keep, runs out to a point towards the southern end, but to the north
or north-west it is stopped at a breadth of about 42 yards by the
prolongation of the keep ditch. The breadth of the ward at its greatest
is about 60 yards. Along the north-west front it is strengthened by
large earth-banks thrown up from the contiguous ditch, but elsewhere
the natural slope of from 30 feet to 40 feet, steeply scarped, needed
neither ditch nor bank. This ward had a curtain wall along its outer
edge, of which the foundation diggings remain open. The north-west end
was continued up the mound, and probably the circuit on the opposite
side was completed in a similar way, so as to make the mound and keep,
as at Tamworth and Durham, a part of the general _enceinte_. A group
of excavations shows that this ward contained a considerable number of
domestic buildings placed in its north-eastern and eastern part, near
to the curtain wall. At the foot of the mound to the north is a sort
of notch in the line of bank, possibly indicating a postern. The main
approach evidently rose gradually from the village bridge, and skirted
the foot of the eastern slope of the outer ward nearly to its south
end, where it turned inwards and entered that ward by a roadway or
slight cutting.
There is no trace of masonry to be seen within or about the
castle _enceinte_; the material seems to have been in request as
building-stone, and to have been everywhere collected and even grubbed
up with most covetous care. There is a limekiln on the south side,
near the line of the entrance, no doubt built of the materials of the
castle, and a sort of house, now a shed, between it and the brook, but
the material shows no mark of the tool and no old mortar.
There are some mounds between the castle and the brooks, possibly
thrown up on the occasion of some attack by the enemy. On the other or
high side there are no outworks nor any indications either of attack or
defence.
There are no remains of the priory save what are included within the
parish church. This is a good-sized building, recently repaired or
restored, and in excellent order. It is composed of a tower, nave,
south porch, and chancel. The nave has been so completely restored
that little of old work is to be seen in its walls or roof. It is
probably in substance of Decorated date, judging from the buttresses
on the south side. The porch is new. The chancel has in the north
wall a sepulchral recess, of Decorated pattern, covering the original
recumbent figure of a female with her hands in prayer, holding what
looks like a covered cup. In the south wall are two lancet windows of
one light, under pointed recesses, and between them a late Decorated
window of two lights, trefoiled, with a plain four-sided opening in the
head. The whole is in a round-headed recess. The arch into the nave is
new.
The tower is the best part of the church. It is of large size, square,
and short for its size, probably having had another story. It rests
upon a bold plinth, about 5 feet 6 inches high, at the top of which is
a bold half-round cordon, with a band. The south-west angle is covered
by the pilaster buttresses, of 8 feet 6 inches breadth, and a foot
projection, which die into the tower, near the present summit. In this
angle is a well-stair. In the south side is an unusually large door, of
8 feet opening, with high lancet arch. In the centre of the flat jamb
on each side is a half-column, 2 feet diameter, with a water-bearing
moulding, and a sort of bell-cap, with several bands of moulding above
it. The arch is plainly chamfered, and the cordon of the tower is
carried round it as a hood. Above this is a clumsy window of two lancet
lights under a pointed head, very plain. Above this again is a small
broad window, with a trefoiled head, and above all an early English
window of three lights, with three-quarter shafts before each mullion,
with bell-caps. In the nooks of each jamb are two similar shafts, seven
in all. The head is a drop-pointed arch, plainly chamfered. There is a
window similar to this in the north wall. The church contains nothing
earlier than this mixture of the early English with the Decorated
style. The masonry of the castle was probably, from its plan, of a
late Norman, or transitional date. The earthworks are of the regular
Herefordshire type; attributable to the English of the early part
of the tenth century. They resemble generally, in the presence of a
mound, those of Kilpeck and Builth, Caerleon and Cardiff, of Brecon,
Abergavenny, and many places in this county or district. No doubt this
and the similar works were thrown up when the early Saxon inroads were
made into Wales, and were the strongholds of the invading chiefs.
Ewias Harold certainly does not bear the name of its founder, and that
founder was probably as completely forgotten in the eleventh century as
now.
There are two places called Ewias in Herefordshire, distinguished by
the names of their eleventh-century owners, as Ewias Lacy and Ewias
Harold. Both are mentioned in Domesday, and both as the seats of a
castelry, a sort of Honour or superior lordship attached to the castle.
Under the lands of the church of Hereford, we are told that “in the
manors of Dodelegie and Stane are ten hydes, all waste save one in
Dodelegie. Of the nine, one part is ‘in castellaria Aluredi Ewias,’ and
the other in the King’s enclosed land.”
Another entry explains that Alured was Alured de Merleberge or of
Marleborough, a great tenant in chief, especially in Wiltshire. We
read, “Alured de M. holds the castle of Ewias of William the King. For
that king conceded to him the lands which William the Earl [Fitzosbern
of Hereford] had given to him. Who refortified [_refirmaverit_] this
castle.” Of it held seven knights, whose Christian names are given,
besides other persons. The castle was then valued at £10. Agnes, the
daughter of Alured, married Turstan of Wigmore.
How or when Alured gave up the castle does not appear; but in 1100 it
was held by a certain Harold, also a large tenant in Domesday, though
not in Herefordshire. He is called “Heraldus filius comitis Radulphi,”
and as such held Sudeley, in Gloucestershire. Earl Ralph, called the
Timid, was the Earl of Hereford who was beaten by the Welsh and English
forces in 1055, when his son was a mere child. Ralph was a considerable
man by descent, being great-grandson of Æthelred and great-nephew
to the Confessor. Harold probably obtained some of his father’s
possessions when he came of age, and Ewias may have been part of them.
He and his descendants were liberal donors to St. Peter’s, Gloucester,
in its behalf founding the Priory near the Castle of Ewias.
The names and order of Harold’s sons are preserved in the Gloucester
Cartulary, and they correct Dugdale and all other authorities. They
were Robert, Roger, John (to whom his father gave Sudeley, and
whose issue were barons), Alexander, and William. Robert de Ewias,
the eldest, is described in the “Gesta Stephani” as “vir stemmatis
ingenuissimi.” According to the “Liber Niger,” he held _in capite_
upwards of forty-seven fees, the mesne tenants of which were twenty
knights. Dugdale mentions only twenty-two fees, and confounds him with
a second Robert, his son, also Lord of Ewias. The elder Robert had by
his wife Sybilla, Robert, and Richard de Ewias, who left a daughter and
heiress, Sybilla, who married Philip Spenser, and left issue.
Robert de Ewias, the third owner of the castle, and the second baron,
married Petronilla. He was living 1194–6. He also left a Sybilla,
daughter and heiress of Ewias. She married, first, Robert de Tregoz;
second, William de Newmarch, whom she married during her father’s
lifetime, in the reign of Richard I. He was living 11 John. Third,
Roger de Clifford, probably the second brother of William de Clifford.
From this match spring the Earls of Cumberland. Newmarch had no
children. Sybilla was dead 20 Henry III., and was followed by her son,
Robert de Tregoz, slain at Evesham 1265. He was father of John and
Henry, father of a line of barons who ended about 1405.
John de Tregoz died 1300, leaving two co-heirs, Clarice and Sybil.
Clarice, who died 29 Edward I., married Roger la Warre, and had John,
aged 23, in 1300; and Sybil married Sir William de Grandison, ancestor
in the female line of the St. Johns, Viscounts Grandison. In the
partition, John la Warre had the “body of the castle,” of which, 4
Edward III., he enfeoffed John de Cleydon. He died 21 Edward III. John,
his eldest son, died before him, and as early as 12 Edward III. he had
enfeoffed his grandson, Roger la Warre, and Elizabeth his wife, with
Ewias Castle and Manor.
Roger la Warre died 44 Edward III., seized of Ewias Harold, and was
succeeded by John, his son. 13 Richard II., Sir John de Montacute,
sen., is seized of Ewias Harold, and three Wiltshire fees in the Honour
of Ewias, and Teffont-Ewias, in Wiltshire, besides other Ewias lands in
Herefordshire. 18 Richard II., these same lands were held by Margaret,
wife of Sir John Montacute, Bart.; and 10 Henry IV., by Thomas de
Montacute, Earl of Salisbury.
The nature of this alienation is obscure; for, in the midst of it, 22
Richard II., Sir John de la Warre and Elizabeth his wife are seized
of the Castle of Ewias Harold. However, there seems to have been
an actual and permanent alienation to the Montacutes; for, 7 Henry
VI., Thomas, Earl of Salisbury, has Ewias Harold. Thence it passed
to the Beauchamps, of whom Joan, widow of Sir William Beauchamp, of
Bergavenny, had the castle, vill, and lordship in 14 Henry VI.; and,
finally, the Beauchamp heir, Edward Nevile, Lord Abergavenny, died
seized of the castle, &c., in Herefordshire, and of Teffont-Ewias, in
Wiltshire.
THE CASTLE OF EXETER.
The Castle of Exeter is not only a fortress of high antiquity, but is
in many respects peculiar. It occupies the northern angle of the city,
forming a part of its _enceinte_, and it crowns the summit of a natural
knoll formed by an upburst of Plutonic rock, of a red colour, whence it
derived its Norman appellation of Rougemont. The knoll rises steeply on
the north-east and north-west from a deep valley, but on the other two
sides the slope, though still considerable, is more gradual. The sides
of the knoll have been scarped, and at the foot of its upper part a
deep and broad ditch has been excavated, beyond which, to the north, a
second scarp descends to the bottom of the valley. Towards the south,
where the ground allowed of and required it, there was a second and
outer ditch. The contents of the inner ditch were carried upwards and
inwards to form a high bank round the original summit of the knoll, the
central part of which was thus converted into a pit, and became the
inner, and indeed the only, ward of the castle. In figure this ward,
taken at the level of the circumscribing bank, is something between a
square and a circle. Probably its outline was governed by the natural
figure of the ground, and such angles as it now has are due to later
modifications of the works.
Originally then, the fortress was a hill camp, composed of a bank about
30 feet high, cresting the edge of the knoll, and outside scarped down
about 60 to 80 feet deep to the bottom of a broad ditch, which again
was reinforced on the less steep side by a second ditch. The main ditch
towards the north-east and north-west has been filled up and converted
into a broad public walk and garden, but the outer or second scarp
still remains, and descends to the valley now occupied by the station
of the London and South-Western Railway. Towards the south-east and
south the ditch remains unaltered, and is a very fine example of an
ancient earthwork. Towards the east it seems to have been filled up.
The camp thus described is probably older than the city, and was an
ordinary earthwork, constructed in the usual fashion of the Britons,
with one main ditch, reinforced with parts of others where needed. The
main entrance was probably always on the south-eastern face, where the
ground is less steep than elsewhere. Here, no doubt, a cut traversed
the bank, and the ditches were crossed by narrow causeways, as at Old
Sarum and elsewhere. These original works were probably British, and
were no doubt occupied and slightly modified by the Romans. When the
city, if such there was, of Caerwisc, was founded by the Britons, they
probably made it an appendage to the south side of the camp, on the
site of the present city, the spot being indicated by nature for such
a purpose. The city occupies an oblong, elevated platform, contained
between the Exe on the south-west, and its tributary streams, with
their valleys, on the north-west and south-east, and connected with the
higher and distant ground to the north-east by a long narrow isthmus,
pierced recently by the tunnel of the London and South-Western Railway.
The Isca Damnoniorum of the Romans was certainly this enclosure,
though, no doubt, they gave their _enceinte_ more of a rectangular
figure than it afterwards maintained, and laid out the cruciform
roads which are occupied by the two main streets of the present city.
The camp was their citadel, and they would, of course, continue the
defences of the city up its faces, so as to make it a part of the
general _enceinte_. The Saxons, on their arrival, no doubt contented
themselves with these previous arrangements, and made the best of them
against the Danes in 876 and 894. Rather later Æthelstan walled in the
city and the castle, and, amidst the varieties of ancient masonry still
to be traced round the town, Mr. Freeman thinks it just possible that
some of this great king’s work may be seen. These were the walls which
enabled the citizens to hold at bay Swend of Denmark in 1001, when he
threw up the earthworks at Penhow to the north of the city, and won a
victory in the open field. When the Norman Conqueror appeared before
Exeter in 1068, he approached from the north-east, and summoned the
city at the east gate, just below the castle. Æthelstan’s walls were
then in good order, and it was in them that the breach was effected.
Probably, however, neither the city walls nor the defences of the
castle were up to the Norman standard, for Baldwin of Okehampton was
left in command with the usual instructions to build a castle, as
the Normans understood that formidable structure. How long Baldwin
contented himself with repairing the existing defences, and in what
order he replaced them, is unknown, but enough Norman work remains
to show the general plan upon which he or his immediate successor
proceeded. A strong retaining wall was built against the face of the
upper bank. This wall rested, and does still rest, upon the natural
edge of the hill, and it supports, as a revetment, the made ground
behind it, being about 30 feet high, and having carried a parapet of
about 4 feet more. Probably this wall was carried on slowly, the old
outer defences being tenable.
The earliest masonry now seen, earlier probably than the wall, is the
gatehouse, which may safely be attributed to the latter part of the
eleventh century. At the western angle, where the city wall joined
the castle, was built a rectangular tower, the base of which still
remains, and it is said at the north angle was a similar tower, the two
thus flanking the north-west face. The wall had a high base or plinth,
battering somewhat, and carrying the superstructure, which is vertical.
There remain upon it two half-round solid bastions; one at the north
end of the south-west face has three flat pilasters rising from the
plinth, and is evidently pure Norman; the other, near the centre of
the north-east face, is similar in pattern, but the pilasters are
rather narrower and chamfered, and probably very late, or transition
Norman. Most of the wall is rubble, but a portion of the north-eastern
front, near the site of the castle chapel, is composed of good blocks
of ashlar, possibly of the age of Richard II. The bank and wall have
been removed in the centre of the north-west front, to make room for
the Sessions House, an ungainly structure, ugly anywhere, but here
especially out of place. The chapel stood in the court, near the
western corner.
The gatehouse is decidedly original, and a good example of a rude
Norman gatehouse. It is about 30 feet square, with walls 6 feet thick.
At each end is a full-centred archway, of 12 feet opening, very plain,
having a square rib 2 feet broad, with deep recesses or “nooks” of 2
feet on each side. The southern capital of the inner archway shows
traces of Norman carving. There was no portcullis, each portal having
doors; the space between the portals was covered with timber. On each
of the two outer sides are two broad flat pilasters. The superstructure
is lofty, and seems to have contained two stories. Above each portal
are two windows, of 2 feet 6 inches opening, divided by a space of
about 2 feet. The jambs are square, with a plain Norman cap or abacus.
The present covering of each is formed of two inclined stones or
lintels, which may be original, but are more probably late insertions.
Above each pair is a larger single window. The inner portal opens at
the level of the court. Outside, the ground is about 10 feet below
that level. No doubt there was a drawbridge falling upon a detached
pier, whence a causeway, probably with one or two bridges, crossed the
ditches and carried the approach. The _enceinte_ wall abuts against
the gateway flush with its inner face, so that it has a projection
outward of about 24 feet, flanking the adjacent curtain. In later
days, probably during the time of Richard II., two buttresses, or
rather pilasters, 4 feet broad by 5 feet deep, have been built against
the inner face, one on each side of the portal; and at the other end
are a similar pair, but of 14 feet projection. These latter, at the
battlement level, outside, are connected by a flat segmental arch;
and the sort of barbican, or forebuilding thus formed contained the
drawbridge, covered the gateway, and above had a flat roof, where
archers could be posted to protect the approach. The old entrance
is walled up, and pierced with two loops, which look early, but can
scarcely be so. In the east side of the gatehouse a small doorway,
in the Decorated style, has been pierced, possibly as a postern, for
any lodge connected with it would have been outside the castle. The
present entrance is, and for very many years has been, close west of,
and outside the main gatehouse. This evidently was due to a wish to
preserve the gatehouse, but to avoid the inconvenience of entering at
so high a level. Probably when the new entrance was made the ditch at
this point was filled up, all but a narrow gut, across which fell the
drawbridge shown in the later drawings of the castle. When this was
dispensed with the whole was made smooth, and Castle Street took its
present aspect.
There is no evidence as to what buildings, save the chapel, were
contained within the court of the castle. There must of necessity
have been a hall, kitchen, lodgings, stabling, and barracks; and
probably most of these buildings stood near or on the site of the
Sessions House, where there seems to have been a postern gate. There
is no evidence of a keep, nor, at so great a height, was any needed.
Rectangular keeps, though found at Corfe, Sherborne, and Taunton, were
not common in the west. A shell-keep, as at Trematon, Launceston,
Dunster, Restormel, or Truro, would, in such a position, have been
the usual structure; but the previous earthworks had converted the
only site for a shell-keep into a pit so deep that it would have been
commanded from the ramparts. Probably the Normans regarded the whole
court as a shell-keep.
Whether the city walls were built concurrently with the castle is
unknown. Probably they were, for the water-gate, removed in 1815, had
certainly a Norman arch, as had, though later, and in the transition
style, Broad Gate, of which also Lysons gives a view. These walls
crossed the ditches, and abutted upon that of the castle. That from
the east gate, seen in the Club Garden, has been rebuilt; but the
north-west wall is very perfect, and though the buttresses on its
outside are of Decorated date, as were most of the gates of the city,
the substance of the wall is original, and very strong. In its base,
where it crosses the ditch, it contains a hollow place, much enlarged,
and said to have been a dungeon, which is absurd. It probably was a
culvert or sluice-gate, to allow the ditch to be drained and cleared
out, for though these ditches could scarcely have permanently contained
water, a wet season would have converted them into a pond.
FILLONGLEY CASTLE, CO. WARWICK.
THE CASTLE YARD.
The scanty remains of this, the seat of the family of Hastings before
they rose to their earldom of Pembroke, and now known as Castle Yard,
are placed about a quarter of a mile south of Fillongley Church upon a
small triangle of land formed by the beds and junction of two brooks
which flow down from the south and the south-east to meet and form the
point of the triangle to the north.
In the space thus protected towards the north, west, and east, was
constructed a rudely oval shell of masonry about 50 feet east and west
by 80 feet north and south, traces of which are seen in five masses of
stone rubble-work, of which four are overthrown and a fifth remains
in its proper place. A light ridge connects these detached masses,
and indicates the line of the curtain of which they formed a part.
The fragment standing in its place seems to have been connected with
a curved recess, or, perhaps, a well-stair, but the others have been
overthrown by gunpowder. The whole was on a small scale, and there are
no visible traces of towers or gatehouse. The earth and rubbish heaped
up in the interior of the area may cover foundations, and, no doubt, a
light excavation here would disclose the plan of the whole structure
and the place of the entrance, which, probably, was towards the east.
Outside the walled area the ground falls slightly, and there are traces
at about 30 yards’ distance, towards the south, of a ditch and internal
bank protecting this, by nature, the weakest side. The valley towards
the east is occupied by one of the brooks which flows a few feet only
from and below the wall. There is no trace of any second or outer
circle of masonry, so that probably the castle was composed of a single
ring wall, possibly set with turrets, but if so, of no great size.
The whole castle must have been a very inconsiderable place, though
from the steepness of the little valleys between which it stands, and
the marshy character of the ground watered by the brooks, it evidently
possessed much passive strength, and if garrisoned by determined men,
could have held out for some time.
Fillongley is unnoticed in any record older than the Conqueror’s
Survey. We learn from Domesday that “Filungelei” contained two hides
of land, of which one half-hide belonged to the Bishop of Coutances,
and was held by Lewin; a second by the monks of Coventry; a third by
a certain Alsi, who held it from before the Conquest; and a fourth by
Robert le Despenser, which, though of less value, contained the church.
Alsi may have resided upon the Castle hill. The half-hide held by the
monks is identified with Old Fillongley, on the western side of the
parish, and was held of them in the reign of Henry III. by Gerard de
Alspath, whose name is preserved in Alspath Hall, in the south-west
quarter of the parish. He held it as a fourth part of a knight’s
fee. A part of this holding passed in some way from the ownership of
the monks, who, in the time of Edward III., held in it one-eighth of
a fee of Lord Hastings. Part of Le Despenser’s share passed to the
Marmions, and thence, it would seem, to the Earls of Leicester, one of
whom probably enfeoffed of it either Walter or Hugh de Hastings, one
of the earlier members of that family, who long continued to hold it
of the Marmions and Le Despensers. Thus the family of Hastings were
of Fillongley in the reign of Henry I., and it speedily became their
chief residence in Warwickshire, and the nucleus of a considerable
estate. John de Hastings, 29 Edward I., had a license to crenellate
“manerium suum et villam de ... Filungeleye,” though the castle is
probably considerably older. With the church was the advowson which,
in the reign of Edward III., Lawrence Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, sold
to Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon. Fillongley, though it appears in the
inquisitions of the Hastings family, is not mentioned as a castle,
being, in fact, too inconsiderable to be claimed by the Crown, and so
entered upon the public records, but it seems to have remained
the chief, if not the only, residence of the family, until Henry de
Hastings, in the reign of Henry III., married Joan de Cantelupe, who
became a very great heiress, so that John, their son, the recipient of
the above license, inheriting the castle of Abergavenny, resided there,
as did occasionally his descendants. On the death of the last Hastings,
Earl of Pembroke, Fillongley passed with much of his property to the
Beauchamps, and so to the Nevilles, who held it when Dugdale wrote his
very valuable history.
[Illustration: FILLONGLEY CASTLE.
Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]
[Illustration: FONMON CASTLE]