from Guildford to the Archbishop of Canterbury to replenish his park.
In 1214, 24th August, 53s. was allowed for the entertainment of the
Papal legate, then on his way to revoke the Interdict. Rochester and
Guildford Castles are mentioned together in this year as undergoing
some repairs.
In 1215, King John was here for a whole week from the 15th to the 21st
of January. His forces had been beaten at Bovines in the preceding
July, and he had come to Guildford from London, after receiving the
demands of the confederate barons agreed and sworn to at Bury. He was
probably at that time actively employed in obtaining support from the
clergy, in the hope of evading the great charter, which, nevertheless,
he was forced to agree to in the following June. On the 18th November,
John Fitz-Hugh, who again was sheriff, was ordered to give up the
castle to whomsoever Peter Bishop of Winchester should name to receive
it. It was probably made over to Reginald de Cornhill.
In 1216, John paid his last visit to Guildford, and remained there
during the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of April. In the June following, the
Dauphin Louis was here on his way from Sandwich. With Guildford, he
held Reigate, then a castle of the Warrens, and Farnham.
Guildford, both castle and park, are mentioned not unfrequently in the
reign of Henry III. In 1222, 19th November, £200 was paid for the royal
expenses going thither from London. In 1223, 19th January, King Henry
was at Guildford. 18th April, allowance was made for building a house
of alms in the king’s court there. This was probably an office for the
receipt of deodands, fines, forfeitures, escheats of felons’ goods, and
other moneys accruing from incidents of feudal tenures, and, it has
been supposed, appropriated to charitable uses. 14th May, works were in
progress on the king’s houses, and 27th May, Richard Dale had ten marcs
for repairs in the park; and again, in October, money was paid for
fencing it. In 1224, repairs were done to the king’s houses, and half
a marc paid for making a door. The fencing of the park was proceeded
with. In 10 Henry III., William de Coniers was governor for the king,
as were in 30 and 53 Henry III., Elias Mansel and William d’Aguillon.
In 24 Henry III., 4th April, the sheriff of Surrey was ordered to
repair the glass windows of the king’s houses and chapel at Guildford,
broken by the storm, and the houses unroofed thereby were to be
restored. In 29 Henry III., the vill of Guildford is mentioned as
vested in the king; the sheriff was to enclose the area by the kitchen
which the king had purchased, with a wall conveniently answering to the
other wall by which the said court is enclosed; and he is to repair the
two piers of the king’s hall, which need repair because they are out
of the perpendicular. In 30 Henry III., 3rd February, the sheriff of
Surrey and Sussex is to make “a certain chamber at Guildford, for the
use of Edward, the king’s son, with proper windows well barred, which
is to be 50 feet long and 26 feet wide ... with a privy chamber ...
so that the chamber of the same Edward be above, and the chamber of
the king’s noble valets underneath, with fitting windows, and a privy
chamber, and a chimney in each chamber. And he is to make under the
wall towards the east, opposite the east part of the king’s hall, a
certain pent-house, which, although narrow, shall be competently long,
with a chimney and private chamber, for the queen’s wardrobe; and to
make in the queen’s chamber a certain window equal in width to the two
windows which are now there, and as much wider as may be, between the
two walls, and as high as becomingly may be, with two marble pillars;
and to wainscote that window above, and close it with glass windows
between the pillars, with panels which may be opened and shut, and
large wooden shutters internally to close over the glass windows; and
to cause the upper window in the king’s hall towards the west, nigh the
dais, to be fitted up with white glass lights, so that in one half of
that glass window there be made a certain king sitting on a throne, and
in the other half a certain queen likewise sitting on a throne.”
In 40 Henry III., these decorations and alterations were still
continued, for on the 3rd January, the king being at Guildford, orders
the sheriff of Sussex to deliver £100 to the wardens of the king’s
works at Guildford, “to pay off certain arrears due for the same works,
and for wainscoting the king’s chapel, the queen’s chapel, the king’s
chamber, and the other chambers newly built there; and for making the
great windows in the king’s chapel; for barring the windows of the
king’s new chamber with iron; making the porch to the hall, of stone;
for painting in the hall there, opposite the king’s seat, the story
of Dives and Lazarus; making a certain figure with beasts on the same
seat; and lengthening the chamber of the king’s chaplain there.”
Also on the 5th May following, the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex is
ordered to whitewash the king’s hall at Guildford within and without.
On the 17th June, 45 Henry III., 1261, the king visited Guildford, and
doubtless examined and took pleasure in the various improvements and
decorations he had ordered. All this luxury was probably confined to
the hall and royal apartments in the middle ward, for an entry on the
Hundred rolls at the commencement of the reign shows that the Sussex
county prisoners were kept at Guildford, and no doubt in the keep.
In 50 Henry III., Prince Edward was at Guildford engaged in putting
down Sir Adam Gordon, a soldier who, having been outlawed after
Evesham fight, had turned freebooter, and made the Surrey woodlands
very insecure. Edward came up with and attacked him between Farnham
and Alton, took him prisoner in single combat, got him a pardon, and
presented him to the queen then at Guildford. At the end of Henry’s
reign, 52 Henry III., the “King’s Mills” were removed farther down the
stream, probably to the site now occupied by their modern successors.
Edward I. became possessed, in due course, of Guildford, and in 27
Edward I., 1299, the park, castle, and farm of the town were assigned
as part of the dower of Margaret, the king’s second wife, and on her
death, 10 Edward II., they reverted to the Crown. Edward was here, 20th
January, 31 Edward I., 1303, resting on his way from Odiham to Windsor.
In 35 Edward I., 1306, Henry de Say, keeper of the prisoners indicted
at the Sussex Assizes, and lodged in Guildford Castle, petitioned that
an officer might be sent to receive their fines and chattels, according
to their offences, and that a stronger prison may be provided, the
castle being insecure for so many prisoners. The answer, recorded
on the rolls of Parliament, is terse:—“Si carcer sit nimis debilis,
faciat, Custos, emendari; si nimis strictus, faciat elargari; quia Rex
non est avisatus mutare locum prisonarum suarum: vel saltem teneat eos
in vinculis fortioribus.” “Double iron the prisoners” was at one time a
usual, and certainly an economical, way of securing their safety. It is
probable that it was under these circumstances of great pressure that
the mural oratory in the keep was employed as a prison.
In the king’s circular to the sheriff, 1 Edward II., 1307, 15th
December, which was followed by the edict confiscating the goods of the
Templars, the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex was ordered to repair to
Guildford. In 15 Edward II., Oliver de Burdegala, governor, had a writ
of privy seal directing the castle to be victualled and garrisoned.
Guildford, 2 Edward III., 1328, was the head-quarters of the sheriff
of Surrey, who was ordered to go there to prevent tournaments from
being held. On the 8th March, 1329, the king was at Guildford; also
28th February and 26th December, 1330; 18th–20th November, 1331; 2nd
September, 1334; and 18th–24th April, 1336; so that the castle was in
not infrequent use as a royal residence. In this last year the king
granted the town in fee farm to the corporation, reserving only the
park and castle. On the 23rd April, 1337, 11 Edward III., the king
ordered that Robert d’Artoys should have a right to be hospitably
received should he visit the royal castles of Guildford, Wallingford,
or Somerton, and he might sport in the park at Guildford.
In the same year, 24th December, Edward was himself at Guildford, as
he was in 1340, and again 27th–28th December, 1347, in which year the
commonalty of Sussex petitioned that Chichester in place of Guildford
might be the county gaol. The petition was set aside, and in 41 Edward
III. the sheriff still held his official residence in the castle, which
was the prison, as before, for the two counties. 42 Edward III., 1368,
28th July, the king was here. 43 Edward III., the custody of the castle
and park was given to Helmyng Legatte for life. Edward was again here,
45 Edward III., 1371, on the 12th of May, probably for the last time.
In 1 Richard II. Sir Simon Burley was constable of the castle, and
afterwards Sir Hugh Waterton, on whose death, 10 Henry IV., Sir John
Stanley had the office also for life, and his appointment was confirmed
by Henry V. By that time the custody of the park was evidently an
office more coveted than that of the castle.
What occurred in the castle during the wars of York and Lancaster is
not known, save that it was the scene of no event of importance, and it
certainly continued still to play the ignoble part of a common prison,
for in 3 Henry VII., 1487, the old complaint is revived, and the
county of Sussex again petitions for a gaol of its own, and under its
own sheriff, suggesting Lewes as a proper place. This time the prayer
was granted, and probably the Surrey prisoners either then or soon
afterwards were bestowed elsewhere, though the two counties continued
long after this to be placed under one sheriff. As late as 1620 a
Sussex gentleman, Nicholas Eversfield, was sheriff of the two counties,
and the jurisdiction does not appear to have been finally divided till
1637.
Finally, in 1611–12, after having been attached to the Crown at least
from the days of Alfred, or 700 years, the castle and its _enceinte_
were granted by James I. to Francis Carter, of Guildford, who died
in 1617, and whose son, John Carter, is described as dwelling in the
castle in 1623. His eldest son Francis died in 1668, leaving a daughter
only, and it is his brother, the second son, John Carter, whose
initials, “J. C., 1699,” stand upon a tablet within and above the great
gateway in Quarry Street. The castle has since remained in private
hands, and is now the property of Lord Grantley.
The above extracts, mainly taken from those given by Mr. Parker in his
valuable volumes on Domestic Architecture in the Middle Ages, will
have shown that the fittings and adornments of the castle were chiefly
due to Henry III. That prince, who was a great patron of the arts, and
especially of architecture and painting, paid great attention to the
royal residences. Unfortunately, his decorations were for the most part
confined to the hall and principal domestic apartments, but few of
which anywhere have survived. At Guildford, the destruction has been
peculiarly sweeping, and the only remaining structure, the keep, does
not seem to have participated in the royal care. The keeps of Norman
castles, inhabited but rarely, and only during a siege, even by those
who built them, seem very soon to have been altogether deserted for
more convenient lodgings in the lower and more spacious wards. The keep
was then used as a storehouse or barrack, or, as at Guildford, as a
prison, and very little was spent upon its repairs, and nothing upon
its decoration. It is, however, in consequence of this neglect, that
the Norman keeps, where they have not been pulled down, remain pretty
much as they were originally built, or with only such additions as may
easily be detected, or such diminutions as may readily be supplied.
This is particularly the case with the keep at Guildford, the additions
to, or alterations in, which are of the rudest character, and may
readily be detected, while of the masonry of the original structure
little is wanting save the parapets and angle turrets and some details
connected with the approach and entrance.
Guildford Castle occupied a natural platform of nearly six acres upon
the slope of the chalk hill, far below its summit, and from 40 to
80 feet above the river. The platform, inclining gently towards the
stream, terminates at about 80 yards from its bank in a low cliff of
from 10 to 12 feet high, in parts replaced by, and in parts resting
upon, a steep, natural slope or talus, which dies away 40 feet lower
down into the meads traversed by the river. The crest of this cliff or
talus is occupied by Quarry Street, and forms the west front of the
castle. Towards the north, the river is more distant, and the slope of
the platform far more gradual. On this side, the High Street and the
present town of Guildford intervene between the castle and the river.
The keep stands on the eastern and highest part of the platform, and
commands the rest of the castle, as the castle commands the town; and
here are what appear to be the remains of the English residence. At
the foot of the steep, a mound, wholly artificial, but resting upon
an inclined natural base, has been thrown up, composed of chalk, in
form conical, truncated, and with a level summit, no doubt originally
circular, and still nearly so, and about 90 feet diameter. The base
is about 200 feet. Between the mound and the adjacent steep hill-side
is the main, and perhaps a trace of a second and outer, ditch. This
inner ditch, about 60 feet broad and 12 to 20 feet deep, sweeps round
the foot of the mound on the east, north, and south sides, the ends
dying out on reaching the platform on the west below. The ditch, always
dry, has long been cultivated as a garden, and was no doubt once
considerably deeper. Its north limb is partially built upon by the
houses in Castle Street, and is, in consequence, nearly obliterated. It
is traversed at the north-east quarter by a narrow causeway of earth,
which, no doubt, represents an older causeway of stone, provided with
a drawbridge, and forming a direct entrance for foot passengers and
perhaps horses, to the keep. Beyond this, the east and south-east, in
the extra-parochial plot called the “Bowling Green,” are very slight
traces of what may have been a second and outer ditch, a not unlikely
security to have been provided by the inhabitants of the mound against
an attack on this the weakest, because the commanded, side.
The mound on the eastern face, measured from the scarp of the ditch,
is about 30 feet high, but on the western side, where it rises from a
lower level, it is about 50 feet, or 92 feet above the river. The mound
and the ditch evidently supported and protected the dwelling of the
English lord, and it is probable that upon the platform below, where
the Norman king afterwards placed his hall and offices, were lodged
the serfs and dependents of the earlier household. Judging from the
close analogy of Leicester, Tamworth, Tutbury, and other earthworks of
known date, the earthworks of Guildford may, with great probability, be
referred to the earlier part of the tenth century.
The keep, a rectangular structure, covers the eastern slope of the
mound, but is placed a little to the south of its central line, so as
to allow of a gateway (now gone) at its north-east angle, and a passage
up the mound outside the north wall. The east or lower wall rests on
the undisturbed ground, a little above the level of the scarp of the
ditch, and the west or upper wall upon the edge of the level summit of
the mound, nearly the whole of which thus extends undisturbed to the
west and north-west of the building. The difference in level of the
base of the two faces of the keep is about 15 feet. It is exceedingly
rare to find a rectangular keep placed upon an artificial mound.
Guildford, Christchurch, and Clun are the only recorded examples.
The keep stands nearly by the points of the compass, measuring 46
feet north and south, by 52 feet east and west. The wall is perfect
to the base of the parapet, a height on the west front of about 63
feet. The masonry of the lower side contains more ashlar, and is of
better quality than the rest, to prevent the structure from slipping.
Of the depth of the foundations nothing is known, but the thickness
of the wall—at least 11 feet at the visible base—would serve to
distribute the load, and chalk, even when made ground, does not make
a bad foundation. There was, no doubt, a risk in placing so heavy a
building upon an artificial hill, even though a couple of centuries
old, but the result has justified the means employed, for there is not
a crack or mark of settlement in the whole edifice. Grose represents
some half-buried arches on the south side, not now visible, but which,
if they ever existed, which is more than doubtful, might indicate
that parts of the building rested on piers, carried down to the solid
ground. However, enough of the wall is bared to show that this is not
the case. What Grose took for an arch was probably a low course of
inclined or half-herring-bone masonry. Others have described an opening
on this side supposed to lead to a sub-basement vault which there is
no reason for supposing to exist. The machicolations cited in evidence
as defending this fabulous doorway are the vents of a garderobe in the
upper story.
The four faces of the keep are generally alike. Each is flanked by two
pilasters of 4 feet 6 inches wide, by 9 feet projection, so placed as
not to cap the angle, but to convert it into a hollow or re-entering
one. This hollow was left open, not filled up, as at Scarborough and
elsewhere, by a bold bead or engaged column. In the centre of each face
is a third and similar pilaster, but 5 feet wide. Probably these rested
below upon a plinth common to the whole building; but if so, this is
gone. Each pilaster is of equal breadth and projection throughout,
having no sets-off. The central pilasters run up to the base of the
parapet, now gone. Those at the angles were continued to form the usual
square turrets, of which some slight though clear remains still rise
above the curtain.
The material employed for the exterior is chiefly Bargate stone, from
the bed representing the chalk marl immediately beneath the chalk. This
is worked up as rubble, interspersed irregularly with courses of the
same stone laid herring-bone fashion, for which the larger and flatter
stones have been selected. The work is very rough. The herring-bone
courses are laid at all heights and distances; some broken, some mere
single inclined stones, and here and there, especially near the top,
are occasional courses of flints, some of which look like insertions.
The angles, salient and re-entering, of the pilasters, are of the
same stone, cut as ashlar and well jointed; but between these quoins
the pilasters are usually of rubble, sometimes herring-boned. Above
the parapets the angle turrets seem to have been of ashlar. There is
no string-course, shelf, or set-off upon the face of the wall. The
west-central pilaster, being pierced by the entrance, is mainly of
ashlar, as are the pilaster and adjacent wall, about the north-east
angle of the building, where the gate of the ward seems, from traces
in the masonry, to have abutted. Here, too, the joints being very wide
are made good with single or double rows of thin ordinary bright-red
roofing tiles. The base of the east face was repaired about forty
years ago, and now has a modern ashlar plinth of about 15 feet high.
The ashlar within reach on the other faces has been pillaged, and the
base of the wall generally is very hollow and ragged. The hearting of
the walls throughout seems composed of chalk and Bargate stone, very
roughly laid and grouted.
The walls are everywhere pierced with putlog holes, about 4 inches
square, indications of the method of construction, and probably
originally but loosely stopped to allow the work to dry and for the
convenience of future repairs. There are no large holes above, and
no signs of a bretasche having been employed. Four double windows on
the upper floor and one on the east face of the middle floor, though
original, have been fitted up with cut brick mullions and arches
of perhaps two hundred years ago, the work, no doubt, of the first
purchaser. All earlier alterations seem to have been effected in stone.
Having thus disposed of the general exterior of the keep, the next step
is to describe its interior details. Allowing for the removed plinth or
casing, three of the faces are about 11 feet thick and the fourth or
east about 14, so that the interior dimensions are 24 feet north and
south, by 27 feet east and west. The building is composed of a basement
and two upper stories, and the floors and roof were of timber. There is
no evidence of any subterranean chamber, and no reason for supposing
one.
The basement on the level of the top of the mound is about 12 feet
high. The walls are pierced in the centre of the north and south faces
with a round-headed recess 5 feet wide and about the same height to the
springing. The sides and roof converge to an exterior loop, and the
base is stepped up to it. The work is good plain rubble. The east and
west walls were originally solid, and the only entrance to this floor
must have been by a ladder and trap from the floor above. It was of
course a store or cellar, as usual.
At a later date, a doorway, 4 feet 6 inches broad and 8 feet to the
springing, has been cut through the west wall near the north end.
This has a slightly pointed arch. Its masonry is of small weak rubble
without any dressings; and this, and the absence of bond with the
older work, show it to be an insertion. In the north-east corner, the
wall has been rudely cut away to some depth to form a fireplace and
an oven. The bricks composing these have been removed, and a recent
pier of masonry supports the wall above. The chimney shaft of this and
a fireplace in the floor above have been formed by cutting away the
inner face of the wall, which has been rudely restored. No doubt all
this is the work of the purchaser, who seems to have lived in the keep
and converted the basement into a kitchen. In the south-west corner
is a small platform of stone, said to have carried a wooden stair
communicating with the floor above, and of the date of the kitchen.
This is probable enough. One of the stones is a late Norman capital,
brought from some other part of the castle. The whole interior of this
basement is rubble. It contained neither fireplace nor garderobe. The
two loops, its only light, are about 18 inches high, and were probably
4 inches broad, though now increased by weather to 6 inches.
The first or state floor was about 30 feet high, fairly lighted, and
contained various mural chambers. In the centre of the west side was
the entrance from without, and in each of the other three sides a
window. These were of two lights, or rather composed of two tall,
narrow, round-headed windows, coupled under one round head outside and
a similar recess inside. These recesses commenced about a foot above
the floor level, and are 4 feet 4 inches wide and to the springing
about 12 feet high. Their sides are parallel, not convergent, and
each contained four steps ascending towards the window. There are
no mouldings or decorations, but the quoins are ashlar. The window,
arches, imposts, and jambs are plain and good. The central window piers
or mullions are gone, but in two cases the small head arches remain. In
the third case, that in the east face, the window has been removed and
replaced by one in brick, but the recess is untouched.