oblong, about 70 yards by 50, of irregular figure, with a curtain upon the north side along the hedge of the bank, part of which, at each end, remains. On the south side the wall is gone, but its line is marked by its interior moat which, extending from the bank at one end to that on the other, formed the defence on the east, west, and southern fronts.

At the eastern end the wall remains, about 10 feet high on the outside. Inside is a mass of earth, no doubt covering ruins. At the north-east angle a circular depression resembles the foundations of a tower.

The west end is most perfect. Here is a curtain about 12 feet high, the rampart walk of which remains, with traces of an open stair to the battlements. At the south end the wall returns square; and here was probably a plain gateway towards the church. At its north end the north-west angle of the court is capped by a tower semi-circular to the field, but angular towards the court. It has two loops and a fireplace on the ground floor, and appended to it on the north side is a square building of two floors, containing a garderobe in each floor. This is later than the tower. Also on the west wall, near the tower, is a hollow buttress containing two garderobes. The tower opens into the court.

The outer court includes the inner one on the east, south, and west sides, terminating at each flank on the steep bank.

It contains the moat of the inner court, and was itself contained within a moat and wall, which probably included the church. Along the west face the wall may be traced to its termination in a flanking tower, evidently built for a pigeon-house.

The position of the castle is bold and striking, and although a mere ruin, and without the usual accessories of ivy and trees, it has a fine appearance from the north.

In common with most of the strongholds of the district, it is reputed to have been ruined by Owain Glyndwr.

From the castle a road descends obliquely towards the mill, placed about half a mile up the stream.

West of the castle is a considerable table-land, defended by two valleys on its north and west; an excellent place for a display of any cavalry that might be included in the garrison.

THE CASTLE OF PENRICE, IN GOWER.

The castle of Penrice, or, as it was anciently called, Penrees, in West Gower, in the county of Glamorgan, is inferior only to Caerphilly, Cardiff, and Coyty, in the area contained within its walls, and is second to none in its strong, commanding, and picturesque position. Penrice stands at the bottom of Oxwich Bay, a mile within the shore, and about 150 feet above the sea. It occupies the rocky crest of a steep slope of greensward, at the base of which is a small lake, and beyond this a sort of lagoon communicates with the bay, here fringed by a line of sand-hills.

The castle, though high, is backed on the north-east by the long and still higher ridge of Cefn Bryn, about half a mile distant. It stands upon the south-eastern end of a platform formed by the crop edges of the mountain limestone, which here is almost vertical, having been lifted up by the old red sandstone of Cefn Bryn. On the south and east the castle is defended naturally by a cliff ranging from 10 feet to 40 feet in height; on the west the ground is broken and strong; on the north it is level, or nearly so; and this, naturally the weakest side, has been converted by works into the strongest and principal front of the place.

The position and outline of the fortress have been governed by the disposition of the ground; the general design is simple, but is by no means of one date, and to the original structure there have been considerable additions. In plan the castle is composed of a principal court, or bailey, of irregular figure, and about 60 yards north-east and south-west by 80 yards east and west. Three sides are curtains only; the fourth, or northern, is composed of the gatehouse and main buildings, or corps de logis, and a large drum-tower with its appendages. The curtain skirts the edge of the precipice on the east and south sides. It ranges from 30 feet to 40 feet in height outside, and is about 25 feet within, and from 8 feet to 9 feet thick. It is strengthened outside by a number of half-round buttresses, of about 12 feet diameter; these are solid, and have no projection within; they rise to the height of, or a little above, the walls, and form small flanking places of arms upon the ramparts. Of these buttresses there are none on the east, two on the south, and one on the west face; there is also one larger and loftier, but still solid, capping the south-western angle. There is besides a buttress tower near the south-east angle, of larger dimensions, and hollow; but this, in its present form at least, is probably a late addition built for a dovecote, as which it is still fitted up. The wall near this tower has been broken through and rebuilt, and again broken through to make space for a rectangular building, one angle of which is seen outside the line of the curtain; the rampart wall or battlement remains, and, though more or less ruined, is original. The merlons are about four times the breadth of the embrasures, and each is pierced with a loop; the rear wall remains.

The north, or upper, side of the court is occupied by the main buildings and front of the castle, extending about 70 yards. At the east end is the gatehouse, at the west the drum-tower and its appendages. Between these two was a large square mural tower, placed in the middle of the front. Westward, between this and the drum, was no doubt the hall; eastward, a single curtain connected it with the gatehouse. The gatehouse seems to have been an addition to the curtain wall; it contains a central passage and two lateral chambers, which occupy two flanking towers of bold projection towards the north or exterior front; these are neither rectangular nor half-round, but more near to the latter figure, the angles having been rounded off. The floors were all of wood. There is but one groove, and that of very rude construction, for a portcullis, which defended the outer gate; and there seems to have been a drawbridge which let down between the flanking towers, probably over a pit, for there are no traces of a regular ditch.

The drum-tower caps the north-west angle of the castle, and projects into the court. Its clear diameter is about 36 feet, the walls being 8 feet thick, and the space within 20 feet across. It is of three floors; the basement is entered from the hall side; the first floor by two doors, one of which seems originally to have been a window. Of these doors, one opened from the hall, and one from an appendage on the south-east; there is also a loop towards the court, and a small vaulted chamber and garderobe on the east or outer side, perhaps an addition. The upper floor of the tower is remarkable; it has no entrance whatever, and no opening in the walls; it must have been reached by a trap-door. The floors were all of timber.

On the south-east side of this tower is a concentric addition, a sort of chemise, or rather chemisette, covering less than a quarter of its circumference, and projecting into the court; it is entered by a door from below the hall, and is lighted by two loops towards the court; it ends abruptly by a square wall. There was an upper floor opening into the hall and into the first floor of the drum, and there is a curious curved opening in the jamb of the lower door, evidently for a squint, with a rebate for a wooden shutter. On the north, or exterior side of the drum has been added a rectangular building of three stories, with fireplaces and chambers for garderobes. This building projects and forms the end of the north front, facing somewhat towards the north-west. From it a subordinate building, also rectangular, and containing garderobes, projects towards the west. The space between this group of buildings and the central square mural tower was contained between two walls, one still remaining, which is also the wall of the court, and another now destroyed, which formed the exterior defence on this side. As the square tower is also destroyed to its foundations, the manner in which the space was occupied can only be inferred by the openings in the remaining wall. Probably there was here, on the first floor, a hall and below it smaller rooms, perhaps cellars; there is, however, a door opening on the ground floor through the wall into a very small building projecting into the court, and which appears to have had two lateral and one end or south longer window. This may have been a chapel, but its axis, without any necessity of position, is nearly north and south. Within the court, attached to its east wall, remains a gable end, which, no doubt, belonged to a great barn, storehouse, or barrack; it was not a hall, as it had no large windows.

The ruins of the castle, though very considerable, are so devoid of ashlar and ornamental work, and the masonry throughout is so uniformly of a rude and inferior character, that it is exceedingly difficult to arrive at any certain conclusions as to the extent of the original building, or the order of construction of the parts now remaining. All that can be inferred with absolute certainty is that the round tower and the contiguous east curtain are the oldest extant parts, and, though without bond, nearly of the same date; that the north-west lodgings are much later than either; that on the north front were other lodgings now destroyed, and that the enceinte wall of the court, including the gatehouse, are additions to the original building, converting what was at first an exterior curtain into an interior wall looking into the enclosure.

The curtain next east of the tower looks older than the tower, but this is probably not the case. The tower was more probably the original building, and the whole of it. It would be a refuge in case of attack, either from the Welsh or from pirates, capable of holding out until the garrisons of Pennard, Llandremor, Webley, or Llwchwr, or those more distant of Swansea and Oystermouth, could bring up assistance. The tower is probably of very late Norman date, in the transition or pointed style. The curtain eastward was probably the first addition to the tower, and is the remnant of the rectangular appendage upon its north-eastern side. This curtain has been much cut into, and contains several later openings; but the door on the ground floor next to the tower is evidently original, and of early English date. It now leads into the enclosure of the chemisette, but was obviously once an outer door, and possibly the main entrance to the rectangular building. The court was probably next enclosed, and the concentric building, or chemisette, added to the round tower, either as a prison or a cellar, the door leading into it being the old main entrance above mentioned. The gatehouse and the north-west tower are somewhat later. Recently three stones, evidently parts of a window or door-jamb, have been dug up near the round tower; these show a simple half-round bead moulding, six inches diameter, and are evidently parts of a Norman jamb, perhaps of the lower and pointed doorway of the round tower. The north-west tower has a small trefoil-headed window in the third floor, which may be of Decorated date, though the building has rather a Perpendicular aspect. The masonry generally is of a very rough character; the round tower windows within had coigns of ashlar, but the gatehouse is of very inferior workmanship, even the portcullis groove being in rubble.

This is a very curious ruin. A round tower of this early date is a very rare feature; the chemisette may be compared to the more perfect envelope at Tretower and Launceston, but it is evidently an addition. The dimensions are nearly those of Bronllys, which is, however, rather later, and of far superior work. It is singular that the original castle should have been placed so far from the edge of the cliff which constituted a part of its later defences. The excavations now in progress may yet throw a light upon the precise age of some of the parts. It is something to have found mouldings of the Norman period.

The only parts absolutely destroyed belong to the north front, where the wall has certainly been blown down by gunpowder, probably during the occupation of Gower by Cromwell.

This is not the only stronghold within the parish and manor of Penrice. About half a mile south-west of the castle, and west of, and very near to, the parish church, is a circular earthwork, composed of a single mound, with an exterior ditch, and an entrance on the north-west side. The diameter of the interior space may be 100 feet, and the mound from 6 to 10 feet high. This is a very perfect, and evidently a very early work, and no doubt was stockaded with timber.

The adjacent church, though much altered in recent times, has a Norman wall and arch, masked with plaster, between the nave and the chancel, and a remarkable south porch of early Decorated and a south door of early English date. Outside the south door of the church and in the porch, on the right on entering, is a water stoup, hollowed out in a sort of stone seat. The upper part of the tower and a small north transept are said to have been rebuilt in the last century.

The church stands upon a strong position, superior in many respects to that selected for the castle. The adjacent church of Nicholaston has a rude coupled east window of early English date.

The castle, the ruins of which have been described, was for many generations the seat of a considerable Gower family, who no doubt derived their surname from their estate, therein differing from several of their neighbours, the owners of Nicholaston, Reynoldston, Leysanston, and Scurlage, whose names were bestowed upon and are preserved in those manors. Either custom was here common, and there are several examples of each in the Vale of Glamorgan.

No doubt the lords of Penrice were followers of the Bellomonts and early Norman settlers in Gower, where they probably erected, before the close of the twelfth century, that part of the castle to which the lately-discovered Norman fragments may be assigned. The castle descended by a Penrice heiress to the Mansels, and is at this time the property of their descendant, Mr. Talbot.

PENRITH CASTLE, CUMBERLAND.

Penrith Castle stands upon a slight elevation of old red sandstone gravel, about a furlong from, and from 50 feet to 70 feet above, the church and the old town of Penrith, and a few yards east of the modern railway station. Originally and always a simple structure of no particular military strength or architectural merit, its remains are now scanty, and chiefly remarkable for the excellence of their material and workmanship, and well known from their position in full view of one of the great highways of the country.

The castle is in plan rectangular, 130 feet north and south by 153 feet east and west. It is composed of a stout and lofty curtain-wall, within and against which were built the rooms occupied by the garrison, and outside is an artificial and dry ditch, also rectangular in outline, and rather peculiar in the space left between it and the castle wall. On the west side this ditch has been removed in the formation of a deep road leading from the town to the station. On the south it remains, and beyond it are some excavations, which appear to be old, but are not very intelligible. On the east side the ditch is very perfect. About 9 yards intervene between its scarp and the foot of the curtain wall; and beyond, crowning the counterscarp, is rather a high bank, advantageously placed for those who intended to attack the wall with the weapons and engines of the Middle Ages. On the north front is a considerable platform, about half the area of the castle, and on the same level. This is defended towards the town by a natural slope, made somewhat steeper by art, but the ditch is continued in the rear of this, round the north-east angle, just west of which is a roadway indicating the approach to the place. This approach was flanked by the north-east angle of the platform, and the ground beyond the ditch.

The earthworks on this quarter are so sharp and fresh that they seem to have been deepened and strengthened to resist a modern attack from this quarter; and in that case the bank outside the east ditch may have been thrown up to protect the base of the curtain from being breached by cannon. Possibly the intention was to resist the Pretender’s army in 1745.

The curtain, of which the ditch is the outwork, is about 30 feet high and 5 feet thick. It is built of blocks of the red sandstone of the district, of a deep colour and handsome appearance. These are squared, and laid in courses. The wall appears, wholly or in part, to have been crowned by a corbel-table, of moderate projection, upon which rested the parapets. At some special points these corbels are bolder, and form machicolations, but more commonly their object was to add 6 inches in breadth to the rampart walk.

Along the east, and on the adjacent part of the north and south sides, the curtain is tolerably perfect. On the west side are some foundations, and a fragment of wall of full height. At the south-east angle a square buttress, original, of about 3 feet broad by 3 feet 6 inches projection, is set diagonally, and caps the angle. In the middle of the east wall is a similar buttress, but set square. These have no bases or setts-off, and rise to the parapets. At the north-east angle seems to have been a bartisan, or square turret, projected upon corbels; the wall is quite plain below. The other two angles are gone; but the foundations show no trace of mural towers. Grose’s plan, though very incorrect, may be taken to show that late in the last century the walls were tolerably perfect; and that in the centre of the south wall and at the south-west angle were buttresses similar to those described above.

All traces of the gateway are gone; but the earthwork shows it to have been on the north front, rather near the east end. West of this some traces of windows seem to indicate the site of the hall, and part of a large half-round barrel-vault, abutting against the remains of the west wall, seems to have belonged to its substructure. In the east wall, near its summit, are two large window openings, about 5 feet broad. The tracery is gone; but the arch of the recesses is flat segmental, strengthened by two plain bold ribs.

There is no trace of any keep or detached central building. The head of a flat-topped window of two lights, trefoiled, has been dug up and preserved. It seems to be early Perpendicular. The general plan of the building and what remains of its vault and arches, point to the Decorated period, during which both the round-headed and the flat segmental arch were largely used in this district. What remains appears to be of one date. The Ordnance sheet lviii. 4. 24. contains a plan of this castle to a scale of 10·56 feet to the mile, or ¹⁄₃₀₀.

In describing the building, it has been found convenient to call the tower face the north, but really it fronts more to the north-east.

It has been suggested, from the rectangular plan of the earthworks, and from the prevalence of Roman remains in the district, that the castle occupies the site of a Roman encampment, and that its material, said by some to have been taken from Mayburgh, was derived from some Roman building. This latter suggestion is, no doubt, perfectly possible. Certainly the material was not taken from Mayburgh, which never could have supplied ashlar in large quantities.

It is certain that there was no castle here during the early Norman times, or while the manor was the heritage of the kings of Scotland. From them it came to John Baliol, and was confiscated with his other English possessions late in the thirteenth century. The Neviles of Raby then held it. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had the castle and manor, and seems to have been often here. He probably made any pure Perpendicular additions of which evidence may remain.

There are extant two licences, one to crenellate the town of Penrith, 20 Edward III.; and the other, 22 Richard II., to William de Strickland, with permission to make a mantlet of stone and lime, and to crenellate it. Probably the present castle is the mantlet referred to.

PEVENSEY CASTLE, SUSSEX.

Pevensey is, in some respects, the most interesting place in the south of England. Not only is it closely associated with English history during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but its ancient and present names, and a part of its material remains in masonry and earthworks, connect it closely with the British, Roman, and early English occupation of our island.

It was, without doubt, the chief place in the great forest of Anderida, which, in remote times, extended over the south of Sussex and the Weald of Kent, and of which the not infrequent remains are seen in the very numerous and wild parks found in these districts. The British name, both of forest and town, is preserved in its Roman form, and the site of the latter is still indicated by its Roman walls and towers, which, like those of Porchester, have been incorporated into a later fortress. The Romans probably left Anderida in good repair. One of the chief strongholds of the “Comes littoris Saxonici” was not likely to have been neglected, and it appears, from the Saxon Chronicle, that the Britons were well aware of its value, and held it against their piratical invaders with fierce but unavailing valour. Late in the fifth century it was besieged and taken by Ælle and Cissa and their followers, and every Briton within it was put to the sword.

Andredes-ceaster, or Andreceaster, from a Roman and British, became an English fortress, and, by slow degrees, the Forest of Andredes-weald became encroached upon by cultivation. The change of masters also brought a change of name, and the island or “eye” in the marsh is supposed to have become the property of “Peofn,” whence its present name is thought to be derived.

Under the English rule, the divisions and names denoting property were gradually introduced, and Pevensey became the chief town of a Rape, an honour it shared with Chichester, Arundel, Bramber, Hastings, and Lewes, in each of which the town was distinguished by early earthworks, and at Chichester by Roman walls. Each of these Rapes had its town and fortress, and each town was placed upon a river. That of Pevensey rises in the wooded ridge about Penshurst and Dallington by a number of streamlets which meander athwart the marshy level of Pevensey, until a little above the castle they form what is still known as the old Haven, and which was in use in the twelfth century. As late as 1317 a grant by Edward II. mentions the marshes as overflowed by the sea, and as in no man’s tenure. The castle then stood on the margin of the sea, from which it is now more than a mile distant, and the whole area of the level, many square miles in extent, seems to have been an impracticable morass, covering the fortress towards the south and east, and in some degree to the north. The knoll must so have presented itself to Julius Cæsar, if, as generally supposed, he here landed, and so, with the addition of the Roman walls, it was certainly seen by Ælle and his followers, and 500 years later by Duke William when he landed between Eastbourne and Hastings, and selected the higher ground to the east of that castle for his march inland to give battle. “Mare transivit,” says the Bayeux tapestry, “et venit ad Pevensæ,” and the chronicle of Battle says he landed “prope castrum Pevensel dictum,” whence the soldiery went to seek victuals at Hastings. Here, then, it was, beneath these very walls, that the Conqueror took seisin of his yet unconquered kingdom.

Pevensey, under the Normans, became once more a place of consequence, and one of the havens through which the sovereigns kept up their communications with Normandy. It was hence that the king embarked on his return to Normandy in 1067. William granted it to his half-brother of Moretaine, who is said to have built a castle there. What he actually built is unknown, and the only existing masonry that can possibly be of his date is the broken superstructure of one, or perhaps two, Roman towers, and some rude repairs executed on the face of one of them. But whatever he did he held, and continued to hold the Roman castle till his death, and he so held it against William Rufus, in 1088, being supported and encouraged by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and by the hope that Duke Robert would come to their relief from beyond the sea. This hope was fallacious. Rufus having stormed the mound of Tonbridge, laid siege to Pevensey. The garrison was brave, the earl-bishop and his brother count were skilful generals, the walls were high and strong, and for six weeks the king, at the head of a numerous army, assailed the place in vain. A tardy force sent, not led, by Duke Robert, strove to land beneath the castle wall, but, though the king’s English soldiers were thus placed between the double attack from the castle and the ships, they overcame and, for the most part, slew the invaders. The castle was surrendered, and Odo, transmitted under a guard to Rochester, contrived to enter that castle, and to encourage its garrison to hold out.

Pevensey next comes under notice in 1101 as the muster-place of the army led by Henry I. to repel the expected invasion of Duke Robert. He was so far successful that the invaders were driven to land at Porchester. Either under Earl William of Moretaine, who was taken at Tenchbrai and lost his lands, or under his successor, Gilbert de l’Aigle, the lordship or Lewy of Pevensey was erected into an Honour, and finally became the Honour of the Eagle, “Honor de Aquila.” In 1144, the castle was attacked by Stephen, and defended by Gilbert de Clare, then holding it for the Empress, to whose son, Henry, it had been granted by Henry I. It next came to King Stephen, and about 1216 became the property, under the Crown, of William de Warren, and after various confiscations and restorations was finally lost to the De Aquila family in the reign of Henry III. John, Earl Warren, took refuge here in 1264, after the Mise of Lewes, and in the following year it was held by Peter of Savoy for the king against the younger De Montfort. Very little of the present mediæval masonry could have been standing during these various sieges. The strength of the place must have then mainly depended upon the Roman exterior wall, furnished, no doubt, with a mediæval parapet, and dominated by the early English mound, with probably a shell keep of timber or masonry upon it.

About 1269 it fell into the hands of Prince Edward, and remained awhile in the Crown. In 1309 it was in a ruinous condition, “Confractum et male custoditum,” Edward I. having declined to repair it. It must have been soon after this, judging from the evidence of the existing masonry, that the present additions were made, that is, either at the close of the thirteenth or very early in the fourteenth century. The towers are attributed to Edward II., in 1309.

Pevensey, “La Ville et la Lewee de Peuense,” was included in the extensive grants made by Edward III. to John of Gaunt, under whom and the Duchy of Lancaster the Pelhams became hereditary constables. In 1399, Lady Pelham distinguished herself by holding the castle for Richard II. against the combined posse of the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey. After this event it was mainly used as a state prison. Edmund, Duke of York, was confined here in 1405, and in his will bears testimony to his good treatment; and here also were imprisoned James I. of Scotland in 1414, and in 1419 Joan of Navarre, the last queen of Henry IV. In 1650, the castle had a narrow escape from the claws of the Parliament, the materials having been actually sold for building purposes.

The history of the building, though aided by passages in the public records, is mainly to be established by the study of the material remains. Those of the Roman period have fallen under the searching and very accurate notice of Mr. Roach Smith; the present paper deals mainly with the mediæval additions both in earthworks and masonry.

DESCRIPTION.

The Roman fortress is in plan a rounded oblong, 220 yards north-east and south-west by 115 yards, and contains from 8½ acres to 9 acres. It is included within a wall strengthened by towers, and here, as at Lyme, the outline of the plan was evidently governed by that of the ground on which the castle stands, and which rises 8 feet to 10 feet above the sea level and that of the surrounding marsh or meadow. The wall is from 10 feet to 11 feet thick throughout, and at this time from 20 feet to 30 feet high. The length in circuit is about 580 yards. At the bend of the enclosure, towards the south-west, is the main entrance, preserving very nearly its original form. Two half-round towers, 28 feet apart, and 20 feet diameter, with produced flat sides, giving them a depth of 30 feet, and 30 feet high, project 20 feet from the curtain, and were connected by a cross wall, of which only the foundation remains, and in which was the outer gateway. These towers are not quite parallel, but their longer axes radiate slightly outwards. They are solid and have no internal projection, but from each of them a wall ran backwards 18 feet, terminating in a cross wall, in which was the second gateway, the foundations of which show that the base had an opening of 9 feet. This rectangular gatehouse must have resembled those of Porchester, and, like those, had evidently been altered to suit the Norman entrance, of which there remains one jamb of the outer gateway.

Besides the towers flanking the entrance are eleven others upon the curtain wall. These also are solid, of the height and age of the curtain, and without internal projection. They vary from 14 feet to 20 feet in breadth, and from 14 feet to 16 feet projection from the wall. They stand at irregular distances of from 14 yards to 35 yards. Besides the thirteen standing towers, there are two displaced and broken down, and the fragments of two others, making seventeen in all. They are closest along the north-west and north fronts, where the ground outside is highest. Towards the south and east there are but few, the shallow, muddy sea and the marsh being found a sufficient protection. Besides the main entrance there were three posterns, of which that to the north-east is still in use. That to the north is broken down, but its remains show it to have passed obliquely, on a slight curve, through the wall. The southern postern was probably a water-gate. In the south wall the mouth of a drain, about 18 inches square, and opening towards the sea, has been laid open. Although the wall is for the most part thickly covered with ivy, it is pretty evident that in parts it is still capped by a later battlement, and one of the northern towers, originally 32 feet high, bears a superstructure of 18 feet, which, from a window in its side, appears to be of the Norman period.

The wall has been breached on the north front for 65 yards, and its mass, thrown forwards, still encumbers the ground outside. To the south is a much longer breach, at least of 200 yards. This seems to have been produced by a slip of the soil, by which the foundations have been moved forward bodily for several feet. At the east end also the wall has been broken down, but here its fragments, which are of considerable bulk, are mixed up with others of later date in wild, but not absolutely inextricable, confusion. Most of the north wall has been picked into to a considerable depth, at the ground level, but the foundation remains uninjured. This is said to be the work of the purchaser of the ruins in 1650, but may possibly be the work of some early assailants, though these are more likely to have worked below the surface of the earth, and to have inserted props of wood beneath the base of the masonry, which, when set on fire, would have caused the destruction of the whole superincumbent mass. No gunpowder has here been employed.

It is evident that there was formerly a ditch at the foot of the wall on the south front, full of water, where, indeed, it may still be traced. Along the north, west, and east fronts, the wall is bordered by a road, to make which the ditch, probably never very wide or deep, has been filled up. There can be no question as to the authors of the exterior enceinte, both wall and towers. They are all of one, or very nearly one, date, and distinctly Roman, and, which is not always the case, the towers are bonded into the walls. The substance of the masonry is very rudely-coursed flint-rubble, chiefly composed of flints and pebbles from the adjacent sea-beach, mixed with angular fragments of stone, the whole held together by mortar very freely employed. This mortar is remarkably white in colour, and contains numerous small pebbles, little if any broken tile, and a preponderance of sand. On the whole the mortar has set firmly, and holds well together the rather heterogeneous mass of materials. The face of the work, both inside and outside, is composed mainly of squared stones from Eastbourne or Beachy Head. They are generally about 6 inches by 4 inches on the face, but sometimes as large as 12 inches by 6 inches. The lowest courses at the ground-level are composed of darker and far larger stones, and in the wall above are occasional double bands of tile, and sometimes of stone nearly of the colour of tile. A good deal of the facing at the lower part of the wall has been stripped off, but inside this stripping is confined to the part of the wall just above the ground-level, which is raised artificially higher than the level of the natural soil. In some places this addition is high enough to convert the lower part of the masonry into a retaining wall. It has been thought that the earth thus employed was derived from the inner ditch, an early English work. It may be so, but more probably the contents of this ditch went to form the mound, and it is possible that the raised soil may be derived from the ditches of a British camp preceding the Roman occupation.

The Romans, who constructed the outer walls, seem to have been content with a single line of defence; but the Northmen treated the whole area after a different fashion. Within the area, at its eastern end, a mound was thrown up, table-topped, and about 30 feet high; this, though within the area, was upon its margin, and rested against the eastern wall. The material for the mound seems to have been derived from a ditch which surrounded about two-thirds of its circumference, extending from wall to wall, and which thus isolated it from the remainder of the Roman area. This ditch has been filled up, probably to give space, but its line is still marked by a slight depression in the soil. By this means a strong place would be formed very nearly in accordance with the early English practice, having a mound or bank, with its proper ditch, and an appended court. The only peculiarity would be that the court was walled, and thus the ditch of the mound would be traversed by the masonry, and the outer side of the mound supported by it.

The Normans, who at once saw the value and took possession of Pevensey, probably were for a time content with the Roman walls as they stood, and with the palisaded citadel of the mound. At least, there is no certain trace of any very early Norman masonry. Indeed, the only masonry of Norman date at all now to be seen is a fragment of wall with a window, the remains of a superstructure upon one of the northern towers, and some patchwork in flints, and a few courses of stone laid herring-bone fashion, by which the face of another of the Roman towers has been repaired. Had the Normans of the eleventh or twelfth centuries constructed any eastern walls, gatehouses, or mural towers within the court, some trace of them would probably remain. The chapel, indeed, judging from its dimensions, was Norman, and the base of the font decidedly so; and it is possible that the shapeless fragments of rubble masonry which encumber the top and slopes of the mound may be of the same, that is, of late Norman, date. In truth, the castle, as the Normans found it, was a very strong place. The walls only needed a battlement, and even if this were surmounted, the entrenched and palisaded mound would be perfectly defensible so long as provisions held out.

At this time the Roman enceinte contains the remains of a strong and tolerably perfect mediæval castle. This, as usual in such cases, takes the form of an addition to the defences of the mound, shutting it off as a citadel from the rest of the works. Advantage was taken of the broad and deep ditch extending from the east to the south wall, 210 yards in length, curved westwards or outwards, and which shut off the mound, and a part of the great area, and thus formed an inner ward, of about an acre and a quarter, containing the mound or keep. The ditch, which was probably supplied with water from the sea at its south end, gives off a branch northwards towards the Roman tower, called the watch-tower, and this cuts off the north-east corner of the ground, which thus forms a sort of small middle ward between the forks of the ditch. Behind the ditch is a curtain wall, near the centre of which is a gatehouse of some pretensions, and three large drum-towers, of which two flank the gatehouse, and one is placed to the north of it.

The gatehouse points to the west, opposite to that of the Roman area, now the outer ward, at a distance of 184 yards. In front of it are the two solid piers of the drawbridge, 14 feet wide, and approached from without between curved wing walls. The piers were faced with ashlar, now stripped off. The space between them is 12 feet, and may have been 10 feet The gatehouse is composed of two half-round towers, produced backwards to contain the entrance passage. Outside, these towers somewhat resemble those of the Roman or outer gate, which may have served as their pattern. Their loops are of unusual length, one being 15 feet long. The vents of two garderobes are seen, opening flush with the wall. One seems to be the lower end of a loop. They contain a basement, a ground, and an upper floor, looped towards the field, not vaulted, and duly provided with garderobes. The north tower, faced with sound, though rather open-jointed, ashlar, is still standing, though mutilated. In its ground floor is a fireplace. The south tower is quite broken down. The entrance passage is tolerably perfect, although the gateway at each end is gone, as is the upper chamber for working the portcullis, of which part of the grooves remain. The passage, 12 feet broad and 35 feet long, was vaulted with a segmental vault, strengthened with plain broad chamfered ribs, now broken away, and in the vault, a little behind the portcullis, is a large square central hole or “meurtrière” for the defence of the passage. In either wall is an arcade of two arches, a larger and a smaller, low pointed. The larger are closed, the smaller pierced by doors opening into the ground floors of the gatehouse.

Flanking the gatehouse, at a distance of 33 yards north and 54 yards south, are two grand round towers, each capping an angle of the curtain. The north curtain has a base or plinth slightly battering. The wall is vertical. There is no cordon between them. The north-west tower is 30 feet diameter, and has a basement, ground, and upper floor. The basement, though below the inner ward level, is on the level of the ground outside. It is arcaded, having six arches in its rounded sides, and one in its flat end or gorge. These arches have a drip of the double-scroll pattern, and between each pair springs a moulded rib, and one from each of the two right angles, eight in all. They are broken away, but their profile is seen, and the plan of the vault may be inferred. The entrance to this chamber is by a straight staircase from the inner ward, and at the foot of the stairs is a lobby on the left or west side leading to a postern doorway placed at the junction of the tower with the curtain. In the gorge wall is a fireplace, the hood of which seems to have been of timber. It is difficult to understand what this chamber can have been intended for, with its ornate details and a fireplace, and yet half under ground.

The ground floor is entered from the inner ward by a separate entrance, in the right or east wall of which an opening passes into an oblong mural chamber, vaulted, and contained within the curtain. This chamber has a water drain, and above it, in the wall, three bold corbels, and above these a small segmental-headed doorway, now blocked up. This is a very peculiar arrangement, and it looks as though there had been a wooden structure, perhaps a garderobe, bracketed out upon the face of the wall, over the ditch, at about 10 feet from the ground. The upper floor of the tower was entered from the battlements, the tower rising above the wall. Only the basement floor was vaulted. Each stage is lighted, or rather ventilated, by loops towards the field.

The southern flanking tower is nearly upon the pattern of that last described, save that the basement is not arcaded, and none of the floors vaulted.

The third tower, in the north wall, 36 yards from the north-west flanker, is of the same pattern, with the same exceptions. The staircase into the basement has a side door opening upon a postern in the east wall, with a segmental head, and from the ground-floor entrance there opens, westwards, a long mural chamber, the counterpart of that described as attached to the north-west flanker, having also brackets and corbels, and a small door in the wall, 10 feet above the ground, as though for a timber garderobe. These are all the regular towers, but in the south wall, where a tower might be expected, is a postern, which pierces the wall at its junction with the Roman wall, and outside and in front of it is a fragment of a Roman tower, which has slipped forwards a few yards, and forms a sort of bulwark concealing and protecting the postern. It is evident that the displacement of the tower is older than the Norman period, and was taken advantage of by the later builder. In the north wall of this inner ward, beneath the north and north-west towers, is a large fireplace, perhaps that of a hall. The kitchen was probably in the north-west tower, and the large mural drain was connected with it.

The mound, which occupied the east end of the castle and carried the keep, remains tolerably perfect, though much encumbered with ruins, produced evidently by gunpowder. Against its east side, and supporting the mound, is a Roman tower, which was worked into the keep, its solid top being battlemented. The mound has a spur of earth towards the north, probably connecting it with the north wall, but nothing definite can at present be ascertained, though the foundations upon it, if laid open, would probably disclose something.

As the mediæval castle is placed within the eastern end of the Roman area, its eastern side osculated with the Roman boundary, which is here common to both areas. About four-fifths of the enclosing wall of the castle is mediæval, but the remainder, that towards the east, is Roman, which is thus common to both fortresses. Commencing at the south postern, where the two walls are in contact, to the great disadvantage of the masonry of later date, the Roman wall extends, partially propped up by a later buttress, until it reaches a Roman tower that connected it with the keep mound. Beyond this, passing southward and eastward, to where the mediæval wall springs from the Roman enceinte, the Roman wall has been left to support the mound, but about 6 feet in front of it a mediæval wall, 9 feet thick, has been built, probably to afford more space above, and to assist in supporting the earthwork. The castle has been attacked on this side, or else those who dismantled it, thinking this the strongest part, have mined and blown it up, for the glacis for many yards is covered with enormous masses of masonry, which have evidently been displaced by gunpowder exploded in large quantities. At one part, abutting upon the Roman tower, the two walls are seen. About 20 feet of the mediæval wall, 9 feet thick and 10 feet high, stands undisturbed, though above this height its superstructure has been blown off. Behind it is the Roman wall of about the same height, not only reduced in height by the explosion, but tilted forward. This is what has happened in this quarter, and the history of it is clear, even in the midst of so great a confusion.

Within the mediæval or inner ward an excavation shows the position and plan of the chapel, with a nave 40 feet by 16 feet 8 inches broad, and chancel of 12 feet 8 inches by 11 feet 6 inches. A fragment of the font has been preserved. The chapel is, no doubt, of Norman date, and older, therefore, than the castle in its present form. There is also a rude pillar piscina, such as is now and then found in Norman buildings. There are one or two in Glamorganshire. The free chapel in the castle is mentioned in the grant of John of Gaunt. The well also has been discovered at the foot of the mound. It is cylindrical, 7 feet diameter, and lined with ashlar to a depth of 52 feet, below which it is square and lined with timber.

The Roman works at Pevensey have been explored and examined, as already stated, by Mr. Roach Smith. Unfortunately, the mediæval castle has been less fortunate, and has not been accurately described. A short but complete and brilliant description of Pevensey, and a notice of the part it played in the campaign of 1066, will be found in Mr. Freeman’s “Norman Conquest.” It also plays a conspicuous part in his recent life of the Red King.

PICKERING CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.

The castle and town of Pickering stand upon the southern edge of the moors of north-eastern Yorkshire, where the upland subsides into a broad tract of meadow, which, under the names of Carr, Ing, Marisch, and Bottom, extends southwards nearly to Malton, and east and west from near Scarborough to a little short of Helmsley. This is the district known as the Lythe or Vale of Pickering, of which the castle was the chief seat.

One of the principal passes into the Lythe from the north is that now occupied by the Malton and Whitby Railway, and down which flows the Pickering Beck, a tributary (through the Costa Beck) of the Rye and the Derwent. The pass is rather a ravine than a valley, and is deep, rocky, narrow, and winding. The castle occupies a rocky knoll near where the pass opens out into the plain, and stands a few yards east of, and 100 feet or more above, the stream, on either bank of which is built the town, below and under the immediate protection of the castle.

The position is upon a rocky headland, about 70 feet or 80 feet above the town, and jutting out sharply towards the north and west into the valley. Thus two sides, covering nearly half the area, are naturally strong. Towards the south and west the ground rises gently, attaining to the height of 200 feet and even 300 feet, at distances of a quarter of a mile to two miles. On these sides, therefore, the defence is artificial, and composed of a deep and broad ditch, which opens out upon the valley at each of its ends. It is quite dry, and from its position and level was probably always so: a part of it, indeed, carried the way up to the postern.

The area thus defended falls somewhat towards the west. It is pear-shaped, the stalk being towards the south-west. Its cross dimensions are about 500 feet by 350 feet. It is contained within a curtain wall of considerable height and strength towards the town front, and having upon its southern half four towers. Upon the northern half were formerly two, both of which have disappeared. The keep and the inner gatehouse belong to both divisions, being upon the line common to both. Within the general area, and rather near to its north-eastern or larger end, is a conical flat-topped mound, wholly artificial, and surrounded by a circular ditch, of which a part towards the east is quarried out of the rock. Upon this mound stood the keep, and from it, on nearly opposite sides, sprung the cross curtain which traversed the area in almost its greatest diameter, and, with the keep, divided it into two nearly equal wards, to the north and the south. On the outer or the southern front of this wall is a deep and wide ditch, which extends from the ditch of the mound each way towards the enceinte, the eastern limb opening into the outer ditch, and the western upon the face of the low cliff. Each of these openings is, however, traversed by the main curtain. Upon the southern and longer limb of the cross-curtain is the inner gateway, leading from one ward to the other, and opposite to the outer gate, which is on the southern front.

The four mural towers already mentioned are all in the southern ward. They are, Mill Tower, Rosamond’s, the Devil’s Tower, and the Gate Tower. Devil’s Tower contains a postern. Besides the keep, Leland mentions three towers in the north ward. Of these the inner gate was one, and the other two probably capped the two angles of that ward. The domestic buildings in Leland’s time were of timber, and are gone. There remains a chapel, desecrated, and of which the existing building is of very doubtful date.

The mound is 76 feet diameter at the flat top, about 70 feet high, and at its base in the bottom of the surrounding ditch about 220 feet diameter.

The keep, which is placed upon its summit, was a shell of masonry, 6 feet to 7 feet thick; within it is circular; and outside, in part at least, polygonal; and was perhaps originally a nonagon, with sides of 24 feet. Of this shell there remain two fragments, on nearly opposite sides of the area, one 35 feet long, and containing two loops, the other 24 feet, and containing a loop and a half. These are at the ground level. They are 6 feet high and of 3 inches opening, dove-tailed at the lower end, and having a short cross member. Each is placed in a round-headed recess of 6 feet opening, and splayed. The fragments are about 18 feet high, and may have been 20 feet to the rampart walk. Outside, the wall rises from a low plain plinth. The wall is of rude, roughly-coursed rubble, with ashlar dressings and quoins at the two angles that remain. There is a ledge or walk of about 2 feet broad outside the wall.

From opposite sides of the mound spring the cross curtains, at a very obtuse angle, so that a trifle more of the base of the mound belongs to the south than to the north ward. These curtains are 7 feet thick, and are built upon the slope and across the ditch of the mound, being at the deepest about 70 feet high. At present they cease at the top edge of the mound, and do not seem to have been any higher, save by a parapet, or to have abutted against the keep. This is what appears at Tickhill and Tamworth. No doubt the parapet was continued against the keep wall, and there may have been a postern, as at Hawarden, where, however, the wall itself abuts upon the keep. The eastern limb is tolerably perfect as far as the counterscarp of the ditch. It is then broken down for some feet, but finally is seen to have abutted upon the outer curtain, close to the Devil’s Tower. The other, or western limb, extends to the inner gate tower. Towards the junction the curtain is somewhat thickened and very lofty. Here a straight flight of steps ascends from the rampart walk to a second rampart higher up, so that there are two rows of loops, the upper being in the battlement. Possibly there was a wooden gallery here to give breadth to the upper rampart.

The gate tower, at which the curtain ends, was not a gatehouse, but a tower by the side of the gateway, but having no communication with it, as at Cardiff and Ogmore. This tower is 21 feet broad by 16 feet deep, and had a basement and two stories. The gateway, of which it formed the eastern side, was probably a mere opening in the curtain. The further side is gone, but the tower side shows no marks of vaulting or portcullis, and has but one rebate for the doors. Here was a drawbridge of 6 feet span, of which the counter-pier remains. From the gateway the cross curtain was continued until it abutted on the west curtain. All this part is gone, or nearly so. In front of the cross curtain is a ditch, crossed by the outer curtain at each end, and running into the ditch of the mound, as has already been mentioned. It is from this ditch that opens internally the postern of the Devil’s Tower. This cross curtain is of rough masonry, and at the least its lower part may very well be Norman work.

Of the towers in the outer ward, the first to be noted is the Mill Tower. This caps the eastern angle of the castle. It is 31 feet 6 inches square, with walls 10 feet thick. It has a basement and two upper stories, all once floored with timber. It is built of excellent ashlar. The basement chamber is at the ward level, but 20 feet or more above the ditch. It is 11 feet 6 inches square, and entered by an acutely-pointed doorway from the inner face. In its outer face is rather a singular loop. A shoulder-headed recess, 4 feet 3 inches broad, and 5 feet deep, converges upon a loop of 4 inches opening, the sides of which are parallel for 5 feet. On the splay of the loop, in the scanty light of it, some prisoner has carved a circle with figures. Outside, in the west wall, is the mouth of a small drain from this chamber, which was evidently a prison. The first floor is at the level of the rampart walk of the outer curtain, and is entered thence by means of an external stone stair, sheltered by a parapet, 6 feet 6 inches high. The doorway has an equilateral head, with deep mouldings, beaded angles, and a passage ribbed transversely. The chamber is 15 feet 6 inches square. In the west wall is a garderobe chamber, 2 feet 6 inches broad by 10 feet long, looped, and with an external shoot, flush with the wall. In the south wall is an equilateral arched recess, with a ribbed barrel-vault and stone seats, and in it a two-light flat-topped window, trefoiled. In the east wall is a plain, square-headed fireplace, and a door, also square-headed, opening into a well-stair, which ascends hence to the battlements and the upper floor. This stair is contained within a triangular projection from the tower. It ends above under a ribbed and domed covering.

Rosamond’s Tower caps the south-west angle of the curtain. It is of ashlar, 22 feet broad by 24 feet deep, and has no internal projection. The floors were of timber. It has a basement about 5 feet above the court level, and a first and second floor. The basement, entered from the ward, is 10 feet by 8 feet, and has a single loop. The gorge wall, at the rampart level, is pierced by a gallery to carry the rampart walk. The gallery descends and rises again 4 feet, the first floor, being so much below the rampart level. This floor seems also to have been entered by an exterior stair built over the lower doorway.

The Devil’s, or Postern Tower, that north-east of the keep, is rectangular and of ashlar, and has exterior projection only. It is 22 feet broad by 27 feet deep. The basement is vaulted, and pierced by a postern passage. The inner door, pointed, opens in the bottom of the ditch of the cross curtain; it is now nearly buried. The outer door is walled up. It is pointed, of 3 feet 6 inches opening, and placed in a square-headed recess, 6 inches deep, 5 feet broad by 10 feet high, intended to lodge the bridge when up. At the foot of this door, outside, in two large stones, are two holes, 6 inches diameter and 18 inches deep, which contained the wooden axle of the drawbridge. Above is a central chain-hole for working the bridge. The chain must have carried a yoke, or sort of splinter-bar, 4 feet or 5 feet long, with lateral chains fastened to the sides of the platform, such as was used at Raglan and is still in use at the castle of Verona. This bridge must have had a special pit, since the way to it, inside and outside, lay along the bottom of the regular ditches. Above the door is a cruciform loop, and above that a plain one. The approach to this postern lay from the meadow north of the castle, up the mouth of the ditch of the place. The first floor of this tower is entered by a round-headed, Decorated door, with exterior steps, through a mural passage, 3 feet broad and 20 feet long, at one end of which is a garderobe. The front floor is 8 feet by 12 feet, with a cruciform loop. The second floor is entered from the rampart. The gorge wall coincides with the curtain, and is pierced to carry the rampart walk. Projecting from the curtain, close south of the tower, is a very handsome chamfered bracket, pierced as the shaft of a garderobe, and worthy of more noble service.

About 12 feet north of the tower, at the junction of the cross and main curtain, is a rectangular turret, about 12 feet square, and pierced for the passage of the rampart walk. Its use seems to be to break the communication between the ramparts of the cross and main curtains.

The outer Gateway Tower, which stands on the south or town front, between Rosamond’s and the Mill Tower, in general construction seems of the date of the inner gate. Strictly speaking, it is not a gatehouse. The curtain is broken and turns outwards, forming two parallel walls, 7 feet thick and 20 feet projection. They are 12 feet apart, and between them lies the entrance. In the line of the curtain this passage is crossed by an acute arch, 2 feet thick, the springing 15 feet high, and above this the curtain rises to 50 feet, forming a sort of screen, giving the appearance of a tower over the gate. The flanking walls, about 20 feet high, form a sort of barbican, and no doubt protected the drawbridge. A door above opened upon these battlements. The work is poor; there is no portcullis or portal vault. The entrance is quite unworthy of the castle.

Returning to the inner ward, no doubt the three towers mentioned by Leland were the inner gate tower, and two upon the two angles of the ward; but these are gone; though probably, if the turf and brambles were removed, the foundations would be seen.

The Norman doorway may have opened into one of these towers. At present it fronts a recess in the curtain 6 feet broad, barrel vaulted; and 6 feet high to the abacus or string which marks the springing. The doorway was flanked by two nook shafts, now gone, standing upon square plinths, and with fluted capitals. The architrave is highly ornate, having a beaded angle with a moulding of pointed arches repeated. This looks like rather late Norman, and is the only bit of work in the castle distinctly referable to that period. The drip, if ever there was one, is gone. There is no rebate or trace of a door. The adjacent curtain is low and ruinous. Here are several corbels, as though to support a lean-to range of buildings. Near this door is a small building, which looks modern, with four old lancets inserted, and a door which seems copied from an older one. This is said to be the chapel of the castle which Leland saw, and which was served by one chantry priest. Grose calls it a small, mean building, with some old pews in it. It is now a potato store.

Pickering Castle represents one great type of Anglo-Norman fortress—that is, a castle of Norman masonry upon an English earthwork, for the present walls, if not Norman, are unquestionably laid upon Norman lines. Here the mound does not, as is more usual, form a part of the enceinte, but is concentric, though placed out of centre, like the earthwork at Barwick in Elmete.

No doubt the earthworks were taken possession of and walled, either late in the eleventh or early in the twelfth century, in the Norman period, and the mass of the curtains, with the keep and the Norman door, are probably remains of this work. But the whole fortress was rebuilt in the Decorated period, the mural towers added, the curtains raised, and the place rendered stronger. It is difficult to decide on the age of the gateways. They may be Norman or they may be of the time of Richard II., probably the former.

The domestic buildings are said to have been of timber. They are gone. There is no known well. The castle mill was upon the river a little below the castle. The ditch along the south and west has been nearly filled up; beyond it is a hollow way leading down to the river, which may be old, and intended as a second line of defence.

It is stated in Domesday that, in the time of King Edward, Pickering (Pickeringa) belonged to Earl Morcar. It was then held by the king, with four berewicks, or appended manors, and some chapelries or spiritual dependencies of the parish church. The castle and its territory seem never to have been alienated from the Norman crown. The Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. mentions that Robert de Widville rendered account for the “census rents of the forest of Pickering.” In 31 Henry II. pannage was accounted for from the forest; and in 1 Richard I., rents were accounted for by William Boie and Alan Fitz-Geoffrey, probably the same who occurs in the same year as Alan de Pikering. In 33 Henry II. the men of Pickering were assessed in a donum towards a royal expedition, a tax which was from time to time repeated. In 9 Richard I. mention is made of the wapentake and town of Pickering; and in 11 John, a settlement was ordered of the boundaries between the king’s forest of Pickering and N. de Stuteville’s forest.

King John was here in February, 1201; August, 1208; and March, 1210; each time for a day.

In 45 Henry III. the castle was held by Hugh le Bigod against the king, with Scarborough, which castle he was monished under the Bull of Alexander VI. to surrender.

Henry III. granted Pickering to his son, Edmund Earl of Lancaster, about which time mention is made of the manor, fee, and forestry of Pickering. In 13 Edward I. the earl had confirmation of the manor, castle, and forest. On the execution and attainder of Earl Thomas, Henry Earl of Northumberland had charge of the castle, but on the fall of Edward II., Earl Henry recovered it. When Henry of Lancaster landed at Ravensburn in 1399, he marched on and retook Pickering, then held for the king.

King Richard II. was prisoner here before his removal to Pontefract.

Peck enumerates Pickering among the royal castles, and says there was a steward of the lordship, a constable of the castle, a master of the game, and a rider of the forest.

Pickering was held for the king in the parliamentary struggles, and breached on the west point, and dismantled. It seems never to have been permanently alienated from the royal demesnes. The Crown held it from the Conquest until it was granted by Henry IV. to the Earl of Lancaster, since which its history is that of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster, of which it still forms a part.

With Pickering Castle should be mentioned a very curious, though nameless and but little known earthwork in its immediate neighbourhood. This is not even laid down as an earthwork in the Ordnance Map, usually so accurate, though marked as the site of a station. It is placed upon the highest part of a round, grassy hill, with easy slopes, which rises upon the western or right bank of the Beck or river of Pickering, about 200 feet above the water, and opposite to, and a little lower down than, the castle. The position is good, it is clear of the ravine which opens out just above the town and castle, and from it is a rich and extensive view, especially to the south and west, over Rysdale and towards Helmsley. The labour bestowed upon the work is light compared with that expended upon the earthworks of the castle, though the mound is the leading feature of both, and attests their common Saxon or early English origin.

A central mound, 90 feet in diameter at the top and 20 feet high, is girt by a ditch, out of which it rises, and upon the outer edge of which is a low bank. The summit of the mound is level, but is surrounded by a light, circular bank, which probably was heaped up to cover the lower edge of the timber defence or residence, which no doubt was here placed. The entrance seems to have been on the south-east side, where are marks of a way across the outer bank, and perhaps of a causeway over the ditch. The hill is enclosed, and part of it under the plough, so that no traces of any exterior or appended enclosures are visible. The work, though its general outline is to be traced with certainty, is much lowered, and its details weakened and rendered obscure by time and weather. It is, however, an earthwork of the same general class with Laughton, Barwick, Castleton, and others similar to them in Yorkshire and elsewhere, and, with them, it deserves attention. Possibly it is earlier than the castle mound of Pickering, and probably was abandoned when that was thrown up; perhaps when the wealth and power of the owner enabled him to found the lythe or lordship of Pickering.

THE CASTLE OF PONTEFRACT, YORKSHIRE.

“Our histories,” says Swift, “are full of Pomfret Castle;” and although this has long ceased to be the case, and Pomfret be now famous but for cakes and the cultivation of the root employed in the soothing of catarrh and the adulteration of railway coffee, it was once a very famous, and is still a very interesting, place.

Whence came the name of Pontefract, and when and where its bridge was broken down, are questions over which antiquaries have long stumbled, seeing that the Aire, the only stream of the district needing to be traversed by a bridge, is two miles from the town and quite out of its girth.

It appears from Norman charters that the name of the place was Kirkby, a name, no doubt, bestowed upon it when church and hamlet were founded as a Christian settlement, in the old days when King Oswald of Northumbria embraced the new faith, an event probably commemorated by the cross which gave name to the wapentake still known of Oswald’s or Osgod’s Cross. Kirkby, however, is not named in Domesday, though probably even then a burgh. It is evidently included in the manor of Tateshall, or Tanshelf, which belonged to the king, and appended to which was the soke of Manesthorp, Barnebi, and Silchestone. Tateshall formed, and still forms, a part of the town of Pontefract.

No doubt this is the “Taddenes Scylf,” where, in 947, King Eadred received the fealty of Archbishop Wulfstan and the Northumbrian Witan, as recorded, with their speedy breach of it, in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. The place must even then have been of importance, and there can be but little doubt that the Witan met on the site of the later castle. Also it continued to be an important place, for at the Conquest it was a demesne of the Crown, and is recorded in Domesday as rated at £20., having three mills, and containing a hospital for the poor. Domesday, no doubt, means Pontefract Castle, when it records that, “Omnis tornour sedet infra metam castelli Ilberti secundum primam mensuram et secundum novissimam mensuram sedet extra.” Meta is here clearly the castle garth or boundary of its immediate lands, not the military enceinte or curtain about the position, with respect to which no measurement could be in error, nor is it the Castelry, which was a much larger area.

The parish of Pontefract, which is large, is composed of six townships, of which one is Pontefract proper. The parish is one of twenty composing the wapentake or hundred.

Leland, who calls the fortress “Snorre Castle,” says that before the Conquest it belonged to Richard Aschenald, and then to Ailric, Sweine, and Adam, his son, grandson, and great grandson. This last had two daughters, married to Alex. de Crevequer and Adam de Montbegon. Dodsworth calls Aschenald, Aske, still a great Yorkshire name, and points out, what indeed is still very evident, that the Norman works stood in part on an artificial hill, on which no doubt stood the house of the English lord, dispossessed by the Conqueror.

Ailric is a real person, and a Domesday landowner, and before the Conquest held many manors. Sweine was his son, and inherited, and gave a church and chapel to the monks of St. John’s Church at Pontefract. Ailric held his lands, much reduced, under the Norman grantee, as did Sweine, and his son Adam Fitz Sweine, who founded Bretton Priory, and died about 1158, having been a very considerable person. Charters by both Sweine and Adam are found in the Pontefract cartulary.

William I. was at Castleford on the Aire in the winter of 1069, and as he stayed there three weeks he probably found the means of inspecting so strong a place as the English House at Kirkby, and when he granted the district to Ilbert de Lacy it may reasonably be supposed that he followed his usual practice of directing a castle to be built.

Mr. Freeman suggests that the name of Pontefract may have arisen from some incident connected with this passage of the Aire; others have thought that, like Richmond and Montgomery, it was an imported name. Ordericus, however, as Mr. Freeman remarks, refers to it as Fractus-Pons, not Pons-Fractus, “Rex ... præpeditur ad fracti pontis vada,” as though the words were in a state of transition from a description to a proper name. The change of name certainly was adopted slowly, for while an early charter by Robert de Lacy, the second lord, has the passage, “de dominio suo de Kirkbi,” a later one has “Deo et Sᵗⁱ Johanni et Monachis meis de Pontefract,” while Hugh de Lanval, the intrusive lord, at least as late as 1120, employs the older name. Robert of Castleford, a good local authority, writing about a century after the event, says the name commemorates the escape of a multitude of people from drowning, when a bridge broke down beneath them. There is, however, no river within two miles of Pontefract capable of drowning a multitude.

Camden derives the name from the breaking down of a bridge or causeway that traversed the marshy valley still called the Wash, the springs of which rise close north-west of the castle and cross its approach from Knottingley, at Bubwith Houses, where, in the time of Edward II., John Bubwith held lands juxta veterem pontem de Pontefract, about a quarter of a mile from the castle, which, indeed, proves the existence of a bridge, though not of a broken one. How water came to be here collected will be explained when the defences of the castle are treated of. Perhaps the real truth of the matter may lie in the suggestion of Hopkinson, that the castle was called after a place of that name belonging to De Lacy in Normandy.

A few marks of Roman occupation have been discovered here, and but few. Legeolium, the station of the district, seems to have been at Castleford, three miles distant.

But whatever may have been the origin of the fortress, or of its evidently pre-Norman earthworks, its recorded history commences with Ilbert de Lacy, to whom William granted Knottingley, a large portion of the wapentake, and other lands, including about 150 manors, chiefly in the West Riding,—where they fill seven pages of Domesday-book,—Nottingham, and Lincoln, of which those in Yorkshire were erected into an Honour, whereof Pontefract, the strongest and most important place, became naturally the chief seat. Ilbert, though no doubt of near kin to the Herefordshire Lord of Ewyas and Holm-Lacy, was a different person. He is thought to have built Pontefract Castle before 1080, commencing it probably in consequence of the visit of the Conqueror, in 1069. If Sir H. Ellis be right, and the castle then built be that alluded to by the Domesday entry, it was speedily completed. Ilbert also endowed the chapel of St. Clement within the castle, which, in some form or other, long survived. He lived into the reign of Rufus, from whom he had a confirmation of his grants. By his wife, Hawise, he left Robert and Hugh.

Robert de Lacy, called, from his birthplace, “of Pontefract,” claims to have built Clitheroe, which has, indeed, been attributed to his second son. He also had a confirmation from Rufus. By Maud, his wife, he had Ilbert, who, with his father, on the death of Rufus, joined Curthose against Henry I., and fought at Tenchbrai. Both were banished, and Robert was disseized of Pontefract in favour of William Transversus, and then of Hugh de la Val, or Lanval, who held it to the reign of Stephen. Robert finally regained the Honour, but King Henry claimed 2,000 marcs, and de la Val had £150. for the demesne lands, and 20 knights’ fees, which are entered in the Liber Niger in 1165 as held “de veteri feodo Pontisfracti.” Robert confirmed some of de la Val’s grants to Nostel, and founded the Cluniac Priory of Pontefract.

Ilbert de Lacy, next Lord of the Honour, fought at Northallerton, and was a zealous supporter of Stephen, on whose death he adhered to Henry II. He married Alice, daughter of Gilbert de Gant, but died childless.

Henry de Lacy, next brother, succeeded. To him is attributed the later Norman work in the castle. He appears in the Liber Niger as holding 60 fees. Henry II. confirmed him in the Honour of Pontefract, and the other English and the Norman possessions of his family. 12 Henry II. he was assessed upon 79½ fees. He was a considerable church benefactor, and gave St. John’s Church and St. Nicholas’s Hospital, both in Pontefract, to the priory there. He founded Kirkstall.

Robert de Lacy, his son, and successor to the Honour, was present at the coronation of Richard I. He died childless in 1193.

The heir, according to Dugdale, and in violation of an accepted rule of inheritance, was Albreda de Lizures, Robert’s uterine sister. Mr. Hunter, however, in his preface to the Pipe-roll of 31 Henry I. has shown that in all probability Albreda was the daughter of Robert de Lizures by a sister of Ilbert de Lacy, second of this name, and therefore Robert’s cousin, and heir of the full blood. This point is important as setting aside what has been regarded as a singular exception to an accepted law. Albreda married Richard FitzEustace, Constable of Chester.

John, their son, who died before his mother, Lord of Pontefract and Constable of Chester, abandoned his House of Halton, took the name and arms of de Lacy, and died 1179, having married Alice de Vere.

Roger de Lacy, son and heir. 5 Richard I. he received from his grandmother the Lacy lands. He visited the Holy Land with his father in King Richard’s train. 7 Richard I. he paid 2,000 marcs to have livery of the Honour of Pontefract, excepting the castle, which the king retained in his own hands, and to which he paid at least ten visits between 1205 and 1216. 1 John, he reopened the question of the de la Val 20 fees, for livery of which he paid 500 marcs; and 4 John, 1203, the king addressed a letter to the tenants directing them to acknowledge Roger de Lacy as their lord. Though John continued to hold the Castle, he employed Roger in various important offices, and made him governor of the strong fortress of Château-Gaillard, on the Seine, in which he stood a very famous siege, only giving way when short of food, and deserted by the king. 13 John he paid scutage upon 47¾ fees of his own land, besides others which he held in wardship. He seems to have been the baron who, in the absence of regular soldiers, led the Chester minstrels to the relief of Earl Ranulph, when surrounded by the Welsh. He was a great soldier, and an openhanded benefactor to the church, and deserved the line with which the monks of Hanlau began his epitaph:—

“Hic sepelitur Heros generosus in orbe Rogerus.”

Earl Roger died a young man in 1211. He had married Maud de Clare, and by her had John, his successor. In December, 14 John, 1212, the Honour was in the king’s hands, and he seems to have made free with its revenues; for in 1213 he directed 300 marcs from its issues to be spent on the works at Corfe Castle.

John de Lacy had seizin 20 September, 1213, and paid John 7,000 marcs for livery of the Honour, less the castles of Pontefract and Durrington, which the king kept, and for the expenses of keeping which Peter FitzHerbert had an order on the Exchequer. John, who is styled in the writ John de Chester, joined the Barons against King John, and was duly excommunicated by the Pope. He married Margaret, co-heir of Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester, by Hawise, Countess of Lincoln and co-heir of Ranulph, Earl of Chester and Lincoln. Early in the reign of Henry III., 1232, on the death of Earl Ranulph, Hawise seems to have made over her earldom to her daughter’s husband, who bore the title till his death, in 1240.

Edmund de Lacy, the son of Earl John and Margaret, was, by the contrivance of Henry III., married to one of his foreign kinsfolk, Alice, daughter of the Marquis de Saluces. He inherited Pontefract, but did not assume the title of Lincoln, as he did not outlive his mother. He died 42 Henry III., 1258, having built the House of the White Friars, near the Barbican, at Pontefract.

Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, his son, was the greatest of his race. He married the heiress of Longspee, and in her right became Earl of Salisbury. He was in ward to the king, and in 1272 was knighted and made Governor of Knaresborough Castle. He walled the town of Denbigh, and commenced the Castle, which he is said to have left unfinished because his only surviving son was drowned in a draw-well in the Red Tower there. His other son had been killed by a fall from a tower at Pontefract.

Having thus no son, Earl Henry surrendered his estates to the king, who regranted them, 28th December, 21 Edward I., to him for life, with remainder to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, and the heirs of his body. 28 Edward I., Queen Margaret was a visitor at Pontefract Castle, and during a short hunting excursion to Brotherton, was there brought to bed suddenly of Thomas, called from his birthplace. It is said that the house in which she took refuge, with 20 acres of land, was enclosed in a wall and ditched, and granted by the tenure of keeping the wall in repair. Earl Henry died at Lincoln’s Inn, 1310, leaving a daughter, Alice, who married Thomas, eldest son and successor of Edmund Earl of Lancaster.

Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster, and, either by his wife Alice, or by his father’s grant, Earl of Lincoln, and Lord of Pontefract, succeeded. He was much at the castle, and probably refaced the lower part of the keep, built Swillington Tower, and no doubt some of the structures the bases of which remain in the main ward. He also in 1315 built Dunstanborough, and added Lancaster’s Buildings to Kenilworth. Earl Thomas’s history is well known. From Boroughbridge Field he was taken to Pontefract Castle, then occupied by the weak and vindictive king. He was imprisoned in Swillington Tower, tried and condemned in the great hall, and, in 1322, executed on the hill which still bears his canonised name, a mile to the north-east. He was buried in the Priory. The patent creating Harcla, one of his captors, Earl of Carlisle, was dated from the castle, three days after the earl’s execution.

Countess Alice, whose character was unhappily not so impregnable as her castle, married, secondly, Eubolo L’Estrange, who died 9 Edw. III. Her third husband was Hugh de Fresnes, called Earl of Lincoln. There was a fourth, earlier in the list, whose claims are doubtful. Alice died 1348, but Pontefract and the other possessions had already passed, under the regrant, to her husband’s brother.

Henry Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster, succeeded to his brother’s honour in 1324, and died 1345. Edward III. probably retained the castle. He was here in 1328. By Maud Chaworth Earl Henry had another Henry.

Henry Plantagenet (Tort-col, or of Grismond), Earl of Derby, &c., and, in 1351, Duke of Lancaster. He died 1361. Blanch, his second daughter by Isabel Beaumont, and co-heir, inherited Pontefract Castle and Honour.

John Plantagenet, of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, married the heiress and became Lord of Pontefract. He resided much at Pontefract, and restored the works. When threatened by Richard II. he victualled and put the castle into a state of defence. 12 Richard II. he obtained by charter “jura regalia” within the honour. Parts of the half-covered basements in the main ward appear to be of his time. He died 1399.

Henry Plantagenet, of Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford, afterwards Henry IV., son and heir, succeeded, being then in exile. Richard II., by confiscating the estates, provoked reprisals, which led to his own deposition. Pontefract Castle became his first prison, and the scene of his supposed murder. Since that event the castle has been vested in the Crown. Richard Scrope, archbishop of York, was here condemned to death in 1405, and at that time Henry IV. was much here, putting down the Northern insurrections. Many of his instruments are hence dated between 1405 and 1408.

Henry V., much occupied with foreign wars, and having peace at home, had no occasion to make use of Pontefract, which seems to have been neglected in its military capacity; but here Charles, Duke of Orleans, taken at Agincourt, and James I. of Scotland, were long confined, both accomplished men and given to literature.

With the civil dissensions that came under Henry VI., the castle became again of importance. The Duke of Exeter, taken from sanctuary after St. Alban’s, was here imprisoned; and in 1460, after the battle of Wakefield, Edward here took post, with his army encamped around. It was under the walls of the castle that Warwick killed his horse before the soldiers, saying, “Let him flee that flee will; I stay by him who stays by me.” It was in accordance with this declaration that the king advanced from Pontefract next day, and defeated the Lancastrians at Towton. Edward’s father, Richard, Duke of York, and his brother, the Earl of Rutland, slain at Wakefield, had been buried at Pontefract. He now added his father’s head to his body, and removed the whole from St. John’s Church to Fotheringay. During Edward’s reverses and absence in Holland, the Lancastrians used Pontefract as a military prison.

In 1463, Edward was again at Pontefract, and in 1478, when he was escorted thither in great state, and remained a week.

The bloody celebrity of Pontefract was increased during the ascendancy of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who sent hither Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, and Hawse, to be executed without form of trial. Soon after his accession he erected the town into a municipal borough.

The castle rose again briefly into notice in 1536, when Aske and the insurgents of the Pilgrimage of Grace appeared before it, and forced its surrender by Lord Darcy and the Archbishop of York, with more than a presumption of treachery. Henry VIII. was here in 1540. Two years later, Sir Henry Savile, as governor, had charge of several Scottish prisoners taken at Solway Moss.

Elizabeth, towards the close of her reign, repaired the castle, and rebuilt the chapel of St. Clement within it. King James was here in 1603, and made the castle and honour a part of the dower of his queen. He repeated his visit in 1616, and viewed the newly-established college of St. Clement, within the castle. King Charles was here in 1625, soon after his accession.

Pontefract was once more to become a place of military importance. Once the centre of the baronage of the north, it was now to appear as the rallying-place of the great aristocracy of Yorkshire, and of the Royal party. In 1642, when Charles lifted his standard at York, Pontefract Castle was garrisoned by a very strong force of local gentry and volunteers, with the gallant Sir William Lowther, of Swillington, as governor. Their courage was soon to be tried. After Marston Moor and the surrender of York, Sir T. Fairfax appeared before the castle, and in December, 1644, commenced its siege. The main attack seems to have been directed upon the north-west angle, where the Pix Tower was battered, and fell, bringing down part of the adjacent curtain with it. The enemy, however, did not storm, and the breach was made good with earth. Mines were then tried, and one was sprung near the King’s Tower, at the south-east angle. These were met by counter mines, for which the ground, a soft rock, was very favourable. Very many shafts were sunk near the walls in the main ward, and, no doubt, are still in existence. Both attack and defence were carried on with great spirit, but at last stores began to fail, and matters looked ill for the garrison. They were reduced to extremity when, on the 1st of March, Sir M. Langdale arrived with 2,000 men from Oxford, and forced Lambert to raise the siege, while he victualled and reinforced the garrison.

The Parliament, however, was now in the ascendant, and in a few days their forces were recruited, and again appeared before the place.

This time regular trenches were opened, batteries thrown up, and a complete line of circumvallation laid out. This was of an oval figure, completely inclosing the castle and its outworks. The contained area, from the head of Micklegate by Knollys’s Hospital on the west, to Monk-hill near New Hall on the east, was 900 yards; and from Baghill on the south, to the middle of the Abbot’s Closes on the north, 700 yards, and about 3,000 yards in girth. Upon this line, which in parts commanded the castle, were thrown up twelve regular places of arms, redans, or batteries, besides flèches and lighter works on the intermediate curtains to beat off the frequent sallies of the garrison. General Sands commanded, and General Overton was governor of the town. New Hall, a large mansion of the Talbots, to the east of the castle and outside the lines, was entrenched, and occupied by Sir John Savile. The garrison held Swillington Tower, the tower of the great church, and Neville’s Mount, a cavalier thrown up by them within the barbican, and carrying a large iron gun. These advanced works were of great service, as they both retarded the siege works and protected the repeated sallies from the garrison.

The trenches were opened in March, but it was the 24th of May before a battery was opened upon the keep. General Poyntz then took the command of the attack. It was, however, late in May before the church-tower was battered down, and the post, therefore, abandoned. Notwithstanding the disastrous news of Naseby, Lowther continued to hold out, and it was not until July 20th, after four months of siege, without further supply of stores or ammunition, and without a chance of relief, that he surrendered upon excellent terms. The fall of Pontefract was followed in three days by that of Sandal Castle, within signal of its towers.

The Parliament spared Pontefract on account of its strength, and put in General Cottrell, with a garrison. The Royalists, however, were still strong in the district, and June 6th, 1648, it was recovered by the treason of Morrice, a renegade, but a man of courage. A garrison was quickly collected, and the castle became once more a Royalist centre.

A third siege thus became necessary, and such was the strength of the place that, even discouraged as the Royalists were, it promised to be a troublesome one. General Rainsborough, who was appointed, met his death before taking the command, which fell at first to Sir H. Cholmley. Cromwell himself was present for a time, and a work on the north front bore his name. He left Lambert in command. Meantime, the king’s death had broken up the party; and ultimate success being impossible, the governor, Morrice, listened to terms. He himself and some others were excepted by name. The difficulty thus created was ingeniously evaded. The excepted persons being reduced to three, they were walled up in one of the subterranean chambers, well provided with food and air, and Lambert was made to believe that they had escaped. The place was then surrendered, Lambert entered March 24th, 1649, and as he did not retain the place, the three culprits got away safely. Parliament now ordered the castle to be demolished, and the only record of the details of its parts is that preserved in the schedule of its destruction. The materials—timber, lead, glass, and iron, sold for £1,779. 17s. 4d., of which £777. 4s. 6d. was the cost of demolition, £1,000 was paid to the town, and the balance of £2. 12s. 10d. went to the Commonwealth. This last creditor, however, received afterwards some arrears amounting to £145. 11s. 7d., and so, in an account of profit and loss, was wound up the history of one of the strongest and greatest fortresses in the North.

DESCRIPTION.

The position and dimensions of the castle were worthy of the great barons by whom it was constructed, and far too noble for the events with which its name is associated. North-east of, and one-third of a mile from, the market-cross of Pontefract, there is seen a very remarkable table of rock, oval in form, the sides of which are in part a steep slope and in part a cliff of from 30 feet to 40 feet high, rising out of a talus, which, on the north, south, and eastern faces, descends into two deep natural valleys, which unite on the north-eastern front. At the south-west end is also a natural depression dividing the rock from the town, and which has been deepened somewhat by art, as has the cliff been scarped and, where necessary, revetted, so that the general result was the production of an almost impregnable stronghold. This description, however, requires, as regards the east front, some little addition. Here, immediately beyond the wall, is a ditch nearly all artificial, and beyond it a nearly level area, beyond which, again, is the natural valley. As it was necessary to cover the ground, it was walled and converted into what was called the barbican, but was really a double ward outside the castle, covering its main entrance. The castle was thus composed of the main ward, occupying the table-rock, and the outer and inner barbicans covering its south-east front and entrance.

The main ward occupies the whole summit of the rock. It is in plan an irregular oval, 150 yards north-east and south-west, and 103 yards in its cross diameter. Of this area a segment at the south-west end, 37 yards deep or on the “sagitta,” is occupied by a raised platform containing the keep and remains of various buildings, and a smaller segment at the north-east end is occupied by the bases of other buildings, including the chapel. If the arrangement be likened to the deck of a ship, the keep end will be the poop, &c., the other end the forecastle, and the large intermediate space the waist.

The present appearance of the north-eastern platform is a bank of earth, irregular, and about 20 feet above the area level. In plan it is rather semilunar, and is evidently composed of the basements and ruins of buildings, the soft red sandstone of which readily becomes converted into soil. The face towards the ward, standing from 2 feet to 6 feet high, shows the base mouldings and plinth of a range of buildings that rose from the main ward level, and seems to have included a polygonal tower or turret. All that is visible is of excellent ashlar, with stones of large size, and the workmanship is mainly in the Perpendicular style. In the rear, along the edge of a cliff, is the curtain-wall, part of which is a revetment filling up the irregularities of the rock. This platform is returned a few yards along the east front against the curtain, and there is seen the basement of St. Clement’s Chapel, more than once rebuilt since its first Norman foundation.

The curtain along the crest, where the cliff is high, seems to have been a mere parapet. On the north-east point, where there is only a slope, the curtain is very lofty, and of prodigious thickness; much is broken away, but what remains shows it to have been 15 feet thick, at its base and 11 feet at 24 feet high. The main gate was in the curtain near the south end. It seems, from the drawings, to have been covered by a small square tower, the exterior and interior portals not being opposite.

The main interest of the castle attaches to its south-western platform. This is about 20 feet above the main ward, and at its southern angle there is raised upon it a conical mound, flat-topped, and rising about as high again.

Towards the main ward this platform is supported by a revetment wall from 12 feet to 14 feet high, of good rough ashlar, of large stones, having a base of 4 feet, and above this a plinth of about 4 feet more, the two offsets being plain chamfers. This, no doubt, carried a curtain wall. In the wall, near its centre, is a broad-arched recess, called “the King’s Seat,” probably from a tradition that Richard II. sat there, which is probable enough. At the north end the platform is returned about 25 yards along the west curtain. Various indications show that this platform was covered with buildings, most of which, like the retaining wall, were of Norman date, and of which the basements remain, though much covered up. Of the enceinte, or curtain-wall that supports the outer face of this platform, only the lower 30 feet, or revetment, remains. This commences some way down the slope, and is prodigiously strong, and built against the rock. At the south-west angle was the Treasurer’s or Pix Tower, the ruins of which still encumber the slope. Passing southward, the wall rises and becomes more perfect. In its exterior base, about 30 feet below the rampart, is a Norman postern, very perfect, and which probably was in the base of the old Red Tower. Then, behind, and on the level with the top of the wall, are remains of early buildings. One presents the end of a round-headed vault of about 16 feet span, of rude rubble, but springing from good ashlar walls, and having a later-inserted window. This is called “King Richard’s Prison.” Near this is a rectangular shaft, 8 feet by 4 feet, but which, a few feet down, is increased to eight feet square, a round-headed arch supporting the upper half. It is now about 40 feet deep, and dry. It is called a well, but is more probably the shaft of a garderobe.

Beyond this rises the mound, the top of which is circular, and about 20 yards across, and 40 feet to 50 feet above the main ward, and much more above the exterior base of the enceinte of which it forms a part. Those who formed the mound no doubt gave it a natural slope all round, and placed their structure on its top, and, making it a part of their line of defence, carried the general palisade to its summit from either side. The Normans, on taking possession, proceeded in a different way. They cut the soft rock, forming the core of the mound, on the outer sides, into the figure of a three-quarter round mural tower, and then faced it with a very solid wall, so that though really a solid bastion, it had all the appearance of a magnificent half-engaged round tower, 70 feet diameter. When this segmental bastion had been carried to a height of 50 feet or 60 feet, that is, to the level of the top of the mound, the wall was continued all round, and the cylinder completed, so that the mound was crowned by a regular shell keep of 60 feet diameter, and probably 25 feet high, which was really, what its substructure only seemed to be,—a tower of masonry. As the rock was of irregular figure, this process was repeated, and a second smaller bastion was formed to the north, and probably a third. Leland speaks of the donjon as composed of three large and three small roundlets; of these only two now remain. These grand bastions still form the finest part of the castle, standing high above the road from the railway station into the town, upon the crest of a steep slope. They are faced with large blocks of sandstone, of excellent open-jointed ashlar work, with a bold set-off at the base. Advantage was taken of the soft character of the rock to excavate the interior into cells and staircases, some of which are still open. In the large bastion, at its exterior base, near a covering angle, a shoulder-headed doorway, a postern, opens into a round-headed passage, partly cut in the rock, and partly vaulted. From this one way leads into a mural chamber; another up a steep flight of steps, cut in the rock, but having a series of shoulder-headed hanging arches to support the roof. At a height of 30 feet this stair leads to an open gallery above, commanding the postern, and from this again ascends, covered, to the base of the keep proper. Boothroyd gives three other excavations, one of which contained the well mentioned by Leland. Besides these the remaining fragments of the keep proper contained the base of a well-stair, probably ascending to the battlements, and a shaft, probably from a garderobe about that level.

The main entrance to the castle was a few yards east of the keep, in the south curtain. From the gate a narrow stair ran up the curtain into the keep, and is still seen. Another, on the other side, still descends from the keep towards King Richard’s prison.

From the keep a spur wall descends the slope, and was intended to cover the approach, as at Hawarden and Coningsborough. It evidently crossed the ditch, and formed part of the barbican. Thus the keep could be reached rapidly and directly by three ways, all narrow and well defended,—one from the outside by a postern, another from the main gate, and a third from the west ramparts. In substance the masonry and arrangement of this keep is clearly Norman, but the whole has been refitted, and no doubt refaced in the Perpendicular period.

Mention must be made of a very curious and early excavation in the main ward. On the surface, a few feet from the king’s seat, a flight of rock-cut steps descends nearly north-west, and at 70 feet distant is the mouth of a square shaft, lighting the passage below. Descending, thirty-three steps lead steeply down a gallery, 4 feet broad, with a hanging roof. A little way down, on the right, are traces of a cylindrical staircase, no doubt the original way in, but now destroyed, with the tower, in the base of which it no doubt was contained. At the foot of the stairs is a plain round-headed door-case, apparently of late Norman date. Beyond this the stairs recommence, and ten steps lower the descent ceases and the passage forks, a short branch running north, and another, a trifle longer, east. Before the fork, part of the passage is vaulted in fine-jointed ashlar, with two plain round-headed ribs. In the wall, on the right, is a round-headed recess for a lamp, and the commencement of another passage, also round-headed, but left as a mere recess. Above the fork opens the shaft, here seen to be a truncated pyramid, about 6 feet by 12 feet, and 30 feet deep. At the fork the salient is occupied by two small oblong cells, with pointed roofs. They communicate with each other and the passages by narrow lancet doorways. The excavation is now called the magazine, and no doubt was so used at the siege; but it is of Norman and early English date, and probably was intended for a cellar. The arrangements of the cells are scarcely suitable for a prison. The present entrance is clearly an addition, opened when the well staircase was disused.

There remain some exterior points to be noticed. Leaving the keep by its postern, and going north-west along the foot of the west face, the wall is seen evidently to be Norman, and near the centre of this front is the original Norman postern. There are upon the face of the wall two broad shallow pilaster strips, 8 feet broad by 6 inches projection, between which is a plain round-headed relieving arch, and below it a segmental-headed doorway, of 4 feet opening, without portcullis, but with a rebate for a door, and holes for two stout bars. This opens into a straight vaulted passage, about 5 feet broad, lofty, also round-headed, of excellent ashlar, and clearly Norman. It runs about 15 feet, and is then choked up. It possibly ends in a well-stair, and might readily be excavated. In later, probably Perpendicular times, this postern has been disused, and the door converted into a loop, and blocked with the usual window-steps within.

Following the base of the cliff along the north front, it is seen to have been carefully made good with masonry; and at the north-west angle, under what was Queen’s Tower, a large rift in the rock has been lined with ashlar, and spanned by a round-headed arch in good masonry. It looks like a large cavalry postern, but is merely a recess. At the foot of the talus on the west front, and about 180 yards outside the wall, are the remains of Swillington Tower, an outwork built by Thomas Earl of Lancaster, and in which he is said to have been imprisoned. About half of the basement remains. The tower was 46 feet square, with walls 10 feet 6 inches thick. It was intended to command the approach from the north, and was of great use during the siege as a flanking defence. Doubtless a double wall connected it with the main ward; but of this there is no trace.

It would seem that at Pontefract, as at many inland castles, a dam was thrown across a valley below the place, and thus provision made for defence and for the working of a mill. This seems to have been the case here below the northern front. The valley was converted into a lake, employed to feed two mills, of one of which traces remained in 1806, and the other, the lower mill, was removed in 1766, when the dam was levelled, and the pool converted into a meadow. Bubwith Bridge, no doubt, crossed this pool, at what is still called “the Wash.”

Nearly all traces of the Barbican are gone, but its memory and site are preserved in Barbican House, Row, and Garden, and there remains a fragment, probably of the lower gate, between Ass Hill and the Castle chain. There were two approaches, one from the town and one from the great church, which met in the outer ward of the Barbican. In front of the north entrance there still remains a good but late Tudor House, into the front of which has been inserted a grand old stone heater shield, bearing the three lions of England and a label of three points, carved in bold relief, a relic probably of the royal occupation of the castle. The style of the shield is early, and the blazon points to the eldest son of a king of England, before Edward III. introduced the lilies of France.

Boothroyd’s bird’s-eye view gives a general notion of the castle before it was destroyed. There were eight mural towers,—the Keep, the Red Tower, the Treasurer’s or Pix Tower, Swillington Tower in advance of the wall, the Queen’s Tower, the King’s Tower, Constable’s Tower, and the Gatehouse. All, save the keep, were rectangular, perhaps Norman. Of these only the keep and the ruins of Pix Tower are traceable: the rest, with the great hall, kitchens, and lodgings, were carefully removed by the Parliamentary contractor, though probably a few pounds spent in excavation would still show the basements, and establish a general plan.

Looking to the general evidence afforded by the remains of this castle, it is clear that it was a strong place in pre-Norman times; those who fortified it placing the mound at what was naturally its weakest point.

The greater part of the remaining masonry is Norman, and not improbably early. The enceinte wall, the buildings connected with it on the west platform, the rear wall of the platform, the old postern, the interior of the keep, and the magazine, all seem to be in substance Norman. Of the early English and Decorated periods very slight traces are left visible; but it is clear that under the House of Lancaster, in the Perpendicular period, much was added. Probably, the buildings on the north-east platform were constructed. St. Clement’s Chapel was rebuilt, Swillington Tower added, the keep refaced, and much done in repairing the chambers and staircases within.

Boothroyd, whose history, with all its imperfections, should be mentioned with respect, gives a copy of the account rendered for the destruction of the works, a plan of the siege operations, and a bird’s-eye view of the castle.

Ruined as is the place, and for many years reduced to be a mere garden of liquorice, enough remains to interest very deeply those who are conversant with our ancient military structures, and especially such of them as are of Saxon or English foundation, and have been recast to suit the Norman fashions of defence.

PORCHESTER CASTLE, HANTS.

Although England is rich in Roman remains, and full of material traces of the all-pervading energy of that race of conquerors and colonists, such remains are chiefly roads, encampments, foundations of domestic buildings, and less frequently of fortresses or military works in masonry. Of these latter the chief are Burgh, Caerleon, Caerwent, Caistor, Pevensey, Richborough, and Silchester; parts of Colchester, Lincoln, Wroxeter, and York, and a few traces at Chester and Leicester. But of these, not inconsiderable remains, none are to be compared for completeness of preservation, and but few for extent of area, with Porchester.

That Porchester is a Roman work is unquestionable, though this certainty is not derived from its early history, of which little has been preserved, but from the evidence afforded by its plan, materials, and workmanship, confirmed in some measure by the relation of its walls to the additions of the Norman period; also, an undoubted Roman way connects Porchester with Venta Belgarum or Winchester.

This celebrated fortress is built upon a low point of land which projects into the inner or northern part of Portsmouth Harbour, dividing that spacious and secluded inlet into two heads, and expressing in its name both its position and its character. It is placed about 3 miles above the narrow entrance which, flanked by the towns of Portsmouth and Gosport, is the passage from the larger and exterior roadstead of Spithead.

In its present and tolerably perfect condition, Porchester is a walled enclosure, square or nearly so, containing within its area close upon 9 acres. The investing walls measure, by the larger Ordnance survey, 210 yards north and south, and 207 yards east and west. They range from 15 feet to 40 feet high, and from 6 feet to 10 feet thick. They were supported outside by four mural bastions on each face, and one at each angle, in all twenty, of which six have at various times been removed, two from the east, one from the north and from the west, and two from the north-west and south-east angles. Those bastions which remain are half-round, 19 feet to 20 feet in diameter, and have slightly prolonged and flattened sides. The angle bastions are of the same pattern. That to the north-west was removed to make way for the keep; that to the south-east has fallen, undermined by the sea. The two remaining are open at the gorge, as are the two upon the east front. The rest are closed, and probably all were originally so, for the interior work is very rough indeed, and seems intended to have been concealed with earth and rubbish, as was often the fashion in Roman bastions. Probably some of those now open have been cleared out by the Norman architect, to make use of the interior, but the gorge wall of one of those to the south has recently given way, and the interior is seen rough as the Roman builders left it. These bastions at present, with one exception, rise no higher than the curtain, no doubt their original condition, but it seems probable that the Normans raised a story upon them, and thus converted them into mural towers. They stand from 41 yards to 42 yards apart, from centre to centre, the distances being slightly unequal. On the west face the two bastions flanking the gate are 48 yards asunder.

The walls are built mainly of flint nodules, laid in courses with as thick or even thicker, beds of mortar. Occasionally are seen single and double flat courses of red tiles and tile-stone, and sometimes of herring-bone work, characteristic peculiarities, especially strongly marked in the bastions. The work seems late in the Roman period. The walls have been patched with Caen stone, and by later builders with coursed flint, and more recently with brick. Here and there the parapet may be Norman, but this can scarcely be the case with much of it, which must have been frequently renewed. The two missing bastions to the east, to judge by the patching up, were probably gone when the Normans took possession. One on the west face was evidently standing in the Perpendicular period; that at the south-east angle fell but a few years ago. There is still an east and west, a water and a land gateway, nor do there appear to have been more in the Roman period.

The east face is washed by the sea, here a good defence, because too shallow for boats, and too deep for land operations. On this face the curtain is especially high, reaching 40 feet, and at the base of its parapet is a row of small holes, as though to carry a timber gallery or brétasche, no doubt a post-Norman addition. Between the south face and the sea there intervenes a triangular strip of flat land, at its widest end 60 yards broad. To command this, and protect the foot of the wall, a berm or platform of earth has been thrown up against the wall, about 6 feet high and 24 feet broad, in front of which is a light ditch, prolonged westward to the advanced ditch to check any approach round the angle of the place. The curtain here is about 30 feet high.

On the north front the margin of land is much broader, and is cut off by a deep and broad ditch communicating with the sea, and which turns the north-west angle, and extends along the west or main front nearly as far as the great gate; it would seem that originally this ditch covered the whole front, and extended onward to the sea, but the drawbridge of the gate has been replaced by a causeway, and the further traces of the ditch are but faint, as it has been filled up south of the causeway with some care.

In addition to these special defences the whole work is covered by a deep ditch with a high interior bank of earth, which has been cut from sea to sea right across the tongue on which the castle stands. This is about 300 yards in length, and from 50 yards to 100 yards to the west of or in advance of the west front, forming a broken curve with its salient near the centre. In outline it is rude, and as it bears no trace of masonry was probably stockaded. The notch for the entrance is placed considerably to the north of the main gate, so that the approach was oblique and exposed to be enfiladed from the castle. This work looks rather like an English addition before the arrival of the Normans. There is no trace of any rectangular camp or earthwork of earlier date than the walls. They are built upon the natural ground, and there is little or no difference between the interior and exterior level. In what condition the Romans left, or their successors found, the works which have thus been described, is not known. So convenient an enclosure, so well posted, could scarcely have been neglected by any people. In Domesday, “Porcestre” is a manor, and is the subject of a long and rather detailed entry. Mention is made of a “halla,” or mansion-house, or hall, but none of the castle. It had possibly been disused as a fortress, though probably then and long before a parish, with a church within its girth.

The Normans were for a time content with the existing wall; for it was not till about 1133 that Henry I. here founded a priory for Augustine canons, and built the small and plain, but very complete, Church of St. Mary, which was also the parish church, and most of which remains uninjured. Probably a little before this, judging from the internal evidence of the buildings, he proceeded to convert the Roman into a Norman fortress. This was effected by placing a rectangular keep at the north-west angle, about 10 feet in advance of the line of wall, removing for this purpose about 60 feet of the adjacent curtain on each face, and the capping bastion of the angle. The projection of the keep is mainly inwards. It seems to rest upon the natural soil, at that corner slightly elevated. It has been thought to stand upon an artificial knoll, but more probably its base has been banked round by the earth removed from the ditch, which is here both deep and broad. The keep required defence from the large interior court, as well as from the field. To afford this, and also to divide the castle from the church, Henry further enclosed a base-court, of about 67 yards east and west, by 47 yards north and south, or about one-fourteenth of the whole area, in which detached space the keep stood, and of which the great curtain formed the north and west sides. The entrance was in the south face, near the south-east angle, and this inner wall was covered by a wet ditch, fed by a culvert in the north curtain from the exterior tidal ditch, and which completed the isolation of the inner from the outer ward.

The church was placed in the south-east corner of the outer ward, diagonally opposite to the new ward, to which its enclosure corresponded. The conventual buildings stood against the church on the south side, and extended to the Roman curtain, which bears marks of Norman alteration. At Caister, in Norfolk, where the parish church stands within a similar enclosure, it occupies the south-west angle. The wall which, it is probable, cut off the monastery from the rest of the outer ward, is gone. The western or landward gatehouse of the outer ward was remodelled after the Norman fashion, but the eastern or water gate was left unaltered.

The keep answers to the usual conditions of such structures. It measures at its exterior base 65 feet north and south, by 52 feet east and west; and was, as originally built, about 55 feet, and as completed, 100 feet high. On its west front three broad pilaster strips, of slight projection, rise from the ground, independently of the plinth, to rather above half the present height of the tower. On the north front the arrangement is the same, save that the lower half of the pilaster to the east is united with the wall of the forebuilding that covered the entrance to the keep, on the east face. The south face has only two pilasters, that in the centre being omitted. The east face is again different; here the basement is covered by the forebuilding, and there is but one pilaster, at the north end. These pilasters in the north, west, and south faces, rise plain to the second-floor level, where both wall and pilasters are reduced by a set-off. The wall is not again reduced, but the pilasters have two or three rapid sets-off before they die into the wall. Near that was the base level of the original parapet. The angles are solid,—that is, without nooks. The two pilasters covering the south-west angle have a slightly bolder projection than the rest, and contain a well-stair, the head of which opens in a low turret. There are no turrets nor trace of them at the other three angles. They were the natural finish of the pilasters covering the angles, and as these are not carried to the summit it is possible that the usual turrets were also omitted. The present battlement is probably in substance of Decorated date. The north and south parapets are horizontal, but those to the east and west rise to the centre so as to form a very low-pitched gable, a very unusual outline in such a building, and for which there is nothing in the arrangement of the roof to account. The exterior of the keep is very free from ornament. The only exception is a string-course about 12 feet above the base on the west wall, which has on its under side a billet moulding of great delicacy. This string is confined to this face, and to the wall, being stopped by the pilasters.

The material of the keep, inside and out, is chiefly of Caen stone ashlar for facing, with hearting of chalk flints. The stones are from 4 inches to 6 inches square on the face; high up they are perhaps a little larger, but there is little difference between the original work and the additions. The stones of the parapet are still larger, and seem, from the accounts, to have come from the Isle of Wight.

The walls at the base average about 11 feet thick, and at the first floor about 7 feet. At the summit they are about 6 feet, the reduction in thickness being thus unusually small. The interior is divided throughout by a cross wall running east and west, from 5 feet to 3 feet 6 inches thick. It has a basement and four floors. The entrance was in the first floor, and a spiral stair, the only one, occupied the south-west angle and rose from the first floor, and it may be from the base, to the battlements, communicating with, probably, each floor, by doors, of which all but one are walled up. In the south-east angle was the pipe of the well, with similar communications. The floors throughout were of timber, the beams resting in holes in the wall. The interior sets-off, reducing the thickness of the wall, are irregular.

The two basement chambers are not quite equal, the southern being the larger. They are about 12 feet high, each has a loop in its west end and two in the north and south walls, six in all; these are of 6 inches opening, round-headed, and placed in splays of an hour-glass section, having recesses inside and out of 2 feet opening. The door to the well-pipe is visible, though blocked, but that to the stair seems to have been closed and obliterated. Each of these chambers is vaulted with a low-pointed barrel, running east and west, and stiffened by six very deep slender ribs, with hollow chamfers. These have been cut away from the vault, but the gable ribs remain attached to the wall, and sections of the others are seen at their springings. This work looks early Perpendicular, or, perhaps, a little earlier. It is excellent, and much too good for a cellar, though no doubt intended specially for the custody of the royal prisage wines, which formed a part of the revenue, and were often stored here. There is a door between the vaults, near the west end of the cross-wall, and an outer door in the east wall of the south vault, which latter was probably opened when the vaults were turned, and the spiral stair closed. This, however, may be an original door opening from the basement into a dungeon in the base of the forebuilding, or it may have been connected with an outer door in the forebuilding itself. It is difficult to be sure on this point.

The first floor is also of two chambers, 43 feet long, and 21 feet and 18 feet 6 inches broad. These floors contain the two state-rooms, which, to the timber ceiling, were 24 feet high. In the north and south walls are, in each two windows, round-headed, of 2 feet opening, of hour-glass section, with splays of 3 feet opening outside, and 5 feet inside. The sill of the recess is 4 feet above the floor, and the recess 12 feet high. Its angles are occupied by a bold bead or engaged shaft, with bases and foliated caps, whence the bead is carried round the head. Besides these four windows, in each west end is another, of the same character, but with recesses 20 feet high, and without beaded angles. The two south windows were probably walled up when the exterior smaller hall was added, and light ceased to be an object in the keep. In the north chamber the west window is also closed. The doors to the well-shaft and the stair have been closed in modern times. In the cross wall is a large modern breach. The old door was near the west end; also, in the south-west angle of the north room, a door opened into a small garderobe in the west wall. This is partially bricked up, but the loop is seen in the central pilaster, outside. The main entrance of the castle is on this floor, in the east wall of the south chamber. It is round-headed, of 4 feet 6 inches opening, perfectly plain, without chamfer or rebate, which, no doubt, has been cut off. It is evidently original. There are two doors in the east wall of the north chamber, but they are modern openings.

The second floor, 13 feet high, was the attic of the original building, and a mere series of lofts. The roof was very singular. Over the cross wall was a central ridge, and over the middle of each chamber a valley or gutter, from which the roofs rose to the outer walls. As a lean-to, there was, therefore, in the cross section, a central triangle divided by the cross wall, and on each side a half-triangle, formed by the outer wall; and in each of the four half gables thus formed in the east and west walls was a small round-headed window, eight in all. The windows remain, as does the stone weather-table, by which the section of the early roof is indicated. The roofs were steep, and, therefore, no use could be made of them as a platform for machines of defence or for storing missiles. In the cross wall, here 3 feet thick, is a tall, very plain, round-headed door, of 2 feet 6 inches opening, communicating between the halves of the division of the central roof. The south loft was reached by the well-stair, but how the three northern lofts were reached does not appear. In the north chamber, under the southernmost of the two east windows, are traces of a door, which no doubt led to the battlements of the forebuilding, covering the main door, as seen at Scarborough and Richmond, and elsewhere. The arrangement of the original roof resembles that of Helmsley, a very late keep, which also has been raised.

Soon after the completion of this roof, and within the Norman period, it was decided to raise the keep two stages, by which means the roof attics were converted into a regular second floor. Something of this kind was done at Richmond and at Bridgenorth.

The third floor, then built, is 18 feet high. It is quite plain, without an opening in the cross wall, and with one small window in each west wall. How the north chamber was entered is not known. The present floor is from 3 feet to 4 feet above the original one. The next is the fourth or upper floor, about 15 feet high, with a cross wall 3 feet 6 inches thick, of rough rubble, while the outer walls are of ashlar on both faces. The south chamber has four windows; those in the south wall of two lights, flat-headed, but under a full-centred arch of relief outside, and within placed in a recess, also full-centred, of 5 feet 6 inches opening. All these are quite plain. There is a similar window in the east end. The west end window is of similar pattern, but with a single light; and of the north chamber, two windows in the north side and one in each end are also of one light. In the east wall of this chamber a small door opens by an L-shaped mural passage turning the north-east angle into a garderobe, having a loop in the east wall, and a vent opening directly outwards on the face of the north wall. At Brougham is a similar arrangement for an oratory. In the south jamb of the west window of the south room a small oven has been excavated. As this could not be reached from the old floor level, it is probably very modern. Whether the well-pipe is brought up through the new work does not appear, nor is there any trace of an original opening from the turnpike stair, though probably there was one. The door in the cross-wall, of 4 feet 6 inches opening and full-centred, is placed near the west end. This has a rebate, so that the door opened into the north chamber, and was bolted on that side.

The original roof of the Norman addition was flat, as shown by a bold weather-table carried round the walls; but the actual present roof is exactly the reverse of that described below, there being a central and two side gutters, and a ridge over the centre of each chamber, an equally impracticable roof for a defensive platform. The flat or nearly flat roof much resembled that now upon the White Tower, London. The parapet can be examined from the top. The embrasures are at long intervals, and 4 feet 6 inches deep by 2 feet 3 inches opening. No traces of angle turrets are seen save at the stair-head, and that is but a small affair. No fireplace has been discovered in the keep, and only two mural chambers, both very small, for garderobes. The absence of ornament or of any very well marked state room with mural closets, is probably due to the construction at the same time with the keep of more convenient domestic buildings in the inner ward.

The forebuilding was part of the original design of the keep, of the lower part of which it is a prolongation, of the same breadth, and 25 feet deep, eastward. Its walls, as thick as those of the keep, also contained two chambers, divided by a cross wall, east and west. The northern chamber is now filled up, and possibly always was so. The southern chamber seems originally to have had no outlet, and if used as a dungeon or cellar, it was probably reached by a trap in the timber floor.

The first floor of this structure, at the level of the same floor of the keep, was divided also into two chambers, between which was a passage, which led from an outer stair to the door of the keep. The north chamber has been defiled by use as a dust-house and garderobe for modern prisoners in the keep; but an elegant oriel window in the late Perpendicular style inserted into its north wall shows that it has been a room of some pretension. The south chamber was the chapel of the keep. In its west wall, the wall of the keep, is a large full-centred recess, about 11 feet broad and 2 feet deep, for a seat, and in the south wall remains half a Norman window, which originally opened into the inner ward.

The original roof of the forebuilding had rather a high pitch, of which, over the chapel, the weather-table remains. This was superseded by a higher roof, but at a very low pitch, suitable for lead. The top of both roofs reached nearly to the level of the floor of the second story of the keep. The battlements of this accessory tower were 15 feet to 20 feet below those of the original keep. The approach to the first floor of the forebuilding was by an exterior staircase of twenty-six steps, placed against its east wall, so as to reach the outer door about the centre of the building, and leading on also to the north curtain. The present staircase is modern, but a careful examination will show Norman remains about its base. It would seem that when the keep was raised it was decided to make a door in the south wall of the forebuilding into the space below the chapel. When this was done the wall was thickened on the outside. The door still remains, but opens no longer into the open court, but into the basement of a later building. Part of the added facing has fallen off, and the old wall is seen, with a billeted string corresponding to that upon the keep. In later times a Perpendicular window has been opened in the chapel wall above, and a second Perpendicular door into the space below. This is the door which has over it the arms of Queen Elizabeth in stone, and which was probably made by some earlier monarch to admit the wine-tuns into the vaults of the keep.

The inner ward is still bounded to the east and south by the original Norman wall of Caen stone, 6 feet thick. The original domestic buildings were ranged along the south side to the west of the entrance, as traces of the original walling still show. At the south-eastern angle was a large rectangular tower, of 23 feet breadth by 25 feet projection, placed diagonally,—not a usual Norman arrangement. The walls are 6 feet thick, and the gorge is open. It was of two stages, the basement being one, had timber floors, and was, no doubt, like the middle gatehouse of the Tower of London, boarded in the rear. The two exterior angles are hollow, or nooked, though without shafts. The upper floor was lighted by three narrow, round-headed loops.

Whatever may have been, in Norman times, the extent of the offices, at present these buildings cover three sides of the court, that to the north being open. Near the centre of the court was a well, and in the north wall, close to the steps of the keep, a small postern; at the north-east angle, partly on the two curtains, is a rectangular tower of great strength, about 26 feet by 30 feet, with walls 6 feet thick. Its basement seems to have been used as the great kitchen, though not originally constructed for that purpose. The upper floor is on the level of, and entered from, the north curtain; its north and east walls are pierced by a mural gallery, 3 feet broad, with two loops to the north and three to the east. There is also on that side a door opening on the main curtain. From this floor a well-stair, near the north-west corner, ascends to the battlements. The base of this tower seems Norman, but the upper floor and battlements are early Perpendicular.

Of the domestic buildings there is built against the keep and the west curtain the smaller hall, 18 feet broad by 30 feet long, one end abutting on the keep, the other on a retiring-room common to it with the great hall. It is of two floors, the lower on the ground level, having a handsome door and windows. The hall, with a timber floor and roof, occupies the upper floor. The fireplace is in the middle of the west side, let into the Roman curtain, which has been raised. In the east side are four windows looking into the ward, each of two lights divided by a transom, with cinquefoil heads.

Set against the keep, and also abutting on this hall, is a building of two floors, the uppermost of which seems to have been a chapel, superseding that of the keep with which it communicated. It has an east window flanked by two diagonal buttresses. Opposite to this, against the curtain, is the great hall. This is 67 feet long by 28 feet broad, also of two floors, the basement having been probably a cellar. In its north wall are arches as for a buttery, and some remains of the original Norman walling, probably of an earlier hall. In the north side are four windows, three to the west and one to the east of the great door, in front of which is a handsome Perpendicular porch with vaulted roof, and steps leading up to the hall. From the porch a well-stair and short gallery led to the music-gallery at the east end of the hall, and at this end also, in the south wall, is the great fireplace. If this was the daïs end, the gallery must have been above it,—not a usual arrangement. The hall had a wooden floor and a low-pitched roof. The porch seems later than the hall. East of the hall are other smaller rooms, abutting against the wall which flanks the entrance-gate. Beyond this gateway the remainder of the south wall, and the whole of the east wall to the kitchen tower, are occupied by buildings of Tudor date,—mere shells, probably servants’ lodgings, butteries, and rooms connected with the kitchen department. It is said there were buildings against the north curtain, but of such there is now no trace.

How the ramparts of the west, south, and east walls of this ward were reached is uncertain. There is no way to them from the keep or from the kitchen tower. The north curtain is reached by a short stair from the forebuilding. This curtain is here 10 feet thick, and has a rampart walk 6 feet high, with a high parapet and rere-wall. One of the old Roman bastions occurs on this part of the curtain. It is solid below, and has been raised to contain a small chamber, the floor of which is a little below the rampart level, from which a door opens into it. There is also a good west window of two lights, cinquefoiled, opening on the rampart walk, and a small fireplace; altogether far too comfortable a post for any officer on duty. East of this bastion the hollow angle between it and the curtain is crossed by an oblique arch or squinch, of two rings of voussoirs of excellent Decorated work, which supports a small garderobe, such as is seen on Southampton walls and at Ludlow.

There remains to be described the gatehouse, or entrance to this inner ward,—a very curious structure, of unusual length, and of three periods. First, approaching from the outside are two parallel walls, 5 feet thick and 9 feet apart, from within the ends of which hung the drawbridge, apparently without any special arch or gateway. In one wall is a squint loop, commanding the approach from the great gateway of the outer ward. From the drawbridge a passage, at first of 9 feet, and then of 10 feet in width, and 15 feet long, ends in a portcullis and gateway, the whole 2 feet deep and 9 feet of opening. Beyond this the passage continues 10 feet broad for 17 feet. So far, the road was either open or roofed with timber, and all is of Perpendicular date.

Next follows a remarkably fine archway of the Decorated period, deeply moulded and portcullised, with a rebate for a door. This leads into a sort of peristyle, 8 feet deep, vaulted and groined, with ribs and bosses, and ending in a second and rather lower portal. In this peristyle are two lateral doorways, of 3 feet broad, opening upon the scarp of the ditch between it and the curtain wall, just as at Hawarden, only there they open from a chamber on the counterscarp. The arch in which the peristyle ends is rebated for a door, but has no portcullis grooves. The Decorated work here ends, the portal being seen to mask the original Norman entrance. This is a perfect, plain, square-jambed Norman entrance archway, placed in the front and centre of the original gatehouse, which was a plain rectangular tower of 23 feet projection from the curtain, and 28 feet broad. Entering, the way lies between two lofty walls, 19 feet apart, and which for 22 feet are those of the old Norman gatehouse, with two lateral loops raking the curtain. There was a timber floor above this passage. The walls are then continued 28 feet further, on the left being the rooms attached to the great hall, on the right those of Tudor date. Thus the entrance to this ward is about 100 feet long, defended by a drawbridge, a portcullis, and two sets of gates.

The two gatehouses of the outer ward next require attention. The water-gate is, in substance, Roman. The gatehouse is 26 feet square, with walls 6 feet thick, having no projection outside the curtain. All is perfectly plain, without buttress, chamfered edge, or moulding. The way lies through two doorways, opposite each other, of 8 feet 6 inches opening. The inner arch is built of white limestone, with a few blocks of blood-red iron sandstone. The voussoirs are heavy, and a single ring. The walls generally are of coursed flint rubble, very open jointed. In the Decorated period a sort of porch, of 20 feet projection by 12 feet in breadth, was added upon the outer face, in the centre of which is an outer gateway, portcullised, and flanked by a pair of buttresses, placed diagonally. Over the gate is a small window, and in the side walls two loops raking the curtain. The old Roman doorway in the line of the curtain has also been altered and refaced in the Decorated period, and a rebate added for a door. The roof was of timber, and there was an upper floor, no doubt an addition. This was reached by a well-stair in the south-west angle, rebuilt for the purpose, and entered by an interior door.

A study of the water-gate will throw much light upon what has been done at the land-gate, which was evidently built originally upon the same pattern. Here the Roman work was either pulled down and rebuilt of the same dimensions, or, which seems more probable, the Roman core has been preserved, and a Norman facing applied. The inner gate is perfectly plain, save that the arch springs from a simple Norman abacus, which is continued outside the wall as a string. The outer gateway has not even the abacus; but it is masked outside by a handsome Decorated portal, with a drop arch and good moulded jambs, and an exterior drip. There is no portcullis, and no middle gate. The space between the gates, a square of 14 feet, was vaulted over from four heavy corbels in the angles, from each of which sprang five ribs, two placed against the walls. There was a plain but hollow chamfer, and they met in a central open circle, and four half circles against the four walls, connected by four ridge-ribs. The whole is of late Decorated or early Perpendicular character.

Here, also, an upper floor has been added, and remains pretty perfect. The chamber is barrel-vaulted, the axis being east and west, and strengthened by seven plain chamfered ribs, of which the springings remain; but the bodies of the ribs, with the vault, are gone. The vault seems to have been pointed, and looks Perpendicular. This room had windows over the gateways. It was reached by a straight staircase, placed in a projection parallel to the north wall, on the north side, and vaulted over. The stair-head opened on the left into the upper chamber, and on the right upon the curtain. There is another door on the south side of the chamber opening on the opposite curtain. This gatehouse has a perfect and very handsome parapet, with merlons and embrasures of equal size, and a bold moulding is carried round each.

A few yards north of this gatehouse a small lancet doorway has been opened in the Roman curtain, probably as a postern. At present it is a mere rough hole; but it looks old, and had it been very modern it would have been lined with brick.

The structural history of the castle is tolerably plainly written upon its walls. Henry I., probably before 1133, seems to have built the keep, and inclosed the inner ward, repaired the Roman curtain, rebuilt or restored the gatehouse, and placed a hall and other domestic buildings along the south side of the inner ward. It may be that Henry himself raised the keep before the works were completed, or this may have been done by Henry II., as late as 1160.

In the Winchester volume of the “Journal of the Archæological Institute” is a paper by Mr. Hartshorne upon Porchester, which gives some curious particulars as to its government and repairs. From these it appears that in 1220 the roof of the keep was out of order, as the constable has four carratas of lead for its covering. This shows that the roof then upon it was the flat one indicated by the weather moulding. Henry III., who obtained in his second, third, and fourteenth years upwards of £10 for tallages from the town or manor of Porchester, suffered the castle to fall into decay, and the return of a survey ordered by Edward I. in 1274 states that the buildings within the castle are old, out of repair, and unfit for habitation. A second report was made twenty years later, after a visit from Edward in person, and repairs were at once ordered, which were very extensive, and were continued through much of the reign of Edward II. Mr. Hartshorne gives an analysis of an account of the clerk of the works here in 1321.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us