and an able, though a very cruel man. He built with great rapidity the
strong castle of Brugge or Bridgenorth, and that of Montgomery, called
by the Welsh Tre-faldwin, from Baldwin, its early seneschal. His career
in England was violent and short. Bridgenorth was besieged and taken by
Henry I., who brought the wooden turret known as a malvoisin to bear
upon its walls. The Earl went into exile in 1102, and died in 1118.
King Henry held Arundel till his death, when it passed in settlement to
his widow, Adeliza, daughter of Godfrey of Louvaine, Duke of Brabant.
The Queen Dowager married William d’Albini, a Norfolk noble, known
to chroniclers as “William with the strong hand,” the royal dapifer.
They received the Empress Maud at Arundel on her landing in 1139, with
her brother, the Earl of Gloucester, and in consequence had to stand
an attack from Stephen, to whom, it is said, Adeliza pleaded with
success the duties of hospitality, and Maud was allowed to retire to
Bristol. D’Albini, however, was, on the whole, a supporter of Stephen,
though with great judgment. He advised the accord between Stephen and
Henry in 1153, and signed the compact as “Earl of Chichester.” Henry,
on his accession, acknowledged the service by a grant of the earldom
of Arundel in fee with the third penny of the county of Sussex. Earl
William died in 1176. By Adeliza, who died in 1151, he left a son,
also William, the first of four generations of D’Albinis, and of five
persons who held the earldom of Arundel, or, as they called it, of
Sussex. They were buried at Wymondham, their own foundation. Earl Hugh,
the eighth from the Conquest, died childless in 1243. Isabel, his
sister, carried on the succession, and married John Fitz-Alan, whose
son, on his uncle’s death, succeeded.
This John, head of the great house of Fitz-Alan, Lords of Clun and
Oswaldestre, became the ninth earl, and died 1240. He was the first of
fourteen earls of the name who held the castle for twelve generations.
Of these, the elder line died out in the person of Thomas, fifteenth
earl, who died childless in 1415; but the succession was continued by
his cousin, Henry Fitz-Alan Lord Maltravers, who died 1580, leaving an
heiress, Mary, who married Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk. The later
Fitz-Alans lived much at Arundel, with which place they became closely
identified.
Duchess Mary died 1557, and her husband in 1572. Their son, Philip,
became twenty-second earl, since when there have been in all ten
generations of Howards who have held the title of Arundel, the
present Duke of Norfolk being the thirty-fifth Norman earl, and the
thirty-second by descent from Queen Adeliza and William d’Albini.
The castle of Arundel has not played any very important part in English
history. Its most famous event is the siege of 1643, when it was
besieged by Sir William Waller, who first attacked and took the town,
then defended by walls, and finally battered the castle from the tower
of the church, where he posted his guns. The siege lasted from the
20th December, 1643, to the 6th of January following, when the place
surrendered, and with it the celebrated Chillingworth, who died shortly
after. The domestic buildings were then ruined, and seem so to have
remained until the last century.
The town was walled round by Richard Fitz-Alan, who had a licence for
that work in 1295. There were two gates, one below and on the river,
the other called St. Mary’s, at the top of the town. The town wall
seems to have abutted upon the castle, which thus formed a part of its
defence.
The present duke has built just outside the castle, and not far from
the parish church, a large church dedicated to San Filippo Neri, a very
noble structure, and fitted up with great simplicity and excellent
taste. Unfortunately, it is so placed as to detract materially from
the general aspect of the castle from the plain below. Placed a little
lower down, it would have left the castle as the predominant figure,
permitted the fine old parish church to hold its due place, and have
supported and elevated, instead of somewhat oppressing, the whole
group.
THE CASTLE OF BARNARD CASTLE.
Barnard, or Bernard’s, Castle, so called from its founder, Bernard de
Baliol, stands in a commanding position on the left bank of the Tees,
here the boundary between Durham and Yorkshire. It is a large castle,
and was long a very important one, both from its position on the
frontier of the bishopric, and from the power of the great barons who
built and maintained it.
The castle crowns the summit of a steep and in part precipitous
shelf of rock, which rises about 100 feet above the river, and has a
projecting shoulder, by means of which the north-western quarter of the
fortress is protected naturally by a cliff. The remainder of the area
was covered by a deep and broad artificial ditch, now mostly filled up,
which intervened between the east and north sides of the castle and
the contiguous town, to which it gave name, and the people of which,
in the times when the castle was maintained, looked to its lords for
protection. The north front of both town and castle received a further
defence from the Percy beck, a stream which flows into the Tees about
450 yards higher up.
The area of the castle, within the walls, is rather above 8 acres. In
plan it is oblong, having four unequal sides, averaging about 293 yards
north and south by 133 yards east and west. The east or town side, the
longest, is slightly convex, and measures 336 yards; the west, or that
upon the river, 245 yards; the north end, 160 yards; and the south
end, 110 yards. The Tees Bridge springs from the rocky bank, below the
centre of the western front, and was commanded from the battlements.
The area is divided into four wards, of which the “outer” covers
rather more than its southern half, and the “town ward” about the
eastern half of the remainder. The other, or north-western quarter, is
again subdivided pretty equally into a “middle” ward, and a northern
or “inner” ward. The whole area and the several wards are protected,
where necessary, by walls and ditches. The curtain along the cliff
seems to have been a mere parapet, save where, as in the inner ward, it
supported interior buildings. The walls generally vary up to 30 feet
in height, and from 4 feet to 5 feet in thickness. The outer ditch
of the place, also the town ditch, commenced in a deep ravine close
north of the keep, and was carried along the north front, skirting
what are called “the Flats”; thence along the east front, between the
wall and the town, and thence round the south end, and so beneath a
part of the west front, until it is lost in the steep ground near the
bridge, having been altogether nearly 700 yards in length. From this
ditch branched a second, which traversed the place east and west, from
the town ditch to the river bank, and which, placed to the south of a
cross-wall, was the defence of the three northern wards from the outer
ward.
Another ditch, commencing in the ravine below the keep, runs north and
south, and joined the preceding ditch, and thus protected the inner and
middle wards from the town ward. Finally, from this branched another
and still shorter ditch, which ran east and west into the river bank,
and formed the defence of the inner from the middle ward; so that each
curtain had its separate ditch. All the ditches are shown in Grose’s
plan, but the town ditch, though to be traced, has been filled up
and built upon. The deepest and broadest of the whole, and it is a
formidable excavation, is that proper to the inner ward, something of
the elevation of which is due to the heaping up of the contents of the
ditch. These ditches seem all to have been dry. They are traversed
at their ends by the curtains, and in three places, where the north
curtain closes the end of the inner-ward ditch, and where the other
end ran out upon the river slope, and where the east curtain closes
the great cross ditch, are arched openings in the curtain at the level
of the bottom of the ditch. Grose also shows a fourth arch in the wall
of the middle ward. These were either drains or posterns. They are so
nearly buried that only the tops of some of them are seen. Grose calls
them doors, and they may be so. They seem original.
The _enceinte_ of the outer ward seems to have been a mere buttressed
and embattled wall, of no very great strength. This ward could only
have been held by a very strong garrison. It was probably designed,
like the Scottish barmkin, to afford a refuge for the townfolk and
their cattle, supposing the town to be taken by an enemy. In the event
of a serious siege it would probably have been abandoned. Leland speaks
of a fair chapel and two chantries in the first area, with monuments
said to be of the Baliols. They were probably in this ward. There was
a gate from the town in the east front, opposite the market-place,
probably at the present entrance, and an inner gate, at the north-west
corner, of which some traces remain, and which led into the middle
ward. The drawbridge of this gate is replaced by a causeway of earth,
closing the end of the ditch. The slight defence of this outer ward is
consistent with the stanzas in the old ballad of the “Rising of the
North”:—
“That Baron to his castle fled,
To Barnard Castle then fled hee.
The uttermost walles were eathe to win,
The Earles have won them presentlie.
The uttermost walles were lime and bricke;
But thoughe they wan them soon anone,
The innermost walles they could not win,
For they were cut in rocke of stone.”
The baron was Sir George Bowes, who held the castle for eleven days
against the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland in 1569, and then,
according to some accounts, capitulated on fair terms. Probably Percy
beck was then so named.
The town ward, occupying the north-east quarter of the area, much less
extensive than the outer ward, was more strongly fortified. Upon its
east curtain are the remains of a rectangular building, projecting
inwards from the wall, and known as Brackenbury’s Tower. There was
also a square tower at the north-east angle. On the north front is a
half-round tower, projecting from the wall, and serving to flank a
large round-headed doorway, evidently a main entrance from the north,
independent of the town. The arch of this portal is composed of three
rings of voussoirs, each chamfered, of excellent ashlar, but without
ornament. The jambs are also chamfered. They have a plain impost also
chamfered, but with a sort of bead-moulding underneath. There is no
portcullis. This seems to have been the middle or inner doorway of a
regular rectangular gatehouse, the lines of the side walls of which are
indicated by toothings on each side of the door. There are remains of
similar lateral walls within. With the gatehouse, the drawbridge is, of
course, gone, and the ditch has been filled up.
[Illustration: BARNARD CASTLE.]
West of this Norman gate, and standing on the counterscarp of the ditch
of the inner ward, opposite to the keep, a shoulder in the curtain is
occupied by a small rectangular tower, in substance Norman, whence the
curtain, of great height and strength, closing the north end of the
ditch, runs up to the keep. In its base, in the bottom of the ditch,
is seen the upper part of one of the round-headed openings already
noticed. This is of 4 feet span, and more like a postern than a drain.
The area of this town ward is occupied as a kitchen-garden, and part
of it is locked up, and entry refused. The curtains seem substantially
Norman. Grose shows the remains of a drawbridge between this and the
middle ward, and no doubt there must have been some such communication.
The middle ward seems to have contained stables and offices, now
destroyed. Its communication with the outer and town wards has been
mentioned. It had also a drawbridge, superseded by an earthen causeway,
at its north-west corner, leading into the inner ward. It is difficult
to say whether the ditch was here run out upon the face of the cliff,
and has since been filled up, for a cottage has been built on the slope
outside, and effectually conceals the point for examination. Grose,
however, indicates a doorway in the ditch here, as at the other end,
and in the cross-wall dividing this from the town ward.
The inner ward is the most perfect and really curious part of the
castle. It is in level about 30 feet above the rest, commands the whole
area, and predominates grandly over the Tees. It contains the keep,
northern tower, the domestic buildings between them, the curtains
and buttresses, and the remains of the gatehouse. The keep caps the
north-east angle, and is half within and half without the curtain. It
is a very grand piece of masonry, built of blocks of coarse red grit
of moderate size, square and coursed, with rather open joints. It is
circular, about 40 feet diameter, and about 50 feet high to the base
of the parapet, now gone. It rises from the rock. Its base for about
6 feet batters slightly, but above that it is cylindrical. It is
absolutely without ornament, and there is not even the usual cordon to
mark the top of the base. The loops are of unusual length, and slightly
dovetailed at the lower end; never cruciform. The original openings
are mostly square-headed, and without mouldings or labels. One large
window, high up, towards the north, is round-headed, and probably
original. Towards the town ward is a five-light late Tudor window, an
insertion. Probably the parapet rested on bold corbels, but, if so,
they are gone. There are no strut-holes nor indications of a bretasche.
Though circular above and towards the field, the southern or interior
face is capped by a bold spur, a pyramid cut diagonally, with the apex
dying into the round wall about four-fifths of the way up. This spur
contains a mural chamber. It is much shattered.
[Illustration: THE KEEP, BARNARD CASTLE.]
The keep is cylindrical within, and has a basement and three upper
floors. All its original openings seem to have been either flat or
round-headed. There is no original pointed arch; that over the main
door is clearly an insertion. The basement is on the ground level,
about 20 feet diameter, and the walls about 10 feet thick, and it is
covered in with a flattish dome of inferior rubble, but probably
original. On the south side are traces of a fireplace, of which the
vertical tunnel remains in the wall. The entrance-door is on the
west side, and so also is the main door. It is much broken, and
has at present a late flat-pointed arch, but it seems to have been
round-headed. It opened not, as now, from the court, but from the
passage-room leading to the postern. In the outer wall, a couple of
yards to the right of the door, is a recess like a sepulchre in the
keep wall, and in it is laid a stone coffin, probably found in the
outer ward. The recess may have been a seat; it can scarcely have
been a tomb. The entrance-door has no portcullis. In its left jamb a
flat-topped mural passage, 3 feet wide, leads into a garderobe which
projects outwards between the keep and the curtain, and has a short
exterior loop. The shaft of a garderobe in the floor above so drops
that it is evident that here, as at Corfe, there was a wooden partition
within it.
Entering the keep, on the right a door leads up half a dozen steps into
the north side of what is called the guard-chamber, a barrel-vaulted
room, 14 feet east and west, by 7 feet, with a loop to the south. This
looks very much like an oratory, though it is a passage-room. It is
contained partly within the spur buttress, and is evidently the cause
of that appendage. From near the west end of the chamber, a second door
leads by a mural stair, 3 feet broad, to the first floor, a circular
chamber, 21 feet diameter, with walls about 8 feet 6 inches thick. This
stair opens by a narrow, round-headed door in the jamb of a doorway,
also round-headed, which seems to have led from this floor into the
“great chamber,” the withdrawing-room of the hall. In the opposite door
jamb, a similar door leads by a mural passage to a garderobe above that
already mentioned.
The first floor was evidently the state-room. It has traces of a
fireplace to the south side, but the hood is gone, and opposite to
it is a round-headed window of 4 feet opening, looking up the Tees.
Another window, probably of the same pattern, looked towards the tower
ward. This has been altered to suit a Tudor five-light flat-topped
window. This seems to have been called “My Lady’s Chamber.”
In the left-hand jamb of the north window, now much broken, another
narrow door opens on a mural stair, 2 feet 6 inches broad, which,
following the curve of the wall, and lighted by small loops, led up to
the battlements, opening, on the way, upon the second floor, of which
the floor and roof, both of timber, are now gone. This floor also had
a fireplace, and a sort of magnified loop, which did duty as a door,
and opened upon the battlements of the hall, and led also to a third
garderobe, corbelled out above the other two. This has an open vent,
while the shaft of the other two descends within the wall to a sewer,
the arched mouth of which is just visible at the foot of the wall,
outside.
There seems also to have been a square-headed opening in the stair, to
give a way to the top of the ward-curtain, of which the allure was 2
feet 6 inches wide, having a parapet of 3 feet, and a rerewall of 2
feet. As the parapet of the keep is gone, the stair terminates abruptly
at the level of the rampart wall, where the wall is 7 feet 6 inches
thick; and thence is a good view of the castle and town, and of one of
the most lovely reaches of the Tees. In 1592 this keep was roofed with
lead. The roof was probably always flat.
Mortham Tower capped the north-west angle of the ward, rising from the
rock high above the river. It is a mere fragment. It seems to have been
of irregular plan, built to fit on to the hollow bend of an existing
wall. When it was built, it was thought prudent to strengthen the wall
by stout exterior buttresses. The original wall is Norman. The first
built part of the tower seems to have been Early English, and its
completion Decorated.
The space between Mortham Tower and the keep was occupied by the
hall and withdrawing-rooms, the latter being next the keep. The hall
was on the first floor, as shown by its two windows in the curtain.
These are of two lights, with a transom and trefoiled heads, and an
oval quatrefoil in the head. They are placed in recesses with plain
segmental arches, and side seats of stone. They are of the best
Decorated period, and evidently insertions into an older wall, which
has also been strengthened with Decorated buttresses.
Between the hall and the keep were, on the ground-floor, passages
leading on the left to what was probably a cellar below the hall, and
on the right into the keep, while at its end is a small square-headed
postern in the curtain, still in use. Above this passage was the
withdrawing-room, placed between the hall and the state floor of the
keep; and the window of this room, in the curtain, is the well-known
bay which displays in its soffit the “bristly boar” of Richard III. The
window is projected over the postern, upon bold corbels and is mainly
of good Perpendicular date, but the superstructure has been altered
and debased by some very poor Tudor work, similar to the window in the
keep, and possibly due to Sir George Bowes. This was called “The Great
Chamber” in 1592.
Its gatehouse occupied the south-west angle of this ward, and was
built on the edge of the cliff. The remains of it are very scanty. The
curtain between it and Mortham Tower seems to have been a mere parapet,
cresting the cliff.
The curved curtain connecting the gatehouse with the keep, and covering
the two landward faces of the ward, is tolerably perfect. It is
strengthened by an exterior buttress and a small tower. This latter,
which is placed near the angle of the curtain, towards the keep,
contains a basement and upper chamber, both vaulted, though of the
latter, which was at the rampart level, only some fragments remain.
This tower is rectangular, but the angles are chamfered off. It has no
internal projection, and outside, against each of its three faces, is
applied a Decorated buttress of 2 feet 6 inches breadth, by 3 feet 6
inches projection at the base. Each is of three stages, and dies into
the wall near its summit. Between this tower and the keep is a large
buttress, apparently hollow, possibly for the pipe of a garderobe. This
also is a Decorated addition. Near it the curtain has a flat Norman
pilaster strip, but of three stages. It is 4 feet broad, and diminishes
from 18 inches to 6 inches projection. It also dies into the wall near
the top.
It is not unlikely, from the aspect of the inner ward, that this was
a fortress of the tenth century, composed of a cliff on two sides, a
ditch on the other two, and a centre more or less nearly circular, and
artificially scarped; in fact, a motte, upon which stood the original
stronghold. The outer ditches may be of the same date, but from their
figure and plan they are more likely to have been a later, probably a
Norman, addition. Their contents are thrown inward so as to form a ramp
behind the wall.
It is evident that the whole area of the castle, as it now stands, was
inclosed by the Normans, and the walls throughout and nearly all the
towers are latish in that style. Here and there, spread over the whole
_enceinte_, are remains of Norman work. The pilaster strips on the
inner curtain, the arches in the several ditches, the square tower and
gate on the north curtain, Brackenbury’s Tower, and much of the wall
towards the town are original. In the inner ward the base of Mortham
Tower, and the half-round mural tower near the north gate, are probably
Early English. The keep, the fragments of the hall, the south-east
tower of the inner ward, and most of the remains of other buildings are
evidently Decorated. The original walls were mostly of sound rubble,
with ashlar dressings. In the Decorated work ashlar was more freely
used.
The castle must have undergone almost a rebuilding in the Decorated
period. The Norman architect evidently treated the whole inner ward
as a shell keep. His successors added part of Mortham Tower, and the
Decorated artist, more ambitious, raised the round tower as a keep,
added—probably rebuilding—the hall, and completed Mortham Tower, and
strengthened or restored the curtain in various places.
Here, as was much the practice in the North, the round-headed arch
and the flat lintel were largely employed in the Decorated period.
The general style of the work is much to be admired. Strong, sound,
massive, very plain, of excellent execution, it is in admirable taste,
and in good keeping with a military structure. The keep, though not
one of the largest, is one of the finest round towers in England. Its
proportions are good, its materials of proper size and rich colour, and
its very plainness is indicative of strength.
There is but little Perpendicular work; probably it was of a lighter
character, and has fallen and been removed.
Whatever may be regarded as the value of the material evidence of
its earthworks, the notion of Bernard Castle occupying the site of
an earlier stronghold is unsupported by records. The present town is
thought to have risen on the fall of Marwood, a place the very site of
which is now forgotten; neither is it a parish, being included in the
vast parish of Gainford, the church of which is eight miles distant.
From Domesday no aid is to be derived, seeing that this valuable record
does not include Durham, nor is there any mention of either Marwood
or Gainford, still less of the castle, in Hugh Pudsey’s Domesday of
Durham, the Boldon Book, compiled in 1133, for this is confined to the
bishopric, within which the Baliol fee was not at that time included.
Guy de Baliol received from William Rufus the Barony of Bywell, in
Northumberland, and either from that king, or his father, the lordship
of Gainford, of which he gave the church to St. Mary’s, at York.
Bernard, his son and successor, was a distinguished adherent of
Stephen, but lived into the reign of Henry II., and was one of those
who broke up the siege of Alnwick, by the Scots, in 1174, before which
time he probably built Barnard Castle. He also seems to have built the
church, or rather chapel, of Barnard Castle town, and gave it also
to St. Mary’s. He was succeeded by another Bernard, father of Hugh,
father of John de Baliol, founder of Baliol College, Oxford, and of St.
John’s Hospital, in Barnard Castle town, and regent of Scotland. He was
born in the castle. He married Devorgoil, a co-heir of Alan, Lord of
Galloway, from whom their son, another John, inherited the deadly claim
to the throne of Scotland, which he made good, after a fashion, in
1292. He lost his English estates, and died at Château-Gaillard in 1314.
Edward, his son, became king of Scotland, 1332, but was expelled in
1341, and died childless in 1363.
On the attainder of John de Baliol, Bishop Bek claimed Barnard Castle,
probably unjustly, as belonging to the See. As early as 1301 he had
seized upon it, and he held it for some time, and to his tenure are
attributed the keep and other additions in the style prevailing at
the period. Edward I., however, granted it to Guy Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick, who cared little for episcopal claims, which took the form of
protests from several successive bishops.
The castle remained in the Earls of Warwick, Beauchamps and Nevilles,
for five descents, and here Thomas Beauchamp founded an Augustin
Priory about 1381. How it came to be held for a time by the Earls of
Westmoreland of the other line of the Nevilles does not appear. It
finally, however, vested in Richard Duke of Gloucester, who repaired
it, and left his cognisance upon it, as has been stated. On his
death it remained in the Crown until it was sold, and after various
vicissitudes became the property of the ancestor of the Duke of
Cleveland. It was dismantled in 1630, when the spoil of the great hall
was carried to Raby.
The bridge across the Tees is a fine one, of two lofty pointed arches,
said to have been rebuilt in the last century. The arches are moulded
in three sets-off, and beneath, each arch is supported by five bold
ribs. If modern, the old type is well followed.
In the adjacent church there are some old parts. There is a good ornate
south door with flanking columns and capitals, round-headed, with a
chevron moulding on the arch. The opening is wider than usual. The
style is late Norman. The base of the tower is set round with several
short Early English buttresses. About 12 feet west of the tower, in
the churchyard, are laid several large blue gravestones of a quality
not now used. They seem to have carried brasses, are much worn, and
have evidently been removed from the interior of this church or the
castle chapel. Under one, on which remains a merchant’s mark, is buried
Sir John Hullock, a Baron of the Exchequer, who died July 31st, 1829,
and his wife, who died November 18th, 1852.
BEAUMARIS CASTLE, IN ANGLESEY.
Beaumaris Castle is built upon a marshy flat, close to the sea-shore,
and but little above the level of the sea, from which its ditch was
supplied. It is an example of a purely concentric fortress, in which
the engineer was left free to design his works without being governed,
as in most other cases, by the irregularities of the ground.
[Illustration:
_Ground Plan._
_Beaumaris Castle._]
Its inner ward is a quadrangle about 50 yards square, contained within
four curtain-walls about 16 feet thick and 40 to 50 feet high. At the
angles are four drum-towers, three-quarters engaged, of the height
of the curtains. On the east and west sides are intermediate towers,
half-round, with prolonged sides, of which that to the east, as at
Kidwelly, contains the chapel. In the centre of the north and south
sides are the gatehouses, of large size and something higher than the
other towers. In each a quadrangular part projects into the court,
capped at the two angles by round turrets containing staircases.
Outside, half-round towers with prolonged sides flank the entrance. The
ground-plan here given shows the general arrangement.
[Illustration:
_C. A. Buckler._
_Entrance to Beaumaris Castle._]
[Illustration: BEAUMARIS CASTLE: ANGLESEY:]
The great hall, 70 feet by 23 feet 6 inches, occupies most of the first
floor of the northern gatehouse, and is lighted from the court by
five windows, of two lights each, with a transom, as at Stokesley and
Ludlow, contemporary halls. The fireplace was on the opposite side. The
roof was of timber, but with one stone rib, as at Charing. The southern
gatehouse probably also contained a large chamber, now destroyed. The
state-rooms and lodgings were in the gatehouses. The portals were of
unusual length, and each was guarded by three grates.
The curtains are pierced lengthways by long mural passages,
communicating with the tower chambers and the staircases, of which
there are many. The rampart walk is of unusual breadth. Under a part
of the wall, south of the chapel, the lowest mural gallery is a large
sewer.
The chapel, on the first floor, though not much above the ground level,
is a beautiful little chamber, entered at its west end from the court
by a flight of steps and a short passage traversing the mural gallery.
On each side is a vestry. The actual entrance to the chapel is by a
double door, trefoiled. The chapel is composed of two bays with a
polygonal apse. The whole is groined, and the walls are panelled in two
stages all round. There are five lancet loops opening upon the face of
the tower, and two windows opening into the chapel, from the vestries.
The chapel stands on a crypt, also vaulted.
Outside the south gatehouse a sort of barbican, a hollow square of
masonry, has been erected, having an entrance on its west side. It is
an addition intended to prevent the portal being raked or carried with
a rush.
The ward above described stands detached within the outer ward. This is
in figure eight-sided, symmetrical, or nearly so. At its four principal
angles, opposite the angles of the inner ward, are four drum-towers,
three-quarters engaged. From these towers the walls slope outwards, so
as to form salient angles, of which there are thus four, one opposite
to the centre of each face of the inner ward, and thus space is given
for the gatehouses, the chapel, and its opposite tower. Each salient is
capped by a drum-tower, and on each of the sides forming the salient
is a smaller tower. There are altogether twelve towers, three of the
spaces and one angle being otherwise occupied. These outer towers and
curtains are much lower and slighter than those of the inner ward.
There are two gates. The north gate seems never to have been completed,
but its remains are very peculiar. There is a main portal in the
curtain, and on each side of it a small portal or postern. Outside are
four bold but narrow buttresses, one on each side of the main gate,
and one outside each of the side gates. The western buttress is of
bolder projection than the rest, and is evidently intended to cover
and conceal a sally from the quarter whence the Welsh were most likely
to approach. Each buttress is looped, the two inner ones so as to
command the main from the side entrances. The southern entrance is also
peculiar, and has a gatehouse and outwork of its own. The gatehouse,
shown in the drawing here given, has two towers on quadrangular bases,
corbelled out so as to rise to drum summits, producing a fine effect.
This outer gate opens upon the sea-shore. Behind, or to its west, was
the walled tower. Towards the east it was protected by a spur-work; a
long curtain wall, running on from the exterior wall of the castle to
the sea-shore, of great thickness, and pierced by a long gallery below,
and having above a rampart walk, parapeted on each face. The passage
is looped each way and strengthened by a half-round tower on its west
face. It seems to have ended in a round tower, now removed. The object
of this work was to cover the landing of supplies from the sea, and
to prevent an enemy from the east side from creeping round by the
sea-shore and so surprising either the castle or the town. The spur has
been pierced by a modern archway.
The birdseye view given shows the castle from its south-eastern angle.
The root of the spur-work is shown, the outside of the chapel tower
with its lancet windows, and the windows of the great hall. There was
but one ditch, which embraced the whole structure, and is now filled up.
Beaumaris was probably commenced about 1295, twelve years after the
execution of Prince David, and later than Conway, Caernarvon, and
Harlech. On the subjugation of Wales it ceased to be of importance, and
even in the reign of Edward II. it was out of repair.
BEDFORD CASTLE.
On the left bank of the Ouse, about 50 yards from the stream, within,
but upon the eastern edge of, the town, is to be found all that remains
of the once-celebrated and very strong castle of Bedford. These
remains, though scanty and confined, or nearly so, to earthworks, are
very marked and of a durable character, and, although the fame of the
castle rests upon its adventures as a Norman fortress, there is reason
to suppose that it had an earlier history, and that most of its present
relics belong to that earlier and Saxon period.
The principal work is a motte or mound of earth, wholly artificial,
placed upon the gravelly plain across which the Ouse winds its way
down the broad band of the middle oolite. This mound is circular, now
about 15 feet high and 150 feet in diameter at its summit, which is
perfectly level, and has for above half a century been employed as
a bowling-green. The slopes are uniform and moderately steep, and
planted with trees and shrubs. On the north side, or that farthest from
the river, an excavation has been made for an ice-house; but this is
of modern date, and does not appear to have laid open any traces of
masonry below the surface of the ground.
Towards the river, and westwards towards the town bridge about a
furlong above the castle, the ground is perfectly flat, and under
cultivation as a garden; but, on the north and north-east it is rather
higher, and here are traces of a ditch at the foot of, and concentric
with, the mound, and no doubt a part of its defence upon this its
weaker side.
The only masonry that can possibly be old is a small rectangular
mass on the south side of the mound, and which now carries a modern
summer-house. The ragstone of the country, of which this fragment is
comprised, weathers so rapidly that it is difficult to form an opinion
upon its age; but, though possibly old, it may be of recent date.
Looking to the position of the mound as regards the river, and to the
low and flat character of the ground about it, it is evident that the
great strength of the place must have been derived from the Ouse, here
deep and broad, and from banks of earth and ditches filled from and
communicating with the river. The entire absence of masonry and the
disappearance of all but a trace of the surrounding banks and ditches,
commemorated in the Chronicles as once so high and deep, are fully
accounted for by the circumstances recorded of the famous siege by
Henry III.
Bedicanford, or Bedford, was well known to the Saxons, and a town
probably of Saxon origin. Here, just outside the town, was buried in
796 the Saxon Offa, king of Mercia, in a chapel long since swept away
by the flood waters of the Ouse. Early in the tenth century the town
was attacked by a party of Danish settlers from the five burghs, who
were beaten off by the townspeople, and shortly afterwards Edward the
elder repaired the place, and erected what some call the suburb of
Mikesgate, and some a strong place, on the southern side of the river,
possibly a cover for the “ford,” which contributed towards the name
of the town. Bedford was, without doubt, an important town under the
Saxons, and, as at Tamworth, Leicester, Wareham, and Wallingford, had a
citadel at one angle of the enclosure, upon the river.
The Barony, also called the Honour, of Bedford, was conferred by
William Rufus upon Payn, second son, but eventual heir of Hugh
Beauchamp, a companion of the Conqueror, and possibly allied to the
greater family of that name, who afterwards held the earldom of
Warwick. Hugh was the recipient of many manors in Buckingham, and about
twenty in Bedfordshire. Payn is the reputed builder of the Norman
castle, described as of great strength, with ditches and ramparts of
earth, and which descended to his son Simon, steward to King Stephen.
The family, however, afterwards took part against the king, who seems
to have attempted to settle the fief upon the daughter of the eldest
brother, married to Hugh, surnamed “Pauper,” brother to the Earl of
Leicester. Milo de Beauchamp held the castle against King Stephen in
1137. The siege lasted five weeks, and was pressed with great energy.
It was finally taken by starvation. The author of the “Gesta Stephani”
describes the castle as having strong earthworks, “editissimo aggere
vallatum.”
Simon de Beauchamp held the castle through the reigns of Henry II. and
Richard I., until his death, about the 8th of John. It appears from the
red book of the Exchequer that he held 36 and 5-10ths knight fees of
the old feoffment, and 8 fees of the new, all in the barony of Bedford.
In his time the castle seems to have been held against Henry II. since
in the second year of that king, 1155-6, those burgesses of Bedford who
were in the castle against the king were fined twenty marks, of which
sum they rendered account in 1157-8. In 1190 Simon fined £100 for the
governorship of the castle.
William, son and successor of Simon, is described as lord of the strong
castle of Bedford, the “caput” of the Honour. He took part with the
rebel barons towards the close of John’s reign, and in 1215 admitted
their forces into his castle. In consequence it was attacked by the
well-known Falk de Breauté, and, not being relieved, was surrendered
in November, after a seven days’ siege. John was himself present at
Bedford thrice in that year, in all for eight days. He granted the
confiscated Honour to Falk.
Falk strengthened and held the castle into the reign of Henry III., and
thence ravaged the country below the Chilterns. At first a supporter
of the young king, he afterwards resisted his authority, and, at the
instance of his oppressed neighbours, Henry de Braibroc was sent to
Dunstable in 8th Henry III., 1224, to try their complaints, when thirty
verdicts were found against the baron, and fines imposed of £100 under
each of them. In revenge, Falk kidnapped the judge and lodged him a
prisoner in Bedford Castle, treating him with much indignity. His
wife complained to the Parliament then at Northampton, and the king
ordered him to give up the judge, but in vain. Henry was probably
glad of the opportunity of crushing a very turbulent subject, and
appears to have lost no time in punishing the affront. In June, 1224,
commenced a series of orders, issued by the king himself, and which
show the greatness of his preparations for a siege, and the vigour
with which he pushed them forward. On the 22nd of June, Henry was at
Bedford in person, and there remained during the siege until the 19th
of August, nearly two months. The preparations were both extensive and
minute, and the mandates, always described as pressing, were issued
to a vast number of sheriffs and other persons as far south and west
as Corfe Castle and St. Briavels. They require men, money, arrears of
scutage, cord, cable, iron, steel, hides, leather for slings, twine
for strings, mangonels, petraries, balistæ, quarrells, stone shot,
quarrymen, masons, miners, carpenters, saddlers, wagons for conveying
the royal pavilions, and almonds, spice, and ginger for the royal
still-room. All the smiths in Northampton who can forge quarrell bolts,
or feather them when forged, are to work day and night until 4,000 are
ready and despatched. Large quantities of wine from the royal stores in
London, at Northampton, and elsewhere, are to be forwarded with speed
to Bedford. Knights performing castle guard at Lancaster are ordered
up: greyhounds are sent for for sport. The sheriff of Bedfordshire is
to supply quarrymen and masons with their levers, hammers, mauls, and
wedges, and everything necessary for the preparation of stone shot for
the mangonels and petraries. Miners come from St. Briavels, in the
Forest of Dean. Windsor supplies its master-carpenter and his mates.
Cambridge sends cord and cable. Charcoal comes with the iron and steel
from Gloucester, and the adjacent abbey of Newenham spares a large
quantity of raw stone to be converted into shot.
The details of the material supplied are recorded in the close rolls of
the period. The particulars of the siege itself have been preserved by
the neighbouring monks of Dunstable, from whose town, and probably from
whose monastery, the judge had been taken, and whose fellow-townsmen
played an important part in the siege. The king brought with him the
Archbishop of Canterbury and divers bishops and abbots, by whose
interest was granted to him two men from every hyde of their church
lands to work the siege engines; an aid of “carucage” or a mark from
each caruca or plough land of demesne, and 2s. from each held in
tenancy, gifts which were guarded against being drawn into a precedent
by special charter from the king.
Falk left his brother to abide the attack, and sought aid on the lands
of the Earl of Chester, Ranulph Blundeville. The earl, however, was
with the king, together with Peter de Rupibus, bishop of Winchester,
William de Cantelupe, Brian de l’Isle, and Peter de Maulay. All were
suspected of disaffection, and in consequence the earl and the bishop
left the camp, although the earl was afterwards brought by the Bishop
of Chester to his duty. Falk remained at Northampton until he fled to
Wales.
The siege operations included on the east front a petrary and two
mangonels, which daily battered the opposite tower; on the west front,
two mangonels bore upon the old tower; on the north and south fronts
were two mangonels, one on each, and each breached its opposing wall.
The operations of these seven pieces of ordnance were materially aided
by two large wooden turrets, tall enough to command the whole castle,
and supported by other smaller turrets, all charged with archers and
crossbow-men. There was also the timber covered-way, known as a cat,
by the aid of which miners were able to undermine the wall, while the
bowmen cleared the battlements above. These works were thickly covered
with hides, rendering them proof against fire; and the slingers, of
whom there were many, probably kept up a general and incessant shower
of pebbles upon all who dared to show themselves on the ramparts.
The works were stormed by four vigorous assaults. First the barbican
was taken, with a loss of four or five of the assailants. Then entrance
was effected into the outer ward. This was the work of the men of
Dunstable, and was attended with severe loss. In this ward were stored
most of the munitions of the place,—arms, horses and harness, cattle,
bacon and live hogs. Much forage was here burned, with the houses and
sheds in the ward.
The miners next underworked the wall next the old tower, which wall
fell. The resistance here appears to have been obstinate, many lives
were lost upon the breach, and ten of the most forward assailants were
taken and carried into the interior of the place.
Finally, on the vigil of the Assumption, 14th August, about the hour
of vespers, the miners having undermined the foundations of the old
tower, fired the props. The walls split, the smoke rose, and, the place
being no longer tenable, the garrison hoisted the royal banner, and
surrendered, sending out De Braibroc with the wife of Falk, and the
other women. Next morning the king took possession. William de Breauté
and the garrison were put upon their trial, and he and about eighty
of his men were hanged out of hand. Three were allowed to join the
Templars in Palestine, and the castle chaplain was delivered over to
the archbishop as the spiritual power. It appears from the records that
the remainder of the garrison escaped with fines and confiscations.
The spoil was considerable, in treasure, provisions, and munitions of
war. Henry left for Kemeston (Kempston) on the 18th, but was again at
Bedford on the 19th, and at Dunstable on the 26th of August. Even when
flushed by success he seems not to have been severe upon those not
actually implicated. Alice, widow of the executed William de Breauté,
was allowed her dower-lands in Bedford and Cumberland. On the 19th and
on the 22nd, Margaret, wife of Falk, was allowed for her subsistence
the manors of Heyford and Sabridgeworth. Gilbert de Breauté also was
allowed a manor; and Falk, the author of all the mischief, had twenty
marks allowed for his personal expenses on his way to exile.
Immediately upon the surrender, Henry broke up the siege establishment.
Nine hundred quarrels, the residue of the 4,000, were returned to
Northampton, and the sheriff of Beds is debited with the remaining
iron, charcoal, &c., collected for the siege operations. The mangonels
and heavy artillery were to be taken to pieces and returned to
Northampton Castle. Various payments were also made and rewards given,
chiefly out of the confiscated De Breauté lands. John de Standon, the
king’s miner from the Forest of Dean, had land granted him under St.
Briavels.
The castle itself was far too strong and too dangerous to be spared,
and the orders for its destruction are very sweeping and specific. By
an order of the 20th of August, five days after the surrender, the
sheriff is ordered to level the banks, fill up the ditches, and make
plane the surface of the outer ward. He is to reduce the mote or mound,
and the walls of the inner ward by one-half their height, and to level
three-fourths of the old tower towards St. Paul’s, that is on the
north-west. The stones are to be divided between William de Beauchamp
for his proposed house, the church of St. Paul, Bedford, and the
priories of Caldwell and Newenham; but the last is to have the larger
share, because it supplied stones for shot for the siege.
Five days later came out another order enforcing the former, and
directing Henry de Braibroc and William de Pateshull to see to its
prompt and accurate execution. It was also specified that William de
Beauchamp might, if he pleased, build a dwelling-house on the site,
and use the reduced wall of the inner ward, but he was not to raise
the mound or the wall above a certain height, or to embattle it. He
might only erect it. Braibroc is to see the stone from both walls and
mound distributed as directed. September 16th, the sheriffs of Herts,
Cambridge, and Hunts were ordered to send men to aid Braibroc and
Pateshull in the work of destruction, and they are to take tools with
them, and stay until the mound is lowered and the ditches filled up as
ordered. Beauchamp was further allowed half the timber from the barn
and the old tower.
Thus passed away the strength and glory of the castle of Bedford, the
great fortress of the Ouse. Whether William de Beauchamp built upon its
site does not appear. He died 44 Hen. III., and within a very few years
his name was extinct and his barony divided.
The castle, or its site, probably as the seat of a manor court, is
named from time to time in the _Inquisitiones post Mortem_. Thus, 5
Ed. II., Roger L’Estrange, by Margaret his wife, was seized of “the
Castle” and the “site of the Castle” of Bedford; 1 Ed. III., John
de Mowbray was seized of the site of Bedford Castle and the fishery
of the Ouse; and 40 Ed. III., another John had suit of court in the
castle of Bedford; and 50 Ed. III., Elizabeth, wife of John Mowbray,
holds of the same castle. Also, 6 Rich. II., another John Mowbray is
seized of Bedford Castle and Bedford Barony; and, finally, 8 Hen. IV.,
Thomas Mowbray, Earl Marshall, holds Bedford Castle in chief, by the
service of almoner to the king at his coronation; so that the tenures
and privileges attached to the castle remained in force long after the
fortress itself had been razed. In Leland’s time, the castle mill,—that
great evidence of feudal customs,—remained; and he also mentions the
“great round hill” as a burrow for foxes. There were not then any
buildings.
It is evident from present appearance that the mandate of Henry III.
was strictly obeyed. No trace of a ditch is to be seen between the
mound and the river, and the mound itself is so much lower than is
usual with works of that diameter as to make it probable that at least
one half has been removed and employed in filling up the ditches.
It is not easy to gather from the account of the siege a clear idea of
the disposition of the parts of the castle. There were two wards, and
the outer, judging from its contents, must have been of considerable
area. It probably included the inner ward and the mound, and abutted
upon the river. The barbican would scarcely be placed upon the river
or outside the town, and probably was to the north-west, or near the
church of St. Paul.
The inner-ward wall probably surrounded the mound, on the outside of
its ditch, and was thus open to attack when the outer ward was taken.
The old tower, last taken, and the fall of a part of which reduced the
garrison to surrender, was probably the donjon or shell crowning the
mound. This would be of Norman date, and therefore might well be called
the old tower, as distinguished from Falk’s additions, and the repairs
after the siege by Stephen. Thus, if the explanation be accepted,
Bedford Castle had a shell keep or donjon upon a mound, surrounded by a
ditch and wall, and this again by another wall, at a greater distance,
the principal storehouses and dwelling being, as was usual, in this
larger or outer ward. The History of Bedford Castle and of its siege
are the subject of an elaborate paper by the late Rev. C. H. Hartshorn,
privately printed in 1861.
BERKHAMPSTEAD CASTLE, HERTS.
The Castle of Berkhampstead stands in the parish of Berkhampstead St.
Peter, in the county of Hertford, and, geologically, upon the lower
chalk. Its position is in a chalky bottom, on the left bank of the
Bulborne rivulet. Between the stream and the castle the ground is
naturally low and marshy, but it is now traversed by the Grand Junction
Canal and the London and North-Western Railway, which, with the
water-course and the turnpike-road, separate the castle from the town.
To the east and north-east of the castle the ground rises steeply
towards Whitehill and Berkhampstead Common. To the west and north-west
it rises more gradually towards Berkhampstead-place. Between the two,
towards the north, is a combe or nearly dry valley, occupied by the old
park, called the Berkhampstead estate, and in this valley stands the
castle, about 400 yards from its termination in the river.
The constituent parts of the castle are a mound; an inner _enceinte_
or ward; an inner ditch; a second _enceinte_; a second ditch; a third
_enceinte_, enveloping the northern half only; a ravelin upon the west
face; and a third or exterior ditch, also confined to the northern half
of the work.
The mound is wholly artificial. It is conical, about 60 feet high
and 40 feet diameter at the top, having steep sides and a wet ditch
round three-fourths of its circumference. Its top was crowned with a
circular shell of wall, about 8 feet thick, of which the foundations
only remain. Up its southern side is a curtain-wall, much ruined, and
about 8 feet thick. This commences at the ground level at the top of
the mound, and runs into a fragment of the _enceinte_ wall of the inner
ward. It evidently connected this wall with the keep, and was probably,
as at Tamworth, parapeted on either face of its rampart walk. It was
not continued down the further side of the mound, which was not a part
of the _enceinte_, but a citadel placed outside it, and connected with
it only by a single wall.
Probably the ditch of the mound was originally continued all round it,
and simply traversed by the wall. Much of the ditch between the mound
and the inner ward is filled up, probably very recently, as the process
is now in progress, the object being to connect the level sward of the
_enceinte_ with the mound for pleasure purposes.
The inner ward is an oval space, about 500 feet north and south by 300
feet east and west. It is encircled by a wall, about 7 feet thick,
and now about 20 feet high, and which may have been 4 feet to 5 feet
higher. Traces of the crenellations are visible. This wall is broken
down in parts, but nearly three-fourths of it remain. The northern, or
end opposite to the mound, is concave, the ditch of the mound having
been run into it. There is a fragment of a mural tower on the west
face, much mutilated and apparently rectangular. In the east face are
two openings, one of which may have been a postern. In the north-east
quarter a cross-wall seems to have belonged to a domestic building.
The gap for the main gateway is at the south end. There are no traces
of towers there, and there do not appear, judging from the wall, ever
to have been any. The interior _terre-plein_, or platform, is level,
no terrace against the wall, and no trace of a bank against which the
wall could have been built. Outside the wall is a space of about 5 feet
broad, beyond which the ground falls sharply towards the wet ditch.
The inner ditch is carried quite round both mound and inner ward wall,
being in plan an unbroken oval. It is deep and everywhere wet, and
in parts it opens out into a pool. This is the case where it gave
off the ditch embracing the mound, now in part filled up, and in the
south-eastern quarter, where its overflow escapes into the river.
Outside, and forming the counterscarp of this ditch, is the second or
middle _enceinte_. This is a steep and narrow bank, carrying a walk of
about 8 feet broad, having about an equal slope inwards towards the
inner ditch, and outwards towards the outer. For about its northern
two-thirds this bank is very uniform, but at the south-west quarter it
swells into a small mound or cavalier, about 22 feet in diameter at
top, and about 20 feet high, close to which the land has been cut away
to effect a modern entry. Opposite to this, on the south-east quarter,
is another rather larger mound, about 30 feet across and 25 feet high;
and at this point the bank makes a loop outwards, which somewhat
destroys the symmetry of its plan. These two mounds are evidently
intended to flank the extremities of the outer bank.
[Illustration]
This middle bank is perforated by a modern culvert at its southern
part, by which the waters of the inner ditch escape; and a few yards
east of this the bank is crossed by two parallel walls, 12 feet apart,
and which evidently belonged to the outside of the main entrance.
The second or middle ditch, also deep and wet, envelopes the middle
bank very regularly. At present it is wanting on the south side, for a
short distance, having been filled up and converted into a road when
the railway was constructed.
Outside this ditch is the third or outer _enceinte_, a steep bank,
which forms the counterscarp of the middle ditch, and envelopes
rather more than the northern half of the castle. It is about 10 feet
broad above, and is strengthened outside by eight bastions, also of
earth, placed at distances of from 60 feet to 150 feet, and each,
at top, about 30 feet broad by 40 feet projection, and rounded. The
five best marked of these, being steep and about 20 feet high, lie to
the north-west. A small streamlet coming in from the north then cuts
the line, and to the east of this, covering the north-east and east
faces, the bank is continued for about 580 feet, strengthened by three
bastions, which, however, are low, and have nothing of the sharpness
of the others. These latter three have scarcely any ditch, but the
other five have at their feet a ditch, which, even now, is boggy, and
no doubt was once a formidable defence. West of this outer bank, and
ranging with it so as to cover part of the west face of the castle, is
an earthwork of very doubtful character. Its lines are rectangular,
it has a ditch, and it much resembles the early ravelins which were
common in the fifteenth century, and not unknown in the fourteenth and
thirteenth.
Connected with its ditch is a pond, which appears to have been a
mill-pond and fish-stew. No doubt all these extensive ditches were
turned to account, and fed the mill which is known to have been
attached to the castle.
Berkhampstead is altogether a very striking and a very peculiar
fortification. The mound was no doubt an English burh, and, as was not
uncommon, had its own defences. The inner _enceinte_, though not, as is
usual, encircled by a bank, was encircled by a steep slope and ditch,
which, with a palisade, would have been a very sufficient defence.
These probably were the whole of the original works, and within them
may well have been held the famous Council of Berkhampstead in 697.
The two outer works seem to be later. The outer certainly, from its
bastions, must be later than the Conquest, and the middle bank is far
too slight in its construction and too sharply preserved to be of
remote antiquity. But it is remarkable that there is no trace of any
other than the inner _enceinte_ wall, and it is pretty evident that
there was never any other. The earthworks, except the mound, would not
have carried a wall, and had such been built it would have been liable
to be mined and overthrown with very little trouble. Evidently these
banks were crested with palisades, and probably careful cutting into
them would show traces of the stakes.
Further, it is singular that, though there is a second and a third
line of defence, there is no middle or outer ward. These lines of
defence include ditches only, and not the space which, however narrow,
was always left between the walls of castles for the assembling their
defenders. Here the garrison of the two outer lines must have been
ranged in line close in rear of the stockade, with but room to pass
between it and the ditch in their rear.
It should be mentioned that an earthwork, composed of bank and ditch,
and known locally as Grimsdyke, traverses the high road above the
town, and there are several barrows in the immediate neighbourhood.
The Berkhampstead earthworks are quite peculiar, but the neighbourhood
is rather rich in military earthworks of a circular character, among
which, to the south and west, may be mentioned Bushwood, Hawridge,
Cholesbury, and, at a greater distance, Kimble.
The masonry that remains is all of chalk flint rubble, bathed in a
pure white mortar, and probably faced with coarse flints, picked, if
not squared. Here and there parts of the face remain. This work may be
Norman, or it may be later, though probably not much. The absence of
towers is remarkable. There is no ashlar at all. This, no doubt, was
removed when Berkhampstead Place was built, but there could not have
been very much of it.
Berkhampstead was a seat of the Kings of Mercia, and the place of
meeting of a council of magnates summoned, in 697, by Wightred, king of
Kent; and, at the time of the Confessor, it belonged to Edmar, a thane
of Earl Harold. It was evidently a strong place, for when the Conqueror
gave it to his brother Robert, Earl of Mortaigne, amongst the vassals
there was a certain “Fossarius,” whose duty must have been to clean the
castle ditches. Robert is said to have fortified it with a double ditch
and rampart, and he held it at Domesday. Moreover, under the Conqueror,
it was expanded into a very extensive Honour, of which it was the
_caput_. The manor is named, but not the castle, in Domesday.
The castle seems to have been held by King Stephen and by John, with
the earldom of Cornwall. It had suffered in Stephen’s wars, and John
gave it, 1206, to Geoffrey Fitzpiers, Earl of Essex, who rebuilt or
restored it, and may have erected the present walls. Prince Louis laid
siege to, and took it, in 1226. The attack was from the north side, and
the castle held out for a considerable time.
Richard, Earl of Cornwall and King of the Romans, brother to Henry
III., held it. He wrote to his brother from hence in 1261, and died
here in 1271-2, as did his wife Isabel Mareschal in 1239. His son
Edmund had the castle, town, and halimote. In 1299 the castle was
returned as yielding no rental; but the millpool and the castle ditches
let for the fishing at 20s. per annum. There was then a water-mill and
a park with deer. It was a part of the dower of Margaret of France,
the second wife of Edward I., who died 1317. Edward II. gave it, with
the earldom of Cornwall, to Gaveston; and to the Black Prince, as Duke
of Cornwall, came from his father the castle, manor, vill, park, and
honour of Berkhampstead, the lands of which extended into Herts, Bucks,
and Northamptonshire. It was put in order for the residence of John of
France, and the Black Prince was here not long before his death. It was
also used by the favourite of Richard II., Robert de Vere, Marquis of
Dublin, who had licence to inhabit it. Here, also, died Cicely Nevill,
the mother of Edward IV.
Queen Elizabeth leased it to Sir Edward Carey, whose grandson employed
its material to build Berkhampstead Place, since which it has been
leased to various persons, and was finally sold to the Egertons, whose
descendant in the female line, Earl Brownlow, is the owner also of the
adjacent park of Ashridge.
BERKELEY CASTLE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
The Severn, below Shrewsbury, which on the map seems to mark a natural
division between England and the southern part of the Principality of
Wales, neither is, nor ever has been, really the dividing line. It is
not, in those parts even, a county boundary, Gloucester, Worcester, and
Salop being astride upon the stream, with large portions of their area
upon its western bank. To go back to the sixth century, when the West
Saxons, starting from the coast of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight,
pressed hard upon the Britons, many indications still show how firm was
the resistance, so long as the ground was favourable; but, when once
fairly driven over the crest of the Cotteswold, the Britons evidently
retired more rapidly across the open country, nor is it until the
commencement of the high ground is reached, that we find works which
abundantly show how fierce was the struggle, how close and persistent
the attack. The high ground which forms the western edge of the Marches
is studded thickly with camps, the position and figure of which show
them to be British, while the adjacent frontiers of Gloucester,
Hereford and Shropshire, are covered with moated mounds, placed both
within and without the Dyke of Offa, and which show both the extent
of the English conquests and the manner in which they were maintained
before and during the eighth and ninth centuries.
The Normans trod very closely in the footsteps of the English, and
although their fortresses were of a stronger and more permanent
character, they occupy, for the most part, ancient sites. The three
counties, from the bordering Chepstow, the home of Strongbow, to
Clun, the cradle of the house of Stewart, were bristled thick with
fortresses; some, like Chepstow, Goderick, Kilpeck, Ewias, Hereford,
Ludlow, Wigmore, Richard’s Castle, Cleobury, Brampton, Bishop’s Castle,
and Clun, either places of great strength, or held by powerful barons;
others, as St. Briavels, Wilton, Penyard, Weobly, Croft, Clifford,
Whitney, Eardisley, Huntington, Lingen, Hopton, de Botwood, Stoke-Say,
or Wattlesborough, either fortified houses or castles of smaller area
and inferior strength. Upon the line of the Severn, in the rear of
all these, there were but eight of any importance, Bristol, Berkeley,
Gloucester, Hanley, Worcester, Hartlebury, Bridgenorth and Shrewsbury,
and of these Berkeley was in many respects the most remarkable, and has
endured the longest.
[Illustration: BERKELEY CASTLE.]
The other castles are either ruins or have altogether been swept
away. Of Bristol there remains only a portion of a crypt. Gloucester,
Hanley, and Worcester are gone. Of Bridgenorth a part of the keep is
all that is seen; and of Shrewsbury a fragment of a Norman gatehouse,
the much-altered walls of the hall, and, older than all, the mound that
gave character to the whole. Berkeley, on the other hand, has been
inhabited from its foundation to the present day. With one temporary
alienation to the Crown, it has always been in one family, and it is as
little altered as is consistent with modern usages and modes of life.
The castle, church, and borough town of Berkeley, contained within the
hundred to which they give name, are placed upon the southern extremity
of a tract of ground which rises about 50 feet above the meadows to the
south and west, and the drainage whence is carried on by the channel of
the Little Avon, which falls into the Pill or Creek of Berkeley, and so
reaches the Severn, here expanding into an estuary, the southern shore
of which is about two miles distant from the castle. The castle stands
upon the southern extremity of the high ground. A few yards to its
north is the parish church with its detached tower, and again a little
to the north is the town, which has grown up under the protection of
its lordly neighbour. A deep and wholly artificial ditch intervenes
between the churchyard and the castle, crossing the high ground, and
cutting off and isolating the latter, of which it protects the northern
and western faces. These, to the south and east, are made secure by the
natural declivity, scarped and rendered steeper by art. The meadows out
of which the castle hill rises, being but little above the adjacent
Severn, were formerly an extensive and almost impassable morass, adding
much to the strength of the place. Under the skill and labour of
centuries, they have become grass-lands of great beauty and fertility,
and form a charming foreground to the castle. Beyond, are elms and
oaks often of great magnitude, disposed in frequent hedgerows, and in
the distance to the west are the Welsh mountains, and to the east the
nearer scarp of the Cotteswold, here and there covered with thriving
plantations.
Town and castle stand geologically upon the Old Red Sandstone, which, a
very few yards to the east, is succeeded by the Ludlow rocks, which are
again covered up by the marls of the Lias and New Red, and towards the
Cotteswold by the Lower Oolite.
Like Warwick, Windsor, Arundel, and some other ancient piles, noticed
by Shakespeare,—
“There stands the castle by yon tufted trees,”
between its town, and its park, now, indeed, disparked, but which
extended far and wide to the south-east, and is traversed by an
extended avenue. As was the case at Warwick, there is a deer-park
entirely detached from the castle.
The main approach to the castle lies through the town, on leaving
which, a road, passing the church, leads up to the entrance, and
crosses the ditch by a permanent bridge, by which the draw-bridge
was superseded by Henry Lord Berkeley in 1587, and beyond and partly
standing in which is the _outer Gate-house_. This is a rectangular
building of no great merit, pierced by a portal having a low drop arch
on each face. The passage is plainly vaulted in calcareous tufa, and
in the crown of the vault are three square holes or _meurtrières_.
There is no upper story, nor, at present, are there any flanking towers
or curtain. There is a basement below the road-way level, entered
from the ditch, but, probably, at one time filled with earth. This
gate-house may be of Decorated date. It has no portcullis. From the
ditch, the side walls of the bridge look original, and may have been,
as at Goderich, the lateral walls between which was the pit of the
draw-bridge.
Entering the outer gate, the visitor finds himself upon a triangular
platform, of which the outer gate-house is the apex, and the inner
gate-house and part of the keep the base; on the left a modern wall,
which replaces the curtain, crests the scarp of the ditch, and forms
the north side of the platform 66 yards long. On the right a low
parapet, 54 yards long, forms the south side, and caps a revetment wall
of about 10 feet in height, at the foot of which the ancient scarp
has been laid out in good taste in a terrace garden. This triangular
platform is scarcely an outer ward: it is rather a barbican covering
the main entrance and the keep. Its area is 7,750 square yards. There
is no trace of a second ditch in advance of this side of the keep and
the inner gate, but it is very probable that there was one, though, if
so, it must have been filled up when the courts were added to the keep,
as otherwise it would have completely occupied them.
The keep covers about 35 yards, or above half of the base of the
barbican, and lies to the left or north of the gate-house. Part of it
has been removed and a large breach formed, showing that the interior
is full 22 feet above the ground level outside. The _inner Gate-house_
is in the same position as at Alnwick. It is in truth not a regular
gate-house, and has no flanking towers or _machicoulis_, but the
entrance passage pierces a lofty pile of buildings which connect the
domestic apartments with the keep, and complete the circle of the main
court. The portal is about 11 feet broad and 30 feet deep, and its
roof is flat and of timber. It has two drop arches. On the right is a
lodge door, and the inner archway has a half round portcullis groove.
Above are two stories through which are doors, no doubt modern, into
the keep. Probably the Norman entrance was here, a mere opening in the
wall. Much of the structure seems Decorated with later alterations.
South of, and flanking the gate, between it and the south-east angle of
the place, is a small Tudor building.
The gateway opens into the _Great Court_ of the castle, a roughly
rectangular space, having the circular keep encroaching considerably
upon its north-west angle, and the remainder of the space set round
with domestic buildings built against and completely concealing the
lofty curtain.
This court, which is, in fact, the castle, measures outside upon its
south face 60 yards, and its east face 72 yards, these two being set
nearly at right angles. The north and west faces are about 60 yards
and 76 yards, but the north-west angle is occupied by the keep, which
covers about 40 yards of the north, and 42 yards of the west face,
forming a part of the _enceinte_. The buildings project about 30 feet,
so that the inner and open part of the court is much reduced in area.
The curtain, originally thick, has been strengthened outside, probably
in the Decorated period, by nearly thirty broad and thick and very
clumsy buttresses, some of which probably conceal the early Norman
pilaster, for most of the wall is certainly of that date. Some of these
buttresses are pierced by loops, showing an immense thickness of wall.
On entering the court, on the left is the high plain wall of the keep,
with its forebuilding and exterior staircase ascending to the entrance.
On the right are domestic buildings, drawing-rooms, bed-rooms, &c.,
extending to the south-east corner. The face wall, though much altered,
and pierced with Tudor windows, seems in substance Norman with large
Decorated alterations. The pointed Norman arches may be traced in the
wall. These buildings have a basement and two upper stories. It is
uncertain whether they stand upon a vault.
The chapel occupies the south-east angle. The hall is next to it along
the east side, and the butteries, kitchen, and offices fill up the
north-east angle and the north side as far as the keep. In the south
wall, near the gate-house, but at the exterior ground level, is a small
pointed doorway, probably a postern, and connected with it a small
chamber, about 6 feet below the level of the court, of doubtful age,
but with an old doorway. It has a flat roof, and wooden floor of the
room above: being filled with the bins of a modern cellar, it cannot be
examined.
The _Chapel_, dedicated to the Virgin, rests on the vault of the great
cellar, and measures 29 feet by 18 feet. It is entered by a modern door
in the north wall, west of which are traces of what seems to have been
the original entrance. It has a rather flat apsidal east end of three
faces; the vestry, a mural chamber, opening in that to the south-east.
The south side is the outer wall, 14 feet thick; it is pierced by a
mural passage, a sort of aisle, at the floor-level, which opens into
the chapel by four foliated arches, each corresponding to a window or
loop in the curtain. There is a small Decorated piscina. Against the
west wall is a sort of pew of two stages, the upper being an enclosed
gallery for the family, opening from the principal rooms.
The roof is open, at a very low pitch, with timber ribs rising from
corbels. These, with cross ribs, divide the roof into large panels
of a very curious character. The walls of the chapel are Norman, but
the roof and fittings are mostly Decorated. Maurice, Lord Berkeley,
38 Edward III., obtained from Pope Urban II. a bull bestowing certain
spiritual privileges upon all who worshipped here or in the chapel in
the keep.
The _Cellar_ below the chapel is part of the original castle. Its level
is a little below the floor of the hall. It is in plan an equilateral
triangle about 40 feet in the side. Its roof is vaulted and groined
in three hexagonal bays, springing from three shafts of late Norman
character. Nine triangular vaultings, abutting on the walls, complete
this very curious roof. Opening from this is another vault, also a
cellar, at a lower level by about 5 feet. It is much smaller, and has
a ribbed and vaulted roof. Unfortunately it is used as a cellar, and
obscured by modern fittings. It has a small Tudor window.
From the chapel and drawing-room a broad wooden seventeenth century
staircase descends into the hall at its south or dais end, in which is
a large and handsome fireplace, probably of the same date.
The _Hall_ is 32 feet broad by 61 feet long, and has an open pointed
roof. It is built at the ground level against the east curtain, which
is, or was, pierced by four windows, three in the hall and one within
the buttery screen. The latter is late Norman, with slender flanking
shafts. The other three are full centred, with a keel bead at the
angle, and an interior drip. They seem Decorated, and no doubt replace
Norman loops. In the west or court wall are four large and lofty
flat-topped and somewhat peculiar windows of two lights each, broken
into four by a heavy transom. The upper lights are trefoil, the lower
shoulder-headed. Between each pair, outside, is a triangular buttress.
The entrance from the court is in the west side, at the north end,
by a handsome and spacious porch, vaulted and groined. The exterior
doorway is an arch composed of four quite plain straight sides, parts
of an octagon, similar in outline to those above the Berkeley tombs
at Bristol, known locally as the Berkeley arch. This is repeated with
the addition of some ornament in the inner doorway, which opens into
a narrow strip of the hall cut off by the screen. On the left, in the
end wall of the hall, are three fine Berkeley arches opening into
the butteries, of which the central was formerly a door. Above this
passage, high up, is a small music gallery, probably of Tudor date,
or even later. The roof of the hall is poor, but said to be of the
fourteenth century. No doubt this represents the original Norman hall,
rebuilt, as regards the court wall, in the Decorated period.
[Illustration:
Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London. _Face p. 233, Vol. 1._
BERKELEY CASTLE—THE KEEP.
_From the Hall._]
In the hall are placed, not inappropriately, the earlier charters
of the family, protected with glass. Perhaps, however, looking at
their extreme value as connected with the castle, it would be safer
to restore them to the muniment room, and replace them for public
exhibition by photographs.
To the north, beyond the lower end of the hall, are the butteries,
kitchen, and pantries, the latter against the curtain. The _Kitchen_
is an irregular hexagon, averaging 13 feet 6 inches in the side. In
the three longer sides are recesses for a fireplace, and hoods over
cooking-places. The original doors were in the buttery on one side
and the scullery on the other, and there were two windows towards the
court. The roof is of open work, very plain, heavy and poor, and very
high up. It is said to have been brought from Wootton Manor House, and
placed here by Henry VII. The scullery, &c. occupy the north-east angle
of the court, and, like the adjacent chambers, is of irregular form,
governed by the general outline of the castle. The larders, dairy, &c.
are against the north curtain, and from the bakehouse a modern vaulted
passage leads to the ancient well, which is in the court. The oven is
in the north-west corner, and two bold drop-arched stone ribs traverse
the chamber, and stiffen its vaulted roof. All these rooms form the
ground floor, and carry an upper story. Their front towards the court
seems to have been modernised, but in substance they are Decorated,
with considerable remains of older Norman walling.
The KEEP is the most interesting part of this very remarkable castle,
since it is a shell keep of a known date. It is nearly circular, about
50 yards diameter, and the containing curtain-wall is about 8 feet
thick, reducing its inner area to near 45 yards. The floor, of earth,
is about 22 feet higher than the exterior ground, and, the wall being
40 feet high inside, is about 62 feet outside, the lower 22 feet being
a revetment, and very thick. Upon its circuit are three half-round
projecting towers or bastion turrets, 20 feet in diameter, of the
height of the curtain, which seems to have been open at the rear, or
closed only with timber. One of these projects to the east, and is
abutted upon by the northern curtain of the castle court. In its base
is a well, under a barrel vault, and above, resting upon this, is the
oratory, dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The western or end wall of
the oratory, and the outer stair leading to it, are modern.
The oratory is at present used as a muniment room. The ecclesiastical
features are much injured and obscured. The eastern end is a half
round, and there are remains of the flanking shafts of the Norman east
window, and a small piscina. It appears to have been vaulted.
The second half-round tower is 64 feet from the former, and projects to
the south into the court, commanding the inner face of its entrance,
and the approach to the keep. In it, below the ground level, but not
much lower than the level of the court below, is a circular dungeon 25
feet deep, into which Edward II. is said to have been finally thrust.
The third tower is 50 feet from the second, and projects to the south.
Here also has recently been discovered a chamber somewhat similar to
the dungeon already mentioned, also not vaulted, and of very rough
masonry, as though a mere foundation intended to be filled up with
earth. These two last towers are blocked in by later masonry, the first
within, the latter both within and without, as it projects into the
buildings of the gateway. As this tower could never have been intended
to be thus concealed, it points to the conclusion that the keep was
built before the wall of the inner court.
Besides these three half-round towers is a fourth, rectangular, and a
much larger work, to the north, forming a part of the exterior line of
defence. This is known as Thorpe’s Tower, and the family of that name
are said to have held their adjacent estate of Wanswell by the tenure
of its defence. This tower is 64 feet long by 17 feet deep. It forms a
part of the curtain, having a very slight interior projection. At each
end it expands into a square turret, that to the west 17 feet, that
to the east 20 feet. The western turret and the body of the tower are
thought to be solid, which is very improbable. They are not unlikely to
have been filled in with earth to increase their power of resistance
when the castle was battered from the churchyard. The eastern turret
contains a square well-staircase of fifty-four steps, which leads to
the battlements, and has a mural chamber on its way. The entrance
below to this staircase is by an original full-centred arch, partially
blocked up. This tower is somewhat higher than the curtain, with which
it does not communicate. It is said to have been originally higher by
a few feet more. Even at present it is the highest part of the castle,
and hence the family banner is displayed. Below and outside this tower,
to the north, are some modern offices.
Between Thorpe Tower and the Well Tower is seen in the wall the outline
of a recess for a loop, and above it a segmental arch and Norman
moulding, now closed up. The whole south side of the keep area is
occupied by a block of building, about 80 feet long by from 20 feet
to 30 feet deep. No doubt part of this building may be original, but
by far the more prominent part is evidently modern, and sadly out of
place. It covers the rear of the two southern half-round towers, which
are thus not seen from within.
The entrance to this keep is peculiar. Usually, as at Tamworth,
Lincoln, York, Cardiff, and Arundel, the entrance to a shell-keep was
at its ground-level, and that of a rectangular keep, as at Castle
Rising and Dover, at its first or second floor. Here, however, both
conditions may be said to be fulfilled, for although the entrance is
on the ground level as regards the interior of the keep, it is the
full height of a first floor above the ground outside, and this height
is gained by an exterior stair, guarded by a middle and lower gate,
and above the latter by a regular tower. This forebuilding is common
to rectangular keeps, but does not occur elsewhere in shell keeps.
Here the _Forebuilding_ is 72 feet in length, and is applied to the
south-east side of the keep, or that within the court. In breadth it
varies from 15 feet to 10 feet. Five steps ascend to its outer gate, a
large full-centred archway contained within a plain chamfered moulding.
As the doorway has been blocked and reduced in size by a perpendicular
work, its jambs are concealed or may have been removed. Within is a
vaulted passage, carried through the gate-tower, which is 15 feet
square, and has an upper story. From the doorway twenty-four steps
ascend to an open platform, having on the right a high and pierced
parapet, and on the left the wall of the keep. At the stair-head a
ledge on the right serves as a way to the upper floor over the gateway.
This is a small chamber lighted by two windows and a lancet loop. The
two larger windows and the door are of Tudor date, as may be the whole
room; but, if so, it is a rebuilding, for the original tower must
have been on the same pattern. In the room is an ancient bed and some
hangings of needlework or tapestry, very early, but scarce of the age
of Edward II., whose chamber this is reputed to have been.
A little beyond the stair-head, against the walls, right and left, are
seen the rebates of the middle gate, and in front, in the wall of the
Oratory Tower, is the weather moulding of a roof. Hence it would seem
that the staircase, as at Castle Rising, was covered all the way up.
The main entrance to the keep opens upon the platform at the
stair-head. It is a handsome, full-arched doorway with closed tympanum
and flat head. It was flanked by highly ornate shafts, of which
one remains. This portal opens into a vaulted passage through the
keep wall, and enters the keep under an original archway, segmented
with Norman mouldings. The jambs are worked in a very bold chevron
pattern. From the exterior platform a narrow stair is continued to
the battlements of the curtain over the bakehouse; but this may be
an addition, for usually every part of a Norman keep was complete in
itself, and had no direct communication with any other part of the
castle. There is another and parallel stair in the wall, but opening
outside and leading to the room above the bakehouse. This is not
original.
The keep is constructed of exceedingly rude rubble masonry. Upon
two parts of its face are nine narrow and shallow pilaster strips:
three towards the barbican, and six between the inner gate and the
forebuilding. The keep wall has a rude plinth, with no set-off or
string. It is evident that this, as at York, and in other shell-keeps,
was lined by lodgings, having an upper floor, placed all round against
the wall with an open court in the centre. These were probably of
timber. In the part of the keep towards the barbican is a breach
about 40 feet broad down to the level of the inner floor. It is said
that this part of the wall was partially broken down during General
Massey’s attack, and was afterwards enlarged to its present condition,
as at Kenilworth, rather as a matter of favour, to render the castle
untenable without injuring it as a dwelling. Had the keep been blown
up as was usual by gunpowder, it would have presented a very different
aspect.
If the masonry of Berkeley Castle were to be removed, as at Kilpeck or
Ewias Harold, its remains would show a mound of earth, and attached
to three sides of it a platform, the whole encircled with a ditch or
scarp. It would, in fact, be a moated mound with an appended platform,
of a character very common in England, in the Welsh Marches, and in
Normandy, and would resemble such works as Tamworth and Towcester, the
dates of which are given in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The inference
is, therefore, that Berkeley was the seat of an English lord, probably
from the ninth century. Had the fortress been an original Norman work,
it is scarcely probable that a shell would have been the form of keep
selected, or that, having been so selected, its lower 22 feet would
have been filled up with earth. Evidently the Norman builder, finding a
moated mound of no great height, but of considerable breadth, built his
shell round it, as at Pontefract, as a revetment wall, and upon this,
when clear of the top of the mound, raised his curtain. At a lower
level, along the scarp of the existing ditch, he, or his immediate
successor, constructed the walls, which, then as now, contain the whole
castle.
All the main walls of the castle are either Norman, or rebuilt upon
Norman foundations, or very nearly so. Probably the keep was built
first and the court enclosed shortly afterwards. Much was done in the
Decorated period. The inner wall of the hall, at least, was rebuilt,
and it may have been enlarged. The porch was added, the chapel much
altered, and the domestic buildings possibly gutted and recast. Henry
VII., when in possession, seems to have made some inconsiderable
alterations, and others have been added since.
Berkeley is a rare example of an estate which has descended in the male
line from the reign of Stephen, and in the female line from the Norman
Conquest. The first of the latter ancestry is entered as the Lord of
Berkeley in Domesday; the first of the former is also there entered,
though as proprietor of other estates. Few, if any, of our oldest
families can say with truth as much, but further than this the Berkeley
tenure has been “per Baroniam,” and from the Conquest they have been
barons of the realm, first by tenure, and when, in the reign of Henry
III., tenure fell into disuse, then by writ; but by one right or the
other they have ever sat in the great council of the nation.
There is no reason to suppose that the Romans had any settlement at
Berkeley. Their camps and villas are frequent in the neighbourhood,
which was traversed by Roman roads, but of their presence in Berkeley
itself there is no other evidence than the fact that the two main
streets of the town cross in its centre at a right angle, in the Roman
manner.
There is, however, evidence of a religious house at Berkeley in the
eighth century. Tilhere, Bishop of Worcester, in 778, seems to have
been previously Abbot of Beorclea, as was Etheldune, also his successor
at Worcester in 915. Tanner thinks the family at Berclea, mentioned in
the Acts of a synod at Cloveshoe in A.D. 824, may refer to a religious
house here. There was also a nunnery, for a charter by Adeliza, queen
of Henry I., gives to the church of Reading, Berkeley Hern, that is,
the church of Berkeley, with its appended prebends, and the prebends
“duarum monalium,” which seems to refer to a nunnery. Camden says the
nunnery was suppressed by Earl Godwin in the reign of the Confessor,
and preserves a scandalous tale thereupon, which derives some support
from a curious entry in Domesday, whence it appears that Gytha, the
wife of Godwin and mother of Harold, had Ullcestre, near Berkeley, from
her husband, he having bought it from Azor that she might live there
till she should live at Berkeley. “Nolebat enim de ipso manerio aliquid
comedere pro destructione abbatiæ.”
In Domesday, Berkeley appears as a royal demesne and free borough,
which had been held by the Confessor, and belonged to William, but
was held of him by Roger, called thence of Berkeley. It was the head
of a soke or barony, for attached to it were “Berews,” or members,
in twenty-one adjacent parishes. The castle is not mentioned, but in
“Ness,” probably Sharpness, was a castellum, or castellet, claimed
by the same Roger. His holding in the Liber Niger is set down as 2½
knights’ fees. He gave liberally to Stanley Priory, and died there
1096. William, his nephew, succeeded, and had a son Roger, father of
Roger, who all held Berkeley, and are designated by its name. This
latter Roger was a partisan of King Stephen, and was turned out of
Berkeley by Henry, who gave Berkeley to Robert, son of Hardinge,
Præpositus of Bristol, who died 1170, 16 Henry II., aged seventy-five,
leaving Maurice Fitzhardinge, his son. To stanch the feud between the
dispossessed and the new lord, Henry made up a double alliance: Helen,
daughter of Fitzhardinge, was married to a son of Roger de Berkeley,
and Alice, Roger’s daughter, to Maurice Fitzhardinge of Berkeley.
The result was that the old Berkeleys fell back upon their manor of
Cuberley, and finally died out, and the Fitzhardinges, with the estate,
bore the surname of Berkeley, and have so continued. At that time the
Manor or Lordship, sometimes called the Honour of Berkeley, included
above thirty parishes, and extended over most of the hundred. It was
rated at 160 hides, and paid a chief rent of £70.
Henry, at the time of the gift, was only Duke of Normandy, and weak,
and Fitzhardinge was an important man; hence the duke treats as equal
with equal, and with the estate makes a promise to build him a castle
to his taste. “Et pepigi ei firmare ibi castellum secundum voluntatem
ipsius Roberti,” and, on the other hand, Robert promises to be Henry’s
liege. Henry visited Berkeley in 1155, when, no doubt, the present
castle was begun. Henry’s charter is in excellent preservation, and is
kept at Berkeley.
Another charter by Henry, when king, also there preserved, confirms
to Robert Fitzhardinge, Berkelai-Herness Manor by the service of one
knight, or, if he prefer it, 100 shillings per annum. A third charter
is almost a copy of the second, but states the service at five knights,
and is silent as to the composition. There is also a charter printed
by Dugdale, by which Robert Fitzhardinge grants certain churches to
St. Augustine’s at Bristol. These are the earliest title-deeds of
the family. St. Augustine’s was founded by this Robert in 1142, and
consecrated in 1148. He died 1170.
Maurice, son of Robert, is said to have dug the ditch between the
castle and the church. He probably deepened it. He also is reputed to
have built the castle exterior to King Henry’s keep, including the two
gatehouses. He died in 1189.
Robert, his son, bore the name of Berkeley. He was in arms against
John, who held the castle from 1211 till his death in 1216. Lord Robert
died 1220. His brother, Lord Thomas, received Henry III. here in 1220.
He died 1243. Maurice, his son, here entertained Prince Edward in
1256. He added to the estates, and is said to have strengthened the
castle. Thomas, his son, sixth lord, was a great soldier, and served
at Bannockburn. He died 1321. Maurice, his son, took part against the
Despensers, and was imprisoned by the king till his death, in 1326.
Edward seized the castle, which was held by the Despensers. Lord
Thomas, his son and successor, received Edward II. here as a captive,
15th April, 1327, and here the king seems to have been murdered by
Maltravers and Gournay, 21st September, 1327. A payment was charged to
the Exchequer for prayers for his soul in the castle chapel.
Lord Thomas held the castle from 1326 till his death in 1361. He fought
at Cressy and Poitiers, and probably made money in the wars, for he
is reputed to have made great alterations in the castle, and probably
the hall and the Decorated work generally is his doing. He is said to
have built Thorpe Tower. He may have raised it, but it is apparently
as old as the keep. The Berkeley arch, seen in great perfection in St.
Augustine’s Church, now Bristol Cathedral, and here introduced, as
was proper, in a plainer form, is attributed to Knowle, Abbot of St.
Augustine’s, from 1306 to 1332. The connexion of the Berkeleys with
the monks of St. Augustine’s was intimate, and the same architect was
likely enough to be employed by both.
Another Thomas, grandson to the former, here received Richard II., in
1386-7. This is the Lord Berkeley mentioned in “Shakespeare’s Richard
II.,” when the castle is described as—
“Mann’d with three hundred men, as I have heard,
And in it are the Lords of York, Berkeley, and Seymour.”
Lord Thomas pronounced the deposition of Richard in Parliament in 1399.
John of Trevisa, whose translations from the Apocalypse are yet seen
on the ribs of the chapel roof at Berkeley, was vicar of this parish
during the life of this lord. Lord Thomas left a daughter only, married
to Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, who strove hard, but in vain,
to oust the heir male, James de Berkeley. Lord Warwick appeared before
the castle in 1418 with an armed force, and his heirs preferred a suit
at law which lasted 150 years, varied with occasional combats, one of
which, known as the battle of Nibley Green, led to the settlement of
the dispute, Lord Lisle, the claimant, being slain in the field by
William Lord Berkeley. William, the next lord, was created Earl of
Nottingham by Richard III., and Marquis of Berkeley by Henry VII., in
return for which he alienated the estate from his brother and male heir
in favour of the latter king and his heirs male, nor did the Berkeleys
recover it until the death of Edward VI. and the failure of the royal
male line, when the castle was recovered by Henry, who resumed the
title of Berkeley, after an alienation of 61 years 4 months and 20 days.
Henry VII. is said to have erected the kitchen, but probably he only
put a new roof upon it.
During the Parliamentary struggle, the Lord of Berkeley seems to have
been a moderate Royalist, with strong friends among the Parliamentary
leaders. In 1642 it was surrendered to Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur
Forbes, for the Parliament, but was not pillaged, and even the arms
contained in it were not removed. Probably this moderation was abused,
for, 24th September, 1645, being held by Sir Charles Lucas, it was
stormed from the churchyard by Colonels Rainsborough and Morgan, and
free plunder allowed to the soldiery. Fortunately, at the moment of
victory, a pressing order came for the march of the troops to assist
Fairfax, on which the plunder was compounded for at 5s. a head. Such
goods as were taken away were inquired after and restored, and the
chief mischief seems to have been confined to the muniment room, where
the charters and title-deeds were torn and mutilated. In 1646 the
out-works were destroyed, and the arms, ammunition, and drawbridge
removed to Gloucester. Probably the great breach was then made by the
workmen employed upon the earthworks, which would account for the
careful manner in which the wall has been cut away.
George, Lord Berkeley, was created in 1679, by Charles II., Viscount
Dursley and Earl of Berkeley, titles still extant.
BODIHAM CASTLE, SUSSEX.
About four miles below the ancient Priory of Robertsbridge, and
fourteen, by its own sinuous course, above its junction with the sea
below the old Cinque Port of Rye, the Rother, a considerable Sussex
river, receives from the north an important tributary known as the Kent
Ditch, and, time out of mind, the boundary of the two counties. The
waters meet obliquely, and between them intervenes a tongue or cape
of high land tapering and falling gradually towards the junction, and
occupied by the church, village, and castle of Bodiham.
Who was Bodi, or Bode, whose home was here established, is unknown. He
was evidently a Saxon, and from the position of his estate, probably
an early one, giving name it may be to a tract won in arms from the
Britons. Ham is here a very common termination to the proper names of
places, varied with Hurst and Den and Ley, and other less frequent but
equally Saxon denominations.
The church stands on the high ground, a little north of the centre of
the cape, the castle about 600 yards to the south of it, and about
half the distance from the Rother, at some thirty feet or so above its
level. The Rother, here and lower down, traverses broad patches of
lowland, now fertile meadow, but in former days evidently inaccessible
morass. The position, therefore, between the two streams with their
marshy banks was defended by nature towards the south and east, the
quarter from which, after the complete expulsion of the Britons and
during the early Saxon period, danger was mainly to be apprehended.
The earlier lords, both Saxon and Norman, who gave name to, and derived
their names from, Bodiham, pitched their homestead on the north side of
the high ground, some way from the church, and upon the right bank of
the Kent Ditch, where the site is still indicated by some earthworks
and a moat. Nearer to, but south of the church, on the brow of the
hill, above the present castle, are the remains of another earthwork,
rectangular and oblong in form, the site probably either of an early
residence or a still earlier encampment.
Below this brow, on the southern verge of and just within the slope,
it pleased a Lord of Bodiham, having become so by marriage with its
heiress, to establish a new residence. Sir Edward Dalingruge, a
successful soldier in the rough school of the Black Prince and his
captains, of whom his immediate chief, Sir William Knollys, was one of
the roughest, having held offices of trust under Richard II., decided
here to build a castle suitable to his rank, wealth, and military fame;
and having, in the 9th of Richard, 1385-6, obtained the royal licence,
he constructed at a vast cost, both in earthwork and masonry, the
castle here described.
Bodiham is a building of very high interest. It is a complete and
typical castle of the end of the fourteenth century, laid out entirely
upon a new site, and constructed after one design, and at one period.
It but seldom happens that a great fortress is wholly original, of
one, and that a known, date, and so completely free from alterations
or additions. It has, moreover, fallen into good hands. Enough, and
not too much, has been done to arrest the effects of time and weather.
The repairs have been well executed, and in Wadhurst stone, the proper
material; and, though well watched, it is open to all who care to visit
it.
In plan and details Bodiham belongs to the early Perpendicular style,
and occupies a mean position between Caerphilly, a work late in the
thirteenth century, and Wressil, only a few years later than Bodiham
in time, but much later in style and arrangements. Like these castles,
it has no keep, and its domestic buildings are constructed within and
against the walls of a court, but while Caerphilly, like Harlech and
Ledes, is concentric, and has a narrow outer ward, Bodiham and Wressil,
like Bolton, have but one ward, one line of defences, and are only
rectangular enclosures, with strong and lofty curtains, flanked by
still more lofty mural towers. Pennard in Gower, though of the reign of
Henry III. or his son, is, on a small scale, of the same general type
as Bodiham.
Save the adjacent river and the marsh, the immediate site of Bodiham
possesses no natural advantages. A sort of platform was selected upon
the sloping ground, about 30 feet above the river’s level, and in it
was excavated a rectangular basin, 180 yards north and south, by 117
yards east and west, and about 7 deep. To the east, the containing
bank was wholly artificial, formed of the excavated material, as was
also the case with the contiguous parts to the north and south. The
remaining part of the south bank was also slightly raised.
On the west side, near the north end, a small natural combe descended
towards the excavation, of which, being wet, it was regarded as the
future feeder. A strong dam was thrown across the lower part of this
combe, between it and the excavation, of which it thus formed the bank.
No doubt the pool so penned in was intended as a store pond when the
moat was low.
In the centre, or nearly so, of the excavation, was left a rectangular
island of rather above half an acre in area, raised artificially about
four feet, and to be occupied by the future castle, of which the ground
plan would thus be a plot of about 50 yards by 46 yards, surrounded by
a wet moat from 35 to 65 yards broad. At present a sluice is provided
for the occasional emptying of the moat, and probably something of
the sort was originally constructed, though it would, of course, be
concealed. The fact is, however, that a few vigorous workmen could
at any time have cut through the bank in a few hours, and thus have
deprived the castle of one of its defences. The mud, however, until
dry, would be even a better protector than the water.
Bodiham Castle, then, is a rectangular enclosure 152 feet north and
south, by 138 feet east and west, contained within four curtain walls.
At each angle is a drum tower, 29 feet diameter, and of three quarters
projection, flanking the several faces. In the centre of the north face
is the great, and of the south face the lesser, gatehouse, and in the
centre of each of the other faces is a square tower. There are thus
eight mural towers, four cylindrical, and four rectangular, giving an
agreeable variety to the outline. Besides these there is a projection
from the east face of 8 feet, containing part of the chapel and the
sacristy. The walls and towers all rise direct from the water. The
curtain is 40 feet 6 inches high from the water to the crest of the
parapet, and the towers are one-third higher, or 54 feet. The outer
walls generally are 6 feet 6 inches thick, which is also the height of
the parapets. The stair turrets rise 14 feet higher than their towers,
and the chimneys about 9 feet. Both are octagonal, and are crested with
miniature battlements in the late Perpendicular manner. There is no
water gate or postern, such as those at Ledes and Caerphilly.
The great gatehouse is a very imposing structure. It is in plan a T,
the horizontal limb forming the front of 30 feet breadth, and the
vertical limb extending backwards as far, and containing the entrance
passage. The front is composed of two towers, rectangular, but having
the angles largely recessed, so as to throw forward the central part of
each tower as a bold buttress, 15 feet broad by 6 feet deep. The whole
projects from the curtain about 15 feet, and between the towers, deeply
sunk, is the gateway.
The gateway has a slightly four-centred arch, very plain, and set
in the usual square-headed shallow recess, intended apparently to
receive the platform of the bridge when lifted. There are traces of
the chain holes in the spandrels. The whole is placed in a deeper
and plain recess, terminating above in a four-centred arch, which
carries the parapet, and has behind it three machicolations which
protect the entrance. Over the door is the usual portcullis chamber
window, and right and left other windows, all small and lancet,
some trefoil-headed, and some plain. Two pairs of loops command the
approach, one pair has oylet holes at each end of the slit. The other
pair have holes, rather larger, at the lower end only. It is the style
of loop that marks the introduction of fire-arms. In the jambs of the
portal is a half-round portcullis groove, and a little within a pair of
folding doors. The entrance passage, 12 feet broad and 30 feet long,
is unusually lofty. It is divided by a cross arch into two chambers,
both vaulted. The first, 18 feet long, has on the right and left small
lancet doors, leading by a narrow vaulted and ribbed mural passage into
the lodges, 11 feet by 10 feet. On the left is a second door opening on
a circular well-stair, 8 feet diameter, and unusually steep, leading to
the upper chambers and roof, and terminating in a turret at the angle
of the gatehouse. The vaulting has fallen in, but it is clear that it
resembled that of the second chamber. Beneath the cross archway is a
second portcullis, and beyond it the second part of the passage. This
is 12 feet square, without lateral doorways, and vaulted. The vault is
of four cells, three ribs and two half or wall-ribs springing from each
corner corbel, and meeting in one central, four lateral, and four half
bosses, placed upon two cross or ridge ribs. They are pierced as in the
inner ward gate of the Tower of London, and possibly each contained
a flower. The openings are, of the central boss 6 inches, and of the
others, 4 inches diameter. These apertures can scarcely have been meant
for defence; they are too small, and do not command the four corners of
the passage. No doubt a long pike might be thrust down some of them,
but scarcely, to be of use, down the half holes next the walls. As to
pouring down melted lead, pitch, or oil, such articles were always too
expensive to form a part of the regular munitions against a siege, nor
is there here, nor in portcullis chambers generally, any furnace for
heating such materials in any quantity.
The portal leading from this passage into the inner court has a second
pair of doors, and beyond them a second portcullis. This chamber is not
a part of the regular gatehouse. It forms a sort of porch projecting
from it into the court, and has no upper story. A well-stair on the
left opened from the court, and led up to the embattled platform which
rested on the vault. This subsidiary prolongation of the length and
defences of the entrance passage is believed to be peculiar to Bodiham.
Over the outer part of the passage is the portcullis chamber. It has
at each end a low four-centred arch, which concealed the head of the
grate, when lifted, and above this, at each end, is the customary small
window. The lobby between the well-stair and this chamber is groined
and ribbed, and in the centre is a large boss carved in foliage. The
gatehouse lodges have a pit or sub-basement, perhaps a cellar, perhaps
merely a cavity to keep the floors dry. If cellars, they were entered
by traps in the floor above. There are also, above the basement, two
upper floors.
The lesser gatehouse is placed opposite to the main gate, in the centre
of the southern face of the castle, and though equally lofty, is much
smaller. It is a plain tower 22 feet square, projecting 15 feet in
advance of the curtain, but with no internal projection. The outer gate
is in the centre of the tower, and had a portcullis, and behind it
were folding doors. The entrance passage is 11 feet square, vaulted as
the great gateway, but not so lofty. Right and left are loops raking
the curtain. A door in the west wall opens into the usual well-stair,
contained within the north-west angle. There is no lodge. The inner
portal was closed by doors only. It opened into a passage at the lower
end of the great hall.
In front of, and outside this gatehouse, there project 9 feet into the
moat two walls about 3 feet thick. They seem to have contained between
them a bridge pit, over which a bridge dropped from the gateway,
upon a cross wall which remains. The pit is filled up. Opposite,
the counterscarp of the moat, 62 yards distant, is revetted, and
from it projects a half-hexagonal pier. How this intervening space
was traversed is not now seen. Scarcely by a boat, for the pier is
evidently intended to support a timber bridge, and a boat could not
conveniently be reached from it. Probably there was a footway upon
tressels or wooden piers.
Thus much of the two gatehouses, the only towers which are
machicolated. Each leads into the court of the castle, an open space 86
feet south and north, by 76 feet east and west; round which are placed,
against the curtains, the domestic buildings, 22 to 30 feet in depth,
some of one floor, some of two, but all of nearly equal height, and so
placed as to conceal the curtain and the lower parts of the towers from
the inner court.
Right and left of the great gatehouse the buildings had a ground
and first floor. Those on the left, or to the east, were rather more
ornate, as being nearer to the state apartments. The north-east and
north-west towers communicated on each side with these rooms. They have
sub-basement pits, with loops, a ground and two upper floors. They
differ somewhat in details, but each has a well-stair in its gorge
wall, and mural closets and fireplaces at the several levels. The pits
are circular, the chambers above hexagonal.
Along the west side are offices, and probably servants’ apartments, and
rooms for the garrison. In the centre a large and handsome doorway,
with a window on each side and traces of a porch, opens into a small
kitchen, a room 21 feet by 16 feet, having on each side a fireplace,
with a converging tunnel, and an arched head of 12 feet span and 2 feet
rise. There is no hood or projection. The roof was open, and at the
battlement level. A gallery seems to have run across above the door,
entered from the room to the south, and beneath it in the wall is also
a door.
The enclosure next south seems to have been of two floors. The lower
room, 38 feet by 22 feet, was probably for stores or for the servants;
the upper was the lesser hall. The lower room had two windows to the
court and a small door, and perhaps between the windows a shallow
fireplace with a bold hood. Above was a noble room of the same size.
The lower room opened into the west tower. This, like the east tower,
is 25 feet broad, by 21 feet deep, and of 15 feet projection from the
curtain. The sub-basement here was evidently a cellar. It has three
loops a little above the water-level. A well-stair in the south-east
angle leads upwards from the ground-level.