buried at Polesworth and with the Grey Friars at Coventry.
FONMON CASTLE, GLAMORGAN.
Fonmon Castle was, no doubt, built by Sir John de St. John soon after
the conquest of Glamorgan; and part of the present building is original.
The castle rises from the western edge of a narrow and deep ravine,
which conveys a streamlet from Fonmon village into the Kenson.
On its north front, but at some little distance from the castle, a
similar steep bank slopes down direct to the Kenson, which there
traverses a meadow, in earlier days probably an impassable morass.
On its west and south sides the castle stands on table land, and was
covered, no doubt, by a moat and outer wall. The keep, a rectangular
building 45 feet high, and 25 feet north and south, by 43 feet east
and west, including its walls, which are 5 feet thick, appears to be
late Norman, and may be presumed to be Sir John de St. John’s work.
Additions, probably of early English and early Decorated date, enclose
it on the north, east, and partially on the south sides; on the latter
forming a considerable wing, a part of which is a square tower which
caps the south-east angle, and is a principal feature in the general
view of the building. Two bow towers of the same date project from the
east front. The principal additions on the north are of the seventeenth
century, and were erected without reference to defence.
The outworks, with the exception of one tower which stands alone on
the south-eastern front, about 140 yards from the castle, long since
have given way to stabling, barns, and formal terraced gardens, most of
which have in their turn disappeared. The remaining tower seems to have
been the south-eastern termination of the defences of the outer court.
The St. Johns resided, more or less, at Fonmon until towards the
fourteenth century, when, by intermarriage with the heiresses
of Paveley, Pawlet, and, finally, of Beauchamp of Bletsoe, they
became powerful English lords, and removed their head-quarters into
Bedfordshire. Fonmon was probably left to the care of a bailiff, though
some cadets of the family settled at Highlight, and there remained
after the sale of the property to Colonel Jones, about 1655. Since that
period it has been regularly inhabited by the Jones family, as it now
is by their descendant and representative, Robert Oliver Jones, Esq.
The castle contains portraits of Cromwell and Ireton, and a fine one of
Mr Robert Jones, grandfather of the present proprietor, by Reynolds.
FOTHERINGAY CASTLE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
The masonry of this castle has been entirely removed, but the original
moated mound and earth-banks remain, and the lines of the masonry may
be traced by the trenches dug when the foundations were grubbed up. The
mound stands on the left bank of the river Nene, and of the buildings
the principal, disposed nearly east and west, was very evidently the
great hall in which Mary of Scotland was tried and executed.
There is in “Ellis’s Letters” (First Series, Vol. II.) a draught plan,
in Burghley’s hand, of the hall as it was ordered to be prepared for
the trial.
The “great chamber” was 23 yards long with the window, and 7 yards
broad. The length without the window was 21 yards. The window,
therefore, was probably a bay or oriel, of 6 feet projection within.
The draught plan was sent down with the figures blank to be filled in
by special measurement.
At the upper, probably the eastern, end, and in front of the window,
was a chair for the Queen of England. Against the wall on her left,
a bench for thirteen barons; on her right, leaving space for passage
between it and the wall, was a bench for twelve earls. Across the hall,
13 yards from the upper (east) end, and 8 yards from the lower end, was
a bar, extending on the barons’ side nearly to the wall, but on the
earls’ leaving space for passage. Within, close to the bar and opposite
Elizabeth’s seat, was a chair for Mary.
The points of the compass are not marked upon the plan, but it is
clear, from the disposition of the passage, that the door was on that
or the north side, and most probably near to its west end. The door
of a castle-hall would never have opened towards the defences of the
place, but into the inner court.
The block for the execution was placed at the upper end of the hall;
probably, therefore, where Elizabeth’s chair had stood during the
trial.
The fireplace in which, after the execution, the block and bloody
drapery were burned, probably was placed in the centre of the south
wall.
Possibly, during a season of drought, some local antiquary may succeed
in establishing the actual position of the door, the bay window, and
the fireplace.
GROSMONT CASTLE, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
Grosmont is one of five strong places disposed along the right or
south-west bank of the Munnow river, the others being, below it,
Skenfrith, and above it Oldcastle, Longtown, and the fortified house
of Perthir; Monmouth Castle, and the town beneath its protection,
occupied the junction of the Munnow with the Wye. These are some of
the fortified buildings scattered broadcast over the Welsh marshes,
and especially abundant in the county of Monmouth, and the remains of
which, always picturesque, are often tolerably perfect.
In the rear of these castles on the Munnow were those of Brecknock,
Tretower, Crickhowell, and Abergavenny, upon the Upper Usk; and over
the whole of that country there is scarce a hill-top or point of
vantage which is not occupied by some defensive earthwork, showing the
importance attached to it by each of the several races, Celt, Roman,
Saxon, and Norman, who in turn either attacked or defended this devoted
soil.
Grosmont, about four miles above Skenfrith and five below Oldcastle, is
placed, like the former fortress, upon the high concavity of a sharp
bend of the river, about a hundred yards from its margin. Very near to
it is the fine old cross church, which, having shared in the prosperity
of the castle, has escaped its decay, and still remains in tolerable
repair, although requiring a few subtractions and restorations at the
hand of a judicious architect.
The castle is composed of a court or ward of irregular plan, more or
less rectangular, with projections upon the south side, the wall of
which contains a space of 110 feet by 70 feet, strengthened on the
south by a larger and a smaller three-quarter mural tower, having
a gateway upon the east face, and on the west traces of a building
exterior to the curtain wall. The north side is occupied by a hall,
also exterior to, or rather replacing the line of, the curtain, three
of its four walls forming a part of the exterior defences of the
building.
The whole is placed within a ditch of great depth, and, indeed, the
earthworks generally are of so formidable a character as to make it
probable that they are earlier than the present building, or than any
other work in masonry. The actual platform occupied by the walls, and
contained within the crest of the ditch, is about 150 feet in diameter.
Outside the ditch, to the east and south, and covering the entrance
of the castle, is a large demi-lune, or platform of earth, scarped
towards the field, and upon which are traces of walls and a defence of
the nature of a barbican. The main ditch, now traversed by a modern
embankment, was evidently at one time crossed by the usual bridge, of
which a part lifted. The gatehouse, if such it can be called, presents
two lateral cheeks of wall, projecting on either side of the bridge,
and thus forming a covered way, from each side of which a cruciform
loop is directed along the ditch. The pointed vault of the entrance is
broken, but there remain the ragged grooves for the portcullis, and the
two holes which received the large wooden bar fastening the gate.
Entering, on the right is the shell of the hall, 80 feet long by 27
feet broad, out of all proportion to the area of the defences. The
floor, of timber, was laid 6 feet above the level of the court, so as
to give height to a spacious basement store-room or cellar, but which,
however, has a large fireplace in its east wall. The hall has windows
at each end, and four in each side; but probably only the six to the
east belonged to the hall, the other two lighting a withdrawing-room.
The position of the fireplace on the north side seems to mark the
centre of the hall.
On the left of the entrance the curtain extends to the south-east
or smaller drum tower, and probably supported a spacious lean-to
roof marked by the corbels or bearers for the upper wall-plate. This
south-east tower seems to have been massive, but low, and to have been
altered and enlarged at the gorge, on the side towards the court, which
now projects inwards in a rectangular form. When this addition was made
the tower seems to have been raised to three or perhaps four stories,
and near its summit is a bold cordon.
A strong curtain extends from this to the south-west drum-tower, of
larger dimensions, and broken down towards the court. The floors of
these two towers were of timber. Between them, and parallel to the
curtain, seem to have been some buildings, probably barracks.
The buildings outside of, and built against, the west curtain projected
boldly into the moat. They are in great decay. Here was the fireplace,
the flue from which, wrought out in the substance of the curtain, rises
above it as an elegant octagonal chimney shaft, the summit of which is
crowned by the elegant lanthorn or spiracle which has so often been
drawn and is so well known.
Grosmont, as it now appears, is of moderate size and much mutilated;
but its towers and walls, though stripped of their ashlar, are still
standing, and the earthworks are large, bold, and well-defined.
Whatever may be its ancient history, the present building presents
nothing earlier than the reign of Henry III. The additions seem to have
been in the Decorated style, and, probably, are of one date, that of
the reign of Edward I. After the South Welsh conquest, Grosmont was
one of the numerous De Braose castles, and passed by inheritance to
the Cantelupes. It then fell into the possession of Henry III., who
granted it to Hubert de Burgh. In the well-known war waged by the
Welsh and Richard Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, against Henry III., it
was besieged by Llewelyn and relieved by the king, who occupied it as
head-quarters during the latter part of the campaign. After De Burgh’s
fall, Henry regranted the castle to the Earl of Lancaster, and it has
since, with the somewhat earlier castles of Skenfrith and Whitecastle,
remained attached to the duchy. Henry, Crouchback’s grandson, was here
born, and hence styled Henry of Grosmont. Probably he was the author of
the principal additions.
The adjacent church contains a late Norman font, with cylindrical base
and octagonal bowl; and the pier arches of the central tower are also
Pointed Norman. Most of the remainder of the church is early English,
and probably of the date of the castle; but there is a Decorated north
porch, and also some other parts in the same style, which may have been
the work of the artist who completed the additions to the castle and
designed its elegant chimney-shaft and finial.
GUILDFORD CASTLE, SURREY.
Guildford Castle, of which the keep was always the most prominent, and
is now the chief remaining, feature, is in position, age, structure,
and dimensions, a very remarkable fortress.
It is true, indeed, that though of great age, neither the town nor the
castle have played any great part in English history. The town was
never walled; the castle never stood a siege. No considerable battle
was ever witnessed from its towers; no parliament or great council
was ever held within its hall. Though always a royal manor, and long
maintained as a royal residence, it was used also as a prison, and is
but rarely mentioned, either in the records or by the chroniclers.
The castle was not garrisoned in the great civil war, and so escaped
being dismantled and blown up by either king or parliament. Its state
of decay is due to the effects of time, powerfully aided by the local
greed for building materials. Nevertheless, though wanting in many of
the points of interest often attaching to English military buildings,
Guildford Castle has certain peculiarities of its own not unworthy of
notice, and which it is the object of this notice to set forth and
explain.
The great chalk range which forms the bulwark of London and the
southern limit of the vale of the Thames, from its mouth to the border
of Hampshire, is contracted towards the west into a narrow but elevated
ridge, which extends from Reigate nearly to Farnham and, resting upon
the firestone and gault of the Weald of Kent and Surrey, supports the
clay and gravels of the London basin.
This ridge, generally unbroken, is traversed by two well-known gorges
about twelve miles apart, of which the eastern is occupied by the Mole
at Dorking and Mickleham, and the western by
“The chalkey Wey, that rolls a milky wave.”
The Wey, the tributaries of which rise widely over much of Surrey
and the eastern part of Hampshire, is, where it cleaves the chalk, a
considerable stream, much less milky than in the days, or rather in
the verse, of Pope; and twelve miles below the pass it falls into the
Thames at Weybridge.
The town of Guildford is placed upon the right or eastern bank of the
river, well within, that is, north-east of the gorge, and within and
a little above the town is the castle. As the ridge is here steep and
lofty and the gorge deep and moderately narrow, it might be supposed
that this pass would at all times have been important to whoever wished
to defend London and the Thames from invaders from the south. In
position it is to the south of London what Berkhampstead Castle is on
the north; both are placed in gorges of chalk, both upon tributaries
of the Thames; both are late Norman castles, founded upon earlier
English earthworks; and both were for centuries held direct by the
Crown. Guildford, however, unlike Berkhampstead, though the nucleus
of a large town, has no military history. Although Surrey and Sussex
are by no means deficient in traces of early occupation, the immediate
neighbourhood of Guildford is in this respect almost a blank. An
early trackway has been talked of as taking the ridge of the Downs,
and traces of an irregular, and therefore British, camp are said to
have been formerly observed on St. Martha’s hill; but the long chalk
crest and slopes of the Downs, so tenacious of the slightest works
ever executed on their surface, are not known to exhibit any traces
of the encampments or pits or other works usually attributed to the
British, which, considering the dense forest that certainly extended
to the foot of the high ground on the south side, and probably on the
north, is very singular. Antiquaries, indeed, have placed the capital
of the British Regni at Guildford and the city of Vindomis at Farnham,
but nothing beyond general probabilities have been brought forward
in favour of either supposition. It is curious, also, to observe how
completely Celtic names have disappeared from the neighbourhood. Even
the rivers, the first to receive and the last to change their names—the
Wey, the Wandle, and the Mole—are Saxon, as are the names of Guildford,
the chief town of the county and district, Farnham, the ancient
episcopal seat, and the villages about them.
Neither are there any very decided marks of Roman occupation in
Guildford. The Castle Hill at Hescomb, Hilbury in Puttenham, and
Holmbury in Ockley, are said to be rectangular, and therefore Roman
earthworks; but neither of the two great Roman roads from the south
passes through Guildford. The Watling Street leads from Canterbury,
by Rochester, to Southwark; and the Icknild Street, from Chichester,
takes the pass of Mickleham in its way to the same destination. It is
very curious that a town so remarkable in position, so strongly posted,
and so directly in the way from the south-west to London, and withal so
sheltered, and placed close to pastures so fertile, should exhibit no
marks of occupation by the Romans or the earlier or later Britons.
The early history of Guildford, like its name, is Saxon, and, like
its name, savours wholly of the arts of peace. Of the “guild,” or
mercantile community, which in early times must have been established
on the “Ford” of the Wey, nothing is recorded; but from the lingering
presence of such names as Burgh Road, Burgh Field, and the Bury, it
has been supposed that the earliest Saxon municipality was seated on
the west, and not, as now, on the east bank of the river. It has been
said that the cause of this was the establishment of the fortress on
the east bank, and the consequent want of space for private dwellings.
But the fact is probably just the reverse. A fortress, whether Saxon
or Norman, would, as a rule, attract inhabitants to place themselves
under its protection; and, however spacious may have been the area
enclosed—and a little under six acres is the very utmost that has ever
been assigned to it—there must always have been ample room between the
walls and the river to the north, where the present town is located. If
ever the town stood upon the west bank, the balance of probability is
in favour of its having been transferred across the stream as soon as
the earliest stronghold was established there.
There is reason to believe that the principal thoroughfare of the
present town—the High Street—existed in the thirteenth century,
and probably some centuries earlier. Guildford is a borough by
prescription, and therefore may be of any English date, however
early. It has paid the castle the fitting compliment of placing it
on the borough shield, which bears “on a mount vert, a castle.” The
town stands in three parishes: St. Mary’s, which includes the castle;
Trinity; and on the west bank of the river, St. Nicholas.
The recorded history of Guildford has no ignoble beginning. It was the
property of Alfred, and is first mentioned in his will, between 872 and
885. “To Ethelwald, my brother’s son,” says the great king, “I bequeath
the manor at Godalming and at Gyldeford, and at Steyning.” On the death
of Ethelwald, childless, Guildford reverted to the West Saxon crown. In
the following century, in 1036, Guildford was the scene of the capture
of Alfred, the elder brother of the Confessor, and of the massacre of
his Norman attendants. As to the particulars of the event, and as to
the parts played in it by Godwin, Queen Emma, and Harold Harefoot,
testimonies differ, but all agree in the mention of Guildford as the
place to which the Atheling was conveyed.
When the Conqueror marched northward from Canterbury, he went by the
Watling Street, through Rochester, to Southwark, and thence ascending
to Wallingford, turned the position of Guildford, and placed himself
between it and the Thames. Its name even does not occur till late in
the reign, and then only in the General Survey. From that survey,
it appears that it had remained Crown property. No castle is there
mentioned, but that it contained a residence is more than probable,
both because it had been so long a royal demesne and from what is
stated as to the Atheling’s reception there.
In Domesday Book, as now, Guildford was in the Hundred of Woking.
The chief of the royal tenants was Ranulf Flambard, afterwards so
celebrated both for his rapacity and his magnificence. He was rector of
Godalming, and as such held lands in Guildford, which were afterwards
appended to his canonry at Salisbury, to be eventually resumed by
Henry II., and attached, with the castle, to the Crown. In 2 Henry II.
the king gave Godalming hundred and manor to the church of Sarum, in
exchange for the castle of Devizes and Rueles, or Erlestoke, then held
by the bishop of that see.
The Conqueror granted a large plot of ground, upon which much of the
modern town north of the castle and south of High-street now stands, to
a family of the name of Testard, who held it for several generations
by a singular tenure recorded in Blount, and are reputed to have built
the two churches of St. Mary and Trinity for the use of their tenants—a
fact which would go to show that the town was already standing within
convenient reach of these churches, of which one is still mainly
Norman, and of large area; and, further, makes it improbable that the
castle _enceinte_ ever extended far to the north, as the Conqueror
was not likely to have granted away any part of the older area. The
historians of Surrey estimate the population of Guildford recorded in
Domesday at 700 persons.
The internal evidence of the buildings of the castle makes it most
probable that the whole of it, keep, hall, and domestic buildings,
with its _enceinte_ wall enclosing above five acres, was constructed
by Henry II. very early in the reign; but the castle is not mentioned
in his reign, nor in that of Richard I. In the Pipe Rolls, the town
appears from time to time as contributing to tallage and other imposts,
and in 1 Richard I. the park is named in connexion with the canons of
Sarum. It also appears from the Rot. Curiæ Regis, 6 Richard I., that an
assize was held there. Henry II., probably when he built the castle,
seems to have formed a royal park on the opposite side of the river,
north of the Hog’s Back, the site of which is still indicated by such
names as Guildford Park, Wilderness, Stag Hill, and the Manor Farm, the
latter being probably the site of the royal lodge.
Captain James, who conducted the Ordnance Survey of the district and
paid great attention to the ancient boundaries, and to whose researches
much that concerns the castle is due, is of opinion that the area of
the park was on the north, west, and east, conterminous with the parish
of St. Nicholas, and that on the south it was bounded by the crest of
the Hog’s Back. This tract is said anciently to have contained four
manors, but at this time it is composed of three very ancient farms,
all within one manor.
King John, whose suspicious nature and feverish activity led him to be
always in motion, was at Guildford nineteen times in eleven different
years. In 1200 he kept Christmas here and equipped his household in
new liveries, which, to the king’s great but dissembled disgust, the
Archbishop of Canterbury proceeded to surpass in splendour. In 1202 he
was not here; but there is a charge for £6. 5s. 8d. for work done upon
the king’s houses, and £1. 6s. 6d. for the transport of wine, and 4s.
for the repair of the gaol in the castle. This is the first mention of
the castle, and it is curious that it is connected with its use as a
prison.
In 1204, John was here 9th October and 7th, 8th, 9th November; and in
this year £10 was paid for the repair of the king’s houses, and £40
for the expenses of his chamber. John Fitz-Hugh, sheriff of Surrey
and Sussex, 1208, 1210–11–12–13 and 1214, was then made keeper of the
park. In 1205, the king was here 9th, 10th, 11th of April; 1st August;
and 30th, 31st of October. On the 7th February, two tuns of wine, the
king’s prisage, were sent here, and 15th May, two hundred porkers went
from hence to Southampton, a supply of flesh to London, and a net to
Southwark.
King John was here 28th, 29th, 30th December, 1206, and in 1207,
27th, 28th December. In this year, 28th August, the sheriff of Hants
was to take certain prisoners from Sarum Castle and deliver them to
the constable of Guildford Castle. This is the second mention of the
fortress, and also as a gaol. In 1208, John was here 25th, 26th, 27th
January; and 5th, 6th, 7th April; and in 1210, on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd
January; and 8th March. Also in 1212, on the 12th, 13th, and 14th May.
In 1213, on the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th December, King John was here.
3rd January the custody of the county of Surrey, with the castle of
Guildford, was committed to Reginald, son of Reginald de Cornhill, to
be held during pleasure, and John Fitz-Hugh was ordered to give it up
to him. The Cornhills were a family of farmers-general of the revenues
of the counties south of London, and between 1164 and 1215 Gervase,
Henry, Ralph, and Reginald de Cornhill appear as sheriffs of Surrey and
Sussex then combined.