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

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

After the receipts, which in this year were £55. 0s. 0½d., the particulars of the expenditure are given in detail. First, the cost of the materials, then the wages of the people employed, the foundation-diggers or “fundatores,” the masons or “cementarii,” at 4d. a day; their labourers or “servientes”; the collectors of stones, “colligentes lapidum,” most of which were picked up on the beach, at 6d. a day; throwers of sand, “jactantes zabulonis,” at 2d.; carpenters, “carpentarii”; sawyers, “sarratores,” at 4d.; fallers, “prostratores”; bark peelers or “scapulatores,” at 3½d.; tilers, “latamores”; plumbers, “plumbatores”; smiths, “fabri”; labourers, “laboratores,” &c. A new lock and key for the east gate cost 4d. William Giles, the tyler, had 4d. a day, and Robert, his boy, 3d., while covering the chamber of Edward II. Two large hawsers, for lifting timber and stone to the top of the tower, cost 43s. 8d.; thirty-two weldichboarde boards were purchased at Havante for 4d. each. Thomas le Piper supplied 157 stones at 10s., and their carriage from the Isle of Wight cost 6d. They were employed for the foundation of the bridge under the castle: probably that in front of the west gate. Peter de Pulford, as clerk and overlooker, had 12d. a day. These works would be all in the Decorated style, varying in detail as the style advanced. The work at the top of the keep was probably the present parapet.

About 12 Edward III. the repairs were resumed. The Queen’s and Knighton’s chambers were repaired. A “fausse wall” was ordered to be built, and a barbican with a brétasche and barriers: works evidently of timber, and probably in advance of the west gate.

Richard II. resumed the works, and about 1396–7, just as the Decorated style was passing into the Perpendicular, seems to have pushed them forward with great activity. Mr. Hartshorne points out that the castle was supplied with stone from Bonchurch and South-Wick, with freestone from Bereston for doors, windows, and fireplaces; and with flint-stone and “rag-platen-stone” from Binnerbeg, also in the island. Besides these were wainscot boards, Botineholt boards, for doors and windows, hearth tiles or “hurthtighel,” Flemish tiles from Billingsgate, and “reretighel” or fire-bricks, for the backs of fireplaces. This accounts for the early Perpendicular work found all over the castle. Probably that in the Tudor style was executed in the reign of Elizabeth, who seems to have given her name to the kitchen tower, probably in consequence of alterations made in it.

The works in modern brick were executed during the present and past centuries, when the Crown held the castle on lease, and fitted it up as a prison; building barracks, now removed, in the great court. As early as 1761 there were Spanish and French prisoners of war here; in that year, it is said, 4,000. The Dutch prisoners taken at Camperdown were stowed here, and many French taken in war. It is said that at one time as many as 8,000 were lodged here. The castle has long been the property of the Thistlethwayte family. A couple of hundred pounds judiciously laid out on the keep would close its breaches, restore the old doorways and stairs, and replace the floors at their proper level. Some such moderate outlay would also do much to improve the inner ward.

The history of Porchester is but scanty. Until comparatively modern times it was always in the hands of the Crown, and commanded by constables, whose names occur from time to time in the public records. King John, the most restless of monarchs, was here eighteen times between 1200 and 1214, in all for fifty-two days. Much mention is made of wine stored here; at one time there were thirty tuns. In 1205 the king sent an engineer and sixteen miners to stay here for twenty days, and the constable was to find twenty picked men to aid them. Also Stephen English, an artificer, was sent. This might be to dig the well in the inner ward; the keep well must have been dug when or before the keep was founded. Sheep are sent for the garrison, sixty at a time, and petraria and mangonels, and other military stores. The tenants who held by castle guard were warned. To the castle was attached a large demesne, and a forest, under the charge of the constable, the income from which was considerable.

Edward I. seems to have been here two or three times, and Edward II. more frequently, staying here for several days in 1324–5–6. Edward III. mustered his army here before his French wars, and kept up a strong garrison and good supplies of wheat and barley, and wine.

RICHARD’S CASTLE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

The site of Richard’s Castle, a well-known and very ancient fortress in the county of Hereford, but near to Ludlow and the borders of Shropshire, is distinguished by one of those remarkable works in earth which have hitherto, in topographical books, passed undescribed, or described only in such general terms as afford no aid to any sound inference as to the people or the period by whom or at which they were thrown up. And yet, if there were correct plans and precise descriptions of the earthworks of this country, it is probable that some sound general conclusions as to their origin would be arrived at. Many, probably most, are no doubt pre-historic, but still something of their history may, it is probable, be established by a careful consideration of the evidence which they themselves afford.

Richard’s Castle is one of a series of works common on the Welsh border and the Middle Marshes. Such were Hereford and Worcester, in modern times despoiled of their mounds: Shrewsbury, still towering above the deep and rapid Severn: Tre-Faldwin or Montgomery, a single instance of a town and county bearing the name of the invader: Kilpeck and Ewias-Harold, already described: Builth, the extreme limit westward held for any time by the English: Cardiff, Caerleon, Wigmore, and Richard’s Castle.

Richard’s Castle, fortress and parish, takes name from a certain Richard Fitz-Scrob, one of the Normans attached to the court of the Confessor, and who was quartered by that prince upon probably the most exposed district upon the Welsh frontier; a position commanding some of the richest and most regretted of the lands conquered by the English, and sure to be assailed frequently and in force.

What invader originally threw up the magnificent earthwork which must have guided Fitz-Scrob in his choice of a residence, is not known, but from its summit is comprehended one of the noblest and most extensive prospects to be found even in a quarter of England very rich in pleasing combinations of wood and water, lofty hills and broad and fertile dales. As the new settler traversed the meads of the Severn, and left behind him the grassy meadows of the Team and the Lugg, and rode up the rising ground to the point where his own or his son’s devotion afterwards established a church, he must have blessed the fate that placed him amidst a country so rich, and in the possession of which the vast earthwork immediately before him would be an assurance of more than ordinary security.

The advent of Fitz-Scrob must have been viewed with profound dislike from opposite quarters. In those days, on the very eve of the coming in of William, Gruffydd, the Welsh Prince, well knew how formidable a neighbour was a Norman knight; and the English, who were aware what engines of local tyranny were the Norman castles, could not but have regarded with dismay the lofty walls and towers, which made impregnable a place already strong, and converted a well-known burh into a castle such as they had heard of with dread but had not before seen.

What were the precise works constructed by Richard it is difficult to say. That he converted the mound into his keep, and girt the annexed ward with a wall is possible, though the masonry, of which vast fragments still remain, is apparently of rather a later date. There is no reason to suppose that he built a rectangular keep. There was already a mound. His keep would be on its summit, and, if masonry were employed in its construction, it must have been a shell or low tower at most of 30 feet or 35 feet diameter, such as is seen on the mound of Cardiff.

The first danger to the new lord came from Earl Godwin and his sons, who represented the English, and therefore the anti-Norman feeling. One of the avowed grievances for the redress of which they met in arms at Beverston, in 1052, was the presence of Richard Fitz-Scrob upon English soil. That they failed, and that their failure led to the temporary exile of Earl Godwin is a matter of history. Richard remained unmolested, and, doubtless, employed himself in adding to his castle that strength which it could scarcely have in excess. It is not stated that he shared in the campaign and ignominious defeat of Earl Ralf the Timid against Prince Gruffydd, but probably he did so.

In 1056, Harold, then Earl of the West Saxons, entered the Marches against the Welsh, and advanced into Archerfield, where his probable godson, Harold, the son of Ralph, held the Castle of Ewias-Harold, the earthworks of which were constructed on the type of those of Richard’s Castle, and which, a few years later, was to receive additions in masonry after the same pattern. Whether Richard was in alliance with Earl Harold or Harold of Ewias is not known, but the position of his castle would scarcely allow him to be neuter.

In 1062, Gruffydd was again over the Herefordshire border, and Harold, then holding the Earldom of Hereford, was again at his post, and the Lord of Ewias joined him. This was followed by the larger expedition, in which Harold invaded Wales by sea from Bristol, conjointly with his brother Tostig from Northumberland. They met at Rhuddlan, and soon after the Welsh Prince was massacred by his own people. During these turbulent years the whole border must have been in constant turmoil, and we may fairly suppose that Richard, to whom both parties were in substance opposed, must have fortified his castle by every means then in use.

The arrival of the Conqueror relieved Richard from his most formidable foe, the English people directed by an English leader. He and his son Osbert shared in the ascendancy of their race, and received from William large grants in Herefordshire and elsewhere which are duly recorded in Domesday.

The castle of Richard’s Castle occupies a position equally remarkable for beauty and for strength. It stands upon the eastern slope of the Vinnall Hill, an elevated ridge which extends hither from Ludlow, and a little to the west of the castle is cleft by two deep parallel gorges, beyond which the high ground reappears in two diverging ridges, of which one extends westward in the direction of Wigmore and the other more southerly to the river Lugg, at Mortimer’s Cross, having on its ridge the ancient British earthwork of Croft Ambrey, and below it the fortress of Croft Castle, reported to occupy an early English site. By this means, Richard’s Castle is protected from the Welsh side by a double defence of hill and valley, besides its more immediate and special works.

The castle, though far below the summit of the Vinnall, stands upon very high ground, sloping rapidly towards the east. An exceedingly deep and wide gorge descending from the west bounds the position on the south, while a smaller and tributary valley, descending from the north, falls into the greater valley below the castle, and thus completes its strength upon the north, west, and south points. The defence towards the east is wholly artificial.

Upon the point of the high land, above the meeting of the two valleys, a large and lofty mound has been piled up, the base of which is about 300 feet above the valley, and the summit 60 feet higher, that being its proper height. It is about 30 feet in diameter at the top, and the sides are very steep. It seems wholly artificial, and stands in its own very deep ditch, beyond which is a high bank. On the west side, this ditch is succeeded by the steep natural slope descending to the river, but towards the east the ditch seems to have been reinforced by a second, which encloses a larger area, more or less semilunar in shape, and which has a bank within and upon the scarp of the outer ditch, which is here artificial, and cuts off the fortress from the adjacent high ground now occupied as the churchyard.

These were the defences of the original fortress, and, as was almost invariably the case when the Normans converted such an earthwork into a castle, a round tower or shell was constructed upon the summit of the mound, constituting the keep. From this, on the north-east and south-west sides, a strong and lofty curtain wall descended the slope, and on reaching the edge of the ditch was bent eastward, and curved round so as to include the whole intrenched area south-east of the mound, and half the mound itself, of which the other or western half, strong in its great natural strength, augmented by its ditch, was left without any exterior or second line of defence in masonry. The domestic buildings stood in this base court or lower ward, the keep only being occupied during a siege, or under exceptional circumstances. The entrance was by an arch in the curtain on the south side. Thus, as at Shrewsbury, Berkhampstead, and Tamworth, and indeed very generally, the mound and keep stood on the general enceinte of the fortress, forming a part of its outer defence. The lower ward was accessible to wheeled carriages, but the keep could only be ascended by steps. At this time the summit of the mound is covered with débris and rubbish, upon which young timber trees and underwood have made vigorous growth, and the enclosure, naturally inaccessible, is strictly preserved. The curtain descending the slope on the north-east is tolerably perfect, as is the adjacent part along the north-west front of the lower ward. Farther on, the wall seems to have been lifted with gunpowder, and a vast fragment lies in the ditch. Beyond this the foundations here and there appear; the wall itself remains skirting the scarp of the ditch along the east and south fronts, and towards the latter side is the place where the arch of entrance pierced the wall, as shown by the gap in the masonry and the passage through the bank. Just beyond this the curtain ascends the mound and abutted on the keep tower, completing the circle of the defences in masonry.

From the density and offensive character of the vegetation it is difficult to get a good general view of the place or to follow its details, but the fragments of masonry lie about generally, and, if cleared of nettles and the thin upper soil removed, no doubt a correct plan of this most interesting place could be obtained, and the date of the masonry ascertained with some degree of certainty. The masonry above ground is probably Norman, but all the ashlar has disappeared. The great interest of the place is due to its very remarkable earthworks, and to the fact that it was occupied and fortified by a Norman master before the Conquest.

The adjacent church is a large and rather fine building in the Decorated style. It stands but a very few yards outside the castle ditch, up to which its burial-ground extends. It is remarkable in having a large square belfry tower, detached, and placed a few yards south-east of the chancel.

ROCHESTER CASTLE.

Rochester—Fortress, Cathedral, and City—is a very remarkable place—in some respects the most remarkable place in the South of England. In each of its triple capacities it claims a high antiquity. Its ecclesiastical history commences with Augustin and Æthelbyrht, the founders of its see, over which Justus, the friend of Augustin, was the first to preside, and to the endowments of which a long succession of Kentish and Mercian princes contributed. Its secular history, though often obscure, ascends to a yet more remote period, and its material evidences are still to be read in the form of works either in earth or masonry, showing Roman, Saxon, Danish, and Norman occupations.

Rochester is built upon a low cape or promontory formed by a grand bend of the Medway, the central part of which is occupied by the city, and the most prominent and northern point by the castle. The great Roman way from Canterbury to London traversed the length of the cape, and crossed the river near its apex, in the line of the ancient and nearly of the present bridge.

The position of the fortress is very noble. Rising from a base of hard ground high above the stream, it forms a grand feature upon the shore of the Medway, here 1,000 feet in breadth, and which almost vies with the Thames in the volume of its waters. From the turrets of the keep is seen outspread a view of great extent and exceeding variety, including the steep and verdant slopes of the chalk, and the broad and fertile meads across which the great river flows in graceful folds, concealed and betrayed by the inequalities of the hills and the scattered masses of forest trees. The cathedral, indeed, is scarcely worthy of these advantages. Far from asserting, as at Durham, Canterbury, or York, its equality with, or even superiority over, its temporal neighbour, the cathedral of Rochester, venerable as it is, and honoured as are the ashes that lie within its precincts, is of small dimensions, and in position low. The castle, on the other hand, is a masterpiece of Norman skill, and the first and last object that strikes the eye of the visitor.

The castle of Rochester occupies the northern termination of a chalk ridge which forms the right bank of the Medway for many miles above the city, and intervenes between the river and the cathedral, upon the margin of the one and but a short distance from the other. It thus covers about half of the western front of the city, and extends into what was the south-western angle of its walled enclosure.

Though of ancient date, the castle proper, that is the structure in masonry, has evidently been preceded by the works in earth, in close connection with a part of which it has been laid out. These are on a large scale, and, though much degraded by time and obscured by buildings and enclosures, are still tolerably apparent. They seem to have been composed of an oblong space included within a ditch, which commenced near the bridge foot, and was carried eastwards for about 130 yards, when it turned to the south, and ran for about 270 yards roughly parallel to the river, towards which it was again returned. This oblong area was subdivided into two unequal parts, the southern being the smaller, by a cross ditch, and the latter part was occupied by a large flat-topped conical mound, known as Boley Hill. The northern part contains the castle. Along the east or cathedral side, this ditch is in part a bold natural depression. Along the west side it is superseded by the river, here very broad, deep, and rapid. The area thus included is about 7¼ acres. The mound is of large size, though reduced by modern operations. It is in part natural, in part formed from the adjacent ditches. Like the mounds at York, Wallingford, and Wareham, and those formerly existing at Hereford, Buckingham, Worcester, Hertford, Nottingham, and Stamford, it is so placed as to watch the river, which must always have been an open and dangerous highway.

These lines of earthwork, though the principal and most evident now to be traced, are by no means the earliest among the defences of Rochester. Though the discovered Roman remains are not indicative of a large town, the Watling Street here crossed the Medway, and there was certainly a fortified post on the site of the mediæval city. Its rectangular form, about one-third longer than its breadth, the cruciform arrangement of its main streets, its four gates opposite to each other, and the termination of its name, all point to a Roman origin, and the Roman defences are thought to have been composed of a wall and ditch, represented by the line of the later wall, only that they are supposed to have passed from the south gate towards the river, about 45 yards west of the site of present keep.

The area measured about 470 yards by 160 yards, and therefore covered about 15½ acres, and of the gates Childegate stood to the north, and to the south was a gate removed only in 1770, the road between them passing close to the west end of the cathedral. Roman coins and sepulchres have been found in the castle area, and that Rochester was the Roman Durobrivis seems generally admitted.

The Roman lines were in part adopted by the later inhabitants, and fortified in the English manner. The position of the new city laid it open to frequent and severe attacks by both land and water, and its works suffered much from the inroads of the Danes, especially towards the close of the ninth century, and to that people, though perhaps on insufficient grounds, has been attributed the mound.

The earthwork fell into the hands of the Normans at the Conquest, and it became necessary to fortify the position according to the improved manner. The usual custom with the Normans, when dealing with an English stronghold, was to erect a shell keep upon the mound, or, where there was no mound, a rectangular tower, and to surround it with a strong curtain wall built upon the bank within the scarp of the existing ditch. Probably, in this case, the older area would have required too large a garrison for its defence, and the mound was at a rather inconvenient distance from the bridge or its preceding ferry. The mound, therefore, was excluded from the new enceinte, as it was at first from the area of the city. Probably it was occupied as an outwork, or it may have been reduced to a rather lower level. The new curtain was built on the scarp of the ditch of the northern division of the earthwork on the three landward sides. On the fourth it was placed upon the crest of a low cliff, about 40 feet above the river, and rather less above the quay, which has been widened in modern times, and in part added to the shore.

The Norman enceinte, the general substance of which is probably of the eleventh century, is roughly four-sided, about 130 yards east and west by 160 north and south, and includes about 4¼ acres. The eastern front is opposite to, and about 60 yards from, the cathedral. The south front faces the old mound of Boley Hill, and the north front, of rather greater length and set obliquely, points towards the bridge. It is probable that the ditch outside the south wall represents that of the Roman work. The gatehouse stood at the north-east angle, and the steep causeway leading up to it, and which has superseded the drawbridge, is known as the “Vennell.” The gatehouse is gone. At the north-west angle are the remains of a bastion tower, standing in 1735, and containing a postern. In it was a shaft for lifting stores from the river, an arrangement seen in another form above the Wye at Chepstow. This tower commanded the bridge. The south-east angle is still capped by a bold drum tower, of 30 feet diameter and three-quarters projection. It has a ground and upper floor, each pierced by an arcade with loops in narrow lancet recesses. The floor was of timber. The gorge is broken down, but may have been always open. This tower does not rise above the curtain, and seems to be an insertion in the early English period. Upon the east wall are two rectangular towers, one of 35 feet breadth and 25 feet length, wholly of exterior projection, and the other 30 feet by 25 feet, and partly within the wall. These seem insertions of the Perpendicular period. The curtain is much broken down, and part altogether removed; 40 feet of it remain next the south-east angle, on the south front. This portion is 7 feet thick, 30 feet high, and seems decided Norman. On its outer face are traces of two flat pilasters. It is pierced by three loops with splayed round-headed recesses, 3 feet broad and 8 feet from the ground, inside. There must, therefore, have been a platform against the wall. From the same angle, along the east face, the curtain is tolerably perfect all along. Near the rectangular tower it is seen to be built upon arches, intended to be covered up, as in the walls of York and of Southampton Castle. The top of one arch is seen inside the wall, and the whole of two arches outside. A long piece of the north wall remains, and is a good example of early masonry, probably Norman. It is very thick, and built of layers of rough undressed stone laid in very thick beds of mortar. As at Cardiff, there is no foundation, the wall being laid on the surface of the ground, as was not uncommon with very, thick walls. About 260 feet of the river front remains. At its south end was formerly to be seen some herring-bone work, and in other parts of it is shown a tendency to this mode of building. It is about 40 feet high. Upon its inner face are seen the outlines of two pointed arches, as though two vaults had abutted on the wall, only the arch stones do not project for toothing. There was an upper floor, and in the wall, but outside, are seen the outlines of two rather large round-headed arches. It is in this wall that Roman masonry has been suspected. Much of it seems late Norman. There was a cross wall, now removed, which ran close north of the keep—and divided the Norman castle into a north and south ward.

How the castle was connected with the defences of the city does not appear. The city wall is said to have been built about 1225, on the Roman site, as far as the south gate, from which it seems to have left the Roman line, and to have included the subsequent earthwork of Boley Hill. When this was done the old ditch was widened in some places to 85 feet and made deeper. Part of this wall is said to stand upon arches, like that of the castle; if so, there was probably an earlier wall, of Norman date. The city wall is so blocked in, that little is visible to an ordinary visitor. There is thought to be a trace of Roman masonry in the east wall, and there is a small door of Henry III.’s time, near the east end of the cathedral, where the wall is 4 feet thick and 30 feet high, and a tower of that date at the north-east angle, said originally to have been upon the town wall. This tower is a very fine work, 30 feet diameter, outside a cylinder and within an octagon, with three loops, and a door in the gorge, from which pass two mural galleries, one leading to a well-stair and the other to a garderobe. The upper floor is at the level of the top of the curtain. The line of the south side of the city wall was altered by the monks in 1290, by permission from the king. They were to rebuild it 5 perches and 5 feet to the south or outside of the old line, and it was to be 16 feet high and embattled. Moreover, the old ditch was to be filled up to the length of 54 perches 14½ feet, and in width 5 perches and 5 feet. As this involved prolonging the east wall, they turned an arch over the old ditch. This expansion of the old area lay to the east of the south gate of the city, a little east of which was the gate of the priory. The old wall is thought to have included Boley Hill.

The Keep, for which Rochester Castle is justly celebrated, is placed within, and very near to the south-east angle of the castle area, and upon the highest ground within it, about 60 feet above the river: a point probably specially selected because it is opposed to Boley Hill. It does not, like Porchester, form a part of the enceinte, but, like Carlisle, stands just within it, being from 16 feet to 33 feet from the eastern, and from 10 feet to 15 feet from the southern wall. Though not one of the largest, Rochester is one of the loftiest Norman Keeps in England, and one of the most worthy of note for its history, position, the boldness of its decorations, and its substantially perfect condition. Of additions, with the exception of the early rebuilding of its south-east angle, it shows no trace, and its dilapidations are not greater than may be attributed to seven centuries of age, of which the three latter have been periods of neglect.

The keep is a square of 70 feet at its base, and the walls are 12 feet thick, reduced at the summit to 10 feet, so that its exterior dimensions are there 66 feet. This reduction is made by a very slight exterior batter, not perceptible to the eye. There is no set-off or string-course, outside, and no regular shelf for the floors inside. This uncommon thickness is intended to allow, as at Dover and Hedingham, of an unusual number of mural chambers and galleries. The height is 113 feet from the ground to the coping of the parapet, and the turrets rise 12 feet higher. The two western angles are flanked by broad flat pilasters, with hollow angles or nooks of 8 inches. They rise from a common plinth, and each is carried up clear of the parapet to form the outer face of a square turret, the height of which adds much to the commanding aspect of the building. The north-east angle is capped in a similar way, save that the pilasters are rather bolder, have no plinth, and the angles are solid until clear of the forebuilding. The south-east angle has neither plinth nor pilaster, but is capped by a rounded projection, which, though early, is not original. This also terminates in a turret, which is rounded towards the field, but flat on its two inner faces. On each face of the keep, near its centre, is a single pilaster of moderate width and projection. These also rise from the plinth and ascend to the parapet, two of them actually to its coping. On the north face is a second narrower pilaster, formed by continuing the wall of the forebuilding upward.

The keep has many openings, mostly of small size. A tier of round-headed loops marks the basement, and of square-headed ones, a trifle larger, the first floor. Next a line of small round-headed windows shows the level of the second or main floor, and one of larger windows the gallery of the same. Above all, a line of rather larger windows, also round-headed, indicates the uppermost floor. The two upper lines were ornamented, and had Norman half-piers and mouldings, and in some of the openings the windows were coupled, but the ashlar dressing has been much broken away. There are besides several loops placed near the angles, indicating garderobes, mural chambers, and staircases, and each turret has a window on each of its outer faces.

Internally, the keep is divided into two nearly equal chambers by a cross wall, east and west, 5 feet 6 inches thick throughout, and rising to the roof, where it carried the main gutter. Thus each floor was composed of a north and south chamber, one 21 feet and one 20 feet broad, and each 46 feet long. In the cross wall, near its centre, thickened by a pilaster strip on each face, is the well, said to be 60 feet deep from the ground level, and to contain usually 10 feet of water. It has an ashlar pipe, 2 feet 9 inches diameter, which seems to have been carried up to the roof, and was accessible by four small round-headed doors, one on each floor. It is unusual to see the well-pipe carried higher than the first floor: at Dover it reaches the second. To the north face of the Keep is appended the forebuilding covering the main entrance, which, as usual, was at the first-floor level.

The basement is reached only by a well-stair in the north-east angle, which stair, as in the Tower of London, ascends from the base to the summit. This staircase is 11 feet diameter, and contains 133 steps. It communicates with each floor, with several galleries and mural chambers, with the chapel, and with the roof of the forebuilding. The basement is at the average level of the ground outside, and there is no underground chamber.

The north chamber is entered at the north-east angle by the well-stair from above, and aired rather than lighted by three round-headed loops placed in its east, west, and north sides. These are of 4 inch opening, set in splayed recesses, and these again in flat-sided recesses, 6 feet broad and 3 feet deep, all round-headed, and the larger descending to the floor. The north loop, which opened into the bridge-pit of the main entrance, has been converted into a rude doorway, but the head of the loop remains. In this wall are two narrow doors, of which one descends 8 feet by nine steps into the basement of the forebuilding, and the other ascends by a slight slope into the first floor of the same. Besides these, near the west end of this wall, is a recess, 6 feet wide and 6 feet 9 inches deep. This recess, the depth of which seriously weakens the wall, can here produce no bad effect, the wall having been supported outside by the solid steps and lower gate of the forebuilding. In the west wall, besides the loop, is a broken doorway opening into a mural chamber, 4 feet 6 inches by 10 feet, which occupies the north-west angle of the building. In the cross wall, besides the opening to the well, are two doorways of 4 feet 7 inches and 5 feet opening.

The south chamber has single loops to the east and west, and two in the south wall in recesses, all of the pattern already described. There is also a mural chamber 3 feet 10 inches by 10 feet, in the south-west angle, entered by a door in the south wall, and near the east end of the same wall is a recess, 6 feet broad and 3 feet deep, but without a loop. The masonry shows this angle to have been rebuilt. Besides these cavities there are two, one in the west wall, 2 feet 10 inches by 3 feet 7 inches, entered by a rugged opening, 2 feet 7 inches broad, and the other in the south wall, 2 feet 10 inches by 4 feet 3 inches, with an opening much broken away. These cavities are shafts, which ascend vertically in the wall, and above are divided, showing that they are the vents of the garderobes in the first and second floors. The openings into them are not original, and probably the shafts were sunk a few feet below the floor, and ended either in cesspools or a drain. As there are other garderobes in the upper floors, there are, no doubt, other shafts, not broken into. There must be at least two, one at each end of the cross wall in the north chamber. It is curious that these vents, which in Norman buildings often open, as at Ludlow, upon the outer face of the wall, should have vertical shafts, while the turrets of the fire-flues vent in the face of the wall. At Coningsborough the arrangement is the reverse; the flues are vertical, the garderobe vents horizontal. The basement was evidently a store-room. It was about 15 feet high, and from it 20 steps led to the first floor.

The first floor, also of two chambers, was lofty, gloomy, and perfectly plain. It was probably the soldiers’ lodging during a siege.

The North Chamber. In the north wall, near the east end, is the main entrance, 15 feet from the ground, and opening from the vestibule of the forebuilding. This is a bold, full-centred arch, of 6 feet 2 inches opening, with flat sides, in a wall here 10 feet 6 inches thick. The outer face is flanked by nook shafts, and the architrave has a bold chevron moulding. The inner architrave has a similar but rather plainer moulding, but the jambs are broken away. Just within the outer face is a square portcullis groove, and behind it a rebate for a door, expanding the passage to 7 feet. Near the inner face, in each side, is a small round-headed recess, 2 feet 6 inches broad by 1 foot 4 inches deep, probably to hold the keys or a lamp. The door was secured by a stout bar, and the grate, which seems to have been of iron, was worked from a mural passage above. This portal led direct into the north chamber, about 7 feet from the well-stair door. In the north-west angle is a mural chamber, called “Gundulph’s room,” vaulted and groined, 10 feet 3 inches by 11 feet 7 inches, entered by a door in the west wall, and lighted by two loops to the west. In its rounded north-west corner is a fireplace with a small Norman hood of 2 feet 6 inches projection, having a segmental arch. The tunnel is conical, and ends in a couple of openings in the hollow angle of the south end of the adjacent pilaster, in the face of the wall, above 12 feet above the hearth. Near the north-east angle of this chamber is a small blocked-up doorway, which, as at Middleham, opened upon the roof of the outer gate of the forebuilding. The ashlar rings of the loop recesses, and the hood of the fireplace, are of excellent workmanship. Besides these openings there are in the north chamber four windows, one at each end, and two in the north side. These are set each in a recess, 5 feet 6 inches opening, and 9 feet 6 inches deep, 15 feet high, and round-headed, the loops being square-headed, about 1 foot 6 inches high by 12 inches broad. These recesses, from their great height, produce a good effect, but were probably found to weaken the wall, for they have been partly built up and reduced at their lower 6 feet to a depth of 3 feet. The blocking is of inferior masonry, executed in haste. Between the two northern loops is a fireplace of 5 feet 6 inches opening, round-headed, having no hood, and with a round back. It is strengthened by a pilaster of 9 inches projection and 10 feet breadth, from the inner wall. The tunnel from the fireplace is conical, and has a lateral vent about 15 feet up. In the east wall, near the entrance from the well-stair, is a recess, which, besides the loop, contains a postern and a garderobe. The latter is a mural chamber, 5 feet 10 inches by 13 feet, which opens from the southern jamb of the recess: the postern, 2 feet 6 inches broad, is cut obliquely through the wall, and opens in the face of the keep, 15 feet above the ground, and about 30 feet from the rampart of the curtain, with which it must have communicated by a light plank bridge. There is such a door in the Norman keep at Adare, and in the later Wakefield tower in London, to which a stone bridge has recently been fitted. In the cross wall, besides the well opening, are two doors corresponding to those below.

The south chamber has a loop at each end, and three in the south wall, all in recesses similar to those in the north chamber, and these also have been partially blocked up to strengthen the wall. There is a fireplace in the south wall corresponding to that described above, and in the south-west angle a door leads into a well-stair, 11 feet diameter, which commences at this level, and communicates with the floors above, and with the battlements. There are four mural recesses in this chamber. One, a garderobe, opens in the south jamb of the recess of the west window, and another in the east jamb of the central window in the south wall. The shafts from these recesses descend into the wall of the lower chamber, as described. The other galleries open right and left from the window recess in the east end. That to the north is a passage, 3 feet 6 inches by 8 feet, with a garderobe in the end of it. That to the south is a gallery, 20 feet long by 3 feet broad, which ends in the south-east angle, where it has two windows to the south and east. This is in the rebuilt angle. This floor rested upon timber joists. From it forty steps lead up the north-east staircase 30 feet to the main floor, and at thirty-six steps branched off a narrow stair to the chancel of the chapel.

The main, state, or second floor, 32 feet high, rested on each side upon eighteen joists, whole timbers. It contains two tiers of windows, the lower opening directly from the chamber, the upper with the intervention of a mural gallery. Between the two is a plain string of Norman pattern. The roof was flat, being the joists and planks of the upper floor. The window recesses of the lower tier range from 3 feet 2 inches to 5 feet 10 inches opening, and those of the gallery tier nearly correspond to them. All are flanked with nook shafts, but the lower architraves have a bold roll and hollow moulding, those above have the chevron pattern. The ashlar of the windows is mostly gone. The lower seem to have been plain and small, the upper richer and rather larger, but none at all large. The projections in front of the well, the fireplaces, and the two staircases, are beaded at the angles. There are no marks of corbels for struts to stiffen the joists and give support to the ceiling.

The north chamber was entered by a sort of lobby, 5 feet 6 inches square, and groined, into which the staircase opened. The recesses of the east and west windows each have mural garderobes opening from the southern jambs. The two recesses in the north wall have no side openings. Between them is the fireplace, similar to that below, but with a handsome chevron architrave. Over the great entrance is a doorway of 7 feet opening, leading to the chapel. In it is the chase for working the grate, and beyond this is a rebate reducing the passage to 3 feet to form the chapel door. In the north-west angle is a small chamber.

The south chamber has three windows in the south wall, a fireplace, and a door opening into the south-west well-stair. In each end is a loop. In the recess of that to the west, on its north side, is a passage to a garderobe, and there is probably a corresponding place in the opposite, or east window, but the window recesses are inaccessible.

The cross wall, instead of two doors, is pierced by four arches of unequal size, two on each side of the well pier, which has its small and rather ornate door. Between each pair of arches is a heavy Norman pier, a plain cylinder with fluted capital, and opposite to which are two half-piers, or responds. The arch has been ribbed and worked in bold roll and hollow, varied with the chevron pattern, but the central rib has fallen away. The capitals of this arcade range with the general string-course, and the arches rise into the upper division of the apartment. There is rather more ornament on the north than on the south face. The arcade was filled up with a stone screen, about 10 feet high, of which one division remains and a part of its doorway. The screen is original, and has been rather richly worked, but it had no bond into the piers, being merely built against them.

From this floor twenty steps led up 17 feet to the gallery. This threads the whole wall, passing all round the building. It is from 3 feet to 3 feet 6 inches broad, barrel-vaulted, from 8 feet to 9 feet high, and is placed 4 feet from the inner face of the wall, and 5 feet from the outer. It is generally level, save that it rises at the south-west angle to accommodate itself to the staircase, and in the centre of the east front to clear the vaults of the garderobes below, and possibly to meet the thrust of the arch in the cross wall.

In the north division there are in the west end three recesses, 3 feet 7 inches, 5 feet 10 inches, and 4 feet 1 inch, which open into the gallery, and correspond to three windows in its outer side. In the north wall are also three windows with recesses corresponding, each of 5 feet 10 inches in width. In the east end is only one recess of 5 feet 9 inches opening. At this point the gallery is rather above 3 feet wide, and the corresponding window has a recess, 5 feet by 4 feet. Most of these expansions of the gallery opposite to the windows are groined, as in the corresponding gallery in the Tower of London.

The arrangements of the south division are very similar. In the east end is one recess of 5 feet, and in the west three of 3 feet 2 inches, 5 feet, and 3 feet 7 inches, the central being the largest. That at the south end represents a short window, intended to conceal the gallery, which here rises to the staircase. In the south wall are three recesses, with windows corresponding. There is no chamber in the south-east angle, the gallery merely turns at a right angle, but in the north-west turret is a groined chamber, 6 feet square, with which the gallery communicates, and which has windows in its two outer faces. The north-east and south-west angles are occupied by the staircases. It is evident from the character of the masonry that with the south-east angle have been rebuilt the two adjacent windows in the south face and of that in the east face. The new work is inferior to the older, and there is no attempt at ornament. The arrangements of this grand floor, like those of the corresponding rooms called the Council Chamber in the Tower of London, must have been inconvenient in the extreme. The rooms must have been very cold and very public, with windows, doors, and garderobes on every side, and a gallery in which a whole household might have listened, unseen, to what went on below. There is nothing to distinguish between the uses to which these two noble chambers were applied. Probably the northern, having the more ornate entrance, was the hall, and the southern a room of a more private character.

From the gallery level twenty-three steps lead up 17 feet to the upper floor, and on the way a small passage opens upon the battlements of the forebuilding. This floor contains two very cheerful and handsome rooms, 25 feet high, with larger windows than the floors below, and a finer view. Here, also, the window recesses and fireplaces are ornamented, and we may suppose this floor to contain the private apartments. The roofs were open and low pitched, and seem to have been supported by rafters placed near together, and without principals. The arrangement of the mural galleries here is peculiar. They do not run round the rooms, but are short, connecting two, or at most three window recesses. Where the wall has been rebuilt they are altogether omitted. They do not pass behind the fireplaces, the vents from which pass off horizontally, and so block the way.

The north chamber is entered, like the rest, from the north-east angle, and from the staircase passes a gallery which pierces the east wall for 20 feet, and traverses the recesses of two windows which light the east end of the room. In the west end are also two windows, in like manner pierced by a short gallery, entered only from the chamber. In the north wall, besides the fireplace, are four windows, two on each side of it, each pair connected by a short gallery, also entered from the chamber. In the cross wall are two doorways, and near the centre the small door of the well pipe.

The arrangements of the south chamber are somewhat different. In the west end are three window recesses, having a mural gallery in common, but not communicating with the staircase. In the east end is but one window, the jambs of which are solid. In the south wall is the door from the south-eastern staircase and also three windows, with a fireplace. There are no galleries in this wall. This chamber has suffered much from the destruction of the south-east angle, which it is evident carried with it about 28 feet of the south and 15 feet of the east wall. In the untouched part of the east wall remains embedded the half pier, capital, and half the architrave of a large original late Norman arch, of about two-thirds the span of the room, more or less ornamented, and evidently the recess for a large east window. It is just possible, as this was an archiepiscopal fortress, that this was a chapel. In the south wall, close east of the fireplace, is the jamb and half the arch of a window recess, also ornate, of which the other part has been removed. The restoration has been effected in a very hasty and slovenly manner. The masonry is of inferior quality, and the new recesses are perfectly plain, although the older ones in the same floor are rather highly ornate. Whatever, in designing this chamber, may have been the intention of the builder, it is very certain that the re-builder thought only of making the tower defensible in the cheapest and quickest way.

From this floor thirty steps ascend 25 feet to the battlements. On the way a passage from the north-eastern staircase opens into a gallery in the east wall, 16 feet long and 5 feet wide. It is traversed by a window, the recess of which, 4 feet wide, opens on the gable of the north room of the upper floor. The staircase passes up to the base of the north-east turret, in which are two doorways opening on the ramparts of the north and east walls. The rampart walk is 4 feet broad, with a parapet of 2 feet and a rere-wall, now gone, of 3 feet. The walk is carried through the north-west turret, which contains a chamber 9 feet square, and through the south-eastern turret, which also contains a chamber. From hence the passage is continued along the south wall, but is stopped by the wall of the south-west turret, the stair contained in which only opens on the west wall. The turret chambers were about 8 feet high and had flat roofs, reached possibly by wooden steps. Each turret had two entrances, one on each face. The parapets of the curtains between the turrets were 8 feet high, and contained five embrasures on each face. At this level the profile of the double roof may be traced. It was composed of two ridges, one over each chamber, with a central gutter resting upon the cross wall. Both parts were low pitched, and the ridges did not rise above the battlements: the northern portion sprung a little the lowest and had rather the steeper pitch. The southern, springing higher, delivered half its water from eaves 2 feet above the common gutter, whence it was carried away by an enormous stone shoot, a sort of gurgoyle. Another such, taking the contents of the north gutter, crosses the head of the staircase and projects eastward. At the rampart level the walls and turrets are pierced by a row of holes 9 inches or 10 inches square, intended, evidently, for the horizontal beams of a brattice. There are no corbels or cavities, as usual, below, to receive struts, the beams being probably strong enough without them. These holes seem not to be original, and being rough, were probably made in haste when the south-east angle was rebuilt: they are of importance enough to be shown in the tower which figures in the corporation seal. Besides these, in the inner face of the north wall, above the gutter, are two rows of pigeon-holes, probably original, and even now accommodating a few birds.

Affixed to the north front is the forebuilding, composed of a gatehouse, staircase, drawbridge, and vestibule tower. These formed and protected the entrance to the keep. The approach is thought to have commenced on the west front, near the north-west angle, by a flight of steps, which turned the angle, as at Dover, and were continued as a broad staircase against the wall of the building. Upon this, flush with the west front, was a small low tower, about 12 feet square, through which the stairs passed. This portal had a barred door, but no grate, and its roof was reached from Gundulf’s chamber in the first floor of the keep. From this gate the steps rose to the bridge pit, a cavity 15 feet deep by 9 feet opening. This was crossed by a drawbridge, which fell from the gate of the vestibule tower. The stairs were 8 feet broad, and protected by an outer parapet 2 feet thick and 6 feet high, and probably looped. The parapet crossed the bridge pit on an arch, so that persons ascending the stairs or crossing the bridge were protected.

The vestibule tower is 19 feet broad by 36 feet long, and two-thirds of the height of the main building, against the north face of which, at the east end, it is built. Its walls are 6 feet thick; they have no plinth or pilaster steps, and though probably of the age of the keep the work is of an inferior character. There is a basement, first floor, vestibule floor, and chapel. Each floor is entered from the keep. The basement is 14 feet by 23 feet, vaulted and groined, and it has two air-holes near the vault, ascending obliquely through the wall. The floor is on the ground level, here low, and from it a passage, 2 feet 7 inches wide and 12 feet long, leads up nine stairs into the basement of the keep. The present door from the exterior is evidently not original. This chamber was a prison.

The first floor measures 13 feet by 23 feet; it also has two air-holes, rather larger and less oblique than those below. A recess, perhaps a doorway, perhaps a cupboard, has been opened in the east wall and fitted with a Tudor door-case. This chamber had a flat timber ceiling, forming the floor of the vestibule. It was entered by a passage, 2 feet 10 inches broad, slightly ascending to it from the basement of the keep. This also was probably a prison, but of a less severe character.

The second or vestibule floor is of the same dimensions. In its west wall is the outer door of the keep, of 6 feet opening, round-headed, and flanked inside and out with engaged columns, with plain caps, and round the arch a band of chevron moulding. In the rubble work inside, above its head, is seen a pointed arch of relief. The portal was closed by a barred door only. On the right, on entering the vestibule, is the door of the keep. The vestibule has five windows: a small one in the west wall commands the staircase; in the north wall are three windows, each formed of a pair, coupled; in the east wall is one. They are all round-headed, with Norman ornaments: one-third of the east end of this chamber is covered with a barrel vault.

The third or upper floor of the forebuilding is occupied by the Chapel, the dimensions of which correspond nearly to the rooms below. It is divided into two parts, a nave and chancel, separated by a plain, bold, round-headed arch of 12 feet span. The nave is entered from the main floor of the keep by a side door, close to which, in the wall, is a recess, now inaccessible. The chancel has a stone floor, resting on the vault below, and its roof is three sides of an octagon, also vaulted, a sort of apse, but covering a rectangular space. There are two east windows, and a large stone drain, which has led to the notion that this room was the kitchen, and no doubt it would have made a very good one. The nave had an open roof of low pitch, which was replaced by one perfectly flat, but at the level of the original ridge. If the large upper room in the keep was a chapel, a second would scarcely be necessary. Probably both were not in use at the same time. A kitchen is a very uncommon adjunct to a Norman keep, as the inmates seem to have broiled their meat at an open fire, whereas a chapel is not uncommon; and at Middleham, Dover, Newcastle, and probably at Corfe and Kenilworth, it was in the forebuilding.

The material of the keep is chiefly the rag-stone of the country, with ashlar coigns and dressings of Caen stone. The ashlar is rather sparingly used, but is of sound quality and close jointed. The rubble is poor, imperfectly coursed, and held together by the excellence of the mortar, or rather of the lime, for the mortar is carelessly mixed and is full of sea shells, which have been brought with the sand and left uncrushed. It is clear from appearances, both inside and outside the building, that the south-east angle has, at some period soon after its construction, fallen down, and been rebuilt soon afterwards clumsily and in haste. No mere battering by a ram, no strokes from the missiles of a catapult, however ponderous, would have brought down both turret and wall. Such ruin must have been produced by a mine, and this is the more probable since the south-east is the most exposed angle for such an attack, the scarp of the ditch being here steep, the soil soft chalk rock, and the keep but a few feet from the ditch. A mine opened in the scarp, just outside the angle of the curtain, and driven 40 feet in the chalk, would reach the foundations of the turret, and thus undermined, its fall would bring down more or less of the adjacent walls, and falling outwards, would crush the angle of the curtain. This would account for the large mass of the angle which has fallen, and for the circular bastion tower, evidently an insertion, at the angle of the curtain. Supposing the keep, built in 1126, to have been mined and breached in the memorable siege of 1215, and the damage soon after made good, this would account for present appearances. It is true that the bastion tower is decidedly early English, while the restoration of the keep is Norman, but it is of a period when round and pointed arches were both in use, and when the character of the older part of the keep would naturally lead to the employment of the former; so that the restoration might have been effected as late as 1225, ten years after its probable destruction, and when an entry in the Pipe rolls shows that the sheriff of Kent repaired the tower.

There is a good deal in the character of the forebuilding that looks as though it was an addition to the keep; and yet this cannot be, seeing that the difference in its masonry includes that of the adjacent staircase turret, which could scarcely be an addition. Also the remains of the lower gatehouse, on the north face of the keep, are clearly as old as the keep, of which they are part.

It was long the custom to attribute this keep to Gundulph, making it contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the Tower of London, which it resembles in some of its arrangements, especially its mural gallery and fireplace. Attention to its other details shows, however, that this cannot be so, and that its more probable builder was Archbishop Walter Corboil, about 1126. Those who desire to see examples of Gundulph’s work, and to compare his masonry with that of Rochester keep, should examine St. Leonard’s Tower at Malling, some parts of the nave and transept of Malling Abbey Church, and the north tower of Rochester Cathedral. The White Tower in London has been so often repaired and refaced that it is difficult to be sure of its original masonry. Part of the curtain of the enceinte of Rochester Castle may also be Gundulph’s work. The north wall looks very early, as does the east wall, which is of excellent though rudely coursed rubble, the stones being large and the joints broad, though there are no layers of flat stones as at St. Leonard’s.

Rochester much resembles Hedingham, a very pure and very perfect Norman keep, with three floors, the remains of a forebuilding, and the upper gallery in the main floor. In each ornamentation is effectively employed, and great use made of the chevron moulding. The two buildings are, probably, of about the same date.

* * * * *

The history of the castle of Rochester, in the proper sense, begins with the Norman Conquest, but there is something to be said of the preceding earthwork, subsequent to the Roman period. The bishopric, of which the city is the metropolis, was founded in A.D. 600, and Justus, its first bishop, was consecrated in 604. The church, dedicated to St. Andrew, was founded by Æthelbyrht, King of Kent, and his charter of 604 mentions certain land as extending from the west gate and the wall of the city, one boundary being “fram Suthgaete west, and langes wealles.” Also, other land granted is said to be, “extra murum civitatis versus aquilonem.” In 673 a synod was held here, says Bede, attended by Putta, “Episcopus castelli Cantuariorum quod dicitur Hrofescæstir;” so that it was then a strong place, and the bishop’s residence, and this whether “castellum” relates to the city, or, which is at least equally probable, to the adjacent fortress.

In 765, Ecgberht, King of Kent, granted by charter to Eardulf of Rochester, his faithful minister and bishop, “terram intra castelli mœnia supranominati, id est Hrofiscestri;” and in 781, Æthelberht, King of the West Saxons, says, “Concedo Hrofensis ecclesiæ ... aliquantulum terræ juris mei intra mœnia supradictæ civitatis in parte aquiloni”; and in 788, Offa, King of the Mercians, granted “terram ... sex aratrorum” at Trotescliff, “ad ecclesiam beati Andræ apostoli et ad episcopium castelli quod nominatur Hrofescester.” Also, in 789, King Offa, in another charter to the same Bishop Weremund, mentions the wall (murus) of the city, and says, “Ecclesia quæ sita est in castro quod nominatur Hrofesceaster.” Further, in 850, Æthelwulf, King of the West Saxons, mentions “murum civitatis Hroffi;” and in 855 he granted land “Dunne ministro meo ... in meridie castelli Hroffi.”

In 839 and in 885, the city was attacked by the Danes. On the former occasion they took and sacked it, on the latter it was relieved by Alfred. In 986, the city was attacked, but unsuccessfully, by Æthelred, and in 998 with more success by the Danes, who came up the Medway. Boley Hill is said to have been thrown up by the Danes in 884, but the greater part of the hill is natural, though, no doubt, with a very considerable addition; but even the addition would have required more time than was allowed them by Alfred, and a work of such a character would be far more useful for defence than for attack. The towers used in an attack were generally of timber, and so constructed as to admit of being pushed up to the walls. It is more probable that the mount was thrown up as a strong residence for the bishop, to give such personal security as was found necessary at Sherborne.

It is not known in whose hands the fortress of Rochester rested in the times preceding the Conquest, but Earl Godwin had certainly encroached upon the episcopal property; and what more probable than that he should have laid his hands upon a place which, with Dover, would give him the command of the great road from the South to London? We read in Domesday of the episcopal manor of Estockes or Stoke. “Hoc manerium fuit et est de Episcopatu Rofensi, sed Godwinus comes T. R. E. emit illud de duobus hominibus qui eum tenebant de Episcopo et eo ignorante facta est hæc venditio.” So when the term of the tenancy expired the bishop would find that instead of two nameless men ready to give up possession, he would have to deal with a powerful noble claiming the freehold. Stoke passed with Godwin’s Earldom of Kent at the Conquest to Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and was recovered by the archbishop, as Domesday goes on to relate, “Postmodum vero regnante W. Rege diratiocinavit illud Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus contra Baiocensem Episcopum et inde est modo saisita Rofensis Ecclesia.”

It is probable that in some such way Odo received the city with the earldom, and with it the fortress, which the Bishop of Rochester, however, may have recovered possession of in the way shown, and which he certainly afterwards exchanged with the king for land in Aylesford. “Episcopus etiam de Rouecestria pro excambio terræ in qua castellum sedet tantum de hac terra tenet quod xvii solidos et iiij denarios valet.” There never was a castle at Aylesford. The bishop gave up the site of Rochester Castle, receiving for it as much land as was worth 17s. 4d.

Gundulf, the follower and friend of Lanfranc, and consecrated Bishop of Rochester in 1077, was a great architect, and a very remarkable man, well deserving the panegyric bestowed upon him upon his promotion, “Eratque Gundulfus religione plenus, literarum non nescius, in rebus forensibus acerrime elimatus et qui putatus sit divina potissimum electione hunc honorem meruisse.” As to his architectural skill, and his work at Rochester Castle, it is said, “Gundulfus, quia in opere cœmentarii plurimum sciens et efficax erat, castrum sibi, Hrofense lapideum de suo construxit.... Igitur, hoc pacto coram rege inito, fecit castrum Gundulfus Episcopus de suo ex integro totum costamine, ut reor, LX librarum.” This transaction between the bishop and the king occurred about 1076. The king was to restore to the see the manor of Hedenham, in Bucks, and the bishop to employ his skill and spend £60 in building a castle, that is, a tower of some sort. What Gundulf certainly built is the tower which still bears his name, and which seems originally to have been upon the city wall. On the death of William the castle was a very strong place, and was seized upon and held by Odo for Duke Robert. Odo (Judas Iscariot, as he was called by the friends of Rufus), associated himself with Eustace of Boulogne and Roger de Belesme, and garrisoned the castle, storing there the spoil drawn from the adjacent country. Rufus, whose activity was a strong contrast to the indolence of his brother, attacked Rochester, while Odo retired to Pevensey to await succour from Normandy, which never came. Rufus took Tunbridge and Pevensey, and forced Odo to demand the surrender of Rochester by his allies. The garrison understood the sincerity of the demand, sallied out, captured their royal escort and their bishop, and installed him, nothing loth, in the government of the castle. Rufus converted the siege into a blockade of both castle and city, and finally, under the pressure of a pestilence, both were surrendered, and Odo was finally banished. Gundulf died in 1108. This first siege of Rochester is one of the great military events of a very stirring period, and one deserving far more notice than has hitherto been bestowed upon it.

The castle, thus taken in 1088, seems to have remained in the Crown for thirty-eight years, when, in 1126, Henry II. granted “to Archbishop William de Corboil and his successors the perpetual charge and constableship of the castle of Rochester,” thus leaving it in the Church, but detaching it finally from the see of Rochester. The archbishop, we are told, built, in consequence, a handsome tower, “egregiam turrim,” which is, no doubt, the existing keep. William died in 1139, between which date and 1126 the keep was, therefore, built.

Henry II., also alludes to the castle in his confirmation charter to the church of Rochester, “volo etiam et ipsi et homines sui sint liberi et absoluti ab omni opere castelli, et expeditione archisve constructione;” so that, probably, the arx, or citadel, was then in contemplation or in progress. It may be that Gundulph’s Tower was removed to make way for the new keep, but in this case its materials would have been made use of, and some trace of them would be almost certain to be detected. But there is no such trace, so that, probably, the new keep did not supersede the older tower.

The castle, especially with its splendid and very strong keep, was far too important a military post to remain unchallenged in the possession of the see of Canterbury, and both when the see was vacant and at other times the Crown got possession, and its repairs were then entered on the Pipe roll. In 1141, William of Ypres, a Fleming, was its governor for Stephen, and when the Earl of Gloucester was taken he was confined here for a short time—from September to November,—until he was exchanged for Stephen. Various sums were spent upon the castle between 1167 and 1202, when it was again given up to the archbishop, then Stephen Langton. Towards the close of John’s reign the castle was placed by Langton in the hands of William d’Albini, to be held in the interest of the barons, whose army proposed to march from London to its relief. John, however, interposed, and in 1215, after a severe siege of three months, it was surrendered. Wendover expressly states that the military engines employed on this occasion produced but little effect, but that the place was taken by the efforts of the miners, who first undermined and threw down the walls, and then applied the same method of attack against the tower. It was, without doubt, on this occasion that the south-east angle was destroyed. In May, 1216, it was taken, apparently without any difficulty, by the Dauphin, but on John’s death it fell, with other Crown possessions, into the hands of Henry III. Under Henry III. considerable sums were spent upon it in repairs, especially in 1225, when, probably the broken angle was made good. In 1226–7 a bretasche and drawbridge were repaired, and the gutters of the hall in the keep. Unfortunately, here as elsewhere, the repairs were commonly those of buildings in the courtyard, all which are now destroyed. The keep was not used save for stores. In 24 Henry III., the tower was ordered to be whitewashed in those places which had not been so washed before. In 31 Henry III., both chapels were ordered to be wainscotted. One of these, at the least, was pretty sure to be in the outer ward, for the use of the garrison.

In 1264, the castle was in charge of the celebrated Roger de Leybourne, who had just taken part with the king. As de Montfort was supposed to meditate an attack on Rochester, Leybourne defended it with a strong garrison, and stored it with ample provisions. In April, the attack being expected, Warren, Earl of Surrey, Henry’s brother-in-law, came to the castle. The barons laid siege to it just before Easter, and remained before it nearly a week, but without any result, and on their retreat most of the garrison, with Leybourne, joined the king at Lewes, and took part in the battle. The loss of that battle was followed by the surrender of the castle, but after the death of de Montfort and the fall of Kenilworth, Leybourne resumed his governorship. A century later, in 1367–8, extensive repairs were undertaken by Edward III., under Prior John of Rochester as chief clerk of the works. Stone was imported from Beer, Caen, and Reigate, with copings and crests for battlements, probably for buildings in the court. Since that period it has played no part in the transactions of the kingdom, nor is its military history of any special interest. An extant drawing, taken in 1588, shows the turrets domed over and capped with vanes, like those of the White Tower.

Excellent papers have been written upon Rochester Castle by Messrs. Beal Poste, Blaauw, Hartshorne, and Burtt, the latter in the form of an account of Roger de Leybourne’s share in the Barons’ war.

P.S. Since the above account was written, Mr. Irvine, the very able and acute superintendent of the late Sir Gilbert Scott’s works at Rochester Cathedral, has made a discovery which is not in accord with any of the existing opinions as to the particulars of the Roman settlement. It appears that the south transept is built across a ditch, which runs north and south, and, no doubt, underlies the whole breadth of the cathedral. The ditch is 12 feet broad at the top, and 7 feet at the bottom of the excavation, now 14 feet deep, but was probably much deeper. It is cut through sound old gravel, and was filled up with black soil, with occasional dressed stones of Roman workmanship, Roman tiles, and bits both of black and red pottery, one of the former having a stamped interior ornament. Mr. Irvine, it is said, is in a condition to show that this was the ditch of a wall standing to its west, or towards the river. If so, the original station may have occupied the site of the present castle, at the west end of the accepted place of the Roman town, of which it may have been the citadel.

ROCKINGHAM CASTLE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

Within the north-eastern border of Northamptonshire, abutted upon by the shires of Leicester, Rutland, and Lincoln to the north and east, and by that of Huntingdon to the south, is a large tract of rather elevated land, known as the Forest of Rockingham. Its natural limits are the valleys of the Nen and the Welland, whose general parallelism is continued in their course across the Holland fen to their common termination in the Wash. Towards the west this platform is further cut off by the Ise, which rises about four miles from the Welland and falls into the Nen by Wellingborough. The tract thus marked out by nature, and long known as the Forest, extends east and west twenty-four miles from Oxendon Bridge to that of Stamford, and is at its widest between Rockingham and Thrapston, about twelve miles. The position, when the meads of the Nen and the Welland were marshes, and the fens scarcely navigable, was one of great strength, and occupied at an early period by invaders and colonists of Danish blood, whose traces are largely preserved in the topographical nomenclature of the district. The soil, chiefly derived from the subjacent oolite, is not naturally fertile, and long remained as forest, which even now, though cultivation has made immense progress, is represented by large patches of woodland, such as the well-timbered parks of Rockingham, Boughton, Blatherwick, Burleigh, Drayton, and Dene; the wilds of Morehay and Sulehay; the Bedford purlieus; and the Chase of Geddington.

Rockingham, which gave name to the forest and to a much smaller tract of land still known as the Shire, is placed upon the right or south bank of the Welland, just above the point where the influx of the Eye brook marks the meeting of the counties of Northampton, Leicester, and Rutland. The village stands on ground rising from the river, and above and to its south, immediately over the parish church, is the castle. The castle is a marked feature in the landscape, as it is placed upon a sort of promontory which juts out from the table land of the forest towards the Welland, and is protected on each side by a deep ravine, two of many by which the steep margin of the valley is intersected. South-west of the castle, and divided from it by the larger ravine, is the park, a very ancient enclosure, at one time containing red deer, which, however, had disappeared before Leland’s visit; and behind, and south of the castle and the park, is the tract of recently-enclosed land called the Shire.

Rockingham has been described as a name of English formation, purely descriptive. The castle stands on the “Rock;” between it and the Welland is the broad and fertile “Ing,” or meadow; and the “Ham” represents the village, whether enclosed by bank, ditch, or hedge. Other authorities, with perhaps more reason, have objected to this use of the word “ing,” and have supposed the name to be the “hame” or home of the “Rockings.” However this may be, ancient as is the name, and important as must ever have been the position, the place is not to be found in any record previous to the Conquest, though a similar name occurs in Kent as Roegringham, in a charter by Cœnulf of Mercia, A.D. 811. It may be that the name is found elsewhere, for among the followers of Archduke Philip at his meeting with Henry VII. in 1500 occurs “Le Sieur de Rockingham de Flanders” (“Letters of Henry VII.”, p. 88). The earliest mention of the place is in Domesday, where it is stated that the king holds Rockingham. Bovi held it in the time of King Edward with sac and soc. It was waste when King William ordered a castle to be made. No doubt here, as generally elsewhere, William’s decision was guided by the existence of an earlier work. It is evident, from an inspection of the remaining earthworks, and from a comparison of them with others, such, for example, as Brinklow, that they belong to the class of moated mounds, and consequently are far older than the Conquest. Bovi, no doubt, dwelt here, and it was his strong dwelling that the Conqueror ordered to be converted into a castle.

Enough remains to show that the earthworks were composed of a conical flat-topped mound or donjon, with a base-court attached on one side. The mound seems to have been about 100 feet diameter on the top, and not less than 30 feet high. It was circumscribed by its proper ditch, which, to judge from indications on the south side, must have been broad and deep. To the north of the mound was the base-court, of an irregular but rounded figure, covering about 3½ acres. The outline of this court corresponded generally with the contour of the ground, the slope of which formed a part of the defence. The court abutted upon the north face of the mound, outside its ditch, and covered about one-third or five-twelfths of its circumference. Thus the greater part of the mound, as at Brinklow, was outside the general line of defence, of which it formed a part. Also it was posted on the side of the work opposite the high ground, between the heads of the ravines, and naturally, as at Brinklow, the weakest side. In advance of the mound, at some yards distance, is a bank and ditch crossing the approach, and again in advance, about a furlong from the keep, is a second ditch, even now containing water, and dividing the castle precinct from the shire. Probably these outworks are of later date than the keep. There are also other works to the east, beyond the ravine, and especially one large bank which now forms the central line of an avenue of lime-trees. These works are irregular, and were possibly thrown up when the castle has been besieged. On this side are also some small tumuli, placed two and two, said to cover the remains of cottages.

The changes made by the Norman builders, and by those who in their turn destroyed the Norman walls, have much effaced the traces of the early fortress. The bank, which no doubt encircled the court, has been thrown back so as to raise and level up the interior platform, and for the main ditch has been substituted a scarped revetment about 8 feet high, surmounted by a parapet, which represents the curtain wall. At the foot of this are the remains of the ditch, and lower down the hill certain terraces, which look as though they had been defended by lines of stockade for musketeers during the parliamentary siege. These irregularities of the surface have been thought to represent a British camp, for which the situation is, no doubt, suitable. Of the mound there remains only a semilunar bank, which formed its northern edge. The central and southern parts have been removed and thrown into the ditch, the line of which is indicated by a slight but clear and broad depression. This was evidently done when the Parliament obtained the place, to render it indefensible. It is also evident that the base-court was subdivided, as at Brinklow. This is shown by the levels of the different parts. One division ran north and south, cutting off on the east the entrance ward with the lodgings. The other ran east and west, and subdivided the western ward. The three courts are on different levels, the entrance court the lowest by 6 feet or 8 feet.

Whether the Conqueror built a work in masonry, or merely strengthened the existing defences, is unknown. There is no masonry extant of that century. But he or his successors certainly placed a shell keep upon the mound, and built a wall round the court. This wall seems to have had six faces, and to have occupied a circuit of about 490 yards. It still commences at the top of the keep mound, descends the slope, crosses the ditch, and runs 134 yards in a straight line, forming the east front of the castle. The lower courses of this wall, which is 9 feet thick, may be late Norman. The upper part, 25 feet to 30 feet high, is probably Decorated, as is the gatehouse, which is in this front. Towards the north-east angle the wall has been rebuilt, and supports a seventeenth-century building. At this, at a right angle, the wall is replaced by a revetment of late date, and runs westward for 83 yards, having the church, &c., below and in front of it. The direction of the wall then changes to the south-west at the angle of about 160°, which was capped by a round mural tower, of which the foundations remain. This face is 94 yards long, and ends in an angle of 130°, where, no doubt, was another drum-tower. Then follows a side of 64 yards, ending in an angle of 140°, followed by a side of 40 yards, then by an angle of 150°, and a short side of 25 yards, which ends in the keep mound in a mass of masonry, which, if not wholly original, is so in part, and formed of old material. Thus the whole circuit of the court wall from one side of the keep to the other is about 440 yards. The two western faces rise directly over the ravine. The two to the south-west are some way from its edge, and here are no traces of a revetment; and there was, no doubt, a ditch. The wall is now removed, but indications of its foundation are seen on the turf in dry weather. The distance from one end of the wall to the other, measured across the keep, is 50 yards, which thus completes the circuit of the court.

Between the two masses of masonry which mark the abutment of the two ends of the outer wall upon the keep, is a third, which points north-west, and shows the line of a cross wall which divides the entrance from the western wards. The line is followed by the later buildings and by the western end of the castle hall. The place of the cross wall branching westward from this is indicated by a double yew-tree hedge, and a step of about 4 feet.

The gatehouse is composed of two half-round towers, 26 feet diameter, flanking a gateway of 10 feet opening. The towers spring from a block 60 feet broad and 30 feet deep, having no internal projection, so that the towers and a part of the block stand out from the wall 47 feet, giving a fine, bold character to the entrance. The towers are of two stages, divided outside by a string-course, and crowned above by a plain embattled parapet resting upon a second string. The gateway has a low-pointed arch, over which the string is continued and raised so as to form a square head. The entrance passage, 10 feet broad, is 30 feet deep. Within the portal is a portcullis groove, rounded and narrow, as for an iron grate, and behind it a rebate for folding doors. At the other end of the passage is a second portal, also with gates. Each portal has had a bold internal drip, now cut flat. A plain cornice shows that the original roof was of timber, and flat. The present and new beams have by an oversight been laid lengthways. On each side is a small, heavily-moulded door, with an equilateral head, in very excellent style. The north tower contains two chambers, one 16 feet by 18 feet, with a loop into the courtyard, and from which a small Decorated doorway opens into a front half-round chamber of 12 feet span, having three loops to the front beneath deep arched recesses. In the south tower are also two chambers. That in front has two loops only. The other chamber has a door into a garderobe in the south wall. The roofs were all of timber, and the internal doorways heavy but excellent Decorated. The gatehouse has been much repaired. The plinth is new. The exterior has been chisel drafted, and the jamb mouldings of the portal apparently recut. The towers had till lately conical roofs, which, however, were not original, and the parapet, though in excellent taste, is modern. The loops are cruciform, with short cross-limbs, and œillets below. The late Rev. T. James attributes this gateway to the year 1200.

Upon the curtain wall, a few yards south of the gatehouse, is a door, and near it a loop, both of Decorated date, and which evidently belonged to a mural tower, now replaced by a modern larder.

Entering the castle by the gateway, on the left and in front are the lodgings, buildings of very various dates. The entrance to the house on the left is, however, older than any other part of the front. It is an original door of Decorated date, and in a good style, and opens into what was once the hall or an antechamber leading into it. Opposite is a corresponding door, of the same age, which opens into a yard or court set round with buildings of all ages. The hall has long been converted into two floors, and is traversed by two partition walls, but the lateral or exterior walls are original, and contain two fireplaces, now covered up, but indicated by broad exterior buttresses, and several windows, no longer in use, and but partially seen. This is the only part of the present house that can be certainly shown to have belonged to the ancient castle, and it was probably begun about 1275. The place of the west window is occupied by a large Tudor or Stuart insertion.

The space within the ancient walls, from the doors to the west end, measures about 20 feet by 85 feet, too long for the proportions of a hall, so that it is probable that the actual hall was confined to the western portion of it, which contains one of the fireplaces and the jambs of four of the original windows.

Between the east end of the hall and the curtain wall is a fine pile of building bearing date 1585, the work no doubt of Edward Watson. This contains the kitchen and various offices, and probably includes parts of the ancient building. Another building on the north-east side of the court, and a long line of buildings facing the west, and containing the end of the hall, are dated 1660. A building on the curtain wall between the gatehouse and the keep is dated 1669.

The present cellars lie between the hall and the keep, and, though modern, are conjectured to occupy the place of the castle chapel, and near them is the well, though it is doubtful, from an old plan, whether there was not also a well in the keep.

With the exception of the lower part of the eastern curtain wall there is no masonry visible that can by any possibility be of the eleventh, and probably none of the twelfth, century. In the churchyard are some fragments in the Norman style, but they are not supposed to have come from the castle. Over the inner portal a stone carved in a sort of cable moulding has been inserted, but this does not appear to be Norman, and in any case has only lately been placed there.

The works of Henry III. and Edward I. are represented by the upper part of the curtain, the gatehouse, and the doors, walls, and windows of the hall, and probably by the three blocks of masonry that abut upon the keep mound, though two of these may be in substance earlier. All the rest of the castle is the work of the several grantees, and mainly, if not wholly, of the ancestors of the present owner. The general result of the mixture of buildings of so many styles and ages is exceedingly happy. The rooms, though not lofty, are comfortable and picturesque, and filled with fittings and furniture in harmony with their age and dimensions, and also with modern appliances. The walls, of the stone of the country, have a venerable aspect, and are covered with climbing plants, and the platforms of the several wards, and interior of the keep mound, are lain out in lawns and flower-gardens, whence the view over the village and beyond the Welland is very extensive.

Leland, who visited the castle in the reign of Henry VIII., while it was yet a military building, has left a description of it, and what he then saw:—“The castelle of Rockingham standith on the toppe of an hille, right stately, and hath a mighty diche, and bullewarks agayne without the diche. The utter waulles of it yet stond. The kepe is exceeding fair and strong, and in the waulles be certein strong towers. The lodgings that were within the area of the castelle be discovered and faul to ruine. One thing in the waulles of this castelle is much to be noted, that is, that they be embattelid on booth the sides, so that if the area of the castelle were won by cumming in at either of the two greate gates of the castelle, yet the kepers of the waulles might defende the castelle. I marked that there is a stronge tower in the area of the castelle, and from it over the dungeon dike is a drawbridge to the dungeon toure.”—“Itin.,” i. 14.

The mighty ditch, and bulwarks beyond it, refer probably to the keep and the ground to its south, where alone a ditch was needed. The keep was, of course, a circular or polygonal shell upon the mound. The strong towers on the walls were, no doubt, drums like those of the gatehouse, capping the angles of the curtain wall. The double parapet was not unusual, and with a wall 9 feet thick by no means impracticable. Where the strong tower stood is unknown, but it must have been within the court, north of the keep, and beyond the ditch of the keep or donjon, to which its drawbridge gave access. Of the second great gate no tradition is preserved, but it could not possibly have been anywhere save to the south, as on the other sides is no practicable approach. The latest works are two towers by Mr. Salvin, one plain, square, and solid, near the keep, the other octagonal, light, and lofty, placed near the end of the hall. They are a great and judicious addition to the building.

It so happens that there exists a still later evidence for the condition of the keep in a plan probably representing the temporary works thrown up during the parliamentary attack for the defence of the keep from an attack on the outer or south front. This shows the summit of the keep covered with buildings arranged in a polygon 80 feet diameter, with an open court in the centre. Outside these, along the edge of the mount, is a line of stockade, 180 feet long, resting on the walls of the court, and strengthened by two bastions of timber. The bottom of the ditch forms a covered way, and along the counterscarp is placed a second line of stockades, 240 feet long, and also resting at each end on the walls. The ends of the curtain and of the intermediate wall abutting on the keep are also shown. On the south margin of the keep is a well. This plan is specially interesting, as it not only shows that there was a building upon the mound, but lays down a plan of defence, which in all probability is precisely what the Conqueror found here in use when he ordered a castle to be made.

Among the Fabric rolls in the Public Record Office are several entries relating to Rockingham Castle, from which the following extracts were made by the late Mr. Burtt.

A small roll, 4 Edward I., of masons’ and carpenters’ work, amounting to £37. 6s. 6½d.

A fragment of a roll, undated, but early in the same reign: Expenses of a mason “circa turrem faciendam et murum turris ex parte meridionali punctuandum et petras in muro debiles et fractas extrahendas et alias petras ibi ponendas et petras ad eundem murum scapulandas.” A carpenter was employed “circa chevrones ad lardarium faciendas et fenestras ad celarium (the cellar) sub oriolo reparandas et faciendas.” Two masons are employed upon “murum castri ex parte orientali porte facientes;” and others upon the walls generally. There was also a payment “plumbariis facientibus et cooperientibus parvam cloacam super murum castri versus ecclesiam Rok’,” that is, on the north curtain.

Another roll, 4–5 Edward I., contains in two membranes a record of the expenses “ad petram liberam frangendam apud Pukesalter”; also of two men “operantes super gradus aule Regine”; and of a carpenter “ad garderobam Regine carpentandam ad tascam et cendulandam, 40s.”

5–6 Edward I. are three entries: a mason and other men were employed “circa novum oriolum ad hostium magne camere et veteram aulam erigendam.” Others were engaged “circa mantellam magni turris faciendam et erigendam”; and others “circa cumilum parve camere juxta le viz et fenestram et alia in garderoba Regis facienda.”

5–8 Edward I. is an incomplete roll of five membranes, written, but not closely, on the front and back. The entries relate to works upon the walls, the chimney, and other parts of a chamber “ultra volticium (drawbridge) circa crestos ad murum versus mantell’ (mantlet) turris.” Also repairs of the “porta de Durr’.” Also to windows, &c., of the same, carpenters’ work, and the door of the new turret. To masons, “ad novam cameram faciendam de veteri aula”; to carpenters for doors of the great cellar and new turret. The stone was quarried and conveyed from Weldon. Masons, &c., were engaged “circa cameram magnam Regis corrigendam”; and carpenters “circa claustrum faciendum et porcheam camere Regine cooperiendam.” At the end of the dorse of one of the membranes is the pious valediction addressed either to the accounts or the building, “Deus te comburet vel Diabolus”! something in the style of “Deil pike out the een,” said to have been invoked by old Q upon those who examined into the building accounts of Drumlanrig.

6 Edward I., a roll of three membranes, mentions men engaged “ad veterem aulam faciendam et emendam.”

6–7 Edward I. is a roll of five membranes, closely written on the face and partly so on the back. The entries are “circa novum turriolum faciendum”; “circa coquinam faciendam.” Carpenters’ work about “unam januam ad barbecanum et unam januam ad mantellum versus turriolum juxta magnam turrem.” Masons were engaged “circa cameram Regine faciendam,” and cutting stones, “ad circularem fenestram in magna camera Regis.” The expenses appear of Master Ralph the painter “circa parvas cameras juxta cameram Regine dealbandas” (whitewashing); also masons engaged “circa chimineum in magna camera Regis et muros ad cameram ultra volticium faciendos.” Again, the expenses of Ralph the painter “circa cameram Regis dealbandam,” and “circa cameram Regine dealbandam.” A carpenter was employed “circa claustrum et hostium ad camere Regine faciendas.” Master Richard “circa cameram ultra volticium faciendam et terram juxt coquinam removendam.” Of stores there were, “In iiij libras ære et dimidiam empt’ ad opus cement’ confectis cum thure code et pictivæ ad cementum faciendum.” More stone from Weldon; slates from Haringworth; “In vitreis fenestris emptis ad cameram Regine, 10s.”

7 Edward I. is a roll of two membranes. The expenses of a mason “in magno horre crestando”; of men “fodientes petras in quarreria juxta castellum ad fundamentum aule cohoperiendum.” Masons “ad muris aule, solarii, capelle, et garderobe cohoperiend’ et super fundamentum stabule per ij dies”; also a mason “ad capellam prosternendam in turre.”

Another roll of the same date contains the trades of the workmen employed. One master-mason, four cissores (trimmers or dressers of stone); four cubitores (bedders); six servitores (helpers); two quarrymen at Rockingham; six carpenters; two makers of boards and laths; and two sawyers.

8–9 Edward I., six membranes. A complete roll of works for the year, Michaelmas to Michaelmas, naming however but few places; only the tower, the chamber, near the new chapel; men engaged “circa capellam et cameram domini Regis faciendam”; also “circa murum aule et fundamentum celarii.” The stone came from Weldon and Haverne.

9–10 Edward relates to small works only.

13–14 Edward I., a full roll, Michaelmas to Michaelmas: Masons are busy “super capellam”; “super kernellos”; carpenters, “super magnam capellam Regis”; masons, “circa fenestram Reginæ inter duos turiolos erigendam,” and “circa murum et fenestram celarii reficiendam” and “circa unum baterat intrantem magnam cameram et circa dictum murum et fenestram”; also “circa gabulam capelle et circa turiolum,” and “super turiolum et murum versus magnam portam juxta boveriam”; also a carpenter was engaged “super sedem Regine ad capellam.” The total thus expended by and according to this roll was £103. 0s. 12d.

15–16 Edward I., also a full roll, Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Masons engaged “circa novum turiolum juxta coquinam,” a carpenter, making “gistas ad turriolum de Holebrooke”; a mason “cooperiens ij turiolos, muros aule, et in aliis locis emendans cohoperturam murorum.” Two masons “perimplentes warderobam Regine et viam de aula usque cameram Regis et domum Lawyte’ juxta capellam, et facientes astr’ (astra are fireplaces or hearths) in v caminis in turri et iiij caminis in castello ad tascham 8s.’ ... circa murum versus turrim erigendum et turridum versus turrim.”

In the same record mention is made of “stagnum,” or tin, for solder: of the gables of the solar or upper floor, next the sun. “Cyntles or cindules” are shingles for roofing. “Viz,” from “vis,” a screw, is a spiral staircase. “Vertevellis” are hinges, and “gumphis,” the big hooks on which they turned: gudgeon and pintle.

The above entries show much attention to the lodging of the King and Queen, and but little to those of any one else, or to the fortifications. The old hall is probably that which preceded the present structure, and was no doubt Norman. The cellar under the oriel is mentioned. The magna turris was probably the keep, and the drawbridge that which crossed the keep ditch. The barbican was no doubt a timber structure outside one of the two outer gates. The old chapel, probably that in which the council met, was destroyed, and a new one erected. The new hall seems to have been in progress 8–9 Edward I.

The history of Rockingham is closely bound up with that of the forest, of which its constables or castellans were almost always seneschals. It has been shown that the Conqueror here ordered a castle to be made, and probably therefore he visited the spot. In 1095 it was selected by Rufus as the place of meeting for the nobles and prelates of the realm to discuss with Archbishop Anselm the important question, “Utrum salvâ reverentiâ et obedientiâ Sedis apostolicæ posset Archiepiscopus fidem terreno Regi servare, annon”? When the King arrived from Normandy, 29th December, 1094; he found Anselm about to accept his pall from Urban II., whom the king had not acknowledged as pope, and the question arose whether the recognition of Urban was consistent with fidelity to the crown. The meeting took place at Rockingham on the fifth Sunday in Lent, 11th March, 1095. They met in the chapel, when Anselm called on the prelates for their advice. The prelates inclined to the feudal rather than the ecclesiastical view of the question, which they rather avoided, and decided that Anselm had treated the king with disrespect. The meeting was adjourned to the Monday, when the prelates agreed that the assembly was one of vassals of the crown, and not a synod, and they and the nobles advised Anselm to submit himself to the king. On the Tuesday a deputation of the prelates met Anselm. They persisted in regarding the difference from the secular point of view only, offering an opinion that as a vassal of the crown the Archbishop was in the wrong, but declining to go further, or to pass any censure upon their ecclesiastical superior. The meeting then broke up, Anselm refusing to give way. Soon afterwards the king acknowledged Urban and received his legate, but without consulting or informing Anselm. All this shows that Rockingham was then an important place. The chapel must have been more than a mere oratory in the keep like those of Arundel or Lincoln, and there must have been some sort of accommodation for the assembly, composed as it was of laymen of high rank and of bishops, in an age when men of that order were not remarkable for asceticism.

The forest is said anciently to have extended to Northampton, but the boundaries, as fixed by various perambulations from Edward I. to Charles I., limit it to Oxendon and Stamford bridges. It was divided into the Bailliewicks of Rockingham, Clive or Clyffe, and Brigstoke, each under a bailiff and verdurers, and in each of which was a forest lodge, kept in repair by the crown. At Geddington on the Ise was a larger residence, often visited by the sovereigns, where a great Curia Regis was once held, and where still remains one, the most perfect, of the memorial crosses set up by Edward I. to his Queen. Many manors also were held of the castle by the tenure of castle-guard. There is no regular list of these, but it is known that among them were Little Billing, Cottingham, Aldwinkle, Cogenhoe, Harwedon, Hanington, Horton, Isham, Uphall, Wotton, and the Barony of Chipping-Warden, which itself had tenants holding by like services. Also an inquisition, 18th February, 18th Edward I., shows that the Manor of Wahul was held of the king per Baroniam by the service of one knight’s fee, and sixty-nine shillings each Michaelmas, for the ward of Rockingham Castle. The sums for which the service was commuted ranged from twenty pence to seventy-five shillings annually, and were assessed at five shillings for a knight’s fee. The collection of these sums was the business of a special officer who held half a virgate of land by this tenure, besides hous-bote and hey-bote in Cottingham wood, a right to grass his horse in the Abbot of Peterborough’s meadows at Eston, and his diet when the king or his constable were in residence. He seems to have been called the castle bailiff, and in Henry III.’s time, when Geoffrey de Rockingham held it, the office was hereditary. There was also a weyte or watchman, who mounted guard at night, and held the weyte fee by the tenure of castle-weyte. Simon de (la) Weyte held the office 36 Henry III.

In 1137 we are told in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle that the Abbey of Peterborough, under its indomitable abbot Martin, that “good monk and good man,” recovered from William Malduit, who held the Castle of Rockingham, the lands of Cottingham and Easton. Malduit was only constable, but in the lawless reign of Stephen the keeper of so strong a place must have exercised very independent powers. The castle was never actually alienated from the crown, and was frequently visited by the kings, together with Brigstoke and Geddington, and forest laws were very strictly enforced, through the Justice “in itinere forestarum.” In 1139–40 (5 Stephen) the king had a vinedresser at Rockingham, for whose livery was allowed thirty shillings, and twenty shillings were spent in procuring necessaries for the vineyard. In 1188, 11th February, a great assembly, “Curia Regis,” was held at Geddington to discuss the question of a crusade. In 1189–90 the Sheriff of Northamptonshire accounted for one hundred shillings for the rent of Rockingham.

In 1194 King Richard was here.

Henry II. and Richard I. allowed £4. 11s. 3d. for the castle porter and two watchmen. The custos or constable purchased his office. In 1157–8 Fulk de Lisoriis accounted for twenty pounds for the old rent of the forests of Rockingham and Selveston, and a similar sum was accounted for as the new rent of the same forests. In 1199 Robert Malduit paid for it one hundred pounds by four quarterly payments. He had already held it. King John was here at least fourteen times between 1204 and 1216, and dated many instruments from hence. In 1204, 5th May, the county of Rutland and the vill of Rockingham had been settled in dower by John on Queen Isabella. He probably retained the castle. In this settlement he followed precedent, for in 1209 Pope Innocent called upon him to restore to Berengaria, Richard’s queen, her goods, among which is specified “In Nordhantonscire Rokingham cum pertinenciis ejus” (Rymer). The dower was confirmed 5th May, 1215. In 1204 the Patent Roll shows that King John granted to Samson Wascelin, “our clerk,” the church of Rockingham with the attached chapel of Manneton, in free alms for life. In 1205, Scogernel, a king’s messenger, had ninepence for going to Rockingham. In October, 1207, Earl David (of Huntingdon) had paid the king in his chamber at Rockingham, by the hand of Peter de Stoke, £100 due on an imprest, and in 1208 Hugh de Nevil was to be prepaid his outlay, estimated by competent persons, on the king’s houses at Rockingham and Clyve.

In 1209 and 1210 occur divers entries in the Mise Roll concerning William Aquarius, who provided the king’s bath. Of eight baths, he had made one at Northampton. There is no bath at Rockingham. There are payments for the “roncini” [baggage ponies] of Thomas Marescal staying at Northampton and Rockingham for six days with the royal wardrobe, while the king wandered [‘spatiatum’] among the forests and rivers. He thus visited Geddington and Clyve, where he lost 4s. 10d. at tables with the Earl of Salisbury, and afterwards 4s. 11d. Also the keep of twenty-nine horses and twenty-four valets (garciones) for three days at Rockingham, with a workshop (fabrica), cost 24s. 5d.

The frequency of the royal visits was in some measure due to the necessity for supporting the household from the local resources; wine however, notwithstanding the vineyard, was imported and kept in store, especially at Southampton, and there delivered to the king when needed. Thus, in 1212, sixteen casks of wine were imported, of which five went to Rockingham, three to Clyffe, and four to Geddington; and John while here, 10th July, acknowledges the receipt of a coat of mail which had belonged to the Constable of Chester. Here also, according to the Mise Roll, John ordered 100 marcs given him by the burgesses of Nottingham to be expended in making a tower “in mota de Notingham.”

The castle was also a prison. In 1213, Gilbert de Gartington was to be set free from thence, with his chattels, on bail; also Robert de Mara, taken at Carrickfergus, was freed at the request of the legate. In 1214, the chancellor was directed to purchase five dolia of the best wine in London and to send them to Clyffe, Geddington, Rockingham, and Selveston. In this year £127. 8s. 6d. was allowed for works on the new tower and chamber in the castle, and Peter de Barr and Nicholas de Hugevill, foot crossbowmen, were sent to be employed in the defence of the castle, at six pence per day each. In January, 1215, the chancellor was to send more red wine. In March the king has restored to William, Earl of Albemarle, the manor of Rockingham, which had belonged to Alice his paternal aunt (amitæ suæ). This may be either Alice de Romeli his mother’s mother, or Alice Mareschal his sister. He is to have “homines, res, terras, et omnes possessiones.” In May, William de Harcourt is to be well received at the castle if he needs hospitality. It appears that the late custos had been enclosing, for the king gives to Roger de Nevil the whole assart of Rockingham which Hugh de Nevil had assarted or cleared, and adds common of pasture in the vill for his stock, by the tenure of a pair of gilt spurs annually.

1216, 4th March, of the prisoners sent by Lady Nichole de Haya to Nottingham four are to be transferred to Rockingham. The custos of the castle seems to have been trespassing on the powers of the sheriff, which the king sets right. Probably there had been a disturbance at Rockingham for John directs the Constable of Nottingham to liberate on a fine a prisoner taken there. Later in the year the garrison must have been discontented, for the custos is ordered at once to pay their arrears of livery to the men who garrison the castles of Northampton and Rockingham, so that they may have no excuse for desertion. The constable is to retain for the use of the castle the manors of Geddington, Cliff, Brigstock, and Corby. He is to act as escheator in order to give seizin of Blaston and Weston to Ralph Fitz Peter. This is one of the first orders made in the new reign, and is witnessed by the Earl marshall “teste Comite.” Henry III. was probably at Rockingham many times, certainly in 1220, 1226, and 1229.

1217, the Abbot of Peterborough asks not to be distrained for his castle guards. This is granted, but the knights who hold the abbot’s fees are to do the service. In 1218 Richard Trussell was fined for taking his dogs through the forest. In 1219 to Hugh de Nevil is restored the bailliage of the forest and of Clyve, Gettington, and Brigstoke. The offices being connected with land, the constable is to give seizin. 25th June the king sent his huntsman, Richard de la Hunt, to chase in the forest, and during his stay the sheriff is to provide for him and his two horses, two valets, a swordsman or “sicarius” (bernarius), a whipper-in (veltarius), four greyhounds, and fourteen chiens de meute (canes de mota necessaria). He is also to have salt for salting the venison which he may take, and a carriage to convey it to the king as needed. Occasionally an order is given to allow some great man to take three or four bucks or does, but it is evident the number named are not to be exceeded. 19th July, Walter de Preston is sent to take forty bucks for the king’s larder. In November, William, Earl of Albemarle, in charge of the castles of Rockingham, Sauvey, and Biham, had refused to give them up, on which the sheriffs are warned that he had been excommunicated by the legate, and no person is to aid him in holding the castles. The earl, however, resisted, and this castle was actually besieged and taken by surprise 28th June, 1220 (“Hist. Anglor.,” ii. 242). Henry was here in person, and allowed William de Albini three, and William de Insula two, bucks. William de Preston and Richard de Watervill are also allowed twenty each, probably for the king’s use. A little before this, in May 1220, Isabel, the king’s mother, wrote to inform him that on his account rather than her own she had married the Comte de la March, and requested that her husband might be allowed her dower, which included Rockingham Castle (“Letters of Henry III.,” i. 115). In July the bailliages were returned to Hugh de Nevil, who had a charter from King John, and in November, Fulk de Breauté had one hundred pounds for his expenses during the siege of Rockingham, which he seems to have conducted. Sauvey and Rockingham when taken were found to be utterly bare of provisions, not three loaves of bread being found in the two.

Henry seems at first to have granted his mother’s request, but 2nd September, 1221, Richard de Ripariis had the custody of the whole land which the Comte de la March had held in England of his wife’s dower, and the good men of Rockingham were to answer to Richard for the rent of the vill, as they had done to the earl and his wife.

Other entries relate to the same year. The constable is allowed large timber for the repairs of the king’s houses and the “turris” of Rockingham, and the sheriff is to allow twenty marcs for the same. Also Hugh de Nevile is to take a forest verdurer and good men “de visñeto” [from the neighbourhood; hence “venue” as applied to a jury] of Cottingham and Carlton, and measure the assart which the Abbot of Peterborough had licence from King John to make. If 100 acres or less, the abbot is to be left in peace; if above that area, Hugh is to take possession and report.

16th April, 1222, the men of Rockingham are informed that Queen Isabel and her husband are again allowed the dower lands. In May the Earl of Albemarle had made his peace, and under King John’s charter touching the lands of Hawise, his mother, he is acquitted of relief and other charges for his farm of the manors of Rockingham, Clyffe, and Brigstoke, from the day on which he took charge of the castle to the 18th November, 1219. In this month the king sent ten marcs for the repairs of his houses, and the same for the castle, to be applied as far as it would go.

1223: the abbot is not to be distrained in time of peace for more than four shillings, castle guard, according to the tenor of the charter of Richard I. 13th September, it appears that Alianor, the king’s aunt (grandmother), formerly Queen of England, had the fair of Rockingham as part of her dower, and, she being dead, Isabel and the Comte de la March are to have it, with all the dues. 31st October, the custos has five marcs from the sheriff for the repairs of the gutter of the king’s chamber. 1224: in this year ten casks of wine were sent to Rockingham, and the carriage from Southampton to be paid by the sheriff, and later on ten dolia more. Walter the Miller has an oak for the repair of the bridge; one conveniently situated is to be chosen. In 1225 the sheriff was to take with him proper men, skilled in carpentry and masonry, and see to the repairs of the king’s chamber in the castle, and for this sufficient timber was to be allowed. The Bishop of Ely had an order for ten bucks from an Essex forest, but because they were hard to take he had a similar order on Rockingham, to be used should the first attempt fail. A certain Ivo de Dyen taken in the forest had fined to King John eight marcs and a palfrey for his freedom, and paid it to the constable, for which he now has a quittance. William de Cantilupe has two bucks and two does from the forest to put into his park at Eston. Martin de Patishull has ten bucks. Some timber allowed for the castle is to be selected by the foresters and verdurers, who are to take a receipt (talliam) for it from the sheriff.

In 1226 ten dolia of wine were sent to the castle. In this year Ralph de Trublevill was to have timber from some convenient spot where the forest would not be injured, for the bay of the king’s vivary at Brigstoke and the repair of his houses. The custos has twenty marks from the sheriff for works at the chapel and other parts of the castle. The Sheriff of Beds is also to supply twenty marcs for these works; a load of lead is ordered for the gutters of the roof. 15th August, the constable is to have two bucks in season [in horis]. 24th July, 1227, the constable is to pay over his receipts for the past and present year from Rockingham fair to Thomas de Cyrene, or his bailiff of that vill, and he is to leave them with him in future. William de Cantilupe is allowed to take two bucks in season. In 1230 three casks of wine were sent to the castle from Boston.

After some lapse of time an inquisition of 34 Henry III., 1249–50, states that the castle was left ruinous by Sir Robert Basselewe, the last constable. It mentions the tower, the walls, and their battlements. The chapel was destitute of fittings for divine service.

1250, Geoffrey de Rokingham, who probably held the Weyte fee in capite under the castle, had died, and his executors were allowed administration on giving security for the debts due to the king. 1284–6, the estate was not wound up, and Master Henry Sampson brought before the Barons of the Exchequer the pieces of a tally for £4 levied by the Sheriff of Rutland, which tally was by mischance broken. Sampson seems to have been an executor. 1251, the sheriff is allowed 8s. 2d. for the carriage of the king’s venison from Rockingham to Westminster, and Elias de Hanvill is to take sixty oaks from the king’s woods of Clyve, Brigstoke, and Cottingham for works at the castle.

In 1253–4 Ernald de Bosco, justice of the forests south of Trent, had charge of Rockingham forest between the bridges of Stamford and Oxendon, excepting the castle and its appendages; and he was directed to make “Trencheyns” where it seemed most expedient in the forests of Rockingham and Clyve. Two years later Hugh de Goldingham had the same charge, and four men were imprisoned in the castle for trespass. They paid two marcs to be allowed bail until the advent of the justice in eyre.

1260–1, the king committed to Alan la Zouch the castle and the forest from bridge to bridge, and John de Oxindon and Walter le Butiller were his attorneys to account for the issues of the county and forest to the king.

1269–70, Henry Engayne had licence to impark ten acres of forest, probably near Blatherwick. In 1271, at the close of Henry’s reign, Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, his nephew, had the manor of Rockingham, and obtained a grant for the town of a Friday market.

Edward I. was at Rockingham in 1275, 1279, 1290, and 1300, on the last occasion for eight days in April.

3 Edward I., 1274–5, the jurors of the Hundred found that, when the king came to Rockingham and stayed there, he used to have grass (herbagium) in grazing time for all his horses in the Abbot of Peterborough’s meadows on the Welland, and the constable claimed the same, but it appeared that since the time of Abbot de Cauz these rights had been lost, as well as a right to take large timber for the repairs of the castle, and wood to burn and for fences from the abbot’s wood of Cottingham. Also, about twenty-five years before, the abbot by “pourpresture,” or unlawful enclosure, had encroached upon the king’s common of pasture in Estiburg, to what extent was not known. Also Robert Oliver had appropriated a slice of the king’s meadow, 20 rods by 2 feet, to enlarge his mill-race, and Geoffrey FitzPeter had built a wall in the king’s highway in Rockingham, and enclosed land 80 feet by 8 feet. Another entry states that the abbot, who held the manor of Cottingham in capite, had enclosed an assart there, on which was formerly common of pasture attached to the castle, and worth 40s. per acre. Also for three years Berenger le Moyne and the men of Henington had ceased to do suit in the Hundred court of Polebroke, worth 7s. 4d. per annum, and castle guard 20s. It appears also from the same Hundred rolls that it had been the custom from ancient times to celebrate divine services in the chapel within the castle, for which 50s. was allowed annually by the sheriff. The celebration had ceased for eight years before 1268. The vill of Rockingham had been in the hands of the king’s predecessors, and was given by King Henry to the King of the Romans, whose son, Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, inherited it, and had the manor. The advowson of the parish church of St. Leonard was wont to be in the Crown, but the jurors were ignorant, “Utrum data esset domino Regi Alim’ cum manerio de Rokingham an non.” Manton chapel was attached to the manor, and Henry had given it to the last pastor, who was still alive. The abbot, on his side, but half a century later, had counter-complaint to make (“Plac. in Parl.,” ii. 22).

1276–7, the Abbot of Pipewell was relieved from the toll for chiminage, or right of way through the forest. Thomas de Blatherstone had 9d. for his expenses with the king’s greyhounds and 2d. for bread for them, and another 5½d. for bread when Master Richard de Holbroc stayed at Rokingham, and for the greyhounds of the Abbot of Laund for nineteen days, 19d., in all 8s. 6½d. for greyhounds.

In the year 1279 was an outlay on the castle, the details of which are preserved.

1279–80, Lawrence de Preston, one of a family who held Gretton Manor, complained of Roger de Hollande, constable, for “estovers,” or wood for the use of the house, taken from the woods of the Abbot of Peterborough in Cottingham, from William de Latimer in Corby, and from Preston’s own wood at Gretton, “pro nimia oppressione,” in taking more than were due to him. Ralph Basset was allowed to assart and cultivate thirty-eight acres in Weldon in the forest.

1280–1, the king granted to Robert Fitz-Roger of Wanton that part of the bailliewick of Bulay in the forest which is in the king’s hands, and the charge of the wood of Fernes for life, saving to the king the rights of vert and venison. 1281, 8s. 2d. are allowed the sheriff for carriage of the king’s venison from Rockingham to Westminster. 1282, Richard de Holebroke has the custos-ship of the castle and seneschalship of the forest, with the king’s rents of Whytele and the manors of Saham, Oveston, and Silveston, for three years, and, 1285, Holebroke is again constable, and has £637. 17s. 8½d. for moneys expended by him in repairs of the castle during the past seven years. It is, therefore, probable that Holebroke held office before 1282. As he was by far the most active person who held the office, and as most of the older part of the castle is his work, it will be convenient here to quote from the Miscellaneous Rolls for 9 and 10 Edward I., a translation of the instrument by which Holebroke was appointed constable, which may be taken as the general form, and may thus be rendered:

“Concerning the castle of Rokingham and the office of the seneschalcy of the forests and the divers manors committed.

“The king commits to Richard de Holebroke the custody of the king’s castle of Rokingham and the office of the seneschalcy of the king’s forests, between the bridges of Oxon and Staunfford, with the king’s rent from Whitele, and with the king’s manors of Saham, Oveston, and Silveston, to be held with all their appurtenances from the feast of St. Michael in the year of the king’s reign the ninth, until the end of the three complete years next following, unless in the meantime the king should be induced to order otherwise concerning the aforesaid castle. Rendering thence to the king annually at the king’s exchequer from the issues of the aforesaid castle and seneschalcy 80 pounds. From the manor of Saham 56 pounds, and from the manor of Selveston 15 pounds, that is to say, one moiety at the feast of the Holy Trinity, and the other moiety at the feast of St. Martin next following. So, however, that the aforesaid Richard shall take nothing in the aforesaid forests or in the king’s park of Silveston, except a reasonable estovery (what is necessary) for constructing the houses of the aforesaid castle, and for maintaining those and other houses which are in the king’s aforesaid manors and, should it be necessary, for repairing them. And he may have herbage in the aforesaid park, preserving sufficient pasture for the king’s beasts there. And should it happen that in the meantime the king should retake that castle into the king’s hand, he shall preserve the aforesaid Richard without loss. In witness, &c. Witness the king at Westminster, the 16th day of November” [1282].

1288–9, Walter de Langton was allowed to impark his wood of Ashley and twelve contiguous acres, all in the forest. 1289–90, Holebroke, still constable, was allowed £8. 11s. 11¼d. for the expenses of the funeral of Walter de Levy, one of the suite of John de Brabant, who died at the castle and was buried at Pipwell. His bowels, however, were left at Rockingham, and there was a feast at his funeral. 1290–1, Elias de Hamul succeeded Holebroke, paying the same rental. In this year great complaints were made to the king of Holebroke’s conduct. William de Latimer, who held Corby and a wood in capite at 10s. per annum, complained that Holebroke had cut down great oaks without number, destroying his wood, taking cartloads of underwood and branches, and had quartered charcoal-burners upon it for six years at £10 per annum each. Also, that he had kept about eighty swine and one hundred goats there for a year in all seasons, and contrary to the charter. Lawrence Preston of Gretton made a similar complaint. Both accused him of converting public funds into his private property. Holebroke denied the charges, and the king promised an inquiry (“Plac. in Parl.,” i. 36).

1291–2, Thomas de Lodington was allowed to impark five acres in Maleswood in the forest. 1293–4, Elias de Hamul was sent to Germany, and Thomas de Hamul appointed in his room. 1295–6, the constable is to take charge of William, son of Sir John de Moravia, Herbert de Mirham, Alexander de Fitz-Gley, and Gregory Fitz-Owen, prisoners taken in Dunbar Castle. Money is allowed for their sustenance. 1296–7, William Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, holds the castle and forest during pleasure, and, 1298–9, is succeeded by Adam de Welles.

In July, 1299, Edward I. settled the dowers of Margaret the sister, and Isabella the daughter, of the King of France, on the marriages of himself and his son, and, in the places settled on, the latter occur: “Geytington, Eston, Torpeyl, Brikstok, Clyve, and the castle and vill of Rokingham, with its forests, &c.,” and the schedule gives the following interesting particulars of their value:—Geytington, farm of the vill, £48; of the market, 6 marcs, total, £52. Eston, £40. Torpel, £100. Brikstok, with park and wood, £104. 13s. 4d. Clyve, with the forest, £110. 6s. 3d. C. and V. of Rokingham, with forest, &c., £80, being the farm of the castle and seneschalship between Oxon and Stamford bridges. (Mise Roll, 27 Edward I.) Queen Eleanor’s dower settled on her marriage was £4,500 per annum (“Cal. Rot. Chartarum”).

1301, John, son and heir of Richard de Holebroc, was allowed £614. 10s. 6d. for extensive repairs to the castle in his father’s time.

The entries during the reign of Edward II. are also tolerably numerous. 1307–8, Baldwin de Manners became constable on the same terms as Welles, as did Alan la Zouch 1311–12. In the next year Roger de Norwich had the vill of Rockingham and the manor of Little Weldon. 1313, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, was custos, &c., on the usual terms, and Richard Edward had little Weldon. De Valence himself, or by his deputy, was to provide munition for the castle out of the issues of his custos-ship.

1314–15, the Abbot of Pipewell was allowed 5 acres 3 rods 10 perches, at a perch of 20 feet, for ever, from the king’s waste in the forest, at a rent of 2s. 11d. 1315, the king being lord of the manor of Rockingham, the Saturday market was confirmed. 1319–20, John Gifford, clerk, had a grant of 85 acres 3 rods 9½ perches in the forest in fee at the south side, in Tottenhowe, to be cleared and built upon. Also he has “common” for his animals. 1323–4, beside a number of castles, the vill of Rockingham is committed to Humphrey de Walden and Richard de Iken, and next year to Iken and Richard de Wynfarthing. 1324–5, John de Mosteyn was constable. Edward III. is known to have been at Rockingham four times, and he here tested a score of documents, many of which are diplomatic instruments of great importance, and drawn up with much care. Queen Philippa probably had the castle in settlement on her marriage in 1327, for in 1329 Edward granted her 60 acres in the forest, in aid of the repairs of the castle, then a ruin. William la Zouch was allowed to make a “saltatorium,” or deer-leap, within his manor of Haringworth in the forest, and next year Simon de Drayton had leave to impark Elsdale, Neusdale, and Lappe, containing 60 acres, also Wynescross of 10 acres, the latter outside the forest. Drayton was also constable and seneschal, paying yearly £80. He was of Drayton, now one of the best preserved and charming old manor places in the forest, and which has never been sold or alienated. An order was issued for inquiry into the oppressions done by Robert de Veer while constable, and the Bishop of Lincoln had leave to add 60 acres to his park of Luddington, county Rutland, but within the forest, and to enclose the same within a stone wall. 1335–6, Master William de Nassington had a pardon and fined a marc for “pour presture” and encroachment of 13 acres 3 rods at Kaluhey, occupied by John of Kyngeswood, parson of Hakebourn. 1336–7, Walter de Basley, the king’s clerk, had a grant of two oaks in the forest from the queen, and had taken four, for which he is in prison. John de Verdon, constable, is to release him on bail. Verdon held office by the queen’s grant for life, paying £80 per annum to the king’s consort when alive, and on her death to the king. 1338–9, the king took the homage of Hugh, son and heir of Margery de Nevill, deceased, for 6 acres of arable, one of meadow and pasture, and 20s. rent in Medbourne, held by the service of giving a barbed arrow whenever the king came to the castle.

1339–40, the forest wastes were to be measured; and two years later were to be inquired into in the forests of Rockingham, Salcy, and Whichwood. 1345–6, Thomas Wake of Blisworth had licence to assart 250 acres of land and pasture within the forest for which the præpositus and brethren, chaplain of John Gifford’s Chantry in Cotterstock and their successors are to pay annually 1d. per acre. They also pay a fine of £5. The lands are “nuper arentatis.” 1347, the Lieutenant of the Tower of London is to send ten Scots prisoners to John de Verdon, Constable of Rockingham, or his deputy, Thomas Stone. 1348–9, Simon Simeon has leave to enclose his wood of Grafton in the forest with a little ditch and a low hedge, and five years later he has permission to impark it.

20 Edward III., 1346–7, the king, in aid of the repairs of the castle, “qui noviter dirutus est et prostratus,” grants to the queen 60 acres of wood in his park of Bukelestrode within the forest on lease for her life (Abb. Rot. Orig.). The queen, however, had it not all her own way, for 1356–7 is a memorandum for staying her assarts in the forest. In this year the Abbot of Pipewell has the advowson of Geddington, and is to restore to the king in fee his lands in Benefield.

1371–2, and again in 1375–6, the king confirms the queen’s grant to Walter de Wright of pannage, herbage, dead wood, “copreneo,” brushwood (cablicio), bullrushes (cirpos), and all fallen branches, within the park of Brigstoke, and the bailliewicks of Geddington and Bulay, within the forest of Rockingham, also timber for the park pales for life, at £10 per annum. 1371–2, Henry Mulso has a lease for five years, at £42 per annum, of all the king’s “rentes d’assart” in the forest. 1375–6, Almaric de St. Amand, chivaler, has the castle and fortress at the old rent of £80. 24th August, 1375, the truce of Bruges between England and France was confirmed by Edward, “Don’ a noster chastel de Rockingham.”

In 1381, Sir John de Clyfton claimed to hold the manors of Rockingham and Wymundham by the service of butler at coronations, which service he complains had been usurped by the Earl of Arundel.

The importance of the castle and the exclusive jealousy of encroachment on forest rights were now on the decline. Encroachments were made upon the woodlands both for private parks and for cultivation, and the castle was neglected. The forest offices were, however, still coveted, and continued to be so for some centuries. 1387, Sir William de Thorpe had the bailliewicks of Brikestoke, Gettington, and Bulay for life. 1396, William Brancepath has the charge of the lordship of Rockingham for twelve years at £4. 2s. 1d. At this time it was under the Duchy of Cornwall.

The reign of Henry IV. opens upon Rockingham with a grant of the charge of the park of Clyve for life, and early in that of Henry V. is an appointment of itinerant judges to hear pleas in Rockingham forest.

1439–40, Henry VI. granted to the master of the College of Fotheringay 20 acres of waste in Shortwood, near Southwick in Kingscliff bailliewick for 3s. 4d., with permission to assart. In 1440, the vineyard mentioned in the reign of Henry I. was extant, and worth 4s. per annum; and 1442–3, Sir Robert Ross, one of the king’s carvers (trencheatorum), and much employed in diplomacy, has a grant in tail male of the castle and lordship of Rockingham, and the seneschalship of the forest from Stamford to Oxendon bridges, the supervisorship of the parish of Brigstock, pannage, &c., at £75. 16s. 8d. per annum, which was held by Henry, his son, in 1450. 1445, the tenants of Southwick manor are allowed common of pasture in the forest. 1450, Richard, Duke of York, is constituted justice in eyre of the southern forests, and of Rockingham between the bridges, and of the king’s parks of Cliffe and Brigstoke for life. An entry in the “Inquisitiones ad quod damnum” shows that, between 1448–55, the “men and tenants” of the town of Northampton held the office of king’s escheator. In the long list of crown revenues enumerated in the proceedings of Parliament, 28 Henry VI., 1450, the farms, rents, pasture, and profits of assarts in Rockingham forest are set down at £26. 3s. per annum. In 1454, Henry settled upon Queen Margaret, with much other property, the castle, lordship, manor, and forest of Rockingham, with its assarts, rents, &c., the vill of Brigstoke, and the bailliewicks of Brigstock and Clyffe, &c.

Edward IV. first appears in the forest by a concession in 1462–3 to the tenants of his vills of Nassington and Yarewell of an annual tax called Woodhallmarc exacted by the officers of the forest; he also granted them free common for their beasts in Seveley, and generally in the forest.

1462–3, the king made an ample grant to William, Lord Hastings, and Ralph Hastings, Esq., to be constables of the castle and forests of Rockingham, and bailiffs of Clyve and Brigstoke, &c., for their lives; Lord Hastings also had the manor of Stoke d’Albini. 1467–8, Edward settled the manor upon his queen, Elizabeth Widville, with the castle and forest, for life.

One of the old forest laws forbade those who held woods of their own within the forest boundary from enclosing them after felling the timber, for the protection of the rising wood, for more than three years. The king in Parliament, 1482, 22 Edward IV., extended this time to seven years.

Henry VII., soon after his accession, confirmed to John, Lord Welles, the office of constable and steward of the castle, lordship, and manor, of Rockingham, and of master forester of all the parks within the forest. He seems, however, 4th March, 1498, to have settled the whole upon Elizabeth his queen for life. In the schedule attached to the king’s declaration, pro hospitio Regis, 1485, 1 Henry VII., the revenues of Cliffe, Brigstocke, Geddington, the Forest, Corby, and Gretton, are set down at £208.

Edward VI., 1551–2, granted the manor, as part of the Duchy of Cornwall, to Edward, Lord Clinton. 27th June, 1553, occurs a grant to Lord Robert Dudley and William Glaseour of tenements in Rockingham, and in Eston, co. Leicester, late parcel of the lands of the late William Lord Parr, and late in the occupation of Edward Watson. This was Sir Edward Watson who had the manor of Rockingham, 28 Henry VIII., and was father of Henry Watson, æt. 16, 16 Henry VIII. Probably, however, that was a sub, or mesne-manor, for the castle and manor of Rockingham were in the crown in the reign of Philip and Mary.

In 1570, 21st April, the Earl of Northampton informs Cecil that Edward Watson of Rockingham has been required by the Council to contribute 100 marcs to the loan. Probably this should be 1,000, or £337. 10s., for, he adds that in his opinion not more than £50 should be required of him (“State Papers,” Dom.).

In 1571 Sir Walter Mildmay has a grant of forest land, probably near Apethorpe.

In 1592, the Lord Treasurer Burghley has the keepership of the forest for life, excepting Great and Little Brigstock parks, as the late Lord Chancellor had it. When Lord Burghley died the keeper or wardship was given, 1598, to his son. From this time the grants of bailliewicks, forest walks, lands, and forest offices are very numerous.

In 1601, 23rd December, Elizabeth granted the forest in free socage to be held of the manor of Hampton Court to Edward Watson and William Whitock, for £96. 1s. 4d. What this grant meant is uncertain: not the whole forest, for the keepership of this was granted to Lord Burghley, Sir William Cecil, and Lord Roos, with survivorship.

26th October, 1604, the deer had become scarce, and Lord Burghley was restrained from killing any for three years. In this year an inquisition was directed into the forest lands held by the king’s tenants, the crown interests having evidently been much neglected.

In January, 1605, notice was given that James intended to visit Rockingham, and commissioners sat, probably to check abuses, before whom, 14th June, Sir Thomas Tresham was summoned for his discourses on the misgovernment of the forest under Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, matters which he hoped James would reform.

In 1609 the commissioners were prepared to agree to compositions from the holders of assarted lands, excepting, however, in Clyffe, and probably some other parts of the forest. They were also selling the woods, but as the game had been diminished by unlawful hunting it was ordered that for three years no claims for deer should be allowed save under the sign manual. At that time Sir C. Hatton was keeper of the Launde of Benyfield in the forest.

29th October, 1609, Sir Edward Watson wrote to Lord Salisbury that the king’s tenants in Cotingham and Middleton desired to purchase these lands, and he himself offers to purchase his court leet and view of frankpledge.

2nd June, 1610, John Browne has £170. 0s. 4d. for the repairs of the lodges of Geddington, Morehay, and Gretton woods.

In 1611, 19th September, Sir Lewis Watson, of Rockingham, had licence to travel.

1615, 12th June, Sir Robert Lane was proceeded against by the attorney-general for encroachment on the forest.

1616, Sir Edward Watson, whose effigy is seen in the church, became possessed of the manor of Rockingham. 1619, 20th June, George, Marquis of Buckingham had a grant of Rockingham Park, which, in the same year, he conveyed to Sir Lewis Watson; and 1621, 23rd March, Buckingham, then Lord High Admiral, had a grant of 200 oaks from Westhay walk, to be selected by himself. 1624, 14th May, the Earl of Exeter, then Lord Warden of the forest, mentions the land of Murie as one of the prime walks. The verdurers seem to have been country gentlemen of consideration in the neighbourhood; Sir Thomas Tresham was one. 20th July, Robert Lane, who had been displaced by the Montague interest with the Earl of Exeter, asks Lord Salisbury to replace him as keeper of Geddington woods. In 1625, 23rd March, a warrant is issued for the repairs of the chief lodge in Corby woods, and £16 and 10 tons of timber are allowed.

1628, 29th January, John Lord Mordaunt has the forestership of Farming woods at £10 per annum, with a fine of £1,150, and Edward Lord Montague has that of Geddington at £10, with a fine of £850. Soon after he purchased the timber, and is mentioned as having the revenue of Rockingham bailliewick. Nicholas Pay and others had a grant from Lords Peterborough and Westmoreland of all timber trees in the walks of Morehay, Westhay, and Farming woods for £2,000, and Lord Montague that of Geddington walk for £1,000. He also had a grant of the office of master forester and keeper of Rockingham bailliewick for three lives. These two lords seem to have been in favour with Charles I., and on the death of the Earl of Exeter in 1629 to have managed the forest in their own interests. In 1630–1 Mary, Countess of Westmoreland, seeks to have her son made justice in eyre for the forest, of which it will give her the command. In 1635 Sir Christopher Hatton claims Gretton and Weldon woods in the Forest Court, by grant from Queen Elizabeth, as does Sir W. Tresham Geddington by grant from James I. In this year, 11 Charles I., was held an “eyre” for Rockingham forest. Certain tenants claimed “Suite-Thornes,” by the custom of the manor, in addition to house-bote, hedge-bote, gate-bote, and common of pasture.

In 1637–8, 13 Charles I., a new perambulation was ordered, to settle the bounds, which were finally agreed to as those of 20 James I., and made the subject of an Act of Parliament, 17 Charles I. Deafforestation was allowed on reasonable composition, only the Surveyor General was to set out the bailliewick of Rockingham, Clyffe, and Brigstock, to be retained for the king’s sport. Lord Treasurer Juxon was president of the new commission, which met in London, at London House, in 1638. At that time Henry, Earl of Holland, was justice in eyre, and seems to have had much to do. Richard Lane was his deputy. In 1638 Sir C. Hatton applied for leave to fell a coppice. The verdurers are to certify the acreage to the chief justice, and whether the wood may be felled without injury to the game. The certifyers are Sir Lewis Watson and Charles Cockayn. Thomas Dove, a verdurer, has leave from the chief justice to hawk in moderation. There are great complaints of poaching. In this year, William, Earl of Salisbury, had a release for two fines of £1,400 and £6,000, inflicted by the justice, probably for serious encroachments, and his park at Brigstock, which had been laid open, is to be re-parked. 1638–9, John Norwich of Brampton pays £400 for encroachments, and Brampton is disafforested.

In 1639 the troubles had commenced, and 29th June the manor of Rockingham was confirmed to Sir Lewis Watson, who held the castle for the king. In 1643 the tide of civil war flowed towards Northamptonshire. 5th April, the castle had been besieged and taken, and Lord Grey of Groby was in command for the Parliament. He fortified it strongly with palisades, and therein sheltered his troops and certain of the disaffected clergy. 7th May, the castle contained a strong garrison and was used to preserve the peace of the district. 19th May, Sir Lewis Watson was captured by Colonel Hastings and taken to Stoke Albini. The colonel was active throughout the forest. 5th June, Sir John Norwich was the parliamentary governor of the castle, and had engaged and routed the king’s guards. 9th June, 500 horse appeared before the castle, and a party blockaded it while the rest rode to Weldon. The garrison, however, were too strong, and captured nine or ten of the king’s chief officers who came that way from Oxford. 29th December, Lord Grey proposed to dismiss Colonel Horsman, then in charge of the castle, but the Parliament upheld him.

In 1645 Norwich was in command, and took many prisoners, lodging them in the castle. Sir Lewis probably distinguished himself in the field, for, 1st June, he was created Baron Rockingham of Rockingham Castle. 7th June, the king marched from Harborough to Daventry, and on the 14th the battle of Naseby was fought, whence many prisoners were sent to the castle.

In August, 1660, with the Restoration, Lord Rockingham appears, and, finding a scarcity of deer, begs the usual warrants may be restrained. In 1661, at the coronation, Edward Lord Rockingham, as tenant in capite of Little Weldon, claimed to be keeper of the king’s dogs. This was referred to the king. The manor was held by the service of keeping twenty-four buckhounds and six harriers. With the Civil War the value of the castle as a place of strength ceased, and it became the residence of the Watson family, as it has since remained.

Some years ago the late Mr. Hartshorne drew up an account of the castle, which, with copious notices of its descent, and of its connexion with the forest, was printed in the first volume of the “Transactions” of the Institute. Since then, the Rev. H. J. Bigge, for many years rector of Rockingham, has paid much attention to the subject, and has made collections concerning it, for the use of which the present writer is much indebted.

OLD SARUM, WILTSHIRE.

The Wiltshire Avon, which shares that well-known name with her Somersetshire sister, and rises in part from the same ground,—that “Eastern Avon,” which

————vaunts, and doth upon her take To be the only child of shadeful Savernake,—

is one of the coldest and clearest streams in the south. Whether its source be taken from the high land of the Devizes, or from the skirts of Savernake, it runs about fifty miles to the sea at Christchurch, and, in that distance, itself, or by its immediate tributaries, traverses a tract very rich in sylvan beauty, and crowded with material traces of the old inhabitants of the land, and of their severe struggle in the sixth century with the fiery deluge by which they were at last swept away, but which brought with it those seeds of civilisation which have nowhere grown more abundant fruit than along the banks of this celebrated stream.

Much of the upper course of the Avon lies across Salisbury Plain, where it cleaves that table-land of the chalk by a valley full of sudden but not ungraceful bends and secluded nooks, each bright and rich with vegetation, and in almost every bend a village and its church, there being twenty of the latter in the same number of miles between the entrance of the Avon into the chalk at Beaching-Stoke and the expansion of its ravine at Salisbury. The lower valley is broad and flat, and the waters flow freely in many inosculating channels. The lowlands are laid out as rich water meadows, the uplands studded with masses of oak, elm, and beech, the skirts of the adjacent New Forest. Nothing can be more wild, more natural, nor yet more indebted to the labour and taste of man.

For antiquities, every part of the broad plain of the chalk is dotted over with marks of human habitation, warfare, or sepulture. Almost every headland is crowned by a camp recognised as British by its outline following the irregularities of the ground. Upon its northern frontier may be seen Easton and Pewsey, Lidbury, Sidbury, Chisenbury, Casterley, Broadbury, and Bratton; and, on the southern, Durrington, Amesbury, Quarley, Ogbury, Winterbourne, Grovely, Belbury, and Old Sarum, a few only, though the most considerable, of the defensive earthworks. Lower down the valley and nearer to the sea, the ground is rather less strong, and the earthworks of the British age perhaps less numerous, but there are not wanting examples of large area and great strength, such as Clearbury, Whichbury, Chiselbury, Tisbury, Winkelbury, and, still further south, Dudsbury, Badbury, and Spettisbury, which remain but little altered. Stonehenge, the grandest of British antiquities, and probably the only one in this immediate district neither military nor sepulchral, stands on the right bank of the Avon, scarce a mile from its waters, and only six from the fortress of Old Sarum.

The Roman remains of the district are considerable, and characteristic of the people. They consist almost wholly of roads. Old Sarum, though certainly of British origin, is the centre of several great roads, which radiated from it towards the Roman settlements at Bath, Marlborough, Winchester, Silchester, Ilchester, and Dorchester, and upon these and between them are various works of the same people, though their camps, being rarely defended by formidable works in earth, and being usually on low and accessible ground, have very frequently disappeared before the ploughshare.

The English, the scourge of the later Britons, and their successors by the right of many a hard-won contest in the Wiltshire territory, notwithstanding their pagan ferocity, have left traces which speak but of law and order. Their dragon’s teeth have grown up, not, as might have been expected, in armed men, but in waving cornfields, enclosed pastures, parochial boundaries, and those various subdivisions of the land the very existence of which implies peace and private property. To these later invaders may be attributed such earthworks as Downton, the Devizes, and Ludgershal, and such ecclesiastical foundations as Wimborne and Christchurch. The Norman remains in and about the valley of the Avon differ in no material respect from those in other parts of England, being grafted, where circumstances admitted of it, upon the existing works. Thus the grand earthworks at the Devizes, at Marlborough, at Ludgershal, at Twynham, all probably of English origin, were crowned with keeps of masonry, as was the central mound at Old Sarum, and on the borders of the district the very curious work at Wareham, and the natural, but early occupied hill, at Corfe.

Old Sarum is a very noteworthy place; in some respects the most noteworthy in Britain. Selected at some remote period and fortified with appliances of a simple character, it is the principal stronghold of a district very rich in military earthworks, and which at one time was the resort of inhabitants whose huts and wigwams, and the monuments of their superstition, covered the adjacent downs, and whose sepulchral monuments, ascending to the stone age, point, by their contents, to an early, and, by their number, to a long-continued population. The earlier and later Britons, Celtic or Belgic tribes, the Romans, and the English, have each here left traces of their rule; the Celt, partly in the fragments of an ancient nomenclature, but chiefly in mere material works, curious, indeed, and grand, but which are in no way connected with the later inhabitants of the country; the Romans, in those marvellous public ways, many of which are still in use; and the English in those names, boundaries, and customs, which are associated with our religion and our civilisation.

Nevertheless, the mound of Old Sarum is a spot on which the descendant of the Welsh-speaking Britons has a right to feel pride. All around it savours of the remote antiquity of his race. The Norman fortress, the city, the cathedral church, have all vanished; their very ruins have perished, and the knowledge of their arrangements has only been recovered by the accident of a rainless summer. Even the traces of Roman and English residence within the vast enclosure are uncertain and obscure. The seats of spiritual and civil authority were removed in the thirteenth century, and the military sway did not long survive. Political power, indeed, by a strange anomaly, lingered there until our own day, and is redeemed from oblivion only by its accidental connection with the name of the elder Pitt. But this also has departed. The bare and gaunt banks and mounds, the skeleton of the past life, are all that is left, and here, as at Stonehenge, the memory of the Briton is once more predominant.

Old Sarum is a rudely circular and concentric earthwork, of unusual height and area, and of more historic celebrity than is attached to any other mere bank of earth in Britain, however stupendous. Moreover, though really as much a natural knoll of chalk as Windsor, its sharp outline and obviously artificial finish invest it, to the ordinary observer, with the character of a work of man, and thus prodigiously enhance the admiration with which it is wont to be regarded. Old Sarum is really a knoll of the lower and flint-bearing chalk series, of which advantage has been taken to scarp and elevate the highest and central part into a steep flat-topped mound, round which is excavated a formidable ditch, very broad and very deep. Beyond the ditch is a broad and comparatively level annular area, sloping slightly from the centre, and in its turn girdled by a second and still more formidable ditch. Of this the counterscarp is a steep bank, outside of and beyond which is the natural slope of the base of the hill, forming what, in military phrase, would be the glacis of the place, and which, on three sides, descends into the ordinary valleys of the district, but to the west is continued downwards until it dies into the meads of Stratford, rendered bright and well wooded by the fertilising waters of the Avon. The whole height of the knoll above the river may be 300 feet, and perhaps 200 feet above the other valleys, and the fortified area is above 27 acres, so that the fortress is one of great strength and magnitude.

Commencing with the interior, the central mound is, at its top, about 500 feet across. The sides are as steep as the rubbly chalk soil will well admit of, and the material removed in scarping seems to have been, in part, placed on the crest of the scarp so as to raise the edge of the mound by an artificial bank, about 20 feet above the central platform. This bank or parapet, now crowned with thorn-bushes, is about 100 feet above the bottom of the ditch, and about half that height above the level of the counterscarp. The ditch is about, at its broadest, 150 feet. This ditch was the inner fosse of the fortress, and surrounded its keep or inner ward, or the castle proper.

The annular space beyond formed the outer ward, the girth of which was about 1500 yards, and within which were the city and the cathedral. This ward is not quite circular, but, measuring from the inner to the outer ditch, averages about 370 feet. It is parted nearly equally on the north side by a bank, and on the south by a bank and ditch, the former being on the eastern side. These run as radial lines, but do not reach the interior ditch, neither does the cross ditch communicate with the exterior one. In fact, the cross ditch, in its breadth, depth, and irregularity, much resembles a quarry, and very probably was opened to supply material for the hearting or substance of the castle walls. Besides these is another bank, pointing to the south-east, so that the whole area is divided into three sections, of which two lie in the eastern half. Of course, the object of these banks was to shut in the church, and to prevent the whole outer ward being taken by a coup-de-main. They are all evidently additions to the circular works, and probably of the Norman period. With these exceptions the surface of this ward is nearly level, but round its outer edge runs a low bank, and in places, in its rear, a slight ditch, no doubt caused by the removal of the wall.

Outside this ward is the outer ditch, about 106 feet deep from the crest and about 150 feet broad. The bank, which forms the outer edge of this ditch, was evidently formed from its contents. It is about 40 feet above the bottom of the ditch, and about 15 feet above the level outside, and it is very steep. This forms the outer line of defence, and in modern warfare would be considered a weakness, as affording cover to the assailants. Thus the fortress is composed of an inner or castle ward, and an outer or city ward, with a bank and ditch defending each, and a third bank beyond and on the edge of the outer ditch. The outer ditch and bank are those attributed to Alfred. The diameter of the whole place is a mean of 1,700 feet. These defences are much stronger than those of the adjacent camps; Barnbury and Amesbury banks, for example, are about half their strength. The earthwork most worthy to be compared with Old Sarum is Badbury, in Dorset.

There are two entrances into the outer ward from the E.S.E. and W.N.W., nearly opposite. These are formed by a direct cross-cut through the outer bank, and the filling up the ditch so as to carry a roadway, which enters the outer ward in a cutting, as a hollow way. At the eastern or main entrance this way is shallow, and speedily dies out, but at the western, called the Postern entrance, though narrow, the roadway is much deeper, and runs far into the ward. In each case the way forks at the outer bank, and in the angle is placed a barbican of earth, a sort of cavalier, commanding both branches of the road as well as their combination. The eastern work is nearly rectangular, sharply defined, and has an independent ditch of its own towards the field. It is, probably, in its present form, Norman. The original entrances seem to have been here, but the present arrangement is evidently later, and possibly altogether Norman.

The inner ward has but one, an eastern entrance, opposite to that of the outer ward. This also is formed by a notch cut in the scarp, the ditch being filled up to carry a footway. This must always have been very steep. It was evidently always the entrance, the bank elsewhere being uncut. Fragments of masonry show it, in its present form, a bridge being substituted for the causeway, to have been the entrance to the Norman castle.

Besides these earthworks are certain remains of masonry, parts evidently of very extensive and solid works, due to the Norman period.

At the entrance to the inner ward, on the scarp, are two masses of chalk-flint rubble, with occasional blocks or lumps of sarsden stone, evidently the core of a gatehouse and contiguous curtain once faced with ashlar. The enceinte wall seems to have crested the mound all round, the present bank forming a ramp behind it. In the enclosure, on the north side, are lines of foundation, obviously those of the principal buildings, and opposite is a bold depression in the soil, no doubt marking the place of the well, which must have been deep, and was possibly large. The filling up of the ditch at the entrance is clearly modern. This central mound may be original, but it is rather more probable that the British work resembled Badbury, which has no central citadel, and that this latter was added, and the ditch excavated in the eighth or ninth century, to make a fortified residence for the English lord. This, however, must always be a mere speculation. By whomsoever made, the Normans found the mound here, and built upon it a shell, of which the ditch was the defence, and the interior bank the ramp. If the whole area be regarded as a castle, this was the keep, but if, as is more probable, the outer area represented the city, then the interior would be the castle, which in that case must be held to have had no keep. It is a question of names only.

The other lump of masonry is on the line of the wall of the city ward, towards the north-east. This is part of the curtain wall of the city, about 10 feet thick and 12 feet high, and 25 feet long. It is pierced by two holes, 18 inches high by 12 inches broad, placed about 6 feet apart and 8 feet from the ground. They seem to have carried two beams, for what purpose it is vain to conjecture. The fragment is of chalk-flint rubble, with occasional chain courses of sarsden stone rudely dressed. The inner face of the wall retains its original facing of dressed sarsden ashlar. Though placed, as indeed, with such a weight, was prudent, 3 feet or 4 feet within the edge of the ditch, it was evidently a part of the general enceinte wall, described as having been 12 feet thick, and strengthened with twelve towers. This could not have been less than 20 feet high, and about 1,566 yards long, a prodigious work, even without considering the radial walls dividing the city from the cathedral. Unfortunately, these walls have all been removed down to and in most places somewhat below the level of the soil, the materials having been needed for the new city.

Besides these works, there was discovered, in 1795, a curious subterranean passage, which passed from the north-west quarter of the outer ward, outwards, towards the eastern ditch. It was cut in the chalk 7 feet broad and from 7 feet to 10 feet high, bearing marks of the tool. The entrance had columns and door-jambs, evidently Norman; and the roof was round-headed, probably artificial, as it is described as being only about 2 feet below the surface. There were steps cut in the chalk, and but little worn. It was followed 114 feet, and there found to be choked up with rubbish. It was closed by the farmer whose land was trespassed upon, and is probably still intact. No doubt this was a private postern, opening on the glacis or in the ditch, such as exist at Windsor and in other fortresses on the chalk, and of a more complicated character at Dover and Arques. They are all probably of Norman date.

It may be observed, with respect to the outer defences which have been attributed to Alfred, that they have the peculiarity of a high bank outside the ditch, very unusual in Celtic camps. Probably all Alfred did was to deepen this ditch, and throw up the outer bank; and probably also all the ditches were again scarped and deepened when the Norman city wall was built.

During the long drought of 1834 a very interesting discovery was here made. The outer ward was at that time laid down in turf, and upon this was seen in brown outline the plan of the old cathedral. It was placed in the north-west quarter between the secret passage and the west gate. The plan was a plain cross, 270 feet long by 150 feet broad, with a flat east end; and the chapter-house was formed by an additional bay at the north end of the north transept. There were double aisles to nave, choir, and transepts. On removing the soil the foundations were seen, and in them a cavity, probably the grave of Bishop Osmund, the founder. On the north side of the choir was a square of 140 feet, the site of the cloisters. Here were found also burial-grounds for clergy and laity.

It is certain that the greater part of these earthworks are of pre-Roman origin, and that Sorbiodunum is the Latinised form of the British name,—“dun,” or “dunum,” denoting an eminence; the figure, which, like Badbury, has been called a regular circle, scarcely deserves that name, the regularity, such as it is, being evidently caused by the natural outline of the hill; nor are the banks and ditches in either work laid down according to any rules of castrametation. The district is crowded with works, many of which are certainly pre-Roman, and of the places around a few, such as Wilton, Durrington, Verwood, Amesbury, and the Avon, retain a British element in their names. Most of these being constructed upon hills of irregular outline are themselves very irregular, so that, by comparison, Old Sarum and Badbury appear as regular circles. The fact is, that all follow the contour of the ground.

That the fortress on this spot was held by the Romans, and is the Sorbiodunum of Antoninus, is very probable indeed. It has been described as the centre of six Roman roads, radiating towards Dorchester, Ilchester, Silchester, Winchester, Cunetio by Marlborough, and Aquæ Solis or Bath. Of these the two from Winchester and Silchester have been traced up to the east gate of the fortress; and as much may perhaps be said for that from Cunetio. Dr. Guest, however, lays down but four roads—to Winchester, to Silchester, a western road to the Severn traversing the great ridge wood, and that called Achling Ditch, which leads direct to Badbury rings near Wimborne. Even this restricted view shows Sorbiodunum to have been an important Roman station, and there are not wanting in its neighbourhood earthworks, such as Rollestone and Bury Hill, of a rectangular plan, although, being on low ground and but slight, they are not all shown in the Ordnance Survey of 1817 as they would be in a map of the present day. The Romans trusted rather to discipline and palisades than to heavy earthworks: hence their traces are but slight, and are often overlooked, and disappear before the plough. It is, however, very curious that, notwithstanding all these indications of Roman sway, there should be so very few remains of Roman habitation. Nothing whatever has been found within the fortress, and but very little in its suburbs.

What the Belgæ did with Sorbiodunum, during the century and a half of their occupation, is unknown. This period of the history of our island is obscure, and yet to it has been attributed by Mr. Fergusson the adjacent monument of Stonehenge; the work, at least in its present form, of a people accustomed to the use of tools of metal, and with some notion of construction and of architectural effect.

Sorbiodunum, recorded as Seoresbyrig, or Searbyrig, which Sir R. Hoare rather happily suggests may mean “the dry,” or “waterless city,” played a part in the Belgic and Saxon struggles. In 552 Cynric, King of Wessex, no inconsiderable leader of the “aspera gens Saxo,” here conquered the Britons and probably established himself on their territory. Ine A.D. 688–725, gave certain lands to the church of St. James in Salisbury, as did Æthelburh, his queen, to that of St. Mary. According to a statement in “Ancient Wilts,” Alfred directed Leofric, Earl of Wilts, to add to the fortress a ditch to be defended with palisades, at which all who lived within the castle, and those outside, were to give aid. In 960 Ædgar held a Council here to devise means for keeping off the Danes: a not uncalled-for step, since in 1003 Swein, after burning and plundering Wilton, committed like ravages at Seoresbyrig in his way thence to his ships. Finally, the place seems to have become a royal demesne of the Confessor, being so recorded in Domesday. Sir R. Hoare also cites a coin of that king, claiming to have been struck by Godred at Sarum.

The Norman history of Old Sarum is an occupation of the older fortress, and the foundation of the early city. The invaders disturbed as little as possible the existing tenures and boundaries; they placed themselves in the English seats of property, and from them administered the old estates. The defences alone were changed. To walls of wattle or rude masonry and stockades of timber succeeded works in substantial masonry, and all the newly-invented appliances of a Norman fortress. At the time of Domesday the Conqueror held some rents here; but the manor, a large one, was in the bishop, a very important person. To the five sees created in the West Saxon kingdom, A.D. 905–9, a sixth, that of Wilton or Wiltshire, was shortly afterwards added, the episcopal seat of which was at Ramsbury. After an ineffectual attempt in 1055 to remove this to Malmsbury, Bishop Herman, the Lotharingian, in 1075–8, with the consent of the king, combined Ramsbury with Sherborne, and translated the seat to Sarum. Here, in the outer ward, Herman in 1078 laid the foundation of the cathedral, which was completed or nearly so by his successor, Osmund de Seez, Earl of Dorset and Lord Chancellor, who being a wealthy baron in England and Normandy, endowed it richly by charter in 1091, the year before its consecration. Part of the land is described as “ante portam castelli seriberiensis terram ex utraque parte viæ in ortorum domorumque canonicorum necessitate.” The gate referred to is of the inner ward, the canons’ houses having been on the outer. There was thus a castle twenty-five years after the Conquest; but whether it was a Norman structure or that left by the English is uncertain, probably something of both. Here also Bishop Osmund arranged the celebrated ordinary for “the use” of Sarum. Roger, his successor, Justiciary of England and Treasurer, is said to have walled in the outer enclosure between 1102 and 1139.

Concurrently with the cathedral, and probably by the Bishop, was constructed the Norman castle. William was here in 1086 in person, and at Lammastide met his Witan in the celebrated gemote which has been described in glowing terms by the great master of topographical history. Here in the vast open plain about the fortress assembled a host reputed at 60,000 men, composed of “all the landowners who were of account over all England, be they the men of what man they might, and they all submitted to him, and were his men, and swore to him oaths of fealty, that they would be faithful to him against all other men”; an oath by which the great king broke down the intermediate power of the nobles, and with that sagacity which in him was intuitive avoided the rock on which the two great monarchies of the Continent were destined to make shipwreck.

We may suppose that during this meeting William dwelt on the central mound, where no doubt the walls of the castle within rose at an equal rate with those of the cathedral without. But whether he was harboured in the unaltered English residence or in the rising Norman fortress, whether the host was Edward de Sarisburie, the Sheriff of Wilts and a great man in that county, and ancestor of the Earls of Salisbury, or whether Bishop Osmund acted as the castellan, here William was present, and here he transacted his first and most important business, face to face with his new subjects.

William Rufus was here in 1096 to meet his Council, and decide upon the celebrated wager of battle in which William, Earl of Eu, was worsted and tortured to death. Henry I. was here in 1106 and 1116, when his nobles swore to recognise Prince William as his successor. The Pipe-roll of this reign, 1130–1, records a charge of 20s. “in ostio faciendo ad cellarium turris Sarum,” so that the place was then in the king’s hands.

Bishop Roger, who held the see from 1102 to 1139, and crowned the mighty mound of the Devizes and the strong knoll of Sherborne with their celebrated works in masonry, is likely enough to have completed the inner shell above as well as the city wall below. He is further said to have walled in the borough and extra-parochial district outside the city, covering, with it, above 72 acres. He at first supported Stephen, but had to surrender the castle, which was taken and retaken, and finally much injured. Maud created Patrick, son of Edward de Sarisburie, Earl of Salisbury, and probably invested him with the government of the castle. He died 1167. In 1154, when the castle was held by Henry II., it was in ruins. Henry, in the early years of his reign, authorised payment (as appears in the Pipe-roll) for the constable, porters, and watchmen of the castle, and for buildings at the prison; and in 23 Henry II. £61 was spent in repairs there. In 1164–5, when the Liber Niger of the Exchequer was compiled, the bishop was lord of the manor, and under him were thirty-three knights under the old feoffment, and three under the new. Earl Patrick held two knights’ fees, and a third by the tenure of guarding the castle.

So long as the bishops held the castle, either independently or for the Crown, the position of the cathedral was sufficiently secure, but when lay castellans took their place, and were men powerful enough to ill-treat their neighbours, the clergy began to suffer, and to make the most of the natural disadvantages of so high and exposed a situation. They suffered “ob insolentiam militis et ob penuriam aquæ.” Peter of Blois, himself a canon, says, “Est ibi defectus aquæ.” The wind was high, water was dear, and the soldiery held the gates even of the city ward, and went so far as to threaten the buildings from their ramparts above, and even to shut out the ecclesiastics when returning in procession to their homes. The church was “castro comitis vicina,” and the vicinity was unpleasant.

Under Bishop Herbert le Poer, who succeeded in 1194, these disputes reached their height, and he decided to remove the cathedral to a spot of ground near the confluence of the Wily and the Nadder with the Avon, rather above a mile distant. Merefield, a marshy spot but with an excellent foundation, was granted by Richard I. for the site of the new church. Bishop Herbert died in 1219, but his successor and natural (germanus) brother, Richard le Poer, obtained from Honorius III. the bull necessary for the translation, in which the causes for it are set forth. They are the dangerous position, as regarded the castle, of the houses of the clergy; the exposure, the wind being at times so high that the clergy could not hear one another’s voices in the choir, and which produced continual need for repairs; and finally the scarcity of water, only to be obtained at a great cost and with the castellan’s leave. This latter objection may have been exaggerated, for, besides the well in the castle, there were, says Leland, four wells in the outer ward, and at this time there are two not very deep wells in gardens not very much below the cathedral level. No doubt, however, the removal was called for:

Quid domini domus in castro, nisi fœderis arca In templa Baalim? Carcer uterque locus. Est ibi defectus aquæ, sed copia cretæ, Sævit ibi ventus, sed philomela silet.

Early in 1219 the new cathedral was founded. It was forty years building, and was consecrated in 1258.

Rex largitur opes, fere præsul opem, lapicidæ Dant operam; tribus hic est opus, at stet opus.

And finally Henry III. in 1227, confirmed the “translatio de castro nostro Saerisberiæ ad locum inferiorem,” and declared the city “quæ dicitur nova Sarisbiria, sit libera civitas.” The city had thus followed in the train of the cathedral. The taxation accounts of the reigns of Richard and John show it to have been but moderately populous, but it probably took some time to remove, for it was 44 Henry III., 1260, before the new city was granted by the king to the bishop “in capite,” as parcel of the temporalities of the see, the citizens being the demesne men of the bishop.

All parties gained greatly by the change. The new church was constructed at one period, and in a very pure style, and has ever since been regarded as the pride of the Western counties. The citizens exchanged an arid and stormy position for one sheltered and fertile, watered by the confluence of three streams, and shaded by forest trees of uncommon grandeur. The lords of the castle had no longer a cause for their perpetual disputes with the clergy and the burghers, and held their watch and ward undisturbed by chants and processions. Circumstances, however, rendered the castle, as a military post, of less importance than heretofore, and, though the powerful earls who bore its title were even more distinguished than their predecessors, their distinction was but little associated with their castle, which fell gradually into disuse. The Montacutes, indeed, continued to possess it, but the Nevills concentrated their power on the Midland and Northern counties, and Warwick, Raby, and Middleham were to them what Sarum had been to their precursors in the title. Finally, when arms yielded to the gown, and the great minister of the great Queen chose, under her successor, Salisbury for his title of honour, he had more regard to the thriving city, or to the greatness attached to the name, than to the ruined fortress, of which he was not even the possessor.

Considering the importance of the castle, and the power of those who bore its name, it is surprising that so little should be known of its history. Mr. Nichols, in an excellent paper printed in the volume of the Archæological Institute for Salisbury in 1851, enters upon the history of the earldom, and shows that, beginning with the Conqueror’s sheriff, who must have taken his name from the place, there was a second Edward de Salisbury, whose successor was Walter, a baron under King Stephen, the father of Patrick, the first earl, whose son, William, the second earl, was father of the celebrated Countess Ela. All these lords seem to have held the castle under the Crown, themselves appointing castellans.

Ela, the heiress of William of Salisbury, the second earl, laid the fifth stone of the new cathedral. She married William with the Long Sword, son of Henry II., who became earl in her right, and held the castle. He was much abroad, and the castellan, his deputy, resided. This officer, in King John’s time, was Robert de Vipont, and Irish prisoners were kept here. In 1208 the Sheriff of Wilts was to repair the bridge, the ditch, and the houses in the castle. In 1266 the king addressed the earl as his brother on matters relating to the castle; and in the reigns of Richard and John occasional payments were made for repairs, and for the sustenance of the soldiery there. The king’s houses in the castle are mentioned, and wine stored there is issued to Gloucester and Bristol, treasure was sent thence to Southampton, and plate to Westminster for the coronation. King John had a balistarius in pay there at 9d. a day, 100 hogs were supplied to Vipont, and in 3 John the earl gave thirty marcs to have the county, town, and custody of the castle; and Walter, the son of Albreda, gave 76s. 8d. for the charge of the prison. The earl (William) was then sheriff, and was allowed for £29. 6s. 8d. spent by the king’s order in work at the castle.

Earl William died in the castle in 1226, when Ela, his widow, had custody of it. Her son and grandson seem to have claimed, but never to have obtained, the earldom, though, when the latter died in 1256, his daughter Margaret, who married Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was known as Countess of Salisbury, probably on the death of Countess Ela in 1261. In 39 Henry III., 1254, an Inquisition declares that no fiefs are held by castle guard of the castle; and, in 52 Henry III., the bridge within the castle was under repair, and that and the gate were reparable by the Abbess of Shaftesbury. In 3 Edward I., the castle and manor were in the Crown, and two years later mention is made of the mill near the castle, no doubt the same that is entered in Domesday, and still remains at Stratford.

In 5 Edward III., 1332, the king granted licence to the bishop, dean, and chapter of Sarum to remove the walls of the cathedral and canonical houses within his castle of Old Sarum, and to employ them in the repairs of the church and close of New Sarum. No doubt, under this licence the whole material was removed down to the ground level or even below it, and probably the licence was held to include the outer wall also. At the same time, the bishop, &c., had leave to rebuild a certain chantry on a part of the old cathedral, and to use it.

In 1337 Edward’s son-in-law, William Montacute, was created Earl of Salisbury, and 15 Edward III., 1341–2, an Inquisition was taken as to whether the earls were seized in demesne as in fee of the castle and vill of Old Sarum, and how they lost it. Probably this was connected with a suit brought by Bishop Wyvil against the earl on a writ of right as to his title to the castle. In this Inquisition we find the seizure of the castle, &c., by King Henry III. from Earl William, the son of the Countess Ela, thus described: “Et Juratores dicunt quod tempore ipsius Willielmi junioris, propter diversas discenciones motas inter Henricum Regem Anglie tercium proavum domini Regis nunc et predictum Willielmum juniorem, maxime pro eo quod idem Willielmus contra defensionem dicti Regis Henrici exivit regnum Anglie licencia Domini Regis non optenta, Dominus Rex Henricus seisire fecit in manum suam dicta castra villam et officium et ea in manum suam retinuit.” The matter was at first to have been tried by battle, and each party named a champion; but finally it was settled by a compromise, the bishop paying 2,500 marcs, and the earl quitting the castle to the see for ever. This probably severed the connection between the earls and the earldom in the feudal sense.

When the castle proper was dismantled has not been discovered. The views occasionally exhibited of it seem taken from the representation of Sherborne upon Bishop Wyvil’s brass in the cathedral. In Leland’s time the ruins were considerable; there was a lady chapel, part of the old cathedral, the parish church of Holy Rood, and the remains of a chapel over the east gate. Also in the east suburb, outside the gate, stood a chapel, the remains of the parish church of St. John, and dotted about were a sufficient number of wells of sweet water to throw a doubt upon the validity of a part of the alleged grievance of the ecclesiastics. Probably, as the new city expanded, the value of the old material rose, and the destruction went forward with accelerated speed. It seems probable that, with a very little labour, the foundations of the inner ward could be cleared, and the well opened. It is also much to be regretted that the outer ward should be under the plough. The loss upon laying it down in turf would be trifling, and it is not too late to preserve the remaining inequalities of the surface.

SCARBOROUGH CASTLE.

On the north-eastern shore of England, where the cliffs of Yorkshire rear a bold though broken front towards the German Ocean, there is seen, midway between the Tees and the Humber, or, more nearly, between Whitby and Flamborough Head, a tall and rugged and almost isolated headland of rock, which, from times beyond the records of history, has borne the appropriate name of Scarborough. The scaur or rugged cliff, the tall summit of which forms the natural burgh or strong place, rises precipitately about 300 feet from the sea beach, and has on its northern side the small bay of which Scalby-ness forms the opposite horn, and to its south the deeper and more spacious inlet, on the strand of which, under the protection of the scaur, is nestled the ancient seaport town of Scarborough.

At no period when life and limb were valued and endangered could the advantages of Scarborough as a place of dwelling or of refuge have been overlooked. What art has executed at Flamborough, Nature, with a bolder hand, has here provided. The bay gave facilities for fishing or for pursuits connected with the sea, and the half-isolated cliff afforded security from attack from any quarter. And yet there is no evidence that Scarborough was regularly inhabited by either the original Brigantes or their Roman invaders. The adjacent wolds are scarred with traces of early contests, but are of too cold and too barren a character to have supported any considerable population, or indeed any population save a few shepherds. The vale of the Derwent, now rich and fertile, was, in Roman times, a chain of impassable swamps and morasses, flanked with dense and equally impenetrable forests. Neither Holderness nor the south of Cleveland contain many Roman remains, nor does there appear to have been any regular settlement by that people between Delgovitia and Derventio (Millington and Stamford Bridge or New Malton) and the eastern coast.

The tract between the Humber and the Whitby Esk was invaded in the sixth century by a tribe of the Engles, who from invaders became settlers, and, as was the manner of the Teutonic tribes, finally consolidated themselves into a kingdom, the nucleus of the well-known Deira. That they inhabited the coasts of Holderness and Cleveland, the edges and valleys of the Wolds and of Pickering and the adjacent plain of York, is a matter of history, and is shown by the names of their settlements and the existing peculiarities of the speech of the people, their descendants, and by the very marked Burh of Skipsea, which has survived all its subsequent additions; but the rock of Scarborough, though as strong and almost as grand a natural feature as Bamborough, is not on record as a Deiran fortress, still less as a regal seat, nor does it exhibit, nor indeed did it need, any of those remarkable and well-defined earthworks which indicate the later Saxon residences. Its first appearance in history, though late, is creditable. When, early in 1066, Harold Hardrada and his traitor ally Tostig wasted and pillaged the earldom of Morkere, the men of Scarborough met the invaders in arms, and made a brave, though fruitless, resistance.

Scarborough is not named in Domesday, though the soke of Walesgriff, or Falsgrave, of which it seems to have formed a part, is therein recorded, and then belonged to William de Perci, the lord of eighty-six Yorkshire lordships, and the ancestor of that Agnes whose Louvaine descendants assumed her family name. Percy, however, did not long retain this manor, for Eudo of Champagne, kinsman, and by marriage nephew to the conqueror, on the departure of Drogo le Brevere, the reputed founder of the Norman works at Skipsea Castle, received from William the land of Holderness, and with it, probably, the adjacent manor of Falsgrave. Their son, Stephen, besides his paternal heritage of Holderness, held maternally the Norman territory of Aumarle, or Albemarle, from whence his mother Adeliza was styled “Comitissa de Albamarla,” and Stephen, who died in 1127, bore the same title.

His son, William, the second earl, lord of Holderness and founder of the Abbey of Meaux, took a very active part in English affairs, and was in his time the most powerful baron in the north. He commanded at the battle of the Standard in 1138, and received from King Stephen what Dugdale calls the earldom of Yorkshire. He died in 1179, having been a liberal benefactor to many Yorkshire religious houses, and according to William of Newburgh, who wrote in about 1190, the builder of Scarborough Castle. If this be so, it must have been when William came into the earldom, that is, soon after 1127, for on the accession of Henry II., in 1154, Scarborough was one of the castles selected for demolition, and upon the earl’s resistance, Henry himself, after a severe struggle, took possession of it, and, becoming acquainted with the value of its position, instead of destroying, attached it to the Crown. Taking all this into consideration, and having regard to the material evidence afforded by the remains of the keep and the older parts of the curtain, the most probable conclusion is that Earl William’s fortress was of a temporary character, and the keep (arx magna et præclara) and the older parts of the existing masonry are the work of King Henry at a later period.

In the Pipe-roll of 4 Henry II. the sheriff of Yorkshire is allowed £4 for works on the castle of Scardeburc, and subsequently Henry granted or confirmed a charter of incorporation to the town, for the farm of which, 30 Henry II., an account was rendered by the sheriff. The town continued to thrive, and from time to time contributed to the “dona ad auxilium,” to talliage and scutage. King John paid four visits to the castle in 1201, 1210, 1213, and 1216, remaining there altogether about nine days. In 1202 and 1204 John de Builly was the constable, and then and in 1213 military prisoners were kept there. In 1208 Builly was superseded by Robert de Vaux, and he again in 1215 by Geoffrey de Neville, the King’s Chamberlain, at which time sixty “servientes” and ten “balistarii” seem to have constituted the garrison. That John kept the castle in repair appears from frequent allowances for works. Wine also was sent there from Portsmouth, and lead for covering a tower. Payments occur for “servientes,” “balistarii” and others employed in the castle. During John’s reign it appears that at one time William de Duston was in charge, and had orders to receive William, Earl of Albemarle, and his companions into the castle. This was William de Fortibus, a Magna Charta baron, and Earl of Albemarle, in right of his mother, Hawise, the daughter and heiress of Earl William le Gros. Probably he took advantage of John’s difficulties to revive a claim to the castle, which, however, he does not seem to have been able to enforce. In 1215 Neville was again in office, and had an order for 100 marcs, “ad opus—ad castrum nostrum de Scardeburg’ muniendum.” John de Neville, son of Geoffrey, took charge of the castle under Henry III. in 1225, and the fortress seems to have been kept in repair all through that reign. In 1252 Henry granted to the town a permission for the construction of a new pier.

The strong, and, on the whole, just government of Edward I. led to the neglect of such of the castles of the kingdom as were not necessary for the defence of a menaced frontier, and among them of Scarborough, but under his son they became again of importance, and Scarborough reappears in the public records. Edward II. was here in 1312, and left the castle in charge of Gaveston while he proceeded to York. It was attacked and taken by the Earl of Pembroke, not by assault, but by starvation. In 1318 the town was burned by the Scots, but they do not appear to have been able to take the castle. Sixty years later the town was threatened by sea by a Scottish adventurer, who, however, failed to take it, and was subsequently made prisoner. For the next three centuries Scarborough Castle was left to fall into decay, or only so far repaired as to be employed occasionally as a prison. In 1536, the year of the Pilgrimage of Grace, Aske, who was a native of Aughton on the Derwent, led his ill-disciplined followers against it, but without success. A little later, in 1553, during Wyatt’s rebellion, it was taken, probably by surprise, by the Earl of Stafford, but held for three days only.

In the contest between Charles and the Parliament in the seventeenth century, Scarborough, with many other Yorkshire castles, more or less ruinous, was held for the king, and in July, 1645, the Parliamentary forces laid siege to it in form. A battery was posted upon the roof of the chancel of the ancient parish church, about 170 yards from the outer gate of the castle, and a second to the north of it, upon the edge of the cliff in front of the barbican. The castle was taken and held for a short time, and in 1648, being again held for the king, it was a second time attacked and taken, and shortly afterwards a mine was sprung in the ground floor of the keep, laying open its eastern side. Probably the forebuilding covering the entrance to the keep was destroyed at the same time.

The town of Scarborough was walled from an early period. Leland speaks of banks and ditches, and fragments of the walls, and mentions its two gates, Newburgh and Aldburgh, or Anborough, one of which remains. The town ditch extended from the castle barbican along the high ground southwards, and upon it, 550 yards from the barbican, was the Anborough gate. The town contained three friaries and one parish church, dedicated to the Virgin, and belonging to the Cistertians. It is a large building near the castle, of which the chancel, or lady chapel, has remained in ruins ever since the first Parliamentary siege. The platform occupied by the castle is extra parochial, usually an ecclesiastical, not a military privilege.

THE CASTLE.

The platform, to which the keep forms the key of the approach, is in plan a rhomboid, in length from north to south 600 yards, and from east to west 300 yards, covering about 19 acres, and its table summit ranges from 300 feet to 336 feet above the sea level. The two eastern or seaward faces, measuring together about 700 yards in length, rise abruptly from the sea beach, and are absolutely impregnable. The north-western face, 300 yards in length, and looking towards the north bay and sands, is lower, but still precipitous. The south-western face, also 300 yards in length, looks towards the town. Though not precipitous it is very steep, and at its base a broad ravine, known as the castle moat, intervenes between the castle and the town. A chapel and a burial-ground formerly occupied the seaward salient of the cliff, and behind these was Our Lady’s Well, the spring supplying which was reputed inexhaustible. The lowest and the only weak point in the platform was the landward or western angle, and here was posted the keep, from which northwards and southwards along the crest of the contiguous faces a curtain-wall was extended. Northwards, this wall was in length about 70 yards, ceasing as the cliff rose in height, and rendering artificial defence unnecessary. Southwards, the wall, from 20 feet to 25 feet in height, was carried all along the south-western front, and was strengthened, either originally or at an early period, by ten or twelve half-round turrets of various sizes. The six smaller were solid, like those of Coningsborough and Knaresborough; the larger, from 25 feet to 30 feet diameter, were hollow. These towers were parts of circles in plan, and have been much mutilated. They were probably cut down and filled with earth during the siege of 1640, when a swivel-gun seems to have been mounted en barbette on each. At present they are open at the gorge, and no higher than the contiguous curtain. Three loops may still be traced at their basement level, and two or three others at what must have been the first floor. Outside the wall are a number of buttresses of various sizes, shapes, and dates, some of which seem original, and of the late Norman period. The largest of these bastion towers is known as “The Queen’s Tower.” Near the centre of this front, upon the curtain, was a building about 110 feet by 40 feet, called “Mossdale,” or “The King’s Hall.” No doubt here stood the hall, kitchen, and other offices for the accommodation of the garrison. The present building is a modern barrack, built with the usual disregard of taste that has long characterised such buildings.

Where the curtain of the south-eastern front terminates on the sea cliff there seems anciently to have been a tower, known as “Cockbill.” More recently a small battery has been constructed outside the wall, and upon the crest of the slope, raking the ditch, and commanding a part of the harbour. Probably this battery was thrown up in preparation for the Parliamentary siege, for the remains of the tower above it are known as “Charles’s Tower.” Although the southern curtain has been much mutilated and restored, and towers, bastions and buttresses incorporated with its substance, the greater part of it is old, and probably original.

For the protection of the keep, quite as much from the mercenaries who, in the twelfth century, often formed the garrison, as from the exterior foe, an oblong space 112 yards north and south by 573 yards east and west, was walled in as a base court or bailey. It is taken out of the platform, and includes the keep. Its outer or western wall is the outer wall of the place, its opposite or eastern wall shuts out the keep from the main platform, and at the exterior foot of this wall, and within the platform, is a deep ditch. If the keep be regarded as the centre of the fortress, this enclosure is the inner ward, but as regards the position of the main entrance the platform deserves that name. It will, on the whole, be convenient to reserve the name of platform for the large area, and refer to the other as the bailey. Probably the bailey originally contained the Lords’ Hall, or kitchen, chapel, and lodgings. All traces of these have, however, disappeared above the surface. The position of the well is marked by a depression in the sward. The entrance to the castle occupied a hollow way below, and to the west and north of the keep traversed the bailey close below the keep, and entered the platform at the point now occupied by the modern guard-room. The approach to the castle must always have been settled by the peculiar character of the ground. There is, in fact, but one practicable line, that along the ridge between the edge of the cliff overlooking the north bay and the head of the ditch between the castle and the town. This ridge has been fortified on one side, where the cliff is about 240 feet high, by a light parapet wall, and on the other by a much stronger wall, which branches off from the curtain of the bailey, and commands the head of the ditch. Where they commence the two walls are about 50 yards apart, but they rapidly converge, and at 70 yards from the keep are but 12 feet apart, and thus continue, forming a raised causeway, along which the approach is carried. This causeway traverses the depression of the ground at the head of the castle moat by a sort of viaduct, which at its deepest point is about 25 feet high, and is in length, from its entrance in front of the keep to its termination in the barbican, about 70 yards. It is of masonry with lateral parapets, and a roadway 10 feet 6 inches broad. Near its centre is a strong pier, or rather a tower, about 32 feet broad, angular below the roadway and rounded above. This tower is pierced by a passage, and is, in fact, a gate-house, having for its defence a battlemented floor above the gateway, which was reached by a narrow staircase contained in one of the piers. The corbels on which the battlements rested remain. From this tower there seem to have dropped two drawbridges, one each way. That falling outward covered a pit 15 feet broad, now vaulted over as a permanent bridge. Its place is marked by an arch in the causeway, there about 20 feet high. The spandrel walls and parapets seem original, and the bridge worked between them, as was not uncommon, and may be seen at Goderich, and at the constable’s gate at Dover Castle. The second bridge dropped inwards towards the keep. Here the pit seems to have been a break in the causeway, not an archway through it. This bridge also has been replaced in masonry. Each of these drawbridges fell upon cills between small turret buttresses, no doubt intended to strengthen the approach, and to shelter two cross-bow men, who could retire over the bridge as the enemy advanced.

The barbican, at the outer end or head of the causeway, is a mere shell of masonry of irregular shape. It occupies a knoll higher than the causeway, and has a rather steep approach from the town. The gateway opens between two half-round towers, beneath a pointed arch, recessed, but within an outer arch, above which is a projecting parapet, a sort of brétasche in stone. There is no portcullis, and no trace of a drawbridge or outer ditch. The entrance to the causeway is 15 yards behind the great gate, through a hollow way, and the wall between them is looped with six openings looking towards the main ditch. In its rear the barbican rests upon the crest of the cliff, and has a mere parapet. It is prolonged 30 yards to the proper right of the gateway, which it thus flanks, and is strengthened in that direction by two small half-round turrets. In parts of the causeway are loops towards the main ditch, and a doorway, probably a postern, long walled up. The causeway and barbican are later than the keep and main curtain, and probably of the time of Henry III., or rather later. They have been much altered and repaired, and no doubt played a part as outworks in the siege of 1640.

Outside of the natural ravine which forms the main ditch or moat, along the crest of its counterscarp, has been thrown up a bank of earth, probably masking the line of a palisade, intended to keep off skirmishers, and to guard against any attempt at scaling the main wall.

The keep, though mutilated, is still the main feature of the castle. It is a rectangular tower about 56 feet square at the base and about 70 feet high above the inner ward, and about 90 feet from the outer side, where the ground is some 20 feet lower. The walls are 11 feet thick, and of the same thickness to the summit. The west front and a few feet of its adjacent sides are gone, but the foundations remain, completing the square. The material is a sandstone of a deep red colour. The stones are about 2 feet to 2 feet 6 inches long and a foot high, nearly square, and laid with rather open joints. The interior seem to have contained a basement and three upper floors, but the basement is partially filled with earth, and its existence only indicated by a broken loop, seen about 16 feet from the ground on the north front. On the west and north or lower faces the keep has a bold battering base from 15 feet high to 8 feet or 10 feet. This was unnecessary on the other faces where the level of the soil is so much higher.

The east, the most perfect face, has the usual flanking pilaster strips, 10 feet 6 inches broad and of a foot projection, which rise unbroken to the summit, and no doubt supported the usual angular turrets, now removed. The angle at which the adjacent faces of the building meet is hollow, and is occupied by a bold round bead, 12 inches diameter; in fact, a three-quarter shaft, but without base or capital. In the centre of the face is a third pilaster, 8 feet broad, and quite plain. On this side the basement floor has no openings. The ground, in fact, is above its level. The first and second floors are marked each by two round-headed recesses, 7 feet broad and a foot deep, the second contains a pair of narrow tall round-headed windows, having side columns, and in the centre a pair of coupled columns, common to both openings. The caps are fluted, and the window arches have a bold torus moulding, the only semblance of ornament throughout the building. The upper floor is marked by no recesses, but there are two pairs of small tall round-headed windows, with square jambs and architraves. The windows composing each pair stand about a foot apart. In the flanking pilasters are two pointed loops, corresponding to the second-floor level, and lighting mural chambers.

The north face probably corresponded with that to the east, with the addition of two loops from the basement, one of which is now closed, as are the two windows above it. One flanking pilaster of this front is gone with its west end.

Of the south face the west end is gone, but what remains is full of interest, as it shows how the entrance was arranged. The face is plain, without any regular pilasters or plinth. Towards its west end is the inner entrance, just beyond which the curtain-wall of the bailey sprang from the keep. This entrance is 7 feet broad, and the depth of the thickness of the wall. The passage is round-headed and ribbed. The inner doorway is round-headed, the outer face segmental. A flight of steps within the passage leads up to the floor of the first story. It is evident from a short pilaster, some springing stones, and certain other indications on the face of the wall, that the entrance was covered here by a small forebuilding. Against the face of the keep was built a rectangular block about 30 feet long and perhaps 20 feet broad, ending against and abutting upon the curtain. It contained a vaulted passage, and over its outer doorway, at its east end, was a large funnel-shaped machicolation for its defence. Within this the vault led on until on the right hand in the keep-wall was the inner entrance already mentioned. There was no portcullis, but above the doorway is an opening or meurtrière, by means of which the entrance could be defended against those who might have forced the outer gate. The ramparts of the forebuilding were on the level of the second floor of the keep, and were reached from it by a small narrow doorway opening from a mural chamber in the south wall. Close east of this is another small door, a little higher, the use of which is not very evident, unless it opened upon a hoard or brétasche a little in advance of the stone parapet. A little west of and below these is a third and shorter doorway, which seems intended for the working of the meurtrière over the inner door. It is connected with a small and very narrow mural staircase.

The interior of the keep is not only filled up so as to hide the basement floor, but its eastern part has been converted into a powder magazine, and is inaccessible. It is said that the magazine includes four rectangular mural chambers, one 14 feet by 5 feet in the south wall, two 6 feet and 7 feet square, in the east wall, and one 5 feet by 6 feet in the north wall, but these have not been examined. The first floor was about 32 feet square, but divided into two nearly equal parts by a bold arch running north and south, and springing from two wall piers. The arch is gone, but the broken wall shows it to have been 4 feet 6 inches thick, and to have carried a solid wall, which divided the second and ceased at the floor of the upper storey. In the east wall of the first floor is a central fireplace of 7 feet opening with a round head and of no projection, round-backed, and with a vertical mural vent. On each side of it is a deep recess of 6 feet 9 inches opening, round-headed, and containing a pair of coupled windows already described. There are two similar recesses in the north wall, one on each side of the cross arch, of which the eastern is at present walled up, but seems to have had besides its windows a small lateral door opening into a dark mural chamber, which occupied the north-east angle. The other recess, west of the cross wall, is open, and its two windows remain. In the south wall is a small doorway which leads into a mural chamber occupying the south-east angle, but now inaccessible. At the other end of this wall is the entrance door, and between it and the cross arch a steep narrow stair leading to the opening above the entrance doorway.

At the second floor the cross-wall was pierced by a small doorway near its south end, of which one jamb remains. This floor also has a fireplace in its east wall, resembling that below, but with a segmental arch, while above it, in the wall, is a semicircular arch of relief. On either side is a recess with coupled round-headed windows, the shutter rebates of which are pointed. In the north wall are two doorways leading into mural chambers, and at its western end a recess and double window, as before. In the south wall are two openings; one, a door leading into a mural chamber in the south-east angle, lighted by a loop already mentioned, and the other a large recess within which are the two doorways opening towards the forebuilding. On the other side of the cross-wall, over the main door, are traces of a large recess with coupled windows.

No fireplace remains in the upper floor, which seems to have been occupied by one large chamber, having in its east wall two pairs of coupled windows in deep round-headed recesses, and the same probably in its north and south walls. There may, indeed, have been a fireplace in the west wall.

The floors throughout seem to have been of timber. There are no traces of a mural staircase leading from one floor to another, but there may have been such in the north-west or south-west angles. Neither is there any mural gallery surrounding the building.

It is in all respects unfortunate that Scarborough Castle is still regarded as a military post. Here, as at Dover, no one is allowed to sketch or measure within the area, although the force employed to see to the observance of this order renders it practically powerless. But the empty powder magazine is locked up, and effectually prevents a thorough examination of the keep; if this were removed, and the basement excavated, an absolutely correct plan of the keep might be obtained, which now is impracticable.

A county that contains within its borders the castles of York and Richmond may yet be proud of the possession of Scarborough, which, though not superior to those, claims with them equal rank. No doubt the circumstances of each are different. The position of Richmond on the Swale, its ancient Norman keep, early and curious chapel, and the considerable remains of its hall and other domestic buildings, no less than the rank and warlike character of its earlier lords, have invested it with a peculiar and unrivalled interest. At York, the castle, spacious in area, and strong, if not striking in position, played no inconsiderable part in the Norman Conquest; and while surrounded with the works of the Romans and Romanized Britons, claims an origin from those of our Teutonic ancestors whose name is embodied in that of England. The claims of Scarborough to rank and fame are of a different though scarcely inferior character. Its position above the Northern Ocean is wild and grand in the extreme. Its area, defined and protected by Nature, is calculated to contain, not a garrison, but an army; and its keep, in itself equal to Richmond or most other Norman structures, is here not a citadel but the mere gateway and key to what is really the fortress, and which rises from the seashore above and behind it.

SKENFRITH CASTLE.

Among the numerous strong places in Monmouthshire, which, from their character and position, seem to have been thrown up during the occupation of that border territory by the Mercians and the English during the eighth and following centuries, Skenfrith holds a conspicuous place. Its fortune, moreover, was, to be adopted, like Caerleon and Grosmount, by the Norman invaders, who placed a keep upon its ancient, though inconsiderable, mound, and girdled its elevated platform with walls and towers of considerable strength, so that it became of even greater importance in the twelfth and thirteenth than in the preceding centuries. It stands in the deep valley, and upon the bank of the Munnow, five miles below the castle of Grosmount, and six above that of Monmouth on the same river, besides which it forms the south-eastern point of the celebrated Monmouthshire trilateral, Grosmount and Whitecastle being the two others, so celebrated in Border warfare, and especially in the contest between Henry III. and the Mareschals, earls of Pembroke. Churchyard writes of them as,—

Three castles fayre, are in a goodly ground, Grosmont is one, on hill it builded was; Skenfrith the next, in valley it is found, The soyle about for pleasure there doth pepe. Whit-Castle is the third, of worthie fame, The country round doth bear Whit-Castle’s name; A statelie seate, a lofty princely place, Whose beauty gives the simple soyle some grace.

Unlike the elevated and rock-founded castles of Chepstow and Ludlow, the strength of Skenfrith was in the low and marshy character of its position. The Munnow flows within a few feet of its walls, and overflowed into its ample ditches, and a few yards below the castle is the bridge mentioned by Leland. Skenfrith marks the uniting point of several valleys, and even now, with the advantage of modern roads, is by no means easy of approach. Probably, in some measure on this account, it has suffered but little from additions or alterations, and as little from violence. Time, the greatest but least violent of revolutionists, has been the principal agent in the changes that have taken place, and the great obstacle to the study of the castle by the antiquary is the rich and redundant mantle of friendly ivy by which it is draped.

Skenfrith belongs to that family of castles of which Coningsborough and Launceston are the English types, and of which Brunlais, and, in some degree, Tretower, are local examples. Its keep is a cylindrical tower, with a widening or battering base, to which the elder antiquaries gave the name of a Juliet. This stands within an inclosure formed of curtains and bastion towers, in this instance forming a trapezium in plan, of which the northern and southern sides are 74 yards and 71 yards, and the eastern and western 31 yards and 59 yards. The diameters of the area, measured across the keep, are, northern and southern, 48 yards, and eastern and western, 57 yards.

The keep stands unconnected with the curtains, and nearly on the central line of the area, about ten yards from its eastern end. It crowns a low mound, about 6 feet high, and 50 feet broad at the top, evidently artificial. If the mound ever had a proper moat, it has been long filled up. The tower is now about 40 feet high, and may have been 5 feet or 6 feet more. It is a cylinder of 36 feet in diameter, with walls 7 feet thick. Ten feet above the ground is a bold, half-round string or cordon, below which the wall batters, and at the base is 10 feet thick, augmenting its diameter there to about 42 feet. The present entrance is to the west, by a doorway of 5 feet 6 inches opening, having an interior door opening inwards and probably having had an exterior door also, but the doorway is now a mere breach in the wall, with but a fragment of the rebate of its inner door. The masonry, and the absence of bar-holes, show this doorway not to be original. Probably it was opened in the Decorated period, when passive strength was less an object, and a first-floor entrance was found to be inconvenient. Such later openings are common in keeps with close basements. There is one at Pembroke.

The basement chamber is circular, 22 feet 4 inches diameter, and its floor is at the ground level. In it are two loops, with flat tops, in recesses splayed to an opening of 3 feet, of which the cills are 3 feet from the ground. The wall is quite plain, and there is no trace of a well. This chamber was 11 feet high; no doubt, a store-room, and must have been entered from the chamber above by a ladder.

The first floor, of the same diameter, was 14 feet high. This was the principal chamber. The floor was of planks resting upon four large beams laid across, the outer beams receiving the ends of some shorter timbers laid at right angles to them. The doorway points about west, and is partly over that of the basement. It was 5 feet broad, and its passage-vault was round-headed, but the ashlar dressings are gone. There is no trace of a portcullis. In the substance of the wall is a square hole, probably once containing an oaken tie, such as was used at Brunlais and at Rochester. This doorway was evidently the original and only entrance to the keep. To the right of the entrance a second door opened into a mural stair, a fragment of the cylindrical shell of which remains. This led to the second floor and battlements. For its support the external wall is thickened by a half-round buttress, solid below, and ascending to the summit. The door and the staircase are utterly ruined. In this floor are two window openings in flat-sided recesses, apparently round-headed. The windows, probably large loops, are broken away, and the ashlar face of the recesses is gone, but the relieving arch in the wall is flat pointed. Near the north recess is a corbel of Decorated aspect, 6 feet from the floor.

The second story, entered by the winding mural stair, is much obscured by ivy. Its floor was of stout plank, resting upon a large single cross-beam, of which one support, a broad plain corbel, remains; the planks fitted into a rude groove or chase, not a set-off, in the wall, which is, therefore, not diminished in thickness. The curve of this story is a little impaired by a projection connected with the stair: and there is a sort of recess, which may have been the kitchen fireplace, the cooking being usually, in these towers, carried on in an upper floor, as at Castell Coch and Morlais. There were three windows in this floor, but of them little is to be seen, nor of what may remain of the ivy-covered battlements. The main floor was plastered, though thinly. It is evident that the floors were always of timber. The main strength of a tower of this character was passive, the loops and windows counting for nothing in the defence, but no doubt the battlements had a rampart walk, and the roof, therefore, was either flat, or if conical, sprang, as at Coucy, Coningsburgh, Pembroke, and Marten’s Tower at Chepstow from an inner wall. Nothing can be more senseless than, as some modern architects have done, to cover these towers with a conical roof springing from the outer wall, which thus could not be defended in the only way possible with such structures, from above.

The curtain wall of the single ward within which this Juliet keep is placed is 8 feet thick, and from 30 feet to 40 feet high, the contained area being at a level 6 feet to 10 feet above that outside, and no doubt raised artificially. The four angle towers were cylindrical, 11 feet internal diameter, and with walls 8 feet thick. They have no internal projection, but the angle at each is crossed and filled up by a gorge wall, 7 feet long. Both towers and curtain have an exterior base about 12 feet high, battering below to a thickness of 10 feet, but without a cordon. Each tower is entered from the gorge by a door of 3 feet opening, and its basement is elevated about 4 feet or 5 feet above the inner court. Each has three loops in recesses 4 feet 5 inches deep, and 5 feet 8 inches broad. There are no staircases, though there seem to have been two upper stories, the highest rising above the curtain. The floors were of timber. The arches vary; some are round-headed, others lancet, others drop-pointed. The loops are square-headed. The south-west tower has been taken down, and the present entrance to the place is through the gap.

In the south front, 60 feet from the west end, is a half-round buttress tower, with no internal projection. The breaches in its interior and exterior faces show it to be solid. Opposite to this tower, in the north wall of the court, is a doorway of about 6 feet opening, the pointed arch of which is seen just at the level of the court. As the sill of this doorway must be at about the level of the Munnow, it was probably connected with a short canal for the admission of a boat, like what is seen at Tonbridge and Leeds Castles, and at Caerphilly. In this same wall, but close to the north-east tower, is a small, flat-sided recess, either a door or a window, and 6 feet above the court level. If a door, it must have been for the lifting of stores from a boat upon the mill-leat which flows below it.

There is no trace of a regular gatehouse to this court, but a part of the centre of the west wall has been rebuilt in an inferior manner, and probably represents the entrance. This entrance was likely to have been by a mere doorway in the curtain without a regular gatehouse, like the lesser gateway at White Castle. From this point a slightly-elevated causeway, crossing the court, leads direct to the central tower.

The walls are tolerably perfect, but the battlements have been removed, and the upper stages of the towers are in ruin. It is remarkable that the mural towers are without staircases, and there are no visible mural chambers or garderobes, or, with one doubtful exception, fireplaces, in the castle. The material is the old red sandstone of the district, as was the ashlar. The workmanship is ordinary but pretty good rubble, and the mortar coarsely mixed and freely used. The mill leat, and the Munnow immediately beyond it, form the defences on the north front. Along the other three fronts was a broad and deep ditch fed from the river, and now filled up. As the ground within the walls is 6 feet to 10 feet higher than that immediately outside, they are to that extent revetments. It is pretty clear from the appearance that the original fortress was a raised platform, in its centre a mound, and around it a wet ditch, the whole, no doubt, strongly palisaded.

There is nothing of a Norman character in either the plan or details of the structure. The singular form of the area may be but an accommodation in right lines to an irregular earthwork. Had it been Roman, the platform would scarcely have been raised. The keep tower is clearly early English of the time of King John, or early in that of Henry III. The surrounding walls and towers are of the same date.

The history of Skenfrith is obscure, but it is evident that it was built simply to contain a small garrison, and not at all as a private residence. The area contains no trace of hall, chapel, or kitchen. No lines of foundation are visible, and whatever lodgings were erected were probably of timber, with roofs resting against the wall.

Skenfrith is said, at the entrance of the Normans into the district, to have been held by Bach, a son of Cadivor ap Gwaethvoed, which Gwaethvoed is the reputed ancestor of several families in Monmouthshire and East Glamorgan, and who, or his father, was likely enough to have obtained possession of it during the victorious campaign of Caradoc-ap-Griffith in 1065. The Pipe Roll of the first year of John shows the castles of Skenfrith, Llanteilo or White Castle, Kinton, and Ledbury, to have belonged to the king; and in 1205 (5 John) he granted Skenfrith, Llanteilo, and Grosmount to William de Breos, to hold them as they had been held by Hubert de Burgh, and Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, was allowed 20 marcs which he had paid to De Burgh for fortifying them. This probably was the date of the present masonry. John de Monmouth, a powerful local baron, had some claim upon these castles, which was admitted by the king; but nevertheless, in 1219, De Burgh was ordered to have seizin of the three castles forfeited by the defection of William de Breos. William’s heir was Reginald de Breos, who was in ill-health; he demurred to the decision of the king’s court. In 1220 they were held by De Burgh. In 1223 the king had occasion to send a messenger to Skenfrith, and in 1224 the Sheriff of Hereford was directed to send thither to De Burgh 2,000 quarrels (heads of cross-bow bolts), and all through the troubled reign of Henry III. these castles continued to be of great military importance. At the settlement of Wales by his son they probably were allowed to fall to ruin. With most of the surrounding property Skenfrith finally fell to the Duchy of Lancaster. As early as the time of James I. it was presented by the local jury as “ruinous and decayed, time out of the memory of man.”

The parish church, containing some fragments of early English or early Decorated date, stands a few yards west of the castle. It contains an altar tomb, bearing the effigies in a sort of trick of John Morgan, who died 2nd September, 1557, and Ann, his wife, who died 4th January, 1564. On the side of the tomb are figures in relief. The armorial bearings are,—quarterly, 1 and 4, Barry of 9, on six escutcheons, 3, 2, 1, as many lioncels rampant, 2 and 3, three towers, in the nombril point a roundel. Evidently these are the arms of Cecil, and point to the connexion claimed by that family with Wales. Another shield bears on a chevron three sprigs, between three spear-heads; crest, an arm embowed grasping a ——. John Morgan is said to have been of Wayne, in this parish.

THE ANCIENT DEFENCES OF SOUTHAMPTON.

At the head of the inlet known as Southampton Water, between its two principal tributaries of the Test or Anton and the Itchen, intervenes a considerable neck or tongue of gravel, which is thus bounded on three sides by water, and is a position of considerable natural strength, and the more valuable that it overlooks a fine roadstead, having the Isle of Wight for its breakwater. By whom this spot was first occupied is unknown. Bittern, an unquestionable Roman station, under the name of Clausentum, is nearly two miles farther up the Itchen, and upon the opposite bank. Even the origin of the present name of the town is a subject of dispute. The Anton presents a tempting source, but it seems most probable that the name means simply “the town of the southern dwelling,” as opposed to Northam, a place close to the Roman station. Certainly the name has no reference to Northampton.

“Hamtunscire” is mentioned in the “Saxon Chronicle” in A.D. 755, and the town was a Saxon place of some mark, coining money in the reign of Athelstane, and occasionally plundered by the Danes. Canute held it, and his experiment upon the advancing tide is said to have been tried in Southampton Water.

Southampton is named in Domesday, and the Normans found it a convenient port both for military and commercial purposes. It was visited and maintained by the Plantagenet monarchs, who here mustered and embarked their troops for Normandy. Hence the town was fortified from an early period, both after the Saxon and the Norman fashion.

The walls enclosed a roughly rectangular space, averaging about 370 yards east and west, by 770 yards north and south, but in actual circuit about 2,200 yards, or 1¼ mile. This area is divided lengthways by the main street, but the western is the larger moiety, partly because it contains the older castle, and partly because of an irregular projection upon what is called the “tin shore.” The north and south gates were upon the main street. There was an east and a west gate, but not at all opposite to each other, nor were the roads cruciform. There is no reason for attributing to the moderately rectangular plan a Roman origin. It was probably dictated by the general figure of the ground.

The surface of the area varies from 15 feet to 35 feet above the adjacent sea level. The northern half is higher than the southern, the western than the eastern. The highest ground, therefore, is in the north-west quarter, where was the castle.

In consequence of this, the wall of this quarter, towards the west, is built against a scarped bank, and is a revetment 30 feet high, whereas elsewhere the wall is built upon ground nearly level, or at best not above 3 feet or 4 feet higher on the inner than the outer side. Besides the castle there is no considerable earthwork, and no reason, therefore, for attributing the defences of the town proper to a period earlier than the incoming of the Normans.

The earthworks of the castle are, however, considerable. The naturally high ground was scarped and pared and somewhat raised, and near the centre of the area the highest point was surrounded by a circular ditch, the contents of which, thrown inward, converted the raised platform into an artificial mound. This, beyond doubt, was the Saxon fortress.

The rectangular area was also well defended. It had the sea for its ditch nearly at the foot of the wall along the west and south fronts. Along the east a broad and deep ditch, wholly artificial, and in part, at least, admitting the sea, ran along the foot of the wall, and divided the town from a strip of lower land, which slopes towards the Itchen, and is now covered by an important suburb. Along the north front a ditch, also artificial, was cut across the ridge; it is said, to a depth allowing it to be filled from the sea. As this would involve a depth of about 40 feet, with a corresponding breadth, the tradition is probably an exaggeration.

The north and east walls, least affected by any irregularities of ground, and nearly straight, are in length about 318 and 790 yards. The south and west fronts are curved and broken to suit the ground, and measure about 320 and 650 yards. The south-west angle is largely rounded off. Of recorded gates, there were the north or Bargate, still standing; the east gate, removed; the spur gate, remaining; the south, or water gate, removed; the west gate and the postern, preserved; Biddles, or Bridle Gate, gone; and the castle water gate, closed up.

The mural towers were chiefly drum, or half round. The north front is flanked by two drum towers, and west of the Bar is one, and east of it two, half-round. Upon the east wall, north of the east gate, was one; and, south of it, six, of which one remains, half-round, and one rectangular. At the south-east angle, the south wall was prolonged eastwards as a spur-tower, covering the ditch; this remains. Upon the south wall there were six towers, including the south flank of the spur gatehouse, and, on the opposite flank, the Bugle Tower. All but one are half-round. The west wall had many buttresses, and few towers. There was one where the south wall of the castle joined the town wall; and near the north end is a fine half round tower,—an addition.

Passing to the details, the north gate, called the Bar, is a large, handsome structure, about 60 feet broad by 60 feet deep in the centre. It is of two stages, pierced below by a central and two lateral passages, and contains above a chamber, 52 feet long by 21 feet broad, used for public purposes. In each wing is a staircase. That to the east is old, that on the west may have been so. The side passages are modern. They communicate with the central roadway by two cross arches on each side, of which the two next the north are original, and probably led into the flanking towers. An examination of the central passage shows the original gate to have been late Norman; at least a round-headed portal there placed is probably in that style, though it has rather a Decorated aspect. Then in the early Decorated time two bold half-round flanking towers were added, and still remain. At this time the rear was probably refaced, and four windows and a centre niche inserted, and the council-chamber enlarged, and probably the east staircase added. The Norman gatehouse had an upper room, of which a round-headed door, with a foliated head, remains. Next, in the Perpendicular period, a bold projection, three sides of an octagon, was added to the front. The gateway, thus advanced, is flanked by two bold, narrow buttresses, which run up to a very bold corbel table, having six machicolations in the central face, and three in each of the oblique lateral ones. The battlements are good Perpendicular, and carried round the rear towards the town; one embrasure is occupied by an alarm-bell. This gate has been much injured by restorations. The openings to the rear, archways and windows, have been refaced; but they preserve much of their old type, and have a Decorated aspect. The main passage has been cut away and widened, and the portcullis grooves are gone. When the ditch in front was filled up, a century ago, all trace of the drawbridge was lost. It appears that this bar was formerly a prison, and the curious cross arches were part of the arrangement for that purpose.

West of the Bar much of the wall remains, but is so blocked in by houses as to be invisible. Forty-six yards from the gate is the site of a half-round tower, beyond which the wall extends in a straight line to Arundel Tower, so called from Sir John Arundel, an early governor. This is a drum, 22 feet in diameter, which caps the north-east angle of the town. This tower is 50 feet to 60 feet high, and seems to rise out of a rectangular mass of masonry, possibly added to strengthen it. Here the internal level is 30 feet, or more, above the external, being a part, no doubt, of the old earthworks.

Continuing along the west wall, at 763 yards is a bold, half-round tower, 20 feet diameter, and 30 feet high, of excellent rough ashlar, with bold machicolations at the level of the adjacent curtain. This is Catchcold Tower. Built against the bank it looks solid, or like a bastion, but it is said to be hollow, though how entered does not appear. This tower, with the adjacent wall for some feet, is apparently a Perpendicular addition to what seems to be a Decorated wall. Beyond the tower is a flight of steps, modern, ascending 30 feet to the summit of the wall, which is there common to both town and castle. The wall then runs forward obliquely, probably to allow of the inclusion of the earthworks of the castle. It seems in substance Norman. The salient is capped by a rectangular buttress, the hollow angles of which on each side are crossed by low, pointed arches, pierced as garderobes, as at Porchester. This buttress tower is of Decorated date.

Then follows about 134 yards of straight wall, probably Norman, about 38 feet high, and backed to the summit with earth. Upon it a small rectangular buttress marks the junction of the north wall of the castle with the town-wall. Further on are five rectangular buttresses of various dimensions. The three first are evidently additions upon the Norman wall, the rest seem original. Part of the wall here is divided into two stages by a bold horizontal bead. Below are two narrow windows of about 18 inches opening, resembling large loops, and which seem to have had square heads. Above are traces of two windows, apparently round-topped. There must have been an interior chamber, now closed. The central buttress is broad and flat, and here are traces of the old water-gate of the castle, which must have been reached by steps, the ground behind being above 30 feet high. Close north of this water-gate is a large vaulted chamber, built against the town wall, and now closed. This part of the wall now ends in a rectangular projection, probably the root of a tower, and marked the junction of the castle south wall with the town wall.

From hence the wall is low and thin for about 33 yards, marking the end of the castle ditch, and out of the regular line, having, no doubt, been rebuilt in modern times. On the rising ground of the castle counterscarp is the root of another square tower, marking the recommencement of the regular town wall, which then turns inwards so as to protect Biddles or Bridle Gate.

This gate, now removed, opened into a steep and rather narrow ascent called Simnell-street, out of which, on the north side, opens Castle-lane, thought to represent an old entrance to the castle.

At Biddles Gate commences a very curious part of the wall, which, as far south as a little beyond Blue Anchor postern, is unlike anything known in England. The original wall, here about 30 feet high and 4 feet thick, with the soil nearly level within and without, seems to have served not only for the town wall, but for the wall of several dwelling-houses within it, the doors and windows of which are visible in the wall, though now closed up. These openings show the wall to have been Norman, and of a moderately early period. This wall was not found sufficiently strong for the purpose of defence, and a second wall, also 4 feet thick, was built against it on the outside. But this second wall was built like an aqueduct, as an arcade, upon tall and slender piers, about 2 feet 2 inches broad, from which, at 10 feet 6 inches high, spring arches mostly semicircular, but some pointed, and two very flat and probably much later, above which was the parapet. The arches are about 12 feet span. The result was to increase the rampart to a walk of 5 feet, with a parapet of 2 feet, and probably a rear wall of 1 foot. Of course, an arcade so placed afforded great shelter for those attacking the wall from without; but to obviate this, while the piers touched the wall, a space like that for a portcullis, a chase about 2 feet broad, was left between the arch and the wall, by means of which any one standing at the base of the wall could effectually be molested with missiles or a long pike. Eighteen arches of this arcade remain. The arrangement is a very curious one, and supposed to be singular. This masque or outer wall may be of late Norman date, but is possibly early English. The piers interfere much with the earlier doors and windows. The wall, where double, is 35 feet high. There are traces of some kind of building outside a part of the wall.

A hole broken through the wall into Blue Anchor-yard shows the rear of the wall, and a little further south is Blue Anchor Postern, an original archway in the wall, much cut about and enlarged, but of which the portcullis chase, worked from the battlements, as at Fishergate, York, still remains. From the postern a very steep, winding narrow lane leads up into the town, between lines of ancient houses, of which two, one on each side, next the gate, are Norman. Both are curious, but that on the south side especially so. It is the shell of a Norman house, of the age of the older part of the wall. It is called, locally, King John’s Palace, but is, in truth, an ordinary Norman private house, and a fairly perfect one. The principal room was on the first floor. The roof is gone, but the door and windows remain. These are coupled, small, round-headed, and divided by a short column, with a slightly sculptured capital. The space within the walls is 43 feet by 45 feet. There is a good Norman fireplace, with hood and flanking columns. In the south and part of the east wall is a mural gallery. The house on the northern side of the lane is 44 feet by 15 feet. There is a good view of the town wall, and a plan of the two houses, in Parker’s “Domestic Architecture of the Twelfth Century,” p. 34.

South of the postern the wall ceases to be double, and is all of one date, and about 6 feet thick. In this part is a flattish rectangular mural buttress tower, much blocked in with houses, but having its south hollow angle crossed by a squinch arch carrying a garderobe. Near this is a high pointed doorway, evidently an insertion, of 24 feet opening, leading into Collis-court, and about 60 feet further is the west gatehouse.

This is a perfect and plain rectangular gatehouse, 30 feet deep by 24 feet broad, without buttresses, flush with the wall outside, and of bold projection within. It is pierced by a high pointed vault, of 12 feet opening. The passage has been a good deal mutilated with a view to widening it. Near the centre was a good recessed doorway, the profile of the head of which is still traceable where it has been roughly cut from the wall. Between this and the inner face are two square portcullis grooves, and just within the inner entrance is a chase, 18 inches broad, over the head of the arch. In the vault, in front of the central door-case, are nine holes, about 4 inches square, three in the crown line, and three along each haunch. These latter converge towards the central line.

The gatehouse has a portcullis chamber on the first floor, and a second floor above this. An open stair against the south side leads to the battlement, from which a door, an insertion, opens into the portcullis chamber. These upper rooms are plastered and papered, and nothing can be seen in them.

South of this gate the wall continues in a fairly perfect state for 80 yards, and finally has been pulled down and removed. It may be traced as far as the site of a half-round tower, and some remains of an arch. Beyond this, also, the line of the wall may be traced as far as the site of Bugle Tower, 180 yards from the west gate, and which caps the south-west angle of the town.

The south wall is almost wholly destroyed, and the foundation either removed or covered up by the broad and handsome quay which now intervenes between the base of the wall and the sea. This front was more or less convex, or rather polygonal, the angles being capped with drum towers. There are some traces of the south gatehouse. In the rear of this part of the wall are the site of St. Mary Magdalene’s Hospital, and in Porter Lane what was called Canute’s Palace. A representation of the south gate before 1784 is preserved by Grose. It had a low, broad Edwardian arch, with bold machicolations above, and toward the east it was protected by a long flanking wall, parallel to its approach. It was removed 1830–40.

Forty yards from the south gate was another half-round tower, and thence the wall ran straight east for 83 yards, when it reached the south-east angle of the town. In the rear of this part of the wall, in Winkle-street, is “God’s House,” a Norman church, now restored very badly, and converted into a French Protestant place of worship.

At the south-east angle of the town, in the end of the east wall, is a gate, called God’s House Gate, or South Gate, but which should be called Spur Gate, as it opens upon a work of that class. This gatehouse is rectangular, quite plain, and without buttresses, having two upper floors. Its dimensions are 28 feet broad by 23 feet deep, and the south end projects as a low salient of two faces, upon the south wall, now removed. The passage is vaulted with a high pointed arch 12 feet broad. Like the west gate, it had a central recessed doorway, now much cut away, and two portcullis grooves. The vault in front of the door is supported by two, and in rear of it by three, cross-ribs. Altogether, in substance, this gatehouse resembles that of the west gate, and is of early Decorated date. Its front may have been rebuilt when the spur tower was added.

The spur work projects from the northern flank of the entrance of the gatehouse for about 80 feet. It is composed of a sort of lofty gallery, or curtain, terminating in a rectangular tower, about 22 feet square, with buttresses capping the two east or outer angles diagonally. It is of three stories, and is built across the eastern ditch, no doubt to contain and protect its sluice communicating with the sea, which originally flowed up to the wall of the tower. There are seen large arches in the north and east faces, which look as though there had been a passage for boats; but these seem really to have been arches of construction only, intended to throw the weight of the building upon the corners, which probably are more deeply founded than the curtain. In the north face is also a large modern arch, a relic of the canal which was to have been carried beneath the tower. The spur-work and the gatehouse were long used as a Bridewell. All still bear marks of that degrading occupation. The whole spur-work is good Perpendicular. Leland calls this the south gate, and the spur tower the Castellet. Grose gives a view of it about 1770. From the Spur Gate the town wall is tolerably perfect as far as the first half-round tower, 60 yards. From hence the wall may be traced 35 yards to a flat buttress, 14 feet broad and 3 feet deep, of which there are some remains. Beyond this, at 37 yards, is the site of a rectangular tower, 30 feet broad and 24 feet deep These two are said to be additions of the time of Edward VI. They look much older.

From hence to the north-east angle of the tower the wall has been pulled down, but its line may be traced, partly by occasional foundations, partly by its materials which have been used in the houses built on its site, and partly by the direction of the lane called “Back o’ the Wall,” which runs along its rear, and by the parallel road which runs along the counterscarp of the ditch, and is called “Canal Walk,” from an abortive canal which was carried along the line of the ditch at the commencement of the present century.

The east gate spanned East-street, and was taken down in 1772. Grose gives a drawing of it, and attributes its erection to the year 1339, 13 Edward III. Between this gate and the north-east angle was one mural half-round tower.

Of Polnymond Tower, which caps the north-east angle, there are considerable remains. It is a three-quarter drum tower, about 28 feet diameter. From it to the bar, 160 yards, the wall, or part of it, remains, but so clustered with buildings as to be inaccessible to ordinary visitors. Here are remains of two half-round towers, and a breach in the wall, called York Gate, probably representing a postern.

The east ditch is marked by a depression, in part due to the canal. The north ditch is completely obliterated and built over, and its breadth is not recorded, and has not been ascertained by probing. If Hanover Buildings mark its counterscarp, it was 46 yards broad; but if, as is much more probable, its limit is marked by Cold Harbour, it was only 24 yards, which tallies with that along the east front.

THE CASTLE.

The castle was very probably the oldest, and perhaps the only præ-Norman fortification connected with the town. It occupied nearly the whole of the north-western quarter of the walled area, and included also the highest ground. In plan it was a rough semicircle, the chord of 124 yards being the town wall, and the arc measuring about 300 yards. There is, however, also a considerable knoll, on the south-east of the area, of about 45 yards diameter, about half of which lay outside the curved enceinte.

This was the keep. Leland calls it the dungeon (donjon), and the “glory of the castle.” “It is,” says he, “both large, fair, and very strong, both by works and by the site of it;” and other writers describe it as a lofty mound. As usual, in forming such works, advantage was taken of high ground to make it the base of an artificial mound encircled by a deep and broad ditch. The keep, no doubt a shell of masonry like Arundel, towered above the rest of the works. Of the curved wall of the enceinte a part remains to the north. It was built on piers about 8 feet square and 9 feet apart, a round-headed arch with a tendency to a point connecting these. The tops of these arches were about 12 feet above the base of the piers, and upon them rested a wall, which carried the battlement. The arches were buried in a bank of earth about 15 feet high. This bank has been removed to allow houses to be built up to the wall, which now, therefore, stands like a Roman aqueduct. The foundation is excellent, so that this plan was adopted solely to save material and to profit by the older bank. The roughness of the masonry shows the height of the bank, above which the remaining wall rises about 4 feet. It is much to be regretted that this curious piece of Norman wall has been so badly treated. About 90 yards of it remain, including eighteen arches. It stops at the Castle-lane, where was the main gate of the castle, removed at the end of the last century.

The wall, beyond the gate, was continued up the mound to the keep, and beyond it till it reached the southern gate, whence it was continued till it again struck the town wall. Thus the keep was upon and formed part of the enceinte, as was usual. From the south gate, also removed in the last century, a winding road, commenced from the wall, led down to Simnell-street, a few yards within the postern.

Near the castle, against and within the town wall, is a large subterranean vault, now closed; and, judging from the openings in the wall, there was a corresponding vault to the south of this.

The whole area of the castle is high, and much of it has been still higher, the mound having been lowered, the ditch partially filled up, and the bank along which the wall was built having been removed.

To judge from the material evidence afforded by an inspection of the works, it would appear that the castle represents the Saxon or Danish earthwork, probably the earliest strong place, and was composed of a truncated mound, its circular ditch, and a bank of earth encircling an area, of which the mound or a moiety of it made part: the whole forming a burh of the first class.

The Normans, probably in the reign of Henry I., enclosed the castle and town in a rectangular wall, and dug the east and north ditches. Also the castle was enclosed with a wall built in part on arches, and a shell keep placed on the flat summit of the mound. The wall of the castle, and much of the west wall of the town, and the two houses in Blue Anchor-lane, may be attributed to this period.

Then it became necessary to strengthen the town wall, and this was probably done in the reign of King John, who, it appears, remitted to the citizens £200 out of their fee-farm rents for the enclosure of their town and the thickening of the wall, and perhaps the west and spur gates were begun at that time.

Much must have been done to the fortifications during the reign of Henry III. or Edward I. To this date are probably due the older drum towers and much of the wall connected with them, and the recessing of the Bargate and the addition of its flanking towers.

It appears that the town was attacked by pirates and sacked in October, 1338, 12 Edward III., and in consequence it was strengthened in the next year. The south and east gates may have been of this date, and the spur tower and its gallery, unless this latter be, with the completion of the Bargate, the work of Richard II. This king seems to have done much to the castle.

The vault indicated on the plan as on the north side of the water-gate is at present wholly underground, being built against and within the exterior wall, its floor being about the level of the footing of the wall. The vault measures 55 feet 3 inches north and south, by 19 feet 6 inches east and west, and is about 25 feet high. Sir H. Englefield says it has much the air of a chapel. Others call it a guard-room to the water-gate. A chapel would scarcely have stood north and south, and a guard-room, especially so large a one, however necessary for a main gate, would be quite out of place beside a mere postern. The vault was entered a few weeks ago through a long closed-up opening in the west wall, but the writer has been unable to learn what was then observed.

To the south of the water-gate is, or was, a similar vault, indicated by the openings in the wall, one 3 feet and one 1 foot from the ground, both long since built up. Probably these two were the substructures of two buildings which formed a part of the exterior wall, and were used for stores or cellars.

It is difficult to speak too highly of the large scale plan of Southampton executed under Sir H. James, upon which the lines of the old wall, and position of other objects of antiquity, are shown in a manner which leaves nothing to be desired.

TAMWORTH CASTLE, WARWICKSHIRE.

Tamworth Castle stands at the confluence of the Anker with the Tame, on the right bank of either, between the town and the latter river, and close above St. Mary’s Bridge. It occupies a position near the east end of the south, or river front, of the old town, the outlines of which are still indicated by a bank and ditch, showing it to have been in plan a parallelogram, with one side resting upon the Tame, and the east end defended by the Anker. The low ground about the junction of the rivers, the broad meadows on the left bank of the Tame opposite to, and on both banks below the town, in their natural condition a deep morass, must have rendered the place nearly inaccessible upon its east, south, and west fronts; and, no doubt, led to its conversion into a safe residence at a very early period.

As the ground rises from the river, the town and its grand old church occupy positions rather higher than the castle, and which must always have been dry and airy and, in consequence, salubrious.

The line of the town defence upon the east side is known as the King’s Ditch, in reference, it is supposed, to the Mercian Offa. Though without anything like sharpness of outline, and occupied as a nursery garden, the work is by no means obliterated, and may be traced nearly from the Anker below Bolebridge for about 300 yards northwards. It is composed of a raised bank, which formed a terrace behind the wall or palisade, a ditch more or less filled up, and beyond this a slope representing a glacis, or space outside the works, which it was the custom from a very early period to keep clear of cover. Bank and ditch are about 45 feet broad. The Market-street intersects the line of defence, and, being old, probably was crossed by a gatehouse. There are some slight and uncertain traces of masonry upon its north side. Further north, a modern road affords a good section of the bank.

This side joins the north front at a right angle, within which is a sort of tump, remembered as somewhat larger, and which looks as if it marked the site of a mural tower, or perhaps a cavalier or small mount.

The defences of the north front skirt the Lichfield and Polesworth road, and are traceable nearly to the cross-road from Seckington. Beyond this, the line, now built over or enclosed in walled gardens, was traced by Dugdale along a front altogether of 400 paces, to a mount marking the north-west corner, from which the line passed at right angles southwards to the river. This would give a space of about 300 yards by 400 yards as the enclosure of the town. Outside the west front the ground sinks rapidly into the meadows, among which, on the river bank, and just outside the town, is the Moat House, an old seat of the Comberfords, still standing in all its dampness, although the moat has been filled up.

The principal bridge, that across the Tame, close below the castle, known as St. Mary’s or Lady Bridge, is of modern construction. It succeeded a mediæval structure, shown in Shaw’s plate of 1780, the precursor of which was probably a bridge, or perhaps a ford, of Saxon times. In Leland’s day, a stone upon it bore the arms of Lord Basset, of Drayton.

Bow, or Bolebridge, crosses the Anker, and leads to the hamlet of Bolehill and to Nuneaton.

The church is a large structure of considerable merit, containing some Norman work, apparently once connected with a central tower, and in which may be seen traces of herring-bone masonry. East of it are some ruins, known as the Deanery, part of which seems also to be Norman. The Market-place, though much altered, represents an early space set aside for trading purposes.

Tamworth has no historical pretensions to either British or Roman origin. The Britons would have designated it from the smaller stream. The earliest mention of it is in the records of the people in whose tongue it is named. Offa, King of Mercia, in a charter of A.D. 781, announces himself as “Ego Offa rex, sedens in regali palatio in Tamoworthige,” an evidence of its distinction at that time, and one which renders it probable that it had an earlier history. Cenwulf dates a charter of A.D. 816, “In vico celeberrimo qui vocatur Tomoworthig,” and other royal charters are dated from it in 841 and 854. So that in the eighth and ninth centuries it was already a royal residence and a place of celebrity.

The Danes ravaged it in common with much of Mercia early in the tenth century, and in A.D. 913–14 it was restored by Æthelflaed,

Elfleda potens! O terror virgo virorum!

daughter of Alfred, sister of Edward the Elder, and the foundress of Tutbury, Warwick, and many other well-known Saxon places of strength. She is reputed to have cast up the mound, and to have placed her residence on the summit. She died here A.D. 918–22.

The castle and half the town are in the shire of Warwick; the other half and the church in Stafford. There is no mention of the castle in Domesday.

At the Conquest, Tamworth became the property of Robert Marmion, who seems to have fortified it, as such earthworks were fortified in Normandy, and to have made it strong enough to be obnoxious, some time later, to King John, who, in 1215–16, ordered it to be razed. Under Henry III. another Robert was its lord, and Philip Marmion died seized of it in 1291–92. From Marmion it descended to Frevile, thence to Ferrers, thence with Ann Ferrers, at the end of the seventeenth century, it came in marriage to the house of Shirley, from whom, through Compton, it passed to the Townshends, whose representative, Marquis Townshend, is sixteenth Baron Ferrers by writ of 1299, and owner of Tamworth Castle, while Earl Ferrers, the male heir of the Shirleys, is Viscount Tamworth, by creation in 1711.

From the Norman Conquest to 20 Edward I., the castle descended through five generations of Marmions; from thence to 7 Henry V., through six of the house of Frevile, and from thence to 1680 through eleven descents of the name of Ferrers; being twenty-two lords from the Conquest to 1680. King James and Prince Charles lodged here in 1619.

The castle is composed of a mound, a platform, buildings upon the mound, a curtain-wall ascending it, and the remains of a gatehouse.

The mound is wholly artificial, about 50 feet high, circular, and about 100 feet diameter at its flat summit. Its sides stand at the natural slope of mixed dry earth and gravel, the débris of the new red sandstone of the district; and its base may be about 12 feet above the river.

South-east of the mound is a triangular platform, also more or less artificial, and raised about 15 feet above the river. One side is straight, and fronts the water. That to the east is at present a hollow curve, and has evidently been retained by a wall against which it formed a terrace. This side extends northwards to the ruined gatehouse, indications upon which seem to show that part of the platform has been removed, and that it originally extended a few yards eastwards into the present brewery; so that this front was, no doubt, straight, and not, as now, concave.

The third side, or hypothenuse, of the platform lies towards and partly encircles the mound, and is therefore concave; and between the two is a ditch. Excepting this “valley of elevation,” there is no present trace of a ditch at the foot of the mound.

Below the south front, between it and the Tame, and close above St. Mary’s Bridge, is the castle mill, rebuilt in modern times. It is worked by the Anker, which, sweeping round the south-east front of the castle, serves as a mill leat. Above the mill, and between the leat and the line of wall, is a narrow strip of land, now a garden, and probably once a pasture beneath the castle wall.

North of the platform a curtain wall runs from the gatehouse up the mound, with the summit of which its top is level. This wall in plan is angular, or slightly convex, towards the exterior or town side. It is 10 feet thick, and has a rampart wall of 7 feet, a parapet of 2 feet, and a rere wall of 1 foot. The rampart walk or allure was probably the only way from the gatehouse to the top of the mound. It rises gently, but has no steps. It is about 20 feet high at the central part, ending and commencing at nothing. It is of herring bone masonry, of flat stones laid obliquely on edge, each course being separated by a horizontal bed, sometimes single, sometimes double, of small stones, resembling flat pebbles. At the deepest there are twenty-one courses. Here and there the surface has been patched, but on the whole the wall is in its original state, very rough, but perfect. The joints are very open. The exterior face is less perfect, and is, besides, concealed by clumsy buttresses, perhaps of Tudor or earlier date. The herring-bone structure is not seen in the rere wall, which is probably a restoration, but it appears in the front parapet for a foot or two above the rampart walk. This is a very remarkable wall, and should be photographed in detail.

The continuation of the wall to the upper lodge or gatehouse from the town is in part old, but of later date than the curtain. The gatehouse itself is chiefly modern, but part is old; and connected with it are the remains of an arch jamb and portcullis groove, probably traces of the main entrance to the castle. This gate leads by a short lane into the market-place. The lower lodge, or entrance from the bridge side, was built in 1810, and with its adjacent wall is wholly of that date.

The mound is crested by a many-sided shell of wall, about 9 feet thick, and from 30 feet to 40 feet high. This wall is in part very old. The base has been supported by a modern facing, which batters considerably, and is about 2 feet high; but above this, for 6 feet or 8 feet, the workmanship is open-jointed rubble, with stones of large but irregular size and shape. The quoins are, however, of ashlar, rude but sound. Above this to the rampart height, the wall seems to have been rebuilt in early times in a better manner, but as though the old work had been left where sound, so that the two run much into one another.

The upper 10 feet of the wall, all parapet, seems of still later date. It is crenellated, and occasionally looped at the rampart level. At the south-west quarter is a loop about 6 feet from the ground, and two others higher up, all which are apparently of the age of the wall, and being near the well probably lighted the offices. This wall is much obscured by ivy. It has been materially altered at two points; on the south side entirely rebuilt for several yards to form the outer wall of the southern private apartments; and on the opposite side by the insertion at the same time of several large late Tudor windows, to light the northern apartments. Under these latter are three heavy masses of stone-work to support balconies. One is of somewhat earlier date and of better design than the others.

In the circuit of the wall, to the south, and commanding the way up the curtain, is a tower 24 feet square, and having 5 feet projection from the wall. Its angles within are plain, but those without are flanked by two narrow pilaster strips, leaving a free angle between them. These strips rise about 20 feet, and clumsily pass into a sort of octagon, which at the top of the tower becomes a cylinder, and is so seen on the battlements. These, however, may be an alteration. The tower is about 40 feet high, and the walls are 7 feet thick. It somewhat batters. On its exterior face are two Tudor windows; and about half-way up a string-course, stopped by the pilasters, which in the centre rises as a half-round drip, probably once heading a Norman window. This tower is of rubble, of the date of the wall, with ashlar pilasters. In its outer wall is a very serious crack, which seems to be getting worse.

A few feet south of the tower, and therefore close to the curtain ascent, is the doorway into the keep. This is of small size, with an equilateral arch, plain square jambs continued up through the arch moulding, which is very plain, the angle only being rounded off. The drip, if one there was, has mouldered away. This doorway traverses the wall rather obliquely. The inner front has a ribbed head, and two faces carved upon it near the springing. There is neither portcullis groove nor large bar hole. The defence was a single door.

Between the door and the tower a sort of oriel has been corbelled out at an early period, possibly to defend the approach. At present it has a loop in its basement, and two Tudor windows above, and is surmounted by a small gable of the same date.

Round the base of the wall is a terrace, about 10 feet wide and 8 feet high, above the slope of the mound. The retaining wall is in part old, and is supported by short stout buttresses, apparently of Decorated date. This wall has been patched, and in places rebuilt, in Tudor and later times, and its low circumscribing parapet is mostly modern. What it was, or when constructed, is uncertain. It may have carried a low parapet, a sort of chemisette, defending the base of the keep wall, and intended to supplement the ditch at the foot of the mound. In the last century it was crossed on the south side by a wall, with a gate in it, but this probably was not original.

The buildings within the shell are next to be described. The entrance lies beneath a sort of gatehouse, of the date of the other buildings, having on the right the tower court, and on the left a small court having the outer wall for one of its sides, and in that wall a small doorway, whence a mural staircase ascends, winding with the wall, to the battlements. The inner entrance, opening to the private apartments and hall, is a rather elaborate doorway of the style of James I. This opens into a passage or lobby, having on the right the great hall, on the left a buttery, or modern housekeeper’s room, and in front the way to the kitchen.

The hall lies north and south, and occupies nearly the centre of the enclosure. At each end of it are distinct suites of apartments, having no direct communication save through the hall. On its east side is the tower and tower-court; on its west side the kitchen and kitchen-court.

The hall is 40 feet by 20 feet, the end of honour being the north. The entrance-door is on the middle of the south end. The north end is blank. Of the east side, about the south half is occupied by a large oak window-frame, with square apertures, glazed, reaching from about 5 feet high to the eaves of the roof, and looking into the tower-court. In the same side at the north end a door leads by a stair to the northern apartments and the tower. On the west side, in the centre, is a large fireplace; to its north a window similar to the other, but rather smaller; and to its south a door, opening on a stair, leading to the southern apartments.

The roof of the hall is of open-work, supported by two detached and two engaged principals, one against each gable. The stone floor has lately been replaced by boarding. The three doorways are round-headed, of the age of James I. The aspect of the hall is gloomy, the roof heavy and unskilful, the windows unpleasing, and the walls thin and of brick. There are here four good wrought-iron candelabra about 6 feet high.

The southern apartments upon the basement are, with the exception mentioned, private. On the first floor are the library and drawing-room, and one or two private rooms. The library is panelled with oak to the cornice, and along the upper tier of panels are painted Ferrers and his matches. The fireplace is very handsome, and above it is a large atchievement, carved in black oak, of Ferrers and his quarterings, crest, supporters, and motto. The drawing-room, also panelled and larger, has a good fireplace. Each room has a large Tudor window to the south, and is exceedingly cheerful. The second floor is not shown.

The northern apartments lie between the hall and the north wall, in which the windows are pierced. The basement is composed of cellars, on the ground level, opening from the tower and kitchen courts. The first floor contains a large drawing-room and two smaller lateral rooms. All are dismantled, stripped of the panelling, and in a state of decay. The second floor contains bedrooms, also disused. From this floor a door opens upon the rampart of the enceinte wall, where it is seen to be 7 feet thick, and to have a parapet about 10 feet high. Below is the kitchen-court, and against the wall may be seen a sloping water table marking a roof, probably of an early kitchen. At the other end these rooms communicate with the tower, the floors of which are ruinous. The tower basement is entered from the court. The stairs throughout are in rectangular staircases, and each step is a heavy log of oak.

Between the hall and the west wall is the kitchen, fitted up with a modern roof and appliances, but, no doubt, on an old site. At one end of it is the well, about 5 feet diameter, lined with ashlar, and descending to the level of the river. At the other end is the kitchen-court, in which is seen a closed doorway leading into the basement of the northern apartments. It may be of Decorated or early Perpendicular date.

Looking to the rectangular and oblong outline of the defences, the cross-roads, and the position with one open side upon a river, it is difficult not to regard Tamworth as of Roman origin, or as modelled by Roman occupation. The Icknield-street, in its course from Birmingham towards Lichfield, passes, it is true, no nearer to Tamworth than Wall, the ancient Etocetum, six miles distant, where it is crossed by the Watling-street; but this latter, in its course to Atherstone or Mancetter, passes through Fazeley, only a mile south of Tamworth; and had it not been for its considerable angle at Wall, it would have passed directly through the town. Nevertheless, Roman towns are generally indicated by history or tradition, or the remains of Roman masonry, or articles of domestic use, and these evidences appear here to be entirely wanting.

But whatever may be the origin of the rectangular bank and ditch, there can be very little doubt but that the mound and platform of the castle were the works of Æthelflaed or her Saxon predecessors, the one to support the usual timber stronghold of the Saxon thanes, the other for the huts and sheds of their retainers and their cattle. Probably a ditch included both mound and platform on the three landward sides, and both these and the river front were strengthened by a palisade. As no mention is made of the town walls, no doubt a similar defence crested the bank all round. This is the arrangement well known to have been usual, both in Normandy and England, in the centuries preceding the Conquest, and a good and much earlier local example of it was given by the Romans at Wall, where a few years since the palisades were discovered preserved in a morass which formed their defence in front.

The Normans seem to have begun by building the enclosing wall, the remaining part of which is certainly Norman, probably early, and older than the keep. The domestic buildings were probably at first below the court at the foot of the mound; afterwards the keep seems to have been filled up by buildings. The main entrance was evidently by the upper gatehouse from the town.

The curtain wall cannot be much later than the Conquest. It is clear that it never was prolonged across the top of the mound, as the slope of its rampart walk only points to the level of the top; probably, therefore, when it was built there was a structure of some sort upon the mound. It is also uncertain whether the curtain recommenced on the opposite slope of the mound, and was continued down by the present lodge towards the mill, in which case the area of the castle would have been about 100 yards across.

The present shell, upon the mound, seems later than the curtain. The entrance door and the middle band of the wall seem additions of one age, perhaps of the reign of John or Henry III. The terrace and the oldest parts of the interior are probably later, perhaps of the time of Edward I. or II.

Leland, writing in the reign of Henry VIII., says, “The castle of Tamworth standeth on a meetly high ground, at the south part of the towne, hard upon the ripe of Anker, at the mouth of it. The base court and great ward of the castle is clean decayed, and the wall fallen down, and therein be now but houses of office of no notable building. The Dungeon hill yet standeth, and a great round tower of stone, wherein Mr. Ferrers dwelleth and now repaireth it.... The town of Tamworth is all builded of timber.”—[Itin. iv. 122.]

The base court evidently was the platform, and the great ward no doubt included all the ground south of the present curtain, and between the mound and the mill.

In the east window of the church was a painting, of which a copy is preserved by Dugdale. It represents the Conqueror enfeoffing Robert Marmion with the castle. The king stands in front of a considerable building, fronted by two drum towers of two stories, with conical roofs, and connected by a curtain. In one tower is a gateway, and behind the two are seen, in perspective, the stepped gable of a hall, and the chisel-pointed roof of a rectangular tower.

On the proper right of the king and of the building, in the distance, is the mound, crowned with a wall. This is, no doubt, a representation, rather exaggerated, of the castle, as it stood in the later Plantagenet times.

Dugdale, writing after the civil wars, says, “The Norman castle stood below, towards the mercate-place, where the stables now are.” The mercate-house, rebuilt in Queen Anne’s days, remains; the stables are removed to the other side, towards the bridge. The Norman castle means the domestic buildings.

13 Edward I., Philip Marmion had made a certain “pour presture,” or encroachment, to the injury of the king’s market, on either side of Tamworth Castle, containing a width of 8 feet and a length of 40 feet.

The Mr. Ferrers whom Leland mentions was probably Sir John Ferrers (died 1576), who married Barbara Cockaigne; and the domestic buildings now standing were his work, and, perhaps, the work of his son and grandson.

What originally stood within the shell is unknown, probably some lean-to houses of early English and Decorated date, which were removed, or nearly so, for the present structures. These latest works are mainly of brick, with freestone dressings and door casings.

TAUNTON CASTLE.

Taunton Castle possesses an interest in the eyes of archæologists which its present appearance and its Norman history may not seem to justify, but which depends upon the fact that it is of English and not Norman foundation, that it dates from a period nearly two centuries earlier than any other fortress mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle, and not only is the date of its construction approximatively known, but its existing earthworks, though mutilated, are beyond question original.

The castle stands upon one of the many low hummocks of gravel, often with a base of red marl, which rise out of the extensive fen lands of this very singular district, and which, before agriculture had drained the marshes, were even more inaccessible (in military phrase were stronger ground), than even the hill fortresses of the upper country. The Thone, the river whence the town derives its name, rises by many and copious tributaries over a wide sweep of country, north, west, and south, and traversing the low land, which though neither so wet nor so extensive as many of the adjacent levels, was yet broad enough and marshy enough to serve every purpose of defence.

Here, upon the right bank of the stream, Ine, the celebrated leader and lawgiver of the West Saxons, is reputed to have established himself in the year 702, while engaged in securing his frontier against the western Britons, who, under the leading of Geraint, still maintained a footing in the broken ground east of the Tamar, upon Exmoor and among the Brendon and Quantock Hills, holding probably the camps which still remain, but little altered by the lapse of a thousand or eleven hundred years.

This seems to be the origin of the town of Taunton, and here, upon the edge of one of the inosculating branches of the sluggish stream, Ine founded his castle by throwing up banks of earth girdled with deep and formidable ditches, and no doubt further strengthened by stockades of timber, or at best by walls the workmanship of which scarcely deserved the name of masonry. Such as it was it was destroyed, that is, burned, by Queen Æthelburh in 722, who probably however left the earthworks, the better part of the defence, much as she found them.

The spot selected, resting upon the river, is covered by a loop, which has been converted into a mill stream, working a mill placed a little below the castle. This river or north front is tolerably straight and about 180 yards long. The west front, about 168 yards, is formed by what seems to have been a tributary stream called the Potwater, which here joined the river nearly at a right angle. The south and east fronts, of 340 yards, were formed by a curved watercourse, probably artificial, which connected the tributary, by a second junction, with the river, and thus completed the circuit of the defence. The enclosure was thus a sort of quadrant, the river and the brook being the radii, and the curved ditch the arc. The area thus enclosed measures about seven acres, and lies between the river and the town, which covers its east and south sides.

Within this area, occupying its north-east corner and about a quarter of its extent, is the inner court or citadel of the place, roughly rectangular, and measuring about 123 yards east and west, by 73 yards north and south. Its east and north faces rest upon the main ditch and the river, and its south and west faces are covered by a curved ditch, artificial, which gives the eastern outer ditch a second connexion with the river, and divides the outer, called “Castle Green,” from the inner court. The position was a very strong one, having the river, and beyond it a morass, towards the north, or threatened side, and to the south a ditch, in part double, and always filled with water.

The inner court is further subdivided into two parts, of which the eastern half seems to have been raised into a sort of platform upon which probably Ine’s actual residence was placed.

The late Mr. Warre, a very great authority in Somerset earthworks, speaks of a mound here, but as I cannot make out that there is any record or tradition of a mound in the technical sense, that is, a conical heap of earth, probably he calls by that name the very considerable bank and contiguous platform of earth, much of which is still seen. What occurred here, and by whom occupied, or what changes took place between the reign of Ine and the end of the eleventh century is not known, but the Normans, accustomed, as far as practicable, to occupy the Saxon seats, soon perceived the advantages held out by the position and earthworks at Taunton, and William Gifford, who held the lordship as Bishop of Winchester in the reign of Henry I., seems to have decided upon building a regular castle. His successors, bishops of Winchester, were much here, and the castle received much addition at their hands, especially in the early Decorated period, of all of which traces more or less considerable still remain. The outer ward is traversed east and west by a road upon which were two gatehouses, of which the western was till recently represented by a fragment of wall and a stone bridge across the moat. Traces of a barbican, in part of timber, were discovered a few years ago while digging on the counterscarp. Of the eastern gatehouse the remains are still considerable. It was of large size, the entrance passage being 60 feet deep, with portals at each end and at the outer end, and a large square portcullis groove. The upper floor contained a fine room, of which on the north side there remain two windows in the early Decorated style, which is that of the whole gatehouse. The gateway was placed just within the ditch, on the counterscarp or town side, on which some foundations, probably of a barbican, were laid open a few years since. The wall of the outer court is gone, save a small fragment on the south-west quarter, neither are there any of the ancient buildings remaining within the area, Bishop Fox’s school, the oldest of them, being later than the period when the defences were of much value.

The defences and contents of the inner ward are less imperfect. The masonry here did not extend actually to the river, the immediate bank of which, as at Leicester, is very low, so that the enclosed ward occupied only about two-thirds of the whole moated area. The walled part is roughly triangular, the base being the east side, and the truncated part open to the west. This area seems further to have been divided by a cross wall into two parts, the keep, hall, and gatehouse being in the western, and in the eastern, the earthworks, which favours the notion of this having been the old English citadel. These earthworks are two banks along the east and south fronts, expanding at their junction into a rectangular platform of about 80 by 120 feet. The banks have been used as terraces or ramps, the Norman wall having been built against them and along the river edge of the ditch. These banks are about 18 to 24 feet broad and about 10 feet high. Along the east face about 150 feet of the original wall remains tolerably perfect, and is about 25 feet high outside. This is returned along the river or north front, and near the angle is a buried arch at present invisible, and which may have been a postern or a sewer. From the south face the wall has recently been removed. At the south-west corner of this court is a dwelling-house, part of the wall of which is old, either Norman or Edwardian.

The smaller or west court contains the chief remains in masonry, and of these the most remarkable is the keep. This is a well-defined though mutilated tower, standing upon the enceinte wall, of which it forms the north-west angle. It is rectangular, 50 feet north and south, by 40 feet east and west, with walls about 13 feet thick. There is no chamber below ground. The basement is vaulted with a heavy barrel vault, apparently original, and round-headed. Outside are flat narrow pilaster strips, dying into the wall at about 30 feet. There are traces of Norman loops in the wall, which may have been 50 feet high, and probably included three stories. At the north-east angle is a well-staircase leading to the battlements, probably in part an Edwardian addition. The entrance is most likely to have been in the south face, no doubt on the first floor, though there is nothing left to show this.

From the keep, along the north front, the original, though much mutilated, Norman wall, with its flat pilasters and the jamb of one original window, crests the rising ground, as at Leicester, about 50 feet from the river, and, also as at Leicester, evidently formed one side of the hall. At the end of the wall, about 140 feet from the keep, is a postern, with a segmental arch, possibly in substance Norman, though mutilated.

In the centre of the south front, but at the south-east corner of this section of it, is the gatehouse, a rectangular structure, with an Edwardian portal, and some Perpendicular additions, square portcullis grooves, gates, and lodge. In the front are seen the holes for the chains supporting the drawbridge, now replaced by a permanent structure. Above the entrance passage is a chamber.

Right and left of the gatehouse the curtain extends about 70 feet, terminating a short time ago in bold drum towers, of which one is gone, and the other caps the south-west angle of the ward, and connects this front with a short curtain leading to the keep. Against this wall stands a line of buildings ranging with the gatehouse. Opposite, against the north wall, is the hall, modern as to its inner wall, fittings, and roof, but very evidently occupying the site of the original Norman hall and domestic buildings.

The south-west drum tower has been rebuilt or faced, but evidently represents the Edwardian or early Decorated works that replaced the old Norman curtain. The ditch along the west, and part of the south fronts of this ward, has been recently filled up. The drum towers, curtain, and keep stood on its edge, and formed its scarp.

Here, then, we have a combination of earthworks dating from the commencement of the eighth century; walls and keep the work of the early part of the twelfth century; and towers and gatehouses towards the end of the thirteenth century or early in the fourteenth century. Bishop Langton executed some additions here in 1490, and placed his arms outside the inner gatehouse. In 1496, the castle was taken by the Cornish rebels who rose against the close taxation of Henry VII., and here massacred the Provost of Penrhyn. Bishop Horne made further repairs here in 1557.

In the Parliamentary wars, Taunton was first occupied for the Parliament, then taken by Lord Hertford for the King, and finally retaken for the Parliament by Blake, who held it against a far superior force. The infamous Jefferies held the “Bloody Assize” in the present hall.

It has been thought that Ine’s castle was confined to the inner ward. No doubt his strong house was there, but the whole enclosure is not larger than Framlingham or other Saxon holds.

The absence of a mound is rather peculiar, and it is remarkable that the Normans should have placed this keep on the lowest ground. Altogether, looking to its very curious though scanty remains, and its very ancient history, Taunton Castle is a work of unusual interest, and it is much to the credit of the Somersetshire archæologists that the keep has been converted into a museum, and the walls and earthworks converted into an embellishment to the ancient town to which the castle unquestionably gave rise.

THURNHAM CASTLE, KENT.

Thurnham, called also, from the hill on which it stands, “Godard’s,” Castle, near Maidstone, is a curious example of a Norman castle placed upon what is evidently a British camp.

The camp crowned the high point of a very steep spur, which juts out between a depression on the one side and a small deep combe on the other, in the great escarpment of the lower chalk, about four miles east-north-east of Maidstone. The earthworks were formed by scarping the central knoll, and perhaps raising it a very little, so as to form a slight mound, and thus especially strengthening its weak sides, those towards the root of the spur. On the lower or Thurnham front the defences, naturally strong, are reinforced by a ditch and bank, placed some little way down the hill, far below the body of the fortress, and intended to command the road which here winds up the ridge from the village and church of Thurnham, at the foot of the hill. The ground within this outer defence has been extensively opened for chalk, and is so disfigured by heaps of quarry rubbish that but little can be accurately ascertained of its ancient dispositions.

The Norman castle occupied a platform close west of the mound, and probably included within the British camp. Here stand the remains of the gateway and court, but as a trace of masonry is still seen upon the mound, it may be that it was included in the enceinte wall, or that upon it stood one of the circular or polygonal shell keeps which sometimes, with the Normans, took the place of the ordinary square keep, especially where there was an earlier mound to be fortified.

The ruins are not considerable. They are composed of the two parallel walls of a gatehouse, having on either hand two large round-headed recesses, dividing the passage into two bays, and there are besides two small lodge doors, also round-headed, on the east side.

Westwards from the gatehouse runs a low curtain wall, about 13 feet high, and 4 feet thick, for about 80 feet, ending in a broad flat buttress, perhaps the base of a square tower. The wall thence may be traced southwards, along the edge of the steep, whence it seems to have been continued towards the mound. A hollow way, cut in the chalk, winds from below, beneath and close to the west of this wall, and, making a bend, enters the gatehouse from the north. There are no traces of ashlar. Much of the wall shows a face of coursed flints. The work may be late Norman.

On the summit of the knoll is a depression in the soil. This part of the work is so covered with thick bramble and underwood that it cannot be very accurately examined.

Thurnham or Turnham occurs in Domesday, and was one of the numerous manors given by the Conqueror to Bishop Odo, and held under him at the survey by Ralph Curbespine. It then contained a church, and had been held under the Confessor by Sbern Biga.

On Odo’s fall, 19 W. C., it was granted to Gilbert Maminot by the tenure of castle guard under Dover Castle. The holders under Maminot were a knightly family, who took their name from the place. Robert de Turnham held it temp. Henry II., and founded Combwell Priory. Possibly he built the castle. Robert had Robert, who died s.p. 13 John; and Stephen, who died also s.p. 16 John.

In the reign of Edward I., Thurnham was held by Sir Roger de Northwode, who died 13 Edward I., leaving John, who married Joan de Badlesmere, and died 14 Edward II. Their son John died before his father, leaving Roger, who had Thurnham, and married Juliana, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, chief lord of the manor. Their son, Sir John, third baron, died 2 Richard II.; and his son, Roger de Northwode, who was never summoned to Parliament, alienated Thurnham, and died s.p., leaving a brother.

The Northwodes are said to have resided here, but the castle is thought to have been dismantled at an early period. Thurnham Castle is not named in the Ordnance map.

TICKHILL CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.

Tickhill is a place of high antiquity, and both before and for some centuries after the Norman Conquest its importance as a strong place and the head of an extensive lordship was very considerable. Mr. Hunter, the accurate and accomplished historian of the district, suggests “The-Wickhill,” in allusion to the village mount, as a probable etymology for the name, and cites “Thunder-cliffe,” or “Th’ Under Cliffe,” as an analogous case. It seems that near Sheffield Castle was a small green called “The Wick-er,” and “Ticken-hall,” near Bewdley, was the seat of an early fortress.

Tickhill, however, though obviously an early name, is not recorded in Domesday, but is thought to be included in Dadsley, a name still extant in the immediate neighbourhood. In “Dadesleia, Stantone, and Helgæli,” Elsi and Siward held eight carucates,—Roger de Buisli held seven in demesne; there were also thirty-one burgesses, a class whose presence has been held to indicate a burh or castle. Roger de Buisli was tenant in chief of these and other manors, comprising the Honour of Tickhill, a division certainly based upon an earlier fee, of which Tickhill was the chief seat. The Norman Honour numbered sixty-five and three-quarters knights’ fees, and extended from Yorkshire into the shires of Derby, Lincoln, Notts, and Leicester, including one manor in Devon. Tickhill, which seems to have been sometimes called Blythe, which, however, was also the name of a place in the adjacent part of Lincolnshire, was the chief seat of the powerful house of de Buisli during their somewhat brief career.

Roger de Buisli received Tickhill from the Conqueror, who erected it into an Honour in his favour. Roger had a choice in his wide Yorkshire domains of three ancient English seats, Laughton-en-le-Morthen, Mexborough, and Tickhill. He selected Tickhill; and the two other sites retain their English earthworks, unaltered by Norman masonry, and changed only by time. Laughton seems to have been originally superior even to Tickhill, probably as the residence of Earl Edwin, being named in the Domesday Survey. Roger himself probably fortified Tickhill with masonry, the gatehouse and much of the wall being apparently his work. The foundations of the shell-keep look rather later, but may also be of this date. He was also the founder of Blythe Priory, in 1088. He died 1098, and was succeeded by his son Robert, who died childless in the reign of Henry I.

The descent of Tickhill now becomes obscure. Roger had a brother, Ernald, who held six fees under Tickhill; and a sister, Beatrix, from whom descended the Earls of Eu. On Robert’s death, however, Tickhill was claimed by Robert de Belesme, as the next heir; and, as he was powerful, and supported his claim by payment of a heavy fine, or bribe, he succeeded. On his death, however, King Henry stepped in and took possession. The castle remained for some time, with some brief intervals, in the Crown. William Fitz-Godric held it in 1142, and Stephen, Earl of Eu, for a time. Ralph, Earl of Chester, had it in 1151–3. Henry II. seems to have settled it upon Eleanor, his queen, who founded the “Chapel of St. Nicholas within the walls.”

It descended to Richard I., and in his absence was seized by Prince John, and besieged for Richard by Pudsey, bishop of Durham. When John inherited it as king, he annexed his mother’s chapel to the chapter of Rouen. John was frequently at Tickhill, which is remarkable, as there was no park or chase annexed to it. He was here six times between 1200 and 1216 for at least eleven days. Early in John’s reign, however, the Earl of Eu, being powerful, claimed Tickhill as the husband of Alice, heiress of Henry, Earl of Eu, and representative of Beatrix, sister of Roger de Buisli. Ralph de Issoudon, or De Lusignan, her husband, an earl in her right, in 1197, seems to have been son of Geoffrey de Lusignan, who was to marry a daughter of King John, in consequence of which the king agreed to restore Tickhill to Ralph and his wife, and John de Bassingbourn was ordered to give possession, which was supplemented by an order to the same effect, 1 Henry III.

Meantime, another claimant appeared, in the person of Idonea, representative of Ernald, Roger de Buisli’s brother, and who had married Robert de Vipont, a baron much employed by John, and not unfrequently in connexion with Tickhill. Thus, in 1204 he was concerned in certain repairs at the castle, as also in 1206, which included a barn and stables. In 1207 he was to be paid for these repairs, and he was also employed upon the king’s castles of Nottingham, Bolsover, the Peak, and Scarborough. In 1208, five dolia of red wine, such as would keep, were to be sent to him at Tickhill, for the king. Idonea, Vipont’s wife, held by descent six fees in Tickhill, and now claimed the rest against Countess Alice, 6 Henry III. Alice had the best of it; but in 9 Henry III. she went abroad, probably to her Norman estates, and in consequence Tickhill seems to have lapsed to the Crown.

Henry III., when king, granted it to Prince Edward, who, in 1254, settled it upon Eleanor of Castile, but in 1259–60, Edward de Lacy, Constable of Chester, used the phrase, “Baronia mea de Tikehull,” as though absolute lord. Prince Edward, however, granted it to his cousin Henry, son of Richard, King of the Romans, in 1263.

In 1296, John, Earl of Eu, revived the family claim. He was grandson of Alphonso (son of John, King of Jerusalem), by a daughter of Countess Alice. His claim was speedily set aside, he being an alien. This was the last assertion of the right, but a century later it was remembered, when Henry V. created William Bourchier Earl of Eu and Lord Bourchier of Tickhill, titles only, not connected with the property, which remained in the Crown.

In February, 1322, the castle was besieged for three weeks by Thomas of Lancaster, and this siege was one of the charges brought against him on his trial:—“Et misit homines suos ... ad obsidendum castrum domini Regis de Tikhull; et quædam ingenia, ad projiciendum petras grossas super castrum prædictum, et homines in eodem castro ex parte domini Regis existentes; qui quidem proditores castrum illud, per tres septimanus continuè insultando et debellando, obsederunt, et quosdem homines Regis ibidem interfecerunt.” The castle was defended gallantly by Sir William de Anne, and relieved by the king in person. Tickhill was again settled upon a queen in the person of Philippa, who died in 1369. In 1362, Edward exchanged Tickhill with John of Gaunt, against the honour of Richmond, and it descended with the other estates of the duchy of Lancaster. In the Parliamentary struggle it was held for the king, but surrendered after Marston Moor, and was dismantled. When thus held, its outer defences were the moat and the palisades on the counterscarp. The foundation of the chapel was dissolved, 1 Edward VI. The castle now belongs to the Earl of Scarborough.

Tickhill Castle is an excellent example of a pre-Norman or English earthwork, composed of mound, fosse, and lower ward, converted into a Norman castle. It exemplifies exactly the manner in which the Norman engineers treated earthworks of this description, and how such works gave rise to one of the two great types of a Norman castle, that with the shell-keep. Tickhill is Laughton on a larger scale, the only difference being that the ditch of the mound is not carried wholly round it, but is wanting towards the attached area. Either it was never formed, or, what is not improbable, was filled up when the Norman works were constructed, or, as at Cardiff, at a much later period. Something analogous to this seems to have taken place at Kenilworth.

In the original construction of this fortress advantage was taken of a knoll of soft sandstone rock to form the base of the mound. This was scarped, and the ditch dug, and the material employed in forming the upper two-thirds of the mound. A modern cave in the side shows this natural base. The castle is composed of the mound, and a court or ward appended to its western side, the whole included within a ditch. The mound is conical, about 60 feet diameter at its table-top, and about 60 feet high, above the ward. The ward is a rounded and more or less circular area, save where it touches the mound, and includes about one quarter of its circumference. The exterior ditch follows the figure of this ward, and of the uncovered three-quarters of the mound: hence in plan it resembles somewhat a figure of 8, and it is this notch in the outline that makes it probable that the mound ditch was once complete, and the two parts of the fortress were, as at Barwick, distinct. The domestic buildings stood in the lower ward, on its western edge, opposite to the mound upon which was the keep. The gatehouse stands on the southern edge of the ward, between the domestic buildings and the keep. The curtain is broken down to the east, but elsewhere tolerably perfect. The ditch is filled up on the same side, and its place occupied as a kitchen-garden and by stables.

Upon the summit of the mound are seen the foundations of the keep, a decagon, the sides of which average 16 feet 11 inches, of which each angle was covered by a flat pilaster of 4 feet broad, and very slight projection. The door seems to have been towards the south-west, of 4 feet 6 inches opening. It lay between two sides of the exceptional length of 20 feet. The wall seems to have been, at the top of the plinth, 10 feet thick. The shell was apparently faced with ashlar. The whole building has been taken down with some care to the top of the plinth, a mere plain chamfer, formerly about 6 inches above the ground, and now covered to its level. Thus the actual dimensions of the plan are preserved, and the position and breadth of the entrance. It is said there is a well within the area, a few feet inside the place of the door. If so, it is at present effectually concealed.

The keep at this time is ascended by seventy-five stone steps in a straight line on the western face. Possibly this was the original approach. If so, the path from the head of the stair must, as at Tamworth, have passed for 20 feet round the outside of the keep. The steps terminate below under the shelter of the curtain. The two ends of the curtain ascend the mound about two-thirds of its height. Probably they were continued to the summit, but no foundations are now seen at the keep level, and the plinth of the keep shows there was no bond. The curtains which thus ascended these mounds were rarely bonded into the keep, and do not seem ever to have risen to its full height. On the contrary, they seem to have only risen to the level of the top of the mound or to the base of those of the keep, the parapet probably being continued so as to stop the passage round the exterior. This seems to have been the case at Tunbridge, Berkhampstead, and Tamworth. At Hawarden the curtain abuts against the keep about 10 feet high, but with no original bond, and with a doorway in it opening outside the base of the keep.

The curtain which enclosed the lower ward is here from 10 feet to 13 feet thick, and 20 feet to 30 feet high, with a plinth at its interior base. It rises out of a bank which forms a ramp or terrace 15 feet broad, on both outer and inner sides. Inside, this ramp is about 8 feet above the court level. Outside, it forms a walk all round the fortress, being carried by a bridge over the gateway, and in a step or notch round the slope of the mound. The curtain is entire from the mound to the dwelling-house, about 240 feet, along the north front, but to the west it is concealed by the house which represents the domestic buildings of the castle. It also remains from the house to the gatehouse, and about 50 feet or 60 feet beyond it along the south front. Towards the south-east about 300 feet are gone, but the last 78 feet, where it again ascends the mound, are tolerably perfect.

Where the outer wall skirts the mound it forms a revetment 6 feet high, and which may have been higher, and crested with a parapet to defend this front.

The exterior ditch is broad and deep, and in part contains water. Formerly it was fed from an adjacent stream, which flowed all round it. Beyond the ditch was a bank of earth, of which traces and portions remain, especially towards the north. It is difficult to say whether there was a second ditch, owing to the encroachments of roads and buildings.

The gatehouse deserves special notice, as an original and early Norman structure. It is 36 feet square, with walls 7 feet 6 inches thick, and has a round-headed gateway at each end, of 12 feet opening, with a plain rebate for doors, but no portcullis or chamfer. The inner space was covered with timber, and there was an upper story. This may have been partially rebuilt; it contains in the wall over the inner door a large Tudor window, probably an insertion.

There is no staircase. The structure much resembles Porchester before the alterations. It is placed upon the curtain, with a bold exterior, and still bolder interior projection. The outer front of the first floor is ornamented with four stiff rude pediments, each a right-angled triangle, with a rude figure at the apex of each and in the hollow angle or gutter, joining each pair. The tympana are filled with small square blocks, each carved with an undeveloped dog-tooth ornament. A plain string marks the division of the two stages, and so far all is Norman.

But although the upper part is unaltered, the lower part has been masked by a Decorated gateway with portcullis groove and pointed arch, while in front of and flanking this arch two walls, 6 feet thick, project 15 feet, and contained between them the drawbridge. Above and upon these, concealing the upper part of the arch of entrance, is a low flat bridge, which carries the exterior walk, or chemin de ronde, over the entrance, and from which the grate was worked. Had it not been for this bridge, and its Decorated connexions, it might have been supposed that the chemin de ronde was a mere modern pleasure walk, whereas it is clear that it was a part of the defence, a work covering the foot of the wall, and no doubt strongly palisaded. There is no trace of a parapet.

The gatehouse seems early Norman, probably with most of the curtain the work of Roger de Buisli before 1089. The keep looks much later, but it must have been part of the original design, and possibly the works begun by Roger were completed by his son. In the Decorated period there were probably considerable additions. Probably when the gatehouse was masked, and the bridge thrown over it, the curtain also was repaired, and a new parapet added, and the chemin de ronde formed. Leland speaks of a hall, now gone. Where the chapel stood is not known. A door case which may have belonged to it has been removed and set up inside the gatehouse, and outside is an old oak door of the style of James I., on which are carved the words,—

Peace and grace Be to this place.

The entrance-way now leads up to the gatehouse across a modern bridge, over the wet ditch. To the south of the place is a tributary of the river Torne or Thorne, which covered that front.

This is one of the most curious castles in Yorkshire, not only for its pure Norman gatehouse, and the undisturbed foundation of its shell keep, but because it shows how the Norman lords availed themselves of an English seat, and how their architects or engineers accommodated their defences to the already existing earthworks. It should be studied in conjunction with Pickering for the general plan and the Norman works, and with Barwick-in-Elmete and Laughton-en-le-Morthen for the general resemblance of the earthworks. Unfortunately there is no plan.

TRETOWER, BLAEN-LLYFNI, AND CRICKHOWEL CASTLES, BRECKNOCKSHIRE.

Among the passes that communicate between the open country of the upper Usk and the Wye, in the neighbourhood of Talgarth, Glâsbury, and Hay, and the valley of the lower Usk, there are two especially dangerous, and which, therefore, it behoved the Norman settlers to guard with peculiar care. These are the pass of the Bwlch, between Buckland and Cefn Moel, and the valley of the Rhiangoll. The strip of land bordering on the Usk, which flows close to the west of Mynydd Buckland, is very narrow, and in wet seasons was formerly scarcely practicable; and was besides, to a considerable extent, guarded by the castle of Blaen-Llyfni, which was specially built for the defence of the Bwlch, close to the north of which it is placed.

The Rhiangoll rises in Cwm Catwg, a deep, dark hollow in the Black Mountains, and flows down to join the Usk about three miles above Crickhowel. Near its head, where it lies open towards the north-west, it was guarded by the hill-castle of Dinas, and lower down by Tretower. Still lower down, the Usk itself is protected by the castled mound of Crickhowel, and still lower by that of Abergavenny; so that between the seigniorial castles of Blaen-Llyfni, Dinas, and Abergavenny, and the private posts of Tretower and Crickhowel, the incursions of the Welsh of Brecknock and Radnor were liable to be checked in their advance, and altogether cut off in their retreat.

Tretower stands in the meads of the Rhiangoll, on the left bank of the stream, about a mile above its junction with the Usk, at a point where a tump of gravel rises on the margin of, and a little above, the general level of the meadow, once evidently an impassable morass, and even now by no means a favourable specimen of Breconshire farming. The meadow is traversed by several branches of the stream, here reinforced by divers springs and brooklets, which, added to the natural strength of the ground, made the place one of very difficult approach save from the slightly higher ground to the north-east.

Tretower is a chapelry in the parish of Llanvihangel Cwm Du, and seems to have been the private estate of the owners of the castle, who, when the conquests of Edward I. settled the Principality, deserted the small and inconvenient fortress for a larger house a little to its south, now occupied by a farmer, and showing some traces of the Decorated style of architecture.

The castle was a three-cornered enclosure, having two round towers at its northern and southern angles, or the ends of its base, and the keep at its western angle or apex. The two sides are each about 60 yards in length, and the base about 80 yards. The entrance was probably near the centre of the base or eastern curtain, in the line of the present road to the farm-buildings which occupy this outer ward. Fragments remain of the two round towers, and about half of the northern curtain. At the gorge of the southern tower, nearly buried, is seen the crown of a large pointed arch which probably opened into its basement, though its breadth is unusual.

The inner ward, within, or rather capping which, is the keep, is a square of about 23 yards by 18 yards outside, and 17 yards inside measurement, placed at the apex of the triangle; so that three sides of it are exterior to, and one within, the outer ward. It has been destroyed on the north and east sides; but the south side is perfect, and the west very nearly so. The foundations can be traced all round. This ward occupies the whole of a tump of gravel rising about 12 feet above the meadow, which is its defence on the west, south, and east; and it is so built that its lower part serves as a scarp wall, the ground within having been about 6 feet above the narrow bank or terrace outside. There were no towers at the two northern angles, which seem to have been chamfered off with a sort of spreading or buttressed base. From the south wall, at its west end, projects a half-octagonal tower, and at its east end another, much larger. They are but half-octagons, and have no internal projection. The wall was 8 feet thick, and 25 feet high to the battlements. In the remains of the west wall are traces of a recess, perhaps for a loop, a fireplace with a clumsy drop-arch, and higher up a window in the same style. These, in their present form, are late insertions, but probably represent original openings, as on the exterior is a broad flat buttress intended to carry the chimney-shaft. This wall has been a good deal pulled about at an early period. The south wall is exceedingly curious, and though evidently much altered, bears large marks of its original style. Near its west end, in the hollow angle, is a small round-headed doorway opening into a well-stair which led to the battlements, but has been blocked up. East of this, an opening in the wall (probably the place of a second door) shows a flight of steps descending in the wall to another door, also round headed, and now nearly buried. The stairs are lighted by an exterior loop. Higher up, at a different level, is a window recess having bold, heavy, flanking, engaged piers fluted in zigzag, and supporting a fragment of an arch-moulding worked in the same chevron pattern. It may be that this was a double window, or two arches of an arcade, for the fragments of the arch-head have somewhat that appearance.

Next, east of this, at the same level, is a doorway of 4 feet by 6 feet opening, in the same fashion and style as the window, with jambs fluted in zigzag and the chevron moulding above. The work is rude, and the ornamentation only partially executed. All these openings have been walled up with early masonry. The east half of this east wall is occupied by a rectangular projection, forming a chamber 10 feet deep by 18 feet broad, which may have been a kitchen, since it contains a fireplace with a round back and gathering up to a cylindrical shaft, and at the ground level is a water-drain; also there are three round-headed loops, of which one is in the west wall, and in the east wall is a small round-headed door, 2 feet 9 inches broad, and opening upon the outer ward; it has no portcullis.

The openings, of which traces remain in this wall, seem to show that the building was originally a rectangular Norman keep, having a basement and a first and a second floor, indicated by the lower door, the entrance to the wall stairs, and the door and window above. The southern projection is probably original, as is the small door in its side. The battlements, of which a part remain on the west wall, are, no doubt, restorations. They are composed of broad merlons with a cruciform loop in each, the cross-arm being very short.

In the exterior of this building, near its ground level, a breach in the masonry discloses a cavity about 14 inches square, which pierces the wall parallel to its faces. This was evidently occupied by a beam, inserted as a tie, as at Brunlas, where also the timber has rotted away, and the cavity been exposed, and has given rise to a number of ingenious conjectures. In the centre of this square enclosure, and leaving only a space of from 7 feet to 9 feet between its exterior and the centre of each side, is the interior keep. This keep is a cylindrical tower, at its base about 43 feet in diameter, and battering inwards to a height of about 10 feet, where it is girt by a very bold, rather more than half-round bead or cordon, which marks the summit of the slope and the first-floor level. Here the tower is about 38 feet in diameter. From thence it continues to batter, though slightly, perhaps 2 feet, to the base of the battlements, which are gone. It is now 70 feet high from the ground level, which originally may have been 5 feet lower, and the tower 5 feet higher, making a total of 80 feet. About half-way up is a plain set-off of about 6 inches, reducing the diameter of the tower by a foot. With this exception the exterior is quite plain. The present entrance to the basement or ground floor is on the north-east side, by a broken entrance of modern date, the making of which has been aided by the first-floor entrance, which is immediately above it, and of which it now makes a part. The tower is composed of a basement and three floors, and its interior diameter at the base and first floor is 20 feet. The floors were of timber, and are gone; and the roof seems to have been flat. The basement, now about half filled up, was about 10 feet high, and the wall at its floor about 11 feet 6 inches thick. It was lighted by two loops in the north-west side, the splayed recesses of which are square-headed, and, as in Canterbury keep, have their inner opening closed above, so that the loop was on the level of the first floor. These loops are stopped up outside, evidently by very early masonry. In the south-west side is a door, of which the top is seen unburied, whence a flight of steps leads in the wall upwards and southward into the floor above, and this was evidently the only entrance to the basement floor.

The entrance into the first floor was also the general entrance into the keep. The doorway, much broken, was 4 feet wide and 6 feet high, and about 10 feet above the original ground level. Over the doorway, outside, is a curious drip or hood, forming an equilateral arch, a sort of pediment; and on either side of the doorway are two holes, at the base and near the top, which seem to have carried the base of a wooden structure, probably covering an exterior stair. There is no portcullis. The door enters a passage vaulted with a drop arch, which traverses the wall leading direct by a second door, viz., into the first floor. From this passage, on the left, a door opens into a mural stair, 3 feet 3 inches wide, which ascends in the curve of the wall to the upper floors.

The first floor is 20 feet in diameter, and its walls about 8 feet 6 inches thick; its floor rested on two large parallel beams laid north-west and south-east. To the north-east and south-west are large window recesses, 4 feet 6 inches broad, with drop chamfered arches, and having stone seats. In each was a window of one light, about 2 feet opening, with an equilateral arch, and chamfered edges. In the south jamb of the south-west window is a door, the termination of the staircase, vaulted, and lighted by two external loops, and which has been already mentioned as rising from the basement floor. In the north-west wall is a large fireplace, with a bold flat stone hood dying into the wall above, beneath a bold bead moulding, and below resting upon two short columns with bell caps of a stiff early English character. The columns are cut away below, and in fact form corbels. On either side is a rude circular corbel, either to hold a light, or as at St. Briavel’s, to support the lateral thrust of the hood. This floor is 18 feet high. It was the state-room.

The staircase leading to the second floor, after ascending in the curve of the wall a few steps, terminates in a well staircase 6 feet in diameter, which continues the ascent to the second floor, and passes on to the battlements, as at Chepstow, Carlisle, Ludlow, and Newcastle. The staircase opens into the first floor by the intervention of a small recess or lobby in the thickness of the wall, where a door, now broken, opens into the main chamber.

The second floor was also 18 feet high, and had two windows under drop arches, about 2 feet broad and 5 feet high, with equilateral arched heads, closely resembling those below. One opens to the south-east and one to the north-west. The latter has over its outer opening an angular drip, or hood, or pediment, like that over the great entrance below. Here also is a fireplace, and exactly above that in the lower room, and similar to it, only the jambs are rather shorter. The hearth-stone was supported upon a kind of bressummer, formed by a table projecting about 18 inches from the wall below, and appearing as a carved moulding in the lower room. There is a set-off of about 6 inches at this level, to support the floor.

Following the staircase, the third floor is entered by a lobby similar to the one below. The stair is lighted by loops, those near the bottom being flat-topped, those above lancet-pointed. There is one long loop divided by a transom, which forms a part of the set-off on the outside. The third floor has no fireplace, but it has two windows, similar to the others, opening north-east and south-west. The roof seems to have rested upon one main beam, stiffened by spars at either end, the supports of which remain in the shape of two stout plain stone corbels. Thus stiffened, the platform above would have carried an engine of almost any weight. The wall is about 8 feet 6 inches thick at the summit; its thickness above the cordon is, in fact, uniform. To give greater strength to the masonry along the course of the staircase and about the lobbies, the wall is thickened internally by a sort of pilaster, the sharp edge of which remains.

Tretower is a rare, probably a solitary, example of a rectangular Norman keep, which has been gutted, and its central part occupied by an early English round tower. The space between the tower and the keep walls was then roofed in, probably in two floors. The alterations in the exterior Norman wall, blocking up the doors and windows, &c., were probably made when the inner tower was built.

The material of the keep is a hard variety of old red sandstone. The workmanship is good coursed rubble plastered within. The door and window quoins and the fireplaces are of ashlar, well worked, though plain, as is the whole building. The arches of the doors and window recesses are drop. Those of the windows are equilateral, and many of the loops lancet. The inner tower is wholly of one date, apparently late in the early English period.

It is said that Tretower was a residence of the Welsh Lords of Brecknock before the Norman era. If so, they were attracted by the dry gravel tump, covered on three sides by a morass. The Norman occupants seem to have constructed a square tower or keep on the knoll, having, on one side, a base-court, probably also walled in. Late in the reign of Henry III., the Norman keep was gutted, and a central stone tower built, and the triangular base-court enclosed by a curtain and mural towers.

CRICKHOWEL CASTLE.

This castle stands in the suburb of the town of Crickhowel, between it and the Usk, on the left bank of that river, and about a furlong from the parish church.

Its principal and most interesting feature is a large conical mound, wholly artificial, about 50 feet high, and on its table top 60 feet diameter north and south, and 50 feet east and west. This mound has been surrounded by a ditch, traces of which remain on the east, south, and west sides. Towards the north it is encroached upon by a pond and some cottages. Appended to the mound, on its east side, and outside of its ditch, is an enclosure of irregular shape, roughly rectangular, but rounded towards the north-west, and including about two acres. It is contained within a low bank, the exterior slope of which has been scarped, and seems to have descended into an exterior ditch. This was the base-court or ward of the castle, the mound being the keep. On the south face of this ward, where the bank would have abutted upon the ditch of the mound, are the remains of two conjoined towers, one rectangular and one round. The loop-like windows of the former are evidently of Decorated date, and the two towers seem of the same age. Upon the north-east corner of the ward, on the counterscarp of the ditch of the mound is part of a round tower, which, with some heaps of earth about it, seems to be the remains of the gatehouse of the keep, which also was probably connected with a protected staircase ascending the mound, the way up which must have been on this side. These are the only buildings actually remaining upon the enceinte of the ward, but it is evident that a wall was carried round its edge, of which the bank probably contains and conceals the foundation. Buck’s drawing, taken in 1741, shows this curtain, and upon its three angles three drum towers, of which one covered the outer entrance, and is opposite to the gatehouse of the keep. The summit of the mound is much broken up, and there are traces of the foundations of buildings which formerly stood here, and which seem to have been contained within a circular or polygonal shell which formed the keep.

It is evident that Crickhowel, like Caerleon, Cardiff, Abergavenny, Brecon, and Builth, was a moated mound with appended base-court, upon which the Normans, on seizing the estate, constructed a castle. The earliest masonry was probably of the date of Henry II., but enlarged and rebuilt in the reign of Henry III.

* * * * *

BLAEN-LLYFNI, or Blaen-Llevenny Castle, in Brecknockshire, stands above the Llyfni river, a tributary to Llangorse Lake. It was posted to guard the important pass of the Bwlch, above and a little within which it stands. It was in plan a parallelogram, contained within four curtain walls with towers at the angles, and apparently a gatehouse towards the north-east. Part of the north wall is standing, but the remainder is a heap of ruins. The castle occupied a natural tump; about 20 feet above the outer level and around it is a ditch, in parts wet. The castle stands on a slope, which, towards the north, is very steep and very strong. It was built by, and long belonged to, the Norman lords of Brecknock; and on the occurrence of an attainder or minority was held by the Crown; hence it is not only mentioned in local story, but occurs from time to time in the records of the realm. It seems of the age of Henry III., or perhaps somewhat earlier. In Buck’s time, 1741, much of the curtain remained and parts of the tower.

TUTBURY CASTLE, STAFFORDSHIRE.

The high broken ground of Needwood Forest, contained between the Trent and the Dove, is brought to a termination eastward by the union of those streams upon the confines of the three shires of Derby, Stafford, and Leicester. About five miles above this confluence, upon the right or Staffordshire bank of the Dove, stand the town and castle of Tutbury, once, according to Leland, a residence of the Saxon lords of Mercia, and named, it is said, from the god Thoth, who presides over Tuesday, and is thought to have been worshipped in the enclosure of the castle. This etymology is supported by Wednesbury; but, however this may be, Tutbury was certainly an ancient stronghold, and possesses in that respect unusual natural advantages.

The castle crowns the head or northern termination of a considerable ridge of new red sandstone rock, which projects from the high ground of Hanbury and Needwood, and forms an abrupt promontory above the broad and level meadows of the Dove. On the south or landward side the hill is partially severed from its parent ridge by a cross valley, within and about which is built the ancient town of Tutbury, celebrated from the days of John of Gaunt until the end of the last century for its attachment to the barbarous sport of bull-running.

The natural position of the castle is strong and well-defined, and has been turned to account from a very remote period, and materially strengthened by Norman and pre-Norman art.

Upon its west, south, and eastern sides the head of the ridge has been further protected by a broad and deep ditch, which thus covers about two-thirds of its circumference. Towards the north, where the hill projects upon the meadows, the ditch ceases, and this front, rising steeply about 100 feet, has been rendered steeper by art, and is further protected by a wide expanse of wet land, traversed by a very ancient and broad mill-leat, and by the sinuous channel of the Dove.

Upon the east and north-east fronts, where the area of the promontory was inconveniently large, two extensive semilunar spaces have been left outside the ditch. They are, in fact, outworks upon a large scale, useful for pasturing cattle in turbulent times, somewhat lower than, and commanded by, the main works; covering the ditch, and scarped, though not revetted, towards the field. They are separated by a deep ravine, up which the main approach to the castle ascended from the north-east, the direction of the Dove bridge, and probably of an earlier ford. On this, the east front, the contents of the ditch have been thrown inwards, crowning the scarp by an artificial bank about 15 feet or 20 feet in height.

Upon the south-west and west side the earth has been employed to form a large mound, about 40 feet high, and 70 feet across at its truncated summit, and which renders this front almost impregnable.

The space between the east bank and the west mound, forming the south front, is occupied by the castle buildings, which, built upon the natural soil, crown the scarp of the ditch, and overlook the town.

Opposite, also from the bank to the mound, is the north front, almost precipitous, and defended, therefore, by neither ditch nor bank. The space thus enclosed forms the base-court of the castle, and covers about three acres. It is in plan an irregular circle.

The best view of these magnificent earthworks is from the summit of the mound, which not only predominates over the court of the castle, to its east, but westward rises very steeply about 140 feet from the meadows. The counterscarp of the ditch is here seen to terminate on the north-west, at the base of the mound in a sharply-defined falciform ridge.

The masonry which has been added to these earlier defences is composed of a group of buildings on the south front, flanked by curtains which run, on the one hand, westward towards the mound, and, on the other, eastward, along the top of the bank by which that face is defended. This curtain is 6 feet thick at the top of its plinth, about 6 feet from the ground, to which level it is now reduced. There is evidence that it was about 20 feet high, with a rampart accessible from its flanking towers, and by a double flight of open steps from within. At one point is the vault of a large garderobe, marked in the “Vetusta” drawing by a bartizan turret. This east curtain is broken by a lofty rectangular mural tower, of which the interior wall with a square angle-turret only remains, and which faced the turn of the road up to the castle, on the opposite side of the ditch. The bank has been removed here, so that the tower is built upon the original soil, and its basement entered from the court on a level. This tower is Perpendicular in style, and has evidently been blown up by gunpowder.

At the north end of this curtain, at the north-east corner of the court, is the great gatehouse, a rectangular building pierced by a portal, and with lateral lodges. Above were other chambers of more pretention and larger size. This gatehouse is almost all outside the wall. Its south face rakes the ditch, and has a small projecting balcony at the first-floor level, communicating by a shaft with the basement lodge. Its north face looked towards the Dove; only its south and east walls remain. It had no flanking towers, the wall on one side of the gate being pierced by a loop. To it has been added, outside, flanking the gate and blocking up the loop, two thick solid cheeks of wall, from the front of which the drawbridge fell across the moat. The gatehouse seems to be of late Decorated date, its window recesses have half-round heads, and a window above the portal has something like Decorated tracery still remaining, and rudely indicated in the drawing given in the “Vetusta Monumenta.” The portal has a flat segmental arch, and outside this is a low drop arch, part of the additions. The details of the drawbridge, to judge from the holes cut in the stone, were peculiar. Two portcullis grooves remain.

The masonry of the drawbridge has been removed, and the ditch here solidly filled up with earth. The road from below, to reach this gate, is continued for some way along the crest of the ditch, within reach of the walls. Lower down it is commanded by the two demilunes. From the gatehouse westward the edge of the steep north front was crested by a curtain wall, probably low and light, of which there are slight traces.

Upon the summit of the mound is a ruined round tower, evidently an erection of very modern times, probably as a summer-house, or an object in a view. There is said to have been an earlier building here, destroyed before the reign of Elizabeth, probably by John of Gaunt, and likely to have been a polygonal shell of masonry. It was called Julius Tower, Juliet being a not uncommon name for such structures.

The castle buildings have been broken down, but what remains is as sharp and fresh as though lately executed. The outer wall and altered windows remain of the great hall, 61 feet long by 29 feet broad, and a group of state apartments at the east end. Here are two very fine crypts, no doubt cellars,—fitting receptacles for the very best of drinks,—entered from the court by handsome doorways and six or eight descending steps. They have been covered with barrel vaults, one of which was ribbed transversely and diagonally, with large carved bosses, probably of the time of Richard II. Above these are handsome rooms, with flush flat-topped chimney-places, with mouldings set with flowers and the “hart lodged,” and what may be a conventional pomegranate. These buildings are in the best and purest Perpendicular style, and the profiles and details of the mouldings are admirably suited to that fine but sometimes rather friable material, red sandstone, here of very superior quality.

In the court is a deep well, still in use. At the west end of the great hall is a brick building, probably the work of some Crown steward or lessee, about the time of Queen Anne or George I.

So far as can be observed, the castle exhibits no trace of Norman masonry. All the structures, walls, tower, gatehouse, hall, and apartments are nearly or quite of one date, and are probably the work of John of Gaunt, who resided here very frequently, and in regal state. This is very remarkable, because Tutbury is mentioned in Domesday, was the caput of a very important Norman honour, and the principal seat of the great Norman family of Ferrars, earls of Derby, from the Conquest to their ruin towards the close of the reign of Henry III., since which time it has been, for the most part, in the Duchy of Lancaster.

Shaw, in his “History of Staffordshire,” gives two most exaggerated drawings of this castle. Another, on a larger scale, a view from the east side, taken in the reign of Elizabeth, is engraved in the “Vetusta Monumenta,” vol. i., pl. 39. This, amidst much absurd perspective, shows the gatehouse and east tower, what may be a chapel east window in the state apartments, and a round tower at the east foot of and built into the mound, besides a west curtain with three mural towers upon it.

Tutbury was held for the king, and taken by the Parliament in the wars of Charles I., and subsequently, by order of the House, reduced very nearly to the condition in which it is now seen.

It may be mentioned that an addition to both the defences and the resources of the castle has been provided in the leat, known as the Fleam, in part only an artificial channel, which leaves the Dove about a mile above the castle, is led beneath its walls where it still works a large and very powerful mill, and finally returns to the river some way down, after a parallel course of about three miles.

Although the temporal evidence of the splendour of the house of Ferrars has disappeared, the memory, as usual, of their ecclesiastical beneficence has been preserved. The parish church of St. Mary, once the church of the Ferrars Abbey of Tutbury, still stands a stone’s throw from the castle wall, and seems anciently to have been included within the outer defences. It was founded by Henry de Ferrars, in the reign of Rufus, and has a Norman nave, clerestory, and aisles; and its west end is one of the most perfect and richest Norman fronts in existence. This structure, which had been much misused, was happily placed under the judicious care of Mr. Street, who was engaged to restore the Norman parts, and add a large semi-circular apse to the chancel. This is probably the chapel of St. Mary within the castle, in which (18 Edward I.) Edmund Earl of Lancaster founded a special mass.

Mary Queen of Scots was imprisoned in Tutbury Castle, under the care of George Earl of Shrewsbury, then constable.

URQUHART CASTLE, INVERNESS-SHIRE.

About half-way between the two extremities of Loch Ness, the loch is suddenly reduced by about one-third of its ordinary breadth by the projection from its western shore of a bold headland, under cover of which the glens of Urquhart and Moriston open upon the loch, and contribute to it, across a marshy deposit of gravel and peat, their respective waters.

The headland which is thus partially isolated between these waters and the loch is moderately lofty, and slopes down steeply towards its extremity at the north-east, again to rise and finally to terminate in an oval and rugged knoll of rock, which stands out from 50 feet to 100 feet above both the water and the contiguous land. Upon and covering this knoll is placed Castle Urquhart, which is thus a very prominent object from Lochness, and combines, in a very remarkable degree, natural and artificial defences upon its enceinte and within its area.

The rock, open at each end, and along its north-eastern side towards the loch, is protected on the land side by a deep and broad ditch, quarried across the neck of the peninsula from shore to shore, not, indeed, to the level of the water, by from 10 feet to 12 feet, but to a depth which at one point gives a precipitous height of 30 feet to 40 feet to the face forming its scarp.

In general plan, the castle, like the rock it stands upon, is an irregular oval, reduced to something of an hour-glass figure by the indentation of a small cove near its centre. At the north and most prominent end is the rectangular keep. On the landward front is the gatehouse, and in the side opposite appears to have been a small tower. The enceinte is completed by curtain walls, ranging in thickness and height from 4 feet to 9 feet, and from 20 feet to 40 feet, according as they supported buildings within, or occupied weak or strong points in the defence.

The entrance is by a causeway of masonry, 12 feet broad, having a roadway between parapets, and about 80 feet long from the counterscarp to the scarp of the ditch. At about 40 feet from the counterscarp, and 6 feet beyond the centre of the ditch, there, 10 feet deep, is an opening of 20 feet, formerly occupied by a drawbridge, beyond which the parapets are higher, and probably formed part of some kind of advanced work, for the management and protection of the bridge. This part of the defence occupied the remainder of the causeway proper, about 20 feet, the ditch here being 80 feet broad, and a platform of 20 feet, with a rise of 6 feet, intervening between the end of the causeway and the gate.

The gate is removed about 6 feet to the south of the line of the causeway, so as to check a rush upon it. It is a plain round-headed portal of 9 feet opening, between two half-round towers, and above it is the usual small look-out window of the portcullis chamber. Just within the gateway is the square groove, in which hung the portcullis, and beyond is a barrel vault, ribbed at intervals, for gates, and having a lodge door on the left hand. The passage ends in a plain but good round-headed gateway, the coigns and ring stones of which are of excellent ashlar, and which is set in the inner face of the gatehouse. This is a rectangular building, with two half-round towers flanking its outer entrance, and on each side of the central passage is a chamber also barrel-vaulted, but having semi-circular and semi-domed west ends. One of these rooms, as mentioned, opens from its side into the passage, and the other from its end, into the court. The gatehouse had an upper floor, also vaulted, and apparently also a second floor, of which traces remain. Fragments of a chimney-shaft which has fallen from its front, encumber the causeway.

Emerging from the gatehouse, the rugged character of the interior comes at once into view. On the right is a path between two knolls of rock; that on the left moderately high, and not quite extending to the waterward curtain; that on the right high and steep, and its perpendicular face forming the landward curtain, the wall crowning which is 9 feet thick. At the south-east end, where the two ridges unite, is a small circular eminence, which may have been a beacon. This part of the outer ward is a fortress in itself, and upon its highest ground are traces of buildings. A fragment of the waterward curtain still stands about 30 feet high, and 6 feet thick; but there are no traces in this quarter of mural towers.

The gatehouse opens upon the narrowest part of the ward, where it is indented by a small cove. The curtain was carried round this cove, and contained a postern, whence a path led down to the water, here shielded by the cliff. There is a window in the curtain,—a part probably of a building for the protection of the postern and the galleys below.

The way from the gatehouse towards the left leads to the keep. It rises by a steep curve between, on the right, a high wall of some ruined building, and on the left a curious knoll of rock, scarped steeply into a rectangular figure, about 30 feet high, and on the top of which are foundations of a building, 15 feet by 30 feet, which must have been as tall as the upper floor of the gatehouse, and have commanded the adjacent curtain, from which it is separated by a narrow hollow way. Following the curved road, a cross wall is reached, which cuts off the inner from the outer ward, and formed an outwork to the keep. This ward is three-sided,—a sort of quadrant, the keep being at the apex. The land and waterward curtains form the two sides, and the base is a shallow curved ditch, in which is built the wall, and against it are two buildings like barracks. Between their inner ends was the entrance. This ward was exceedingly small, and is now thickly encumbered with ruins.

The keep is an excellent example of the stern rectangular Scottish fortalice of the fifteenth century. It is about 40 feet square, of four stages, and built on the steep, so that its basement is above ground on the outer, and below it on the inner, or court side. This basement is 16 feet by 18 feet within, barrel vaulted, with walls 10 feet to 16 feet thick, with a loop rising to the light on the land side. It was evidently the prison. The door is opposite to the loop, and opens into a small lobby, having on the left the foot of the well-stair, and in front a postern, 4 feet wide, flat topped, and closed by a door, which opened on a small platform about 25 feet above the loch, which is reached by a steep winding path. The turnpike stair is 8 feet in diameter, and is contained in the north-east angle of the tower, opening upon each floor, and finally upon the battlements. It makes no external projection, but is seen within, cutting off an angle from each floor. The basement and the highest floor are the only vaulted chambers.

The first floor is lighted by a segmental arched window to the court, and by small square-headed loops towards the water. These vary from 6 inches to 2 feet in breadth of opening, and each has, a little below it, an oeillet-hole, which opens from the window-seat. No fireplace remains, but the east wall is destroyed, in which it may have been. This chamber seems to have been entered only by the well-stair.

The second floor has also openings under flat segmental arches, and on the south side is the main door, opening about 20 feet above the ground, and reached either by wooden steps or some other means now destroyed.

The third floor, or fourth stage, differs from the rest in that a small chamber is contained in the south-eastern angle, the door into which is in the south wall, near its east end. This may have been an oratory, but, as the east wall of the keep is gone, and with it the east end of this chamber, which also is inaccessible, such details as may remain have not been examined. In the west wall of the main chamber is an excellent flat segmental arch in ashlar, which spans a fireplace and a window looking down the loch. This upper story was covered with a vault, in the west side of which are traces of a side arch, covering that over the fireplace and window. Most of the main vault has fallen in.

There do not appear to be remains of any garderobes. The parapet is gone, but the wall is crowned by a bold moulding, and beyond this, at each angle, there is a row of short corbels, which probably carried the usual bartizan turrets. Over the door, at the top of the wall, are four bold corbels, which evidently carried a machicolation for its defence.

Urquhart is more extensive than most Highland castles, and the traces of barracks show that its area was turned to full account. It would contain a garrison of from 400 to 500 men. Though the masonry is rough, it is good, the proportions of the keep are excellent, and the ashlar work used for the doorways, quoins, and window dressings, is well executed. What arches remain are round-headed or segmental, not pointed. At the north-east angle the keep has a small short buttress set on anglewise, and one, also short, of a pilaster character, and slight projection, set on the west face of the north-west angle. The curtain springs from the keep, half of which is outside it.

Urquhart is one of the chain of fortresses which stretched across the great glen from Inverness to Inverlochy, and were employed from an early period to defend and overawe the country. By some accounts it is spoken of as belonging to the Comyns of Badenoch, but certain it is that when Edward I. was at Kildrummie, near Nairn, in 1303, he despatched a party who laid siege to this castle, and with some difficulty took it, putting Sir Alen de Bois, its governor, and the garrison, to the sword. In 1334 it was held for Baliol by Sir Robert Lauder, of Quarrel Wood, as governor; and the office seems to have been heritable, for Lauder’s daughter married Chisholm, and their son, Sir Robert Chisholm, of Chisholm, who had Quarrel Wood, had also the constableship of Urquhart, then, and probably always, a royal castle. Chisholm’s title, however, was insecure, for in 1359 David II. disponed the barony and castle to William, Earl of Sutherland, and John, his son.

After this, Urquhart was held under the Crown by the Grants of Freuchie, afterwards of Castle Grant, who, as chamberlains for the Crown, got possession of most of the adjacent lands. In 1509, James IV., under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, granted three-fourths of Urquhart Lordship, and of the Baronies of Urquhart and Glenmoriston, to Grant of Freuchie, and his two sons, from whom descended the Grants of Glenmoriston and Corriemony. The castle has since remained in the Grant family, and is now the property of the Earl of Seafield, whose house of Balmacaan is in the lower Valley of Urquhart.

It appears that the Knights of the Temple had an establishment in the Bay, and brought into cultivation the lands on its eastern shore. Probably they were constables of the castle. On the farm of Phinians is still a place called Temple.

Until after the rebellion of 1745 Glen Urquhart was in a very disturbed state. Grant did not reside there, and the people were continually attacked by the clansmen from Glengarry, Lochiel, and Kintail.

It is difficult to establish with any precision the date either of the early or the present castle of Urquhart. The ditch is no doubt much older than the siege of 1303. The remains of the castle now standing can scarcely be older than the fifteenth century, and probably it was one of those built about the middle of it, in accordance with the strong recommendation published by James I. on his return from his captivity in England.

An excellent account of this part of the Highlands, and of the descent of the Urquhart property, will be found in the “New Statistical Account of Scotland, for Inverness-shire,” p. 43.

WAREHAM, DORSETSHIRE.

Wareham and Corfe are the keys of Purbeck, or rather Corfe is the fortress and Wareham the bridge-head of that bold projection of the chalk of Dorset, the southern headland of which bears the name of the protomartyr of England, and of which the triple spurs of Durlston, Peverell, and Studland form the eastern points, each with its own bay, and the whole protecting from the prevalent west wind the great indentation of the coast between Purbeck and the Needles, in the bight of which opens the harbour of Poole, and, under Hengistbury Head, the mouth of the twin streams that once gave name to Christchurch, before either castle or priory rose upon the banks of the Avon.

To the Northmen, these headlands, bays, and rivers were intimately known. Their long ships here found shelter while the hardy seamen ravaged the country of which they were one day to become joint inheritors. Though called, like Sheppy and Portland, an island, Purbeck is, in truth, not even a peninsula. If, indeed, it were to subside from 50 feet to 100 feet, the great chalk ridge which extends from Lulworth to Studland would alone be visible above the waters, and the low broad valley which marks the course of the Nether Frome and the Piddle would be covered, and form, with Poole harbour, a considerable estuary. Even now the river valleys are low and moist, and in the eighth and ninth centuries were no doubt an impracticable morass. Where nature had done so much, there remained but little needed from art, and accordingly the military remains in Purbeck are scanty. Worbarrow, a strong half-circular camp of banks and ditches, crowns the steep cliff at one end of the great ridge, and Corfe or Corfe-gat, occupies a gap or gate near its centre, while Wareham, posted to the landward of the marsh, and between the two rivers, guards effectually the approach from the north. Camps on sea-cliffs are generally supposed the work of those who used the sea, and drew up their galleys upon the beach; if this be so, Worbarrow must be the work of the Northmen, though in any other position it would be regarded as British. Corfe is probably entirely an English port; what Wareham is forms the subject of the present notice.

Wareham, a town which is still a Parliamentary borough, though one of its members was shorn away in the great struggle for reform, is built upon a knoll of chalk, the eastern extremity of a broad low ridge which descends and becomes narrower from the west and north-west, and finally sinks down into the lowland a little east of the town. This ridge divides the valleys of the Frome and the Piddle, the principal streams of Dorset, and its termination marks the meeting of the waters which flow together into the backwater of Poole Harbour. The Piddle lies to the north of the ridge, and the Frome to the south. The town between them is about half a mile broad, and their bridges are connected by its main street. In figure the town is nearly square, the west face about 600 yards, the north face 650 yards, and the area is pretty evenly divided by the main street, which is crossed by a second street, at right angles, thus dividing the town, after the Roman fashion, into four quarters. As at Wallingford and Tamworth the outline of this rectangular figure is an earthwork, within which the town was built, and which is now all too wide for its shrunken prosperity. The defence is a simple bank and ditch, the contents of the latter being piled up to add to the height of the former; but as the area inclosed is naturally high, with a steep slope to the north and east, on these two sides the bank is a scarp only, the river on the north forming the ditch. To the east the ground is not quite so low, and there is no river: here therefore is a ditch. The northern scarp is about 45 feet high, with a slope varying from one and a half to two to one. Its crest is 15 feet broad, and it rises about 15 feet above the ground within and behind it. Towards the west end this bank is rugged and angular; the eastern half is very uniform, and seems never to have been disturbed.

The northern side is straight, or nearly so; the eastern has a low salient near its centre. This side is not carried to the river. There is indeed a hollow way, which seems to represent the ditch, but the bank is wanting for the last 200 or 300 yards. The western face is far stronger, and more perfect. Here the bank, of full size, is carried down to the margin of the river, and the ditch is broad and deep. This was the weak side, the exterior ground being high. This bank also is much cut about, and it is pretty clear that in the Parliamentary wars an attack must have been apprehended from the north-west, as the bank is notched as for embrasures for guns, and there are various small mounds to prevent them from being reached by a lateral and raking fire. The ditch also, instead of being cut to a central line, V-shaped, as usual in mediæval fortifications, and as is the case with this ditch near the river, is broad and flat-bottomed, as though it had been widened and partially filled up to suit the requirements of the art of defence as practised in the seventeenth century.

There is no earthwork along the south or Frome front, towards which the ground slopes gradually. No doubt the river was a defence, as it was on the other front, but the absence of any special work on the south and south-eastern quarters looks as though those who constructed the work came from the sea, and desired to guard Purbeck, whereas the historical presumption is that Wareham must have been thrown up against invaders, and that it was a British fortress against the Saxons, and an English fortress against the Danes.

Of the four pretty equal quarters into which the area is divided, the south-western contains a later and subsidiary work, thrown up upon the bank of the Frome, and a little in the rear of the main defence. This is a conical mound, flat topped, rising about 50 feet above the river, and about 60 feet in diameter at its summit. It has a ditch proper to itself, about 60 feet wide, dividing it from the main bank, and to its east and south-east are traces of other and lower earthworks, which no doubt included the base courts or wards usually appended to such mounds. This whole tract, however, is exceedingly obscure, being laid out in lanes and courts and walled gardens. Here stood the Norman castle, built, as usual, upon the earthworks of the English residence.

There is another earthwork, also within and later than the main defence, found in the north-eastern quarter. This is a rectangular inclosure about 60 yards by 30 yards, within a bank of about 4 feet high with a base of 12 feet and an exterior ditch about 6 feet broad. There is an entrance at one end, and the angles are slightly rounded off, and, as the north-east angle rises somewhat with the tail of the adjacent bank, it is clear that it is a later work. This looks exactly like a small Roman camp, though in such a position it seems much out of place. It is called the bowling-green, and may have been laid out for that game. It is difficult to say what it is.

Of the two roads which intersect Wareham, that running north and south is the main one, and leads to Corfe. The Frome bridge over which it is carried is said to replace one built in the reign of William Rufus. The east and west road is an important way in one direction, as it leads from Dorchester, and may well therefore be Roman. After reaching the cross it is continued eastwards, but this branch of it led nowhere from the town.

Wareham, like Wallingford, was well supplied with ecclesiastical establishments, there having been within its limits eight churches and a priory. The priory, originally founded it is said by Adhelm, bishop of Sherborne, who died 709, certainly existed as a nunnery before 876, when the town was taken by the Danes. The church, dedicated to the Virgin, is now the principal church in the place, and Trinity, now used as a school, was probably the chapel of the castle. St. Martin’s is a small church upon the eastern edge of the deep cutting through which the north road enters the town. It has a small late tower, but the nave and part of the chancel seemed early Norman date. The sites are pointed out of the chapels of St. Peter, St. Nicholas, St. John, St. Michael, All Hallows, and another St. John.

Nothing of the masonry of the castle remains above ground, but the adjacent walls evidently contain much old material, and in one of them is an old Norman doorway, with a bold chevron moulding round the head, interspersed with a line of roundels. This no doubt belonged to the castle.

There is a great resemblance in position and plan between Wallingford and Tamworth and to some extent Cardiff, and Wareham. In each case the general earthwork is rectangular, of bold profile, and has a single ditch, and is placed near a river, and on that side unbanked. Each also has a mound towards the river, with its own proper defences, and upon each the Normans placed a shell keep. There is no evidence of Roman occupation of any of these places, though the road from Wareham to Dorchester may be Roman, and if the line of the Ackebury ditch from Sarum to Badbury were produced, it would pass close west of this place. Possibly the rectangular defences were the work of the Romanised Britons, the mound being an English addition of the ninth century. The work has never been known as a “Chester.”

Wareham was an important place in the West Saxon kingdom. King Beorhtric, who married the daughter of Offa, and in whose time the Danes first landed in Britain, was there buried in 800. In 876 the Danes attacked and took Wareham, but submitted to Alfred, and retired to Exeter. Florence says of the Danes:—“Castellum quod dicitur Werham intravit; ubi monasterium sancti-monialium inter duo flumina Fraw et Terente it in paga quæ Saxonice dicitur. Downseto, tutissimo situ terrarum situm est, nisi ab occidentali parte tantummodo, ubi contigua est terra.” And it is on that side that the works are the strongest. Some of the Danes left Wareham by sea and some on horseback. In the following year, however, they were again at Wareham, and their fleet was wrecked off Swanage, and 120 ships lost. At this time Wareham became the Danish head-quarters. A century later, in March, 978, King Edward, slain at Corvesgate or Corfe, was buried silently at Wareham, to be translated afterwards to Shaftesbury. In 982, Wulfwin, abbess of Wareham, there died. In 998, the Danes were again there, and in 1015 Canute sailed up the Frome, burning and plundering as he went. Domesday relates that the Confessor held 143 horses in demesne in Wareham. There were two mint-masters, but at the survey the town was in a desolate condition, and many houses were destroyed.

The castle is mentioned in Domesday:—“Of the manor of Chingestone the king has one hide in which he made the Castle of Wareham, and for that he gave to St. Mary’s the church of Gelingham, with its appendages, to the value of 40 shillings.” It is the only castle mentioned in the county. Chingestone is the manor of Corfe Castle, and St. Mary’s the Abbey of Shaftesbury. Robert, Duke of Normandy, was for a time imprisoned in the castle, as was Robert de Belesme, who is here said to have starved himself to death. Town and castle were burned in the wars of Stephen and Maud. Her great champion, the Earl of Gloucester, embarked here on his way to Anjou in 1142, and William, his son, was governor when the town was taken by Stephen. The Earl then retook it, the castle holding out against him for three weeks. It was at that time that he took Lulworth, and probably built “Bow and Arrow” Castle in Portland. King John landed at Wareham in 1205 and visited the place four times, staying about fifteen days in the years 1209–12–15, and 1216. Peter of Pomfret, was hanged here in 1213. Then and long afterwards it was rather a noted seaport, and as late as 1558 ships of fair size reached its quays. The “Castle Hill” was granted away by James I. The western earthwork long bore the name of the “Bloody Bank,” from the execution there of Judge Jeffreys’s victims.

During the civil war Wareham was the scene of much fighting, being taken and retaken many times. It was garrisoned by the Parliament in 1642, then taken for the king, then in 1643 retaken for the Parliament. In 1644 the Royalists took it by storm. It was in these wars that the west bank was so much altered, to make it suitable for the defensive system of that day.

WHITE CASTLE, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

White Castle, called also from the parish in which it stands, Llanteilo Cresseny, and in the records “Album Castrum,” stands upon very high ground about five miles east of Abergavenny, and commands an extensive and completely panoramic view over a country eminently characteristic of the old red sandstone. Within the wide circumference are mountains and hills green to their summits, deep valleys, oaks and elms of great size and in great profusion, and pastures of unusual richness. It is not to be marvelled at that the Welsh, having lost so glorious a possession, should strive to recover it, or that the English and the Normans, having won, should spare no labour or expense in the construction of strong places to enable them to retain it.

Unlike Grosmount, Skenfrith, Goodrich, and Chepstow, and the other castles upon the Munnow and the Wye, and the seaboard of the Channel, White Castle is far removed from any watercourse or defensible river, and is only to be reached by a long and steep ascent. It is five miles and a half from Skenfrith, and five from Grosmount—Grosmount and Skenfrith being four miles and a half apart—and forms the western and most exposed point of the celebrated trilateral. Its decay is due rather to time than to violence, for its walls and towers are all standing, and what is wanting are those parts which would naturally give way to rain and frost, or from time to time be removed for the rebuilding of houses and cottages in the neighbourhood.

White Castle is also as peculiar in its arrangements as in its position. It has no keep, and so far it resembles the Edwardian castle; but, unlike those structures—of which Caerphilly in South, and Beaumaris in North Wales, are typical examples—its main defences are confined to a single line, covered, however, at the principal entrance by a walled earthwork or barbican, and at the lesser entrance by a second and rather smaller earthwork, without, or with but little masonry. Its ditches also are on a formidable scale, both for depth, breadth, and extent, and altogether, both in position and details, it is not inferior in strength to any castle in the March, and is besides in the first class as regards capacity.

It is composed of a central ward, in general figure hexagonal, but oblong and somewhat pear-shaped, its internal diameter, north and south, being 50 yards, and its greatest cross diameter, east and west, 37 yards. The northern end measures, also internally, 15 yards, the southern 18 yards. The sides next to the north end are, in length, 27 yards, those next the south end 23 yards and 26 yards. The wall is 10 feet thick at the base, and slopes externally to 7 feet at a height of 15 feet. In height it is about 30 feet to the rampart walk or allure. The towers at the two southern angles are 18 feet internal diameter, with walls 7 feet thick. The two middle towers are 12 feet, the other two at the northern angles form the great gatehouse, and are 13 feet. They are about 45 feet high. The four southern towers have a basement floor a little below the court level, with one loop; a first floor with three loops, and a second floor, whence was a way to the ramparts of the curtain. There seems, also, to have been an upper or third story. The floors were all of timber, and there are no staircases or mural chambers. The gorge walls of the two southern towers are broken away, that of the western partially so; that of the eastern is perfect, and contains the entrance doorway of 3 feet opening. The gatehouse towers are also entered at the gorge from the court, but the gorge wall is thicker, and contains a series of mural staircases ascending to the summit. These are not “turnpike,” and are not continuous, but begin anew at each floor. The gateway, concealed, save from the front, by the unusually bold projection of the flanking towers, has a passage 10 feet wide and 8 feet deep. The barrel-vault remains, but the ashlar of the internal gate is gone, and its former existence is only shown by a bar-hole. Of the outer gateway two bar-holes remain, and a fragment of the portcullis groove, which is 4 inches square, and placed outside the gate, so that the grate was wholly visible even when raised, unless, indeed, concealed by a timber brattice. It was worked from a machicolation between the towers, now gone. The flanking towers are without loops, that to the left on entering is approached from the vault by a narrow doorway. If there was a drawbridge attached to this gate, its heel must have rested upon a large stone about 10 feet in advance and 6 feet below the level of the portal. The ditch at this point is nearly 100 feet broad, and 30 feet to 40 feet deep. It is evident that there were no bridge-piers of masonry in the ditch, so that the roadway probably rested on trestles.

The opposite and lesser gateway is in the south wall, close to its west end, and flanked, therefore on one side by the south-western tower. It seems to have been a simple opening in the curtain, about 10 feet broad. It is now a mere breach, but the bar-holes remain. There is no sign of a portcullis. The approach to this gate came up along the edge of the ditch, between it and the wall, from the east, and was commanded by two loops in the curtain and by the south-eastern tower.

The area of the court is quite clear of buildings, but a few heaps of rubbish show that it contained barrack buildings of timber, with stone basements, placed against the walls, which have been plastered. There is no trace of hall, chapel, kitchen, well, or permanent lodgings, and no ornament of any kind; no moulding, no mural chambers or garderobes, no staircase save in the great gatehouse, and only two small fireplaces, in the first and second floors of the north-eastern gate tower. The towers are not only bold and lofty, and about 60 feet high, but the outer half of their bases is carried many feet down the slope of the ditch, giving them great breadth of base, and a very substantial and massive character.

The great barbican is a very remarkable work, not unlike a similar defence at Castle Rising, which there, however, is confined to an earthwork, whereas here the defences are both in earthwork and masonry. The work is irregular in its shape, concave where it rests upon the counterscarp of the main ditch,—on its other faces convex. In depth, or from north to south, it measures about 56 yards; in breadth, 74 yards. It is defended by a ditch of moderate dimensions, which communicates with the main ditch at each end, but is scarce a quarter of its depth. The curtain wall is very irregular in outline, the west side being made up of about four straight pans of masonry, meeting at various angles. The front is a long straight wall, and the east side, also straight, meets it at a right angle. The curtain of this outwork is about 5 feet thick, and from 15 feet to 18 feet high. Upon it are four mural towers; three, drum-shaped, are 10 feet in internal diameter, with entrances at the ground floor from the court. In height they rise a story above the curtain. They are looped to the field, have timber floors, and their staircases seem to have been of timber. One tower is angular, and has evidently been the kitchen, part of the oven and the outline of the large fireplace being still visible.

The outer gatehouse is placed at the south-eastern corner of the barbican, terminating its wall and resting upon the counterscarp of the main ditch. It is of rude construction, composed of two solid masses or cheeks of wall, 46 feet long and 9 feet thick, rounded at the outer end. Most of the northern wall is gone, and with it the roof or vault of the entrance passage, and the details of the gateway. This sort of entrance between the high and long walls is found at Conisborough and Berkhampstead. The other or inner end of the barbican wall, at the south-west corner, ends abruptly, and probably descended a little way down the counterscarp of the main ditch, so as to prevent an entrance. In the wall is a recess 6 feet 4 inches broad and 3 feet deep, which may have been a public garderobe, similar to that in the wall of the middle ward of Corfe Castle.

The lesser barbican covers the south entrance, the way to which does not, however, appear to have lain across it. It is of earth only,—that is, has no walls, but is of great strength; in shape, and, indeed, in function, it is a lunette. Its diameter, in the direction from the gate outwards, is 20 yards, and its breadth 100 yards. It rests upon the counterscarp of the main ditch, here about 20 yards broad. It has, also, on its front and sides, a ditch of its own about 20 yards broad, and communicating with the main ditch. In parts this work seems to have been revetted. It was connected with the main work or body of the castle by a narrow bridge, which sprang from its eastern angle, and of which traces remain. There does not appear to have been any outer gatehouse at this end; probably the approach was by a boat across the ditch, or by a plank bridge upon trestles.

Besides the above-described works there is another and much larger, though less strong, earthwork, which covers the whole east face of the castle, as well as the flanks of its barbicans. It is about 30 yards broad, and outside the main ditch, on which it rests, and upon the ditches of the barbicans. It had also, towards the field, a ditch of its own, now converted into a hollow road. The approach to either gate of the castle, from the east, lay across this outwork, which was probably stoutly palisaded, and intended to give a moderately safe refuge to the peasantry and their cattle, during invasions from the Welsh.

It is evident from the general design, position, and capacity of this castle, that it was not intended, like Caerphilly, for the accommodation of a great military baron, nor like Morlais or Castell Coch for a mere military port. Its central part is nothing but a fortified area, like Framlingham, at which place, however, there seems to have been, as at St. Briavels, a keep. Here certainly there was none. It is and always was a mere shell, composed of a strong and lofty curtain, mural towers, and a gatehouse. There do not appear to have been any of the usual buildings contained within a large castle. The accommodation within the walls seems to have consisted in timber-sheds, resting on stone foundations, and built against the walls. In this way a very large number of soldiers might have been accommodated.

Moreover, the capacity for lodging a large body of troops was not confined to the inner ward. The outworks are also spacious and strong, and could contain a small army, or the élite, or perhaps the cavalry, of a large one, besides affording accommodation for a considerable herd and flock of cattle and sheep. Such a place would be secure against any ordinary inroad of the Welsh, and supported, as it would be, by the equally strong, though less capacious, castles of Grosmount and Skenfrith, not to mention Chepstow and Caerleon, which were not always in friendly hands, not only would the entrance of a Welsh army into Gwent be difficult, but its retreat, once within the line, would be almost impossible.

As to the age of White Castle, it is difficult to speak positively. The earthworks are not at all of an English, still less of a Welsh, character. Nor, as a general rule, did the Normans ever throw up earthworks on so immense a scale. The masonry is probably of the age of John, or, perhaps, even of that of Henry III., contemporary with Skenfrith, or perhaps a trifle later, and the earthworks may be of the same date. They are certainly designed to suit a castle in masonry, not the mere palisaded residence of a Mercian Thane. They do not at all resemble the earthworks connected with Offa’s Dyke, or those known to be the work of Æthelflæd or Eadweard. On the whole, it seems more probable that, looking to the extreme importance of the position, the early Norman invaders exceeded the usual character of their earthworks, and designed and executed those which are still seen.

The name White Castle,—in Welsh, “Castell Gwyn,”—is said to be derived from Gwyn ap Gwaethvoed, a brother of the reputed founder of Skenfrith, and one of the Welsh lords of this district. If so, he must have held it during the troubles preceding and subsequent to the death of Harold, but any works that he may have found or thrown up were probably effaced by those of the present castle. The castle was held, with those of Grosmount and Skenfrith, sometimes by the De Breose family, sometimes by the Crown, and, finally, by the Dukes of Lancaster. No doubt it shared in the general neglect of the Border castles; that is, of such as were not the seat of any baronial family. In the time of James I. it was a ruin, and had been so beyond the memory of man.

WHITTINGTON, SHROPSHIRE.

Among the baronial families which rose upon the ruins of the house of Montgomery, and wielded the fragments of that power, which, united in the hands of Earl Roger and Robert de Belesme, had proved so formidable, the lords of Clun, Oswaldestre, and Whittington, De Say, Fitz-Alan, and Fitz-Warine occupied, in the northern parts of the great earldom, and upon the borders of Wales, by much the chief place. De Say indeed, speedily, by an heiress, became absorbed in Fitz-Alan, and probably in the same convenient way, “Felix Austria nube,” the broad lands of Peverel, merged in Fitz-Warine, so that the lords of Oswaldestre and Whittington held about co-equal rule in the Marches, and were alike exposed alternately to the encroachments of their sovereign on the one hand, and to the fiery assaults of the Welsh on the other—dangers which probably prevented them from turning their arms against one another, so that they remained vigorous and warlike for above two centuries, although the battlements of their castles were plainly visible, the one from the other, and scarce two miles apart.

The position of Oswaldestre has already been described. Whittington lay about two miles to the north-east, and about four and a half miles within or to the east of Offa’s Dyke, while Watt’s Dyke extended between them. The site of Whittington was probably selected as the centre of a fertile estate, rather than for any very striking military advantages, for the position is low and marshy—a feature of which, however, the ancient engineer largely and judiciously availed himself. By whom or when the original fortress was founded is utterly unknown. Certainly long before its occupation by those Norman invaders, who identified it with their fame. As, like Shrewsbury, Clun, and Oswaldestre, its keep was placed upon a moated mound, its origin, like theirs, may probably be attributed to the reign of Edward the Elder, or the earlier part of the tenth century, and to the fierce Mercian Saxons, who, as early as the middle of the seventh century, seem to have established themselves along the Welsh border.

The central mound, which is the main feature of these and many ninth and tenth century fortresses, is here wholly artificial, about 30 feet in height, and about 150 feet by 100 feet diameter upon its rounded and table summit. At the foot of the mound is a ditch, from 40 feet to 60 feet in breadth, and beyond this are three elevated platforms, as was not unusual. Of these, the first lies towards the north and east, and is also moated. Across it lay the principal entrance from the outer road, and to the keep. On the west side is a second platform, also moated, and in strength rivalling the keep mound itself. The third platform, far superior to these in area, and also moated, is placed beyond them, towards the north-west.

The cluster of four islands, thus protected from the exterior and from each other, is covered to the south and west by three banks and three ditches, arranged concentrically, and including within their sweep about one-third of a great circle of eight hundred yards radius, within which figure, roughly triangular, is contained the castle. The defence upon the north and east was formed, not by banks and ditches, but by a broad expanse of what is still marshy ground, and must formerly have been an impassable morass. This tract was flooded by a small but rapid brook, which descends from the north-west, skirts the ends of the ditches of the castle, and supplied them also with water. At present the brook skirts the south edge of the old morass, and, running in front of the outer entrance, turns off to the south-east, probably again communicating with the ditches of the castle at their other or eastern end. The earthworks thus described, palisaded or even planted with a stout thorn hedge along the outer banks, would possess great strength. The ditches, probably, all contained water, and with the marsh would be only the more impassable were the water drained off and its area replaced by mud. What the Norman baron who obtained the estate found or supplied in the way of defences cannot now be ascertained. Of the masonry now remaining there is nothing which can be regarded as earlier than the reign of Henry III. This could scarcely have been the first masonry employed in the defences; and yet if walls and towers were built in the reigns of Henry II. and John, they would assuredly have been of a substantial and marked character, and would scarcely have been removed either by time or the hand of man in the lapse of a century or a century and a half.

The central mound has been scarped vertically, probably in the time of Henry III., and is included within a revetment wall of great strength, and about 30 feet high. This seems to have been surmounted by a parapet, and to have been reinforced by a number of flanking towers, of which one and a part of two others remain. The most perfect is cylindrical, about 30 feet in diameter, with walls 10 feet thick. Its base is occupied by a circular pit, probably a dungeon; and, if so, a gloomy and damp one, not having a single loop or air-hole. The floor is a foot or two above the bottom level of the ditch, and the platform of timber covering it, the floor of the first story, was on a level with the top of the mound. This stage had two loops, cruciform, with the lower limb very long, and terminating in a dovetail. They are placed in large recesses, low-pointed. There was an upper floor, of which only fragments remain. The pit was probably reached by a ladder, for a door, seen in its base to the east, is an insertion. The first-floor door is represented by a breach on the south-west side. This tower flanked the inner gateway of the keep. Of the corresponding tower, to the west, a portion only remains. It was of the same size and shape, and between the two was a space of 12 feet, occupied by the gateway and drawbridge, of which the pit remains.

A fragment of the base of a similar tower is seen at the south-west angle of the mound, and there were two, or perhaps three more, to the south-east and north-east; but this part of the work is concealed by loose earth and thick vegetation. Altogether, it appears that the keep was a mound, scarped or faced by a strong revetment wall, in a polygonal form, and capping each angle was a lofty round tower, rising out of the ditch. There is said to be a well in the south-west corner, but it is not now visible. From the inner gatehouse a bridge crossed the inner ditch, and landed upon the opposite bank, a few yards in the rear, or west of the outer gatehouse. This was a rectangular structure, having at its eastern or outer end two three-quarter drum towers, corresponding in size and workmanship with those flanking the inner, as do these the outer gateway. They are looped with cruciform and dove-tailed loops, and between them is a depressed pointed arch of plain pattern, chamfered, and with an exterior roll moulding. There is said to be an escutcheon in the wall above the gateway; but if so, it is concealed by ivy. Above is a corbel table, pierced with machicolations. The half of this gatehouse, south of the entrance passage, is tolerably perfect. It contains a chamber in the south wall, in which is a window of three lights, acutely pointed, under an acutely pointed head. The heads of the lights are cinquefoiled, and the apertures in the head quatrefoiled, the whole being late Decorated. This window is said to have been removed from the old parish church when “restored.” The northern half of the gatehouse is nearly all destroyed. There remains part of a curtain wall, passing southwards from the gatehouse to the edge of the ditch. A similar wall on the north side passes backwards along the edge of the ditch, and upon it are the remains of two round towers, connected with the gatehouse. What masonry remains is composed of large square blocks of red sandstone. The whole of the older part seems of the reign of Henry III., and is, no doubt, Fitz-Warine work. There is little or no trace of masonry on the several platforms or banks, save that on one bank to the south-west is a mark of a revetment wall which may or may not be old. Probably the masonry was confined to the keep and barbican-like platform occupied by the outer gatehouse, which would include an area for a very sufficient garrison. The banks, like those at Berkhampstead, are narrow, and would scarcely have carried a wall. The ditches were all filled from the brook, with which they communicated at each end.

The castle seems to have been laid out as a fancy garden a century or so ago, as there are traces of pebble-laid walks, and here and there modern brickwork. The church has been rebuilt early in the present century, and is altogether what might be expected. Recently some arches have been inserted in better taste in the Norman style. Mr. Lloyd, of Aston, is the lord of the manor and owner of the castle.

Whittington occurs in Domesday as “Wititone,” when Earl Roger de Montgomery held it, with seven and a half berewicks. King Edward had held it, but in his time it was waste. Ethelred, Edward’s father, had held it as three manors, which seem to have been Maesbury, Whittington, and Chirbury. In Earl Roger’s time it yielded £15. 15s. The berewicks are the later townships, comprising those of Welsh Frankton, Berghill, Daywell, Fernhill, Hindford, Henlle, Ebnall, and half of Old Marton. From Earl Roger, Whittington descended to Robert de Belesme, and, on his forfeiture, passed to Henry I., who seems to have granted it to William Peverel of Dover, whose nephew, William Peverel, held it against Stephen in 1138. The second Peverel died childless. The last one of his co-heirs married Guarin de Metz, sheriff of Salop, in 1083, but the king seems to have resumed possession of the castle, and to have granted it, in 1164, to Geoffrey de Vere, who married Isabel de Say of Clun. Next year, 1165, Henry resumed it, and granted it to Roger de Powys, a Welshman, who held office in South Wales. He was also custos of the Fitz-Alan Castle of “Dernio,” which Mr. Eyton takes to be Edeyrneon Castle, in Merioneth. In 1173 Roger was allowed aid for its repairs. Meredith, son of Roger, succeeded, and was followed by Meyric, Meredith’s brother, who died about 1200. He was called Meyric de Powys of Wales, and paid fifty marcs to King John to have Whittington and Overton. The Powys tenure was that of “king’s messenger in Wales.”

The Fitz-Warines seem always to have kept alive their claim from their ancestor Guarin, though Wrenoc, son of Meyric, succeeded, and paid eighty marcs to John for the villages and castles of Whittington and Overton, but Fulk Fitz-Warine seems to have obtained the castle from the Prince of Wales, which John at first resented, but finally, in 1204, confirmed to Fulk, as his “right and heritage,” when he paid 200 marcs and two “destriers,” and gained a judicial decision in his favour. 5 Henry III. he had licence to fortify the castle. The Fitz-Warines continued to hold the castle and manor until the failure of their elder male line, by the death of Fulk, the eleventh lord, in 1420. The Hospitallers held a manor in Whittington by the service of finding a chaplain for the chapel of the castle.

A little before 7 Henry III., Prince Llewelyn laid siege to the castle, and it sustained a severe attack from the Welsh on the Friday preceding Midsummer, 6 Henry IV. It appeared, from an inquiry dated 1 Henry V., that Richard II. had granted the castle, pending the minority of Fulk Fitz-Warine, to Yvion Fitz-Warine, who sold the wardship to Elizabeth, Lady Botreaux, a daughter of Sir Ralph d’Aubigny, and she held it when attacked. Probably she expected the attack to be repeated, for, on the Sunday after Midsummer, Thomas, Earl of Arundel, with soldiers from Oswaldestre, took charge. Elizabeth resigned her wardship to William de Clinton and Anne, his wife, and her daughter.

It is much to be desired that some person resident in this most interesting district would take up the subject of its earthworks, of which there are many of all ages, and some not set down in the Ordnance map. Many of the earthworks are so placed, with regard to Offa’s and Watt’s Dykes, as to show whether they are of earlier date or subsequent to those lines.

Among the most curious of these earthworks is one within the domain of Porkington, and which bears its ancient name of Brogyntyn. It is a regular circle, 50 yards or so across, contained within a bank of earth, about 4 feet to 6 feet high, outside of which is a ditch. The central area has been levelled for a bowling-green, but was, no doubt, always flat, and although a drift has been driven across and below the circle, and the ditch is planted and contains a modern walk, there is no reason to suppose that the character of the work has been materially altered. In Ireland it would be called a rath; but in Ireland it would not crown a rather steep eminence, but be placed in the midst of land that might readily be cultivated, which this could not. It is pretty clear that its figure is intentionally and not incidentally a circle, by no means often the case with Welsh camps.

WIGMORE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

The Castle of Wigmore, the head of the Hundred and Honour of that name, the chief seat of the great House of Mortimer, and the centre of that territorial power which made its lords so formidable to their sovereigns, and at last brought about their fall, stands in the north-west corner of the border shire of Hereford, and about eight miles on the English side of Offa’s Dyke. It is one of a chain of strongholds of which Clun, Hopton, and Brampton Bryan, lay to its immediate north, and Lingen and Lyons Hall to its south; while in its rear were posted Croft and Richard’s Castle, assuring to its garrison a speedy communication with the great central fortresses of Ludlow and Shrewsbury.

Most of these castles are of ancient date, and their earthworks testify to the intensity and permanence of the struggle maintained by the Welsh against the encroachments of the colony planted by the English in the latter part of the eighth century, and protected by the mighty work which still bears the name of Offa. These traces of the footsteps of the invader from beyond the Severn may still be observed along the frontier marches of the Principality from Cardiff to Hawarden, posted wherever the valleys laid open the interior of the country; nor along the whole line is there a grander or stronger military work than that for which Wigmore was celebrated long before the Normans crossed the Channel.

But the military virtues, if not triumphs, of the Welsh, identified with this district, ascend to a period before even the common ancestors of Englishmen and Normans appeared in Britain, and were exercised, though equally in vain, against even a greater foe. The great British hill camps of Coxwall-Knoll, Caer Caradoc, Brandon, and Croft-Ambrey, are thought to be evidences of the fierce struggles of the Britons against the Roman legions, though with how little ultimate success against either Roman or Englishman, the parallel lines of Watling-street and the Dyke still give silent but overpowering testimony.

Wigmore, an English creation, bears an English name. It is first mentioned in A.D. 921, when the Saxon Chronicle relates that King Eadweard, in the Rogation days, that is about the 7th of May, “commanded the burh at Wisingamere to be built.” That this command was very rapidly as well as very completely obeyed, is clear from the fact, stated by the same authority, that, in the same year, probably at the commencement of autumn, the Danes with a great army laid siege to the new burh, “beset it round about, and fought against it far in the day, and took the cattle about it; and, nevertheless, the men defended the burh who were therein, and then they (the Danes) abandoned the burh and went away.” A strong place which was constructed in five months could not have been a work in masonry, and scarcely in dry walling; but with a proper force of men the earthworks of the mound and inner area might have been executed in that time. But earthworks alone would not have held an army of active Danes at bay. The slopes must have been strengthened with palisades, so as to protect the garrison and enable them to keep the enemy at a moderate distance. Fire was scarcely practicable, as the wood employed must have been green. Moreover, however hard Edward’s soldiers may have worked, it is scarcely probable that they could have done more than throw up the burh proper, or mound, and the banks containing the smaller area attached to it, or have prepared palisades for a larger front, even if formed. We are told that when Queen Æthelflæd’s warriors, in A.D. 916, took Brecenanmere, or Brecknock, by storm, they captured there the king’s wife, with thirty-four persons. The Burh of Brecknock, therefore, held probably but a small garrison: and its mound and inner circle, the parts, no doubt, then defended, are not, in point of size, greater than those of Wigmore, for which certainly one hundred and fifty to two hundred men would form, for a short time, a sufficient garrison. It was, then, to the passive strength of this position, and to its narrow front, that they owed their safety. The cattle taken probably pastured at the foot of the mound and upper area, within what is now the lower ward of the Castle, then, no doubt, but slightly protected.

Of the Lords of Wigmore during the century following the Danish attack, nothing is recorded, but the castle is named in Domesday, Ralph de Mortimer then held Wighemore. Edward had held it. There was half a hyde there, within which was the castle. Ralph held the castle. William the Earl (of Hereford) made it on the waste land called Merestun, which Gunnent held in the time of King Edward. There were two hydes geldable. Ralph had in demesne two plough-lands and four serfs. The burh there paid seven pounds. No doubt the earlier castle had been destroyed, that is, the destructible part of it, and William Fitz Osbern had restored it. That earl had been active in subduing the Welsh insurrection of 1068–9, and in reward for the services of Ralph de Mortimer on this occasion, and in putting down Edric the Forester, he had the grant recorded in Domesday. Dugdale says that he actually besieged Edric in the castle and took it, and thus laid the foundation of the greatness of his family as Lords of the March; but though Ralph de Mortimer put down Edric, there is no evidence that the latter ever owned or held out Wigmore.

The possession of so strong a country, and at the same time of so exposed a frontier, was the secret of the Marcher independence. It was a dangerous power, often selfishly exercised, inasmuch as the lords combined frequently with the public enemy to gain their private ends against the sovereign. At all times, also, it stood in the way of an equal administration of justice, and much retarded the consolidation of the empire.

Happily for the greatness of England, Edward I. not only saw this, but on coming to the crown made that consolidation his earliest care. He saw that so long as Wales remained an insurrectionary power, so long would the Marchers be independent, and not to be relied upon as subjects; and with that bold sagacity which marked his character, he proceeded, not merely to put down insurrection as it rose, but to cut off its root. This he attained in 1276–1282, by the destruction of Llewelyn and the erection of the castles of Flint, Denbigh, Ruthin, Conway, Beaumaris, Caernarvon, and Harlech, and the restoration or recovery of those of Hawarden, Rhuddlan, Eulo, Chirk, Bere, Dinas Brân, the tower of Dolbadarn, and some others.

Next, as occasion served, he reduced the Marcher prerogatives, of which a very memorable instance occurred about 1292, when he took advantage of a petty war between De Clare and De Bohun, on the borders of Morganwg, to confiscate the estates of both, which he then regranted, withholding their most objectionable privileges. At the same time, by engaging in the Scottish wars, he both drew from Wales her best men and employed them in the service of England and opened to the Marchers a safe field for their military prowess.

Ralph, the first English Mortimer, died seized of above one hundred and thirty manors, of which sixty-nine lay in Hereford and Salop. Hugh, his son, held also the castles of Cleobury and Bridgenorth, and was active in opposition to Henry II., who laid siege at once to his three castles and so brought him to terms. He died in penitence as a canon of Wigmore abbey in 1185, having confirmed and much augmented his father’s grants thereto. He was buried before the high altar. Lord Hugh is reputed to have built the castles of Caermarthen, Mapudrith, and Cymaron, whichever those latter may be, in South Wales, and therefore may well have been the author of the Norman work still to be traced around the outer ward of Wigmore.

Roger, his son, seems to have found full employment in keeping down the Welsh. He died 1215, and was succeeded by his son Hugh.

Hugh, the fourth lord, adhered to King John. In his time Llewelyn attended a conference at Wigmore. He held for the king the castles of Stratton-dale and Holgot in Salop. He died from wounds received in a tournament, 1227; and was succeeded by his brother.

Ralph, fifth lord, flourished in the first half of the reign of Henry III., very turbulent on the Marches. He built, in Melenydd, the castles of Keventles and Knoclas, and to them added a social strength, marrying dark Gwladys, Llewelyn’s daughter, widow of Reginald de Braose. He died 1246.

Roger, his son, sixth lord, took a lead in Welsh affairs, but with no great success. Llewelyn took four of his castles, Melenydd, Keventles, Radnor, and another. He adhered to Henry, fought at Northampton, and had to flee from Lewes. He aided in the flight of Prince Edward from Hereford, brought him to Wigmore, had a command at Evesham, and for his services received the forfeited estates of the earldom of Oxford, opposing on that account the wise restoration proposed by the Dictum de Kenilworth. It was he who at that celebrated castle held the famous tournament, in honour of which the great gatehouse, it is thought, gained its name of Mortimer Tower. It has been supposed that he rebuilt the castle of Wigmore, but most of the work now seen seems of a rather later date. He died in 1282–3, and, said his epitaph at Wigmore—

Hunc dum viverat, vi Wallia tota timebat.

Edmund, seventh lord, eldest surviving son, succeeded, and commenced his career by attacking the Welsh at Builth, and receiving and transmitting Llewelyn’s head to the king. As some suspicion attached to his loyalty owing to his Welsh blood, he was particularly active in quelling the disturbances that followed on the death of the prince, and it was in putting down one of them in 1303–4, also at Builth, that he received a wound of which he soon after died at Wigmore.

Roger, eighth lord, styled Lord Mortimer of Wigmore, created Earl of March in 1328; served both in Ireland and Scotland. He was governor of Builth Castle, took Cardiff from Hugh le Despenser, and had a grant of Clun. He joined the party of Thomas of Lancaster against Edward II., had a narrow escape for his life while in prison, and in gratitude built St. Peter’s Chapel in the outer ward of Ludlow Castle. In 1322, after the battle of Boroughbridge, he fled to France, and the king seized on Wigmore, causing an inventory to be drawn up of its contents by John de Cherleton, the keeper. There were springholds, the artillery of the age, cross-bows, English and Oriental armour and weapons, a chess-board and a board for talles and draughts, five peacocks in the courtyard, and grain and cattle in quantity. On the earl’s return, followed his intimacy with the “she-wolf of France,” his acquisition of a prodigious number of manors in England, Wales, and Ireland; his seizure at Nottingham Castle, his attainder, and his execution by hanging in 1330. It seems probable that this lord rebuilt the castle, superseding the Norman work by that, in the Decorated style, which still remains.

Edmund, his son, did not recover the earldom. He died young, a few months after his father, in 1331, leaving a son, a minor.

Roger, tenth lord, who succeeded, had livery of Wigmore Castle before he came of age. He obtained the reversal of the attainder and the restoration of the earldom of March in 1352. He served Edward III. in France, recovered much of the Welsh property, including Ludlow and other estates coming by his grandmother, the heiress of Genville; and finally died 1360, being then commander of the English forces in Burgundy.

Edmund, eleventh lord and third Earl of March, his son, succeeded. His abilities were early turned to account by Edward, who employed him while under age in negotiating a peace with France, and afterwards as Lieutenant of Ireland. He married Philippa, heiress of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and thus maintained the ancient honours and influence of his name. He died at Cork 1381.

Roger, his eldest son, became fourth Earl of March. He was by Richard II. made Lieutenant of Ireland, and by descent from the Duke of Clarence declared heir of the Crown. His service was entirely in Ireland, where he was slain. He was followed by Edmund, his son.

Edmund, fifth and last Earl of March, was regarded with excessive jealousy by Henry IV., as heir to the throne, and was kept, during his reign, under surveillance. Henry V., however, employed him in Normandy, and in the next reign he, like his immediate forefathers, became Lieutenant of Ireland. He died 1425, aged twenty-four years, and with him ended the male line of Mortimer of Wigmore.

Among the castles returned as held by him, at his death, in the Marches, were Blaenlevenny, Builth, Clifford, Dinas by Talgarth, Dolveren, Denbigh, Knoclas, Kevenles, Ludlow, Montgomery, Norton, Nerberth, Raidrey, Radnor, Usk, and Wigmore.

Richard, Duke of York, as his sister’s son, was heir of the vast estates of the Mortimers, and transmitted them to his son, Edward IV., when all became merged in the Crown. It was from the Honour of Wigmore that Edward raised most of the power that enabled him to defeat Owen Tudor at no great distance from the castle, and still nearer to Mortimer’s Cross. The castle remained in the Crown till granted away by Elizabeth. In 1601 it was purchased by Thomas Harley, and in 1643 dismantled by the Parliamentary forces, since which it has been a gradually diminishing ruin.

THE CASTLE.

The tract of high and wooded land which lies towards the Radnorshire border, between the waters of the Teme and the Lugg, converges and descends towards the east until it forms a long spit or spur of rock which terminates in the knoll now occupied by the parish church of Wigmore. This ridge—straight, steep, and well defined—is bounded on the south by a narrow valley, down which descends a brook from the high ground of Wigmore Rolls, to fall, just below the church, into the Allcox brook. To the north the ridge is still more strongly protected by the broad expanse that probably gave its termination to the name of the place, and is still called, by reduplication, Wigmore moor and lake, and Leinthal lake; formerly, as their names import, watery tracts, and which are still alternately drained and flooded by the united channels of the Clun and the Teme on their way to Ludlow.

Low on the ridge, and astride upon and occupying its whole breadth, is what remains of the castle. Those who selected the spot were attracted by an immense depression, clear, sharp, and steep, as if cut by art, which here traverses the ridge, and cuts off its eastern portion from the higher and broader ground to the west. Upon the eastern verge of this ravine is piled up a mound of earth, in form conical and about 30 feet high, above its rocky base, though 100 feet or more above the bottom of the ravine. The mound is about 30 feet diameter at its flat top. It is probable that when this was formed the natural ravine was slightly deepened, and on the near side rendered steeper by art.

Close east of the mound, and above 40 feet below its top, is a roughly oval area, about 100 feet east and west by 50 feet north and south, encircled by a bank of earth, outside of which was a ditch, which included also the mound, and was probably the work thrown up by King Edward, and so gallantly held against the Danes. It is very strong, the ground falling away steeply on every side, and especially to the north and west. Upon the mound stood the Norman shell keep; the oval contained within a wall, most of which remains, was the inner ward. The mound and its appended oval stood within, and partly on the edge of a far larger area, which included the slopes, and extended nearly to the base of the hill towards the south and south-east, and on those sides protected the citadel. Towards the north and the west the steepness of the ground rendered a second line of defence unnecessary, and the mound and its oval formed there a part of the outer enceinte. This second area was also covered by a ditch which descended from the south side of the mound, and from the north-east part of the oval, and thus formed the outer ward of the castle, in which probably were pastured the cattle driven off by the Danes. The Normans enclosed this also within a wall. This ward was covered by a deep and wide ditch, wholly artificial; and this, again, at one point, by a second ditch across the ridge, towards the south. Within the outer ward, attached to the southern and south-eastern slope of the inner ward, was an enclosure of moderate area, taken, of course, out of the outer ward. The earthworks of this are slight, and it seems to be wholly of Norman origin, and intended as a middle ward.

Thus, then, the original work was composed of a mound with a deep ravine to its west, and placed on the edge of, and in part within, an oval area on its east, the whole encircled by a common ditch. Then, as the mound stood on the edge of the inner ward, so the mound and inner ward together stood on the edge of the outer ward, which covered them to the south and east, and included an area strong indeed, but which required a considerable garrison to defend it. The outermost and partial ditch, as well as the middle ward, were probably later works.

The Norman who first took possession of these formidable works evidently laid his additions upon the English lines, either he or his successor superseding the timber palisades by walls of masonry. Upon the summit of the mound he built, as the foundations still show, a circular or polygonal tower as a keep. From thence a curtain wall sprang from its opposite sides and encircled the small eastern area, forming the inner ward. The wall was so placed that it became a revetment to the old bank, which thus took a place as a sort of ramp within the area. The apex of the area, that is, the end opposite to the mound, was capped by what appears to have been a round tower, of which only a heap of ruin remains. North of this, the curtain, which was the outer wall, is still seen to be of considerable strength. What remains is about 6 feet thick and 30 feet high, and is strengthened outside by a square mural buttress, or bastion. To the south a large window-opening and some cross-walls indicate a domestic building. At the south-west angle, next to the mound, is a fragment of a lofty tower containing a well-stair. This marks the junction of one end of the outer curtain with the wall of the inner ward, as the ruined round tower does of its other end. Near this, in the south wall, much choked with rubbish, is an opening with a low, pointed arch, once the gateway between the inner and the outer ward, and which, combined with various indications to be observed in the remaining fragments of the curtain and its tower, shows that, whatever may have been the Norman defences of this ward, they were removed and replaced by what is now seen in the Decorated period.

The tower, of which a tall fragment remains on the south-western side of the inner ward, marks the point of junction between the wall of that ward, the keep, and the wall of the outer ward. This latter wall, descending the steep natural slope, protects the inner ward gate from the west, and shows what appears to have been a postern, and beyond it a rectangular mural tower of bold projection, and marked outside by a bold cordon above its base. This is evidently an original Norman tower. Beyond it, being the southern wall of the ward, the Norman work is distinctly seen. The wall was in process of being rebuilt, and its imperfect junction with the new work is apparent. Of this later date is a curious large rectangular building, on the wall, of bold projection, and divided by a cross-wall into an eastern and a western chamber. It was of two floors, and below them a basement which has been vaulted over and fitted with exterior steps and doorways in the Perpendicular period. The building itself is early and excellent Decorated, as shown especially by the form and detail of a pair of two-light windows. From this tower the curtain, of the same date, extends to the great gatehouse which is to the south-east. This is much broken. It is rectangular, with a portal-vault below and two chambers above; one for the working of the outer, and one for that of the inner portcullis. The rib of the central portal remains, with a drop-arch and a square portcullis groove. In the inner chamber is seen part of a large fireplace with a good Decorated hood. Only one portal-arch remains, but from its position it is pretty clear that there were three. The archway is much choked with rubbish. From the great gatehouse the curtain curves sharply towards the north, enclosing the east face of the ward. Upon it is a bold half-round tower, of which the lower part, well seen from the ditch, and probably solid, is very perfect. It rises only to the level of the ward. Thence the curtain turns the north-east corner of the ward to the remains of a polygonal tower, or more probably a square tower with the angles boldly chamfered; and from this it ascended the slope so as to join the inner ward at its north-east angle, where the traces have been mentioned of a large and probably round tower; and thus is completed the circuit of the outer ward.

The middle ward is less easily traced. It seems to have been concentric with the outer ward; like it, appended to the south-east face of the inner ward, but of much smaller area, and much of that area occupied by the steep hill-side.

The most considerable remains of its wall are towards the south-east, and it probably had, on this side, a ditch of its own. The hall and other of the domestic buildings seem to have stood here, on the level part, judging from the very rude outline of the foundations.

Besides these defences, along the east front of the works of the outer ward is a second ditch, carried across the ridge, here very low. Between the two ditches is a platform of no great breadth, the rear of which forms the counterscarp of the outer ward ditch, while the front is scarped into three solid half-round bastions of earth, the outline of which is followed by the counterscarp of the outer ditch. The figure of this earthwork and the freshness of the cutting show that the whole is a late addition, probably by the latter Mortimers, to cover the foot of the outer wall, and, no doubt, strongly palisaded. Again, in advance about a hundred yards on this front, and lower down the hill, a deep ditch has been cut across the ridge, and its contents thrown inwards as a high and steep bank. Again, in advance of this line of defence, the hill, for 60 yards or 70 yards, is scarred with other earthworks of an uncertain and subordinate character and purpose, but evidently old.

A good deal of masonry remains standing in various parts of the castle area, and, no doubt, the main foundations of the whole fortress could, with a little labour, be exposed. Although most of this masonry is of Decorated date, there is evidence that a good deal of it is built upon the Norman outlines; and probably, if search were made, a good deal of buried Norman work would be exposed; and it would be shown, as indeed it now is, to some extent, that the Norman castle covered pretty much the area of the present works.

With the exception of the Norman tower and wall above mentioned, the masonry above ground seems of Decorated date and of excellent character. Enough remains to show, that with the slight exceptions already mentioned, the whole castle was rebuilt in the Decorated period in the earlier part of the fourteenth century. The work is of a very substantial character, and the appearance of the castle when complete, with its large enceinte, deep ditches, and lofty inner ward and keep, must have been grand. The main approach lay from the east. The road branched off from the Watling-street and was carried along the south side of the ridge, between the high ground and the brook, on a sort of shelf commanded by the works along the ridge.

It is evident that the earliest fortress was confined to the mound and the small area immediately attached to it, but that the defences of the outer area were speedily added to provide space for flocks, herds, and herdsmen, and a sufficient garrison. The defences, in so thickly wooded a country, would probably be of timber.

Whether the earliest Norman lord erected works in masonry is doubtful; probably not. Probably these were added by his successor at the end of the eleventh or early in the twelfth century. So protected it must have been very nearly impregnable. The walls of the keep and inner ward were quite out of the reach of any catapult, ram, or temporary wooden tower, owing to the steepness of the ground outside. Probably also the wet character of the low ground to the north and south would effectually cover these fronts, as the ravine would the west front. To the east the ground was firm and the country around open, but here the artificer’s defences were multiplied.

The parish church was no doubt built by the Mortimers, though it contains no record of them either in tombs, arms, or inscriptions. It is of large size, and much of the north wall of the nave at its west end is of herring-bone masonry, and an unusually extensive example of it. The opposite or south wall, though faced inside and out with modern plaster, exhibits, high up, a Norman loop, and is evidently of the same, rather early Norman date. It is curious that a rural church of the Norman period should have been laid out with walls so high and a span so considerable. Possibly this was intended for the seat of the religious house which Ralph, the first Mortimer, founded before his death, and which was known as Wigmore Abbey.

THE DEFENCES OF YORK.

Diruta prospexit mœnia sæpe sua.—NECKHAM. How oft hath Time these walls beheld destroyed!

No man of English race, at all acquainted with the history of his country, can enter the city of York without feeling something of that respect for a glorious past of which all men are more or less conscious, and which in the higher and nobler sort acts as an incentive to greatness both in thought and deed. It may, indeed, be that those who dwell within the city, or have been familiar with it from childhood, are less conscious of this feeling than those who visit it as strangers, and to whom the noble river, ancient walls, and venerable minster, stand out unassociated with the concerns of every-day life; but, on the other hand, the men of York cannot but feel for their birthplace something of the love of children for a parent, something of the pride of citizens of no mean city, something of that secret charm by which every man, worthy of the name, is attracted to his native land. Not London itself, the capital of the empire; not Canterbury, the seat of that other Metropolitan of our National Church, call up more varied or more brilliant recollections than are inseparably associated with the name and title of York; associated with the fortunes of that great branch of the House of Plantagenet, which, though without success, yet with so steady a persistence, contested the Crown of England.

Spells of such force no wizard grave E’er framed in dark Thessalian cave;

for the name of the city evokes a long train of the best and noblest of the land, who, during the Wars of the Roses, staked life and fortune upon the House of York; nor, within the four seas of Britain, is there found a city which combines with so flourishing a present so many memorials of the past, so much still visible to the eye, so intimately connected with those centuries during which the English name and nation was being built up. No man can unfold a map of the Northumbrian territory, nor penetrate into its recesses, without observing how copious are the traces of our Scandinavian ancestors. Those names

That have their haunt in dale or piny mountain, Or forest, or swift stream, or rocky cleft,

are still vocal in our ears, and intelligible to our understandings. They speak to us with no uncertain sound of those hardy mariners who crossed the German Ocean in search of prey, and whose long ships were known and dreaded in every creek and upon every river along the seaboard of Britain. Saxons and Danes, Jutes and Angles, each and all have left their traces over the broad plain of York, traces of those long and bloody struggles during which these not remote kinsmen were becoming fused and welded into the Englishman. No Englishman, and most of all no Yorkshireman, can forget that it is neither from the native Briton nor from the Roman colonist, but from these Teuton and Scandinavian sea-kings, fierce and lawless as they were, that we derive all those qualities that have made England a great nation. The history of York, indeed, and of the material defences by which it is still surrounded, is older by some centuries than the history of England and the English people; and long before we arrive at the times of the Scandinavian invaders, we have to deal with the remains of these masters of the world, under whom this city rose to be what its own historian has pronounced it, “a second Rome;” the mart and “emporium of the common produce both of sea and land.”

The history of the metropolis of northern England begins with the Roman occupation. When, however, the Romans called this station Eboracum, they evidently did not, as in Colonia or Confluentes, employ a new and altogether Latin name, but as in Mediolanum Isca, or Durolipons, they Latinised one already in use and of native origin. Until recently, strange as it may appear, this was the only positive argument, and it was a strong one, in favour of the pre-Roman existence of the city. Recently, however, researches into the sepulchres around the city have discovered undoubted British burials below those of the English and the Romans; and thus, in the opinion of Mr. Raine, have established the existence of an early British settlement. This discovery, probably, stands alone. No earthwork of distinctly British origin is found within or near the city, nor, indeed, save the ancient river, is there near at hand any physical feature of the country bearing a decidedly British name. No part of the great earthworks by which the city is girt can be attributed to the Brigantes. Though not all of one date, they all evidently belong to ages more advanced, and to a class of works very different from those found scattered along the crests of hills, and usually retaining, even now, their Celtic appellations. Cæsar tells us, when writing of Verulam, that the British towns were strong earthworks in a wood, and such we may suppose to have been the Caer-Evrawc found and taken possession of by the Romans, and out of the name of which they constructed Eboracum. Much, and mainly of an unsatisfactory character, has been written upon the etymology of this, the earliest name of the city. It seems generally to be thought to be connected with the name Eure, now confined to the great river of Yorkshire, above Boroughbridge, but which formerly, it is suggested, may have been borne by the whole stream upon which Caer-Evrawc was situated. But, however this may be, and whether the Roman settlement was by foundation or by adoption, the actual site of York is worthy of a people who proposed to take and hold the country, and to maintain it under law and in order. Central in position, it stands upon a river navigable to the sea, and while the country around was open and admitted of being intersected by roads in every direction, the city itself was protected on one part by a broad and deep river, and on another by a stream which, though of less volume, traversed and saturated a track of marshy and impracticable country. It was evidently to the confluence and character of these two streams, now known as the Ouse and the Foss, that York owes its origin. The Roman station occupied a tolerably level platform, from 25 feet to 30 feet above the Ouse, and about 100 yards from its left or eastern bank. Sometimes, as at Leicester, these stations, when near a river, were extended to its actual edge, and the water became the defence on that side, but here, the river being navigable, that plan would have been unsafe, and a space was left between the fortified area or camp and the river. The precise date of the Roman settlement on the Ouse is unknown. Of the early generals Cæsar probably penetrated but little beyond the Thames, or at most to the crest of the Chilterns. Aulus Plautius, Claudian, Vespasian, and Ostorius Scapula, were engaged chiefly in subduing the north and west, the last extending into the midland territory and probably reaching the Humber, where, and in the country of the Brigantes, Suetonius Paulinus probably made a settlement. Agricola, who landed in A.D. 78, and retired finally A.D. 85, completed the conquest of North Britain, and probably established a permanent camp at York. Of course, such a post would be, at first, a mere slight earthwork, set out in the Roman fashion, and protected with palisades and by the discipline of the garrison. Of this first camp nothing is to be distinguished; but it is probable that when it was superseded by a walled station the new defences were built upon the old lines, where they are still to be seen or traced. By whom the Roman walls were originally built is unknown, probably during the second campaign of Agricola, A.D. 79, after the complete subjugation of the Brigantes, and in connexion with the great military roads, of which four radiated from the city, and communicated afterwards with a whole network of subordinate or cross ways, many of which are still in use. Between the times of Hadrian, who landed A.D. 120, and built the Northumbrian wall from sea to sea; of Lollius Urbicus, who twenty years later connected in a similar manner the Firth of Forth and the Clyde, and Severus, who, A.D. 207, re-asserted the Roman power, and reinforced the wall of Hadrian, the country became populous and rich, many walled stations and connected cities had been founded, and the remains of Roman houses scattered far and wide over the country attest its prosperity and internal peace. Ptolemy, writing in the second century, mentions Eboracum as the head-quarters of the 6th Legion, as also is shown by many local inscriptions. It became rapidly a large city, “Altera Roma,” the capital of the North; and from the time of Severus to that of Constantine, both of whom died at York, it was the seat of the Government of Britain, and the head-quarters of the great military power maintained there. It was the chief of the twenty-eight Romano-British cities, and of the two which alone bore the title of Municipium.

The fortress, or military part of the Roman city, was confined to the left bank of the river. The suburbs crossed the Ouse, and were widely extended to the south-west and north. The walled enclosure measured 469 yards north-west and south-east, or up and down the stream, and 550 yards in the direction at right angles. There were four principal gates; those to the north-east and south-west in the centre of their respective sides, those to the north-west and south-east somewhat to the south of, or nearer to, the river than the centre. But it is to be remarked that as the former gates, being in the centre, were 234 yards from each angle, so the latter was also 234 yards from the angles to the south. This looks as though the original walled area had been a square of 468 yards, and that afterwards, when the buildings became of a permanent character, and the lines of the great roads leading up to the gates were fixed by habitations along them, it was found necessary to enlarge the area, and that this was done by adding a breadth of 82 yards on the northern side, which would of course throw the north-west and south-east entrances by that much out of centre. If, moreover, we suppose the whole area wall to have been rebuilt when this supposed alteration was made, we shall have an explanation of the modern character of the extant masonry, which is held by those conversant with Roman work to be of a late period. If this be so, it is exceedingly probable that the whole enceinte was then rebuilt, for so important a city would scarcely have been left unwalled during the earlier centuries of its prosperity. Considering the magnitude, population, and wealth of Roman York, and the number of public buildings which must necessarily have accumulated during the four hundred years which elapsed from the conquest by Claudian to the end of the Roman rule, and the presence of some of which is attested by inscriptions and foundations, it is remarked how very few monuments of the period remain above ground, or rather how completely the whole, with one or two exceptions, have disappeared. No doubt, under the 15 feet or 16 feet of débris which are supposed to cover up the Roman city, and the equal depth of later soil which seems to have accumulated since the commencement of the Saxon or English period, must rest covered up many curious remains of the Roman, as well as of the later periods. Some of these are, from time to time, laid bare in the formation of sewers, but the unburied remains of Roman work seem to be confined to one tower and the adjacent wall, and fragments of the wall in another part of the city. The Multangular Tower, forming one corner of the Roman area, is a shell of masonry, 42 feet in exterior diameter, and 20 feet at the gorge, which is open. It is not placed, as in Norman works, so as merely to cap the junction of two walls which would have met at a right angle, but the whole angle is superseded, as in Roman works, by a curve of 50 feet radius, and the tower stands in the centre of this rounding, three-quarters of it, presenting nine facets, being disengaged. The tower and the contiguous walls are 5 feet thick. The Roman part of the work is about 15 feet high. It is of rubble, faced with ashlar, the blocks being about 4 inches by 5 inches or 6 inches, very seldom more. There is one band of five courses of brick that may be traced along the adjacent wall, though the whole has been much injured and patched. Upon the Roman work has been placed an ashlar upper story about 3 feet thick and 12 feet high, pierced by nine cruciform loops, one in each face, and set in a pointed recess, an addition of early English or early Decorated date. The wall, extending south-east from the tower for 53 yards, is of the same date, style, and material. Both formed a part of the defences of the mediæval city. The opposite wall, running eastward, has been partially destroyed, and is now only 4 feet high, and at a short distance becomes buried in the east bank. This part of the wall was evidently destroyed before the earthwork was thrown up, for not only is it buried within the bank, but the later wall of the city is built 4 feet in front of it. It is to be observed that the Roman tower and wall, where perfect, are entirely unconnected with any bank of earth, and the ashlar facing, both inside and out, shows this always to have been the case. The wall stands on the natural surface of the ground, and is seen of equal height inside and outside. This feature in the Roman defences is not peculiar to York, but is seen at Porchester, Silchester, and elsewhere. It is evident that the earthworks, which form so important a feature in the defences of York, are all of post-Roman date. Another fragment of the Roman wall is seen in a private [Mr. Gray’s] garden, where it has been covered up by about 12 feet of débris, and has recently been laid open at a point not far from the old northern gate. Here, also, the wall underlies the earth-bank on which the latest wall is built. A third fragment of this Roman wall is exposed in a court close east of Monk Bar. It is about 6 feet high, and is ashlar faced, and until lately was covered up in the earth-bank. Probably there is still much of this wall still covered up, as it is thought that the level of the Roman city is here at least 20 feet lower down. Although so little of the Roman wall is seen above ground, it has been traced at various points, so that it may be considered as established that it included the whole area; that there were four angle towers, and four main gates, of which Bootham Bar represents one, though no trace of Roman work appears in the mediæval structure, which, indeed, probably stands at a much higher level than its Roman predecessor. The line of road from this bar is Roman, and led to Isurium or Aldborough. Of the other three gates, the position has been ascertained by excavation. That between Monk Bar and Mr. Gray’s garden was on the road leading to Derventio or Stamford Bridge. Another was in Low Petergate, close to Christ’s Church, on the road leading to Prætorium or Brough on the Humber. This road crosses the later way at Walmgate Bar. A fourth gate was at the bottom of Stonegate, in front of the Mansion-house, upon a way which traversed the site of the present Guildhall, crossed the Ouse at that point by a bridge, and, passing through the site of the later Micklegate Bar, proceeded in a direct line towards Calcaria or Tadcaster. Besides the fragments of the wall, various other Roman remains have been discovered below the present surface, all of which are shown in the admirable antiquarian map of the city by Mr. Skaif. Beyond the river, and outside the military post, other remains of Roman buildings have also been found, and more especially may be mentioned a pavement laid open just within Micklegate Bar, in the lane leading towards the station. This is particularly important, because it lay under the earth-bank of the city wall, and proves that here also this bank is post-Roman. Besides these remains, situate either within the Roman fortification or within the area of the later city, there have been found other remains scattered over a wider area. Of these the most important are the cemeteries which are found at Clementhorpe, all along the Tadcaster road, and upon the ground between that road and the Ouse, now being excavated for the proposed railway station. Also, on the north side of the river, in front of St. Mary’s and the Almery Garth, are traces of burials, the excavations over all which area have been carefully watched by Mr. Raine and others; these discoveries have created and enriched the very valuable Museum of the Yorkshire Society. What is incontestably shown by all these discoveries is that the Roman Eboracum far exceeded the bounds of the military post, and had thrown out suburbs in every available direction far beyond any military defences, showing that the inhabitants were numerous and rich, and lived entirely free from any apprehensions of danger. Although the Foss is most certainly a natural river, and not, as was once supposed, a Roman cut, it seems probable, from its name, that the Romans either altered its course or converted it into a large basin below the city, just above its junction with the Ouse. It is more than probable that the Romans here received and stored their supplies of corn, and that much of the commerce of the city in its palmy and very flourishing period was here carried on. It seems not improbable that much of the low land on the left bank of the river was then a part of the basin, though now, since the construction of the castle weir, silted up and reclaimed.

The Roman armies were officially withdrawn from Britain in A.D. 426–430, and Eboracum, falling into the hands of its but very imperfectly Romanised British inhabitants, became once more Caer-Evrawc. Doubtless, up to that period the Roman buildings, public and private, churches, basilicæ, and domestic dwellings were perfect, nor is it probable that the Britons, tinctured with Roman blood and used to Roman customs, would have injured them; but that they were destroyed, and buried deep in their own ruins before the existing earthworks were thrown up, is certain. By whom, then, and at what period, and as a defence against whom, were these earthworks formed? To answer this question it will be convenient, in the first place, to describe them. These earthworks are, probably, of at least two periods; those upon the right and left bank of the Ouse, and those beyond or upon the Foss, and it is with the former that we have first to do. A ridge or bank of earth from 15 to 40 feet high and of breadth proportionate, was carried round most of the area to be defended, and at its exterior foot was excavated a deep and broad ditch, the contents of which formed the bank; and this ditch, where not at too high a level, was supplied with water from the Ouse. This new earthwork included a space of about three times the area of the Roman station and probably as large as the latest extension of the Roman city. The new area, though not, like the Roman enclosure, rigidly rectangular, was more or less so, and for the most part contained within straight lines, meeting at right angles or nearly so. As the wall and tower at the south-west angle were standing, and more or less perfect, they were accepted as part of the new defence; but, from the wall to the Ouse, a bank and ditch were carried straight to what is now know as Lendal Tower. In the opposite direction, as the Roman wall was broken down, the bank was heaped up over it, and so continued, and probably still contains it, along the edge of the Dean’s garden as far as the north-west angle. From thence, the bank, still covering up the remains of the wall, is continued about 600 yards in the direction of and beyond Monk Bar. At two points, namely, in Mr. Gray’s garden, and in a court opening from the bar, the skirt of the bank has been cut away, and the wall is seen below it. Further on, near the site of St. Helen’s Church, the wall turned at right angles, and no doubt had an angle tower. This, however, is gone. Here, therefore, the earthwork leaves the line of the Roman wall, and is continued alone for 144 yards, when it turns outwards nearly at a right angle, and ceases at Layerthorpe, on the banks of the Foss. The earthwork stopped here because it was no longer necessary. The Foss, then, and long afterwards, was not only a broad and deep, though sluggish, stream, but it was connected with a broad tract of marsh, neither land nor water, and in itself an excellent defence. Hence, therefore, the Foss seems to have been the boundary and defence of the new area for about 900 yards, when it flows towards the Ouse, including a long tongue of land, now St. George’s Field, and then a marsh, which was of course left outside the area. Probably the bank recommenced at the bend of the Foss, and was carried across the site of the later castle direct to the Ouse, where about 70 yards of it are still seen, and thus, partly by the Roman wall, partly by an earth-bank, and partly by the river Foss, were completed the defences of the city north of the Ouse. South of that river, the bank again commences near Skeldergate, and reaches to the Bishopsgate angle, about 244 yards, much of which, however, is occupied by the later Bayle Hill. From the angle it is continued for about 750 yards in a nearly straight line, and then, turning at rather above a right angle, it is continued in two straight portions of 227 yards and 340 yards, to the river opposite to Lendal Tower. Such are the earthworks north and south of the Ouse, of which there remain nearly 3,000 yards in length. What is their age, and by whom were they constructed? Not by the Romans, for they rest upon Roman buildings which had been destroyed and more or less buried before the earthworks were commenced. Scarcely by the Picts and Scots, invaders from the north, who came down, from time to time, in force, to burn and destroy, but never to settle or to construct. Scarcely by the Saxons or early English, for these seldom, if ever, employed straight lines in their works of defence, and certainly never on so large a scale. On the whole, it seems to me most probable that, after the withdrawal of the Roman legions, and the occurrence of a few destructive invasions from beyond the northern border, the Romanised Britons, having still much to defend, made a great effort to enclose their overgrown city, and, though not equal to so great a work in masonry, constructed an earthwork which presents, as was to be expected, many indications of Roman castramentation. Should this supposition be sound it will account not only for these works, but for those at Wallingford, Wareham, and Tamworth, which are laid out in rectangular forms, but which are not upon any great Roman roads, present no traces of Roman occupation, and the banks and ditches of which are on a larger scale than was usual with the Romans, whose temporary works were but slight, and who employed masonry for those of a more permanent character. The same admixture of British with Roman blood and customs which produced in Ambrosius Aurelianus a chieftain of mixed descent, might well have manifested itself in such works as those of York. Of the interval between the departure of the legions and the first establishment of Deira as a Saxon kingdom, a period of about sixty years, but little has been recorded. It was the period during which the failing energy of the Britons once, and once only, blazed up, and, under the leading of the Gaulish St. Germain, gained over the Picts and Saxons the celebrated Hallelujah victory. Probably it was about this time, during the first quarter of the fifth century, that these earthworks were executed. How the British rule was carried on, and what degree of civilisation was retained by the Romanised natives, is a matter rather of conjecture than of proof. The metropolitan supremacy of the city was, however, maintained, for it comes to light about the middle of the sixth century, no longer, indeed, as a Christian centre, but as the Pagan capital of Deira, under the sway of the Saxon Elle.

In the seventh century York was still a flourishing city, and once more was penetrated by the leaven of Christianity. Here Paulinus in 626 baptised the founder of Edinburgh, who here testified his faith by the construction of a chapel of wood, the humble predecessor of the great Minster of the North. The earlier churches with the Roman temples and basilicæ had no doubt long been destroyed. York had its full share of the calamities which drenched the land with gore during the slow foundation of the English Commonwealth. It was burned in 738 during the archbishopric of Egbert, brother to Eadbert, King of Northumbria. In 867 it was taken by Inguar and Ubba, the sons of the Danish Lodbrog, who severely avenged their father’s death upon the lands watered by the Ouse, massacred the inhabitants and destroyed the city, which, though fortified, does not seem to have been vigorously defended, and no mention is made of the castle. Gudrum, a Danish chief who held the city during the absence of Inguar and Ubba, is thought still to be remembered by the association of his name with the principal street of the city. It is to this period, judging from material evidence, the only evidence afforded, that may most probably be attributed the completion of the earthworks as we now see them, upon the south-eastern front of the city, upon and beyond the Foss.

The dangers which York had most to apprehend during the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, that is from the first appearance of the Vikings upon the shores of Britain, came chiefly from the east, and by the way of the Humber and the Ouse. Hence, the defence of the city on that side, and against a maritime foe, became a matter of vital importance to the earlier Saxon settlers, who had to defend themselves against a brood later from the bowels of the North, and possessing all that fierceness of which civilisation had more or less deprived their predecessors. The first object was to defend the river. We learn from the Saxon Chronicles that the English way of effecting this was to throw up two large mounds, one upon each bank. Thus in the eighth and ninth centuries they defended Nottingham, and Hertford, and Stamford, and Buckingham, and thus they would naturally defend York, and this is doubtless the origin of the Castle Hill on the left and the Bayle on the right bank, which may thus be attributed to the ninth century. These mounds are the almost invariable accompaniment of an English aula, or chief residence, and nowhere are they more abundant than in Yorkshire. The date of many of them is recorded in the Saxon Chronicle, and close analogy affords a clue to that of most of the others. Usually they have a circular ditch, proper to, and shutting off the mound, while on one side, also included within its proper ditch, is a base court or area. Tamworth, of which the date is recorded, is an excellent example of such a work, as is Tickhill, and, on a smaller scale, Barwick-in-Elmet and Laughton-en-le-Morthen. The York mounds are of the same character. Clifford’s Hill had, until recently, its proper ditch, fed from the Ouse, and isolating it from the lower ward, now disfigured by the assize courts and prisons, but which also had its ditches, of which the Foss formed and does still form a part. So also the Bayle Hill had its ditch, now filled up, and that this surrounded the hill, and was fed from the Foss, is evident to those who examine it closely, and observe the depression in the later wall, where it is carried over the filled up ditch to reach the slope of the mound. But, to complete the defence of the city from that side, something more was required. The Danes came in their own ships, and would have ascended the Foss and thence attacked the city. An area was therefore traced out beyond the Foss, and which, covering the river and flanking the Ouse, made an attack on that side a work of danger. The Walmgate, as the new outwork is called, is fortified by a curved bank, in the English manner, and which extends about 900 yards, resting on the marsh of the Foss island at the one end, and on the Foss itself at Fishergate on the other. A glance at the map will show how completely this front of the city was protected by the Walmgate works beyond the Foss, by the Foss itself, by the castle in its rear, and by the Bayle Hill and its connected works beyond the Ouse. It is remarkable that such Saxon remains of buildings as are found in York are contained within the two suburbs of Walmgate and Micklegate. Saxon interments in great numbers are found about the city, many laid above those of the Romans, as the British remains are laid below them. The suburb of Walmgate was built upon and traversed by a Roman road, but no Roman remains have been found within it. Probably it lay too low for habitations. If, on the one hand, these fortifications tended to repel enemies, on the other, the great wealth of the city operated as a still stronger attraction to invite them. Notwithstanding the Danish invasions and spoilings, the vitality of the city continued strong. Alcuin, who wrote in the same century in which lived Inguar and Ubba, commemorates its wealth and splendour, its love of literature (indicated by the volumes in the cathedral library), and its great commercial prosperity. In 923 the city fell before Bagnald, a Northman, and after the middle of the eleventh century, when Deira was passing into Yorkshire, York was again disturbed by the oppression of Tostig, against whom the whole province rose, and a gemote was held here in 1065, at which, says Freeman, both English and Danish blood were represented. The object of the assembly was in truth the breaking up of the kingdom, and the provincial movement was aided by the Mercians and the Welsh. Happily, however, wiser counsels prevailed, peace was purchased by concession, and Tostig, against whom the revolt was directed, was banished. The defences of York were once more to be tried before the coming in of the Normans. In the fated year 1066, Tostig, encouraged by his Norman allies, hovered over the English shore, and uniting with Hadrada, entered the Humber, and laid up their ships at Riccal, 9 miles below the city. Edwin and Morker left their seats at Laughton and Barwick, and mustered their forces at York, and the armies met at Gate-Fulford, two miles down the river. The two earls were beaten, and York surrendered, and agreed to give hostages at Stamford Bridge, though the actual handing over is thought to have taken place at Aldby, where a mound and foss still indicate the residence of the Northumbrian kings. But though the earls had failed, Harold was not wanting to his duty. Notwithstanding the impending invasion from the south, he marched at once to York, resting neither day nor night. He reached Tadcaster while the city was actually capitulating. He entered York without resistance, left it without delay, and fought and won the battle of Stamford Bridge. Again he marched through York, and upon the Derwent came up with the Norwegian reserve. These he put to flight; then returned, and after passing two days in York, again marched southward, to lay down his life for England at Hastings. York was thus a witness to the last and noblest effort of the great English leader to free his northern capital from the invader, and so, with her defences sorely broken down, and with but little military credit, she awaited the approach of the Normans. The Norman conquest found York a very considerable city, and if her military reputation at that time stood low, events showed this to be due rather to the want of a leader than to the absence of bravery in her citizens. The city was then composed of seven divisions called “shires,” of which one, containing the outer Bayle, belonged to the archbishop. There were 1,800 “Mansiones hospitatæ,” that is, houses paying customary rents, and two castles. William visited York for the first time in the summer of 1068. The citizens received him with submission, and as usual he ordered a castle to be built, and equally as usual the place selected was the mound of the existing stronghold. Its construction and defence were entrusted to William Malet, Robert Fitz Richard, and five hundred selected knights. Malet, who had distinguished himself at Hastings, was sheriff of Yorkshire and a large landholder in the shire. At York William received acknowledgment of his supremacy from Malcolm of Scotland, Æthelwine Bishop of Durham, and Archill a great Northumbrian Thane. It appears from Domesday that of the seven shires one was laid waste in the construction of the castle, and the houses were reduced from 1,800 to about 1,036. Probably the people had been allowed to build up to the castle ditch, and it was necessary to clear an esplanade around it. The submission of York was due to circumstances, and was apparent only. In the following year, 1069, the citizens rose against the Norman garrison. They were joined by Eadgar and the men of Northumbria, and the castle was beleaguered. Of course, little could have been done in so short a time towards substituting masonry for the lighter English works, which were probably of timber, or at best of walling without mortar, and Malet must have confined himself to strengthening the works already in existence. The position, even if only stockaded, was a strong one, and Malet held out until William came to his assistance, harried the city, defiled the minster, and punished the citizens. He now ordered a second castle to be constructed upon the Bayle Hill. That this was a mere stockade is clear from the fact that it was completed in eight days, before he left the city. Rapidly as the works were constructed, still the post must have been very strong, for the mound was high and steep, its ditches broad and deep, and filled with water from the river. But though such works were capable of being held safely by a few resolute men, as at Wigmore, against an army, the defences were familiar to the English, and would not strike them with the same terror as the stony and lofty keeps which the Normans had lately begun to build in Normandy, and which William had commenced in London. William Fitz Osborne was placed in charge of the second castle, which much resembled that recently constructed in his own earldom at Hereford. Even this double bridle failed to restrain the fierce spirit of the English. After a brief rising, which was put down by William’s lieutenants, the people organised a final and more serious attack.

In September, 1069, the Danish fleet once more ascended the Humber. These allies were joined by the men of Northumbria and the English earls from Scotland. The rising threatened William’s throne. He charged Malet and Fitz Gilbert to hold firm, and received from them the assurance that they were safe for a year. They must have repented of their pledge when they beheld the whole population of the city mustering thick as wasps before the castle. The garrison at once fired the adjacent houses to clear the way for the defence, and thus burned a large part of the city, during which they sallied out in force. They were intercepted; three thousand are said to have been slain; the castle fell, and the commander was taken prisoner. The new defences were destroyed, probably by fire, and the north once more was free. The numbers engaged show that the garrison occupied not merely the mound, but the lower ward also. Unfortunately for the English, they had no leader capable of meeting William in the field. He marched into the east, met with, partially crushed, and partially subsidised, the invading Danes in the parts of Lindsey, and, such the terror of his name, entered York unopposed. He directed the castle again to be renewed, and then was carried out that wide and terrible devastation of the northern counties, necessary, perhaps, to enable him to hold England, but which has loaded his name with infamy. Upon the completion of his horrid task he kept the Christmas of 1069–70, amidst the blackened ruins of York.

Christmas past, William visited Durham, put down a considerable rising in the country about the Tees, and, after an absence of a few weeks, returned, for the last time, to York. What remains at York of a military character can be attributed to the Conqueror, or to the period of his reign? Probably none whatever. It has been usual to suppose that immediately upon the orders of the Conqueror there were constructed keep and walls, such as we attribute to the Norman period. But this period of architecture lasted nearly to 1200, and it is probable that but very few of the Norman keeps were coëval with William. The Normans had much to occupy them. Their masons, and sometimes even their materials, were imported from Normandy, and it is probable that in most cases, as certainly at York, the new lords availed themselves of such defences as they found ready to hand, and only replaced them with regular masonry by very slow degrees. Of the present walls only the inner part or core of the gateways, and a part of the wall above the Layerthorpe postern, present any distinct Norman features, and these seem late rather than early in the style. It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the defences of York, for at least a generation after the Conquest, were a line of palisades along the crest of the earth-bank, similar works about the castle and the Bayle, deep ditches, and gatehouses, very possibly, of masonry.

And now, with a general description of the existing walls, these remarks are brought to a conclusion. It will be observed that the wall follows everywhere the line of the embankment, being built upon it, and, consequently, but seldom of any great height, the steep exterior bank and ditch being reckoned a great part of the defence. The ditch, indeed, is fast becoming a matter of history. A few years ago a good example of it covered the front of the city from the Ouse to the railway arch, but now the works of the new station have encroached most unnecessarily on the ditch, and a part of it is already filled up. It is curious also that the foundation of the wall is, for the most part, very shallow in some places, certainly not above two or three feet. Much of the wall, indeed, of Walmgate rests upon rude, slightly-pointed arches; possibly because the foundation was bad, similar arches are seen below the castle wall of Southampton, intended, like these, to be covered up. It is also to be remarked that parts of the wall, especially the oldest part at Layerthorpe, are not above two or, at the most, three feet thick, so as to afford no possibility of a rampart walk, without which the wall would, of course, be of little use for defence. At Layerthorpe this want has been supplied by an inner wall, built upon arches, and carrying the rampart walk. At the wall which contains the precinct of St. Mary, meant evidently for defence, for which a licence was granted by Edward II., it would seem that this rampart walk was an interior construction, or scaffold of timber. Where the wall is decidedly of late date, as near Lendal, it is much thicker, and the rampart walk is an essential part of it, though here the stone steps must have been supplemented below with either timber or a bank of earth. Layerthorpe postern seems to have a regular gatehouse placed upon the inner end of the bridge of the Foss, and forming an appropriate termination of the wall in this direction. Fishergate postern, a portcullised doorway of the style of Henry III. or Edward I., seems to have been a water-gate upon the Foss. The adjacent square tower by which the curtain is ended seems in part of the same date, but to have been partly rebuilt in the Perpendicular period. York is fortunate in its gates, though these have been treated most injuriously. They contain the original Norman gatehouse, a small rectangular building, with a round-headed portal at each end, and a flat timber roof between. There was an upper story, now removed, and hinges for double gates. There is no portcullis, a defence well known to the Normans, but of which they made no great use. In the Decorated period these gatehouses were cased, an outer portal added, and a portcullis introduced at one or both ends. At Monk Bar the portal passage was vaulted. There was added a lofty superstructure with turrets or bartizans corbelled out at the angles, and lateral doors communicated with the adjacent curtains. Each gatehouse had, in advance of it, a rectangular enclosure or pen with embattled walls, and an outer gate opening on the further side of the ditch. Two small doors opened from the first floor of the gatehouse upon the walls of this structure, and thus was formed the barbican. The drawbridge was worked inside, over the ditch. One only of these barbicans remains, that of Walmgate; but those who wish to see other and rather earlier examples of this appendage will find one of a similar type at Carlisle, and a very fine one at Alnwick. The walls have been so patched and repaired that it is difficult to form an opinion concerning their age. They were strong enough in 1138 to hold at bay the Scottish King David, who laid siege to York, during the contest between Maud and Stephen, a short time before his defeat upon the field of Northallerton; but, with the slight exceptions already mentioned, their oldest parts seem of the Decorated period, perhaps of the reigns of Edward I. and II., or even of that of Henry III. The charming little tops to the loops in the Walmgate wall can scarcely be later than Edward II. Much of the superstructure is far later. The walls were ordered to be repaired by Edward III., in July, 1327, before the battle of Nevill’s Cross, and much has been done to them even down to the present day.

The Castle of York, to which the Conqueror directed his special attention, ought, one would suppose, to retain some memorials of that age. This, however, is not the case. The wall in the lower ward, upon the Foss, may, in parts, be early in the twelfth century, but the round mural towers cannot be earlier than the reign of Henry III. Clifford’s Tower, indeed, the keep of the fortress, is a very interesting structure. Circular or polygonal keeps, such as Cardiff, or Arundel, or Pickering, were often of the Norman period; but the regular round or quatrefoiled tower, introduced largely by Philip Augustus into France, found its way into England, and the two principal varieties of castle keep of the quatrefoil pattern were at Warwick, now removed, and this at York. It is in plan a quatrefoil of 60 feet and 80 feet diameter, with walls 9 feet thick and 40 feet high, three of the angles above the first floor being occupied by circular turrets corbelled out, and the fourth by a small square projection, which contains, below, the entrance, and above, a small chapel, handsomely arcaded and embellished with the dog-tooth moulding. This keep had a ground floor looped all round, and a first floor with corresponding loops. Probably the chambers were attached to the walls, and supported upon posts and beams, leaving a small open court next the entrance and containing the wall. Two circular staircases lead to the first floor, and from thence to the battlements. The tower has been much injured by attempts, first to destroy and then to repair it. The tower itself looks of the reign of Richard or John. The chapel has been regarded as an addition, if so, it is a very early one. York Castle was notorious in the reign of Richard I., for the dreadful tragedy perpetrated there upon and by the Jews in 1189. The castle was then burned, and we are told that Osbert de Longchamp, governor for the king, and who took up the cause of the Jews, rebuilt the work of Rufus in the castle. Probably this included the keep, very nearly as it is now seen. There was a second and very narrow ward outside the present castle wall, capped with low drum towers, apparently of the reign of Henry III. or Edward I.

THE END.

WYMAN AND SONS, PRINTERS, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON, W.C.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | FOOTNOTES: | | | | [1] Ducange gives “Glorieta, ædificiolum altius, nostris | | gloriette.” In the Roman de Partonopex mention occurs of a | | finely-painted chambrette thus named. In the Statutes of | | Milan, also, the following clause is found: “Si quis de cætero | | construere vel construi facere voluerit aliquam Baltrescham, | | ponticellum, vel Glorietam, in ejus domo, super muro proprio vel | | communi, per quam immediate prospici possit in domum vicini, hoc | | ei liceat,” &c. Lacombe gives “Gloriette: prison, petite maison | | de plaisance, cabinet de verdure,” &c. A favourite resort near | | Dorking, commanding a fine prospect, is known as “The Glory.” | | | | [2] Hutchins, Hist. Dorset, vol. i., third edit., pp. 487, 494. | | Arch. Journ., vol. xxii., p. 215, 217. | | | | [3] Ibid., p. 219. | | | | [4] Conventual Buildings, Christ Church, Canterbury, Archæologia | | Cantiana, vol. vii., pp. 105, 109. | | | | [5] “Hæc est conventio inter Gundulfum episcopum et Eadmerum | | Anhœnde Burgensem Londoniæ.” | | | | “Dum idem Gundulfus, ex præcepto regis Willielmi Magni, præesset | | operi magnæ turris Londoniæ, et hospitatus fuisset apud ipsum | | Eadmerum quadam vice ipse cœpit episcopum rogare ut concedet | | sibi societatem ecclesiæ quam regebat, videlicet, Sᵗⁱ. Andreæ. | | Quod ei episcopus satis libenter concessit. Et ideo concessit | | Sancto Andreæ et fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus medietatem | | piscariæ quæ vocatur Niuue Uuere, quam diu viveret. Cum vero | | moreretur, totam eam ibidem concessit, et totam terram suam quam | | habebat in Lundonia, et domos tali pacto, ut ipse et uxor ejus | | ad Rouecestriam deferrentur et ibidem sepelirentur, omnique anno | | eorum anniversarium observaretur.”—“Textus Roff.,” Ed. Hearne, p. | | 212. | | | | [6] A.D. 1190. “Sub his diebus Wˢ Eliensis Epˢ, Angliæ | | Justiciarius et Apostolicæ sedis legatus, fecit Turrim | | Londinensem fossato profundissimo circumcingi, sperans se posse | | Tamisiæ fluenta in urbem ducere. Sed post multos de fisco sumptus | | se laborare inutilita comprobavit.”—M. Paris, Ed. 1646, p. 161. | | | | [7] “Itaque spe frustratus, in arcem se regiam cum suis omnibus | | recessit; quorum tantus erat numerus, ut in stricti loci | | angustiis sua illis esset nocivior multitudo, quam hostium foris | | frementium multitudo. Æstuebat turris interius comprehensiore | | multitudinis inclusæ, cito evomitura quos prodendo magis quam | | tuendos susceperat. Denique post unam noctem egressus ad Johannem | | et obsessores cæteros. Ille paulo ante rhinoceros sed jam homo, | | humuli alloquio abeundi facultatem impetravit inclusis.”—W. | | Heming: p. 530. | | | | [8] “Plancherium” is an upper chamber, probably what is meant | | here. | | | | [9] “Per posticum quod de Turri plagam meridionalem respicit | | et fluvio contiguatur, legatum potenter eduxit, et ejus loco | | defensores idoneos intromisit, eductoque legato occupatores urbis | | non immerito deridebat, et procedens usque Stratford ad tria | | miliaria prope London sine quolibet obice castra fixit.”—CHRON. | | T. WYKES. | | | | [10] A balista was an engine for throwing darts as a catapult | | threw stones and heavy substances. Both were worked by windlasses | | or winches. | | | | [11] In the “Archæologia,” vol. xxix., plate xliii., is given | | a plan of Odiham Tower, but accompanied by no description, and | | without date. It was laid before the Society of Antiquaries by | | Sir E. Home in 1840. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Transcriber’s note:

- Blank pages have been removed.

- Redundant title and printer information pages have been removed.

- Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.

- Illustration page information removed.

- There are several references to “Leland” and “Itin.”, these appear to be to “The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary.”, edited by Thomas Hearne, 1744. See Wikipedia entry for “John Leland (antiquary)”.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us