1265, 49 Henry III., the king granted to Llewelyn-ap-Griffith, Prince
of Wales, the Castle of Hawardin, to him and the heirs of his body,
Hereford, 22nd June [N. Fœd. I. 457], but in 1267, 51 Henry III., by a
letter by the legate Ottoboni, Prince Llewelyn is at once to restore to
Robert de Otto Monte the lands of Ha Wordin, but Robert is not to build
a castle there for thirty years. Montgomery 3 Kal. Oct. [Ibid. p. 474.]
In the Inquisitions and Escheats are also some entries. From an
inquisition, 3 Edward I., Robert de Monte Alto is seized of the manor
of Hawardine, co. Cest. His possessions were extensive. They occupy
ninety-one entries in thirteen counties. [Inq. p.m. I. 55.] In the next
year, 4 Edward I., is an inquisition, whence it appears that the manor
was never settled in dower. Neither Leuca, wife of Robert de Montalt
the Black, nor Matilda, wife of Ralph de Montalt, nor Nicholaa, wife of
Roger de Montalt the elder, nor Cecilia, wife of Roger the younger—all
ladies of the Honour of Hawirdyn—were ever so endowed. [Ib. 60, Cal.
Geneal. I. 247.] 10 Edward I., 25 March, is an entry on the Welsh roll
concerning the pursuing and taking certain Welsh malefactors, who
took captive Roger de Clifford in the king’s castles of Hawardin and
Flint [Ayloffe, p. 76], and from the king’s writ itself of that date,
addressed to Roger de Mortimer, and given at length by Mr. Hartshorne,
it appears that the Welsh attacked Hawarden by night, killed some of
De Clifford’s household, and burnt the castle houses, and did much
the same at Flint. This outrage was repeated in the next year, when
(6 November, 1282) the justice’s elder son, also Roger Clifford, was
slain. [Foss’s “Judges,” III. 76.] The next entry in the inquisition
is one of 25 Edward I. on Roger de Montalt, whence it appears that at
that time, though he held Castle Rising, &c., the manor of Hauwerthyn
was vested in Thomas de Offeleye. This might, however, be as feoffee in
trust. [Inq. p.m. I. 134.]
From all this it may be inferred that there was a castle here which
Prince Llewelyn destroyed, and which Robert de Montalt undertook not
to rebuild. Such promises went for as little then as between nations
at the present day, and the castle that the Welsh took 10 Edward II.,
1282, was of course built or restored during that period. If Llewelyn
had found a keep of anything at all approaching in substance to the
present he could scarcely have destroyed it; nor does it seem probable,
from the internal evidence of the building, that the keep now standing
was the work taken by the Welsh, 10 Edward I. Its mouldings and the
plan of its upper floor point to a rather later date; and probably
it was the work of the last Baron de Montalt, between 1297 and 1329.
Cylindrical keep towers, of a pattern not unlike that of Hawarden,
though usually, as at Coucy, on a much larger scale, were in use in
France in the earlier part of the thirteenth century; and although the
unusual thickness of the walls in the present example might be thought
more in keeping with the Norman period, the general details, the
polygonal mural gallery and interior, and the entrance, evidently parts
of the original work, are very decidedly Edwardian.
Hawarden was finally dismantled by order of Parliament, in the time
of the Commonwealth, and the keep much shattered by a mine, sprung
probably under the doorway. It so remained until very recently, when it
was restored by Sir Stephen Glynne, the late owner, under the advice
of Mr. Shaw, of Chester. The task was one of exceeding delicacy, but
was executed with marvellous skill and complete success, so far as the
work proceeded. Enough remained of each part to give a clue for its
reproduction, and thus the gateway, portcullis chamber, much of the
well-staircase, most of the chapel, and part of the great mural gallery
have been restored just as they must have been left by the original
builder. At the same time the stone employed and the mode of dressing
it, will always indicate to the skilled observer which parts of the
work have been replaced.
The present access to the rampart is an addition in brick of the
last century, and might well be restored in stone. The view thence
is extensive, having in the foreground the park, which, for wildness
and sylvan beauty may well compare with any ground even on the Welsh
border; and beyond is the broad and fertile plain of Cheshire and
Shropshire, including the city of Chester, the rock and ridge of
Beeston, and, in clear weather, the Wrekin. In the opposite direction
are views, less extensive, of the estuary of the Dee and the peninsula
of West Chester. The Welsh view is inconsiderable, being cut off by the
higher ground.
HELMSLEY CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.
Helmsley, the Elmeslae of Domesday and the Hamlake of genealogists,
is the name of an extensive tract of wild moorland which lies on the
southern slope of the Cleveland Hills, in the north-east corner of the
North Riding of Yorkshire. The hills rise to 1,400 feet above the sea,
but Helmsley Moor hardly reaches 1,100 feet, and the town of Helmsley,
placed where the uplands pass into the plain, scarcely stands at 200
feet.
The real river of Helmsley, descending from the moors, is the Seph;
but after its union with the Rye, the stream and the dale bear the
name of the latter water, made famous by the Abbey of Rievaulx, about
four miles below which, sweeping round the well-wooded promontory of
Duncombe, the stream, returning somewhat upon its former course, forms
the southern boundary of the castle and the town.
The castle is barely included in Duncombe Park, part of its eastern
outwork being traversed by the border. Its position, if not specially
striking, is yet strong, and favourable to the works which rendered
it in former days almost impregnable. The low platform upon which it
stands is mainly of rock, and the labour employed has been rather that
of removing than of making ground, the ditches being wholly artificial.
Besides the Rye, which, where it flows about a furlong south of the
castle, has low and swampy banks, the Etton beck, close upon the east,
between the town and the castle, descends on its way to the Rye, at a
level which allowed of its waters being employed to flood the ditches
of the fortress.
The plan of the castle is rectangular, and its earthworks are upon
a scale not usual with castles of pure Norman origin, and which,
notwithstanding their form, raises a surmise that they may be of much
earlier date.
The main ward of the castle is about 200 feet square, level, and
contained within a deep and broad ditch, completely surrounding it. A
moderate bank of earth crowns the edge of the slope, partly, no doubt,
original, but in part composed of the ruins of the curtain.
Beyond the ditch, and forming its counterscarp, is a ridge or bank
of earth a few feet lower than the level of the ward, and therefore
commanded by it. This ridge, interrupted at the southern angle, so
as to communicate with the excavations beyond, is expanded upon the
north-west front and again still more considerably upon the opposite
or south-east front, so as to form a lesser and a greater barbican,
covering the two entrances to the place.
[Illustration]
Again, beyond the ridge is a second ditch, also encircling the whole
place, and passing, therefore, in front of the barbicans. This, in its
turn, is succeeded by a second or outer bank, also interrupted, and
in three places, at the north, south, and east angles. This also is of
variable breadth: somewhere, a mere ridge; in other places, as before
the two fronts, expanded into broad platforms, covering the entrances
and the approaches to them. Supposing these ditches to contain
either water or mud, the interruption in the banks would very much
increase the difficulties of those besieging the place, by breaking the
communications, and preventing them from attacking the barbicans by the
flanks. There are traces, outside this second bank, of a third ditch,
which, however, seems to have been confined to such points as were
supposed especially to need further protection.
[Illustration]
It is evident that an earthwork such as that described, covering above
ten acres of ground, and with ditches 60 feet to 70 feet broad, and
deep in proportion, would, in resolute hands, and properly palisaded,
be a most formidable stronghold. That such was the nature of the
defences contemplated seems certain, since the banks would not support
masonry; and although the edge of the inner ditch was of firm ground,
the bank or crest thrown up upon it was not, and had masonry been
contemplated, would have been superfluous.
When the Norman engineer undertook to fortify the place, he seems to
have confined himself to the construction of a curtain of 10 feet thick
round the inner area, placing it on the firm ground, and employing the
earth-bank as a ramp against the wall; to this he added a gatehouse at
each end, and a work of some strength as a barbican beyond the inner
ditch; then a second gatehouse, placed upon the barbican; and finally a
second or outer bridge. On the west side of the inner area, where the
rock was firm, a low cliff of 20 feet to 25 feet was substituted for
the slope of the ditch.
Besides the _enceinte_ or curtain-wall, the four drawbridges, and
probably four gatehouses, there seem to have been four drum-towers—one
capping each angle of the place. It is true that these are no longer
to be seen; but a circular heap of rubbish at each angle seems to
represent such towers which, indeed, were the usual and necessary
constituents of such a work, though whether these towers were of the
Norman period may be doubted: probably they were later.
In addition to these works, and reared up high above them all, was the
rectangular keep, placed near the centre of the east or town side, and
upon and forming a part of the _enceinte_. Opposite to the keep, and
also forming a part of the _enceinte_, but on the west side, and built
therefore upon the edge of the cliff, were the domestic buildings,
some parts of which remain mixed up with later works. It may be also
seen that a cross curtain between the keep and the domestic buildings
divided the ward into a northern and a southern court, and it would
seem that a fragment now standing, and which has much the air of having
been part of a chapel, was connected, as at Knaresborough, with this
wall.
The keep appears to have been a square of 53 feet, and although about
9 feet of it are buried in earth and rubbish, it still rises to about
90 feet. Rather more than the outer or eastern half has been blown up,
and has fallen into the ditch, and what remains has suffered much from
alterations and additions. It is built in rubble of a very ordinary
description, but with quoins and dressings of ashlar. The plinth, if
one there be, is of course concealed. The walls are plain, 9 feet
thick, having neither string nor set-off, and but one low pilaster
buttress, which rises to the first floor only, and is placed upon the
west end of the north wall, to give strength to an interior stair. At
the two remaining angles are nooks, but not intended to carry shafts or
beading.
The original tower was composed of a basement and first floor, about 70
feet high, or, as now seen, 60 feet. There remains within, against the
west wall, a not very high-pitched weather-table, which shows, as at
Porchester and Richmond, where the roof abutted against the wall as a
gable. The wall was carried all round, high enough to conceal the roof.
The west angle contains a well-staircase, which rose from the basement
to the first floor. The door into the basement is buried, but the line
of the steps in the wall points downwards. A breach has been effected
in the west wall exposing the staircase, and seems to occupy the place
of a loop.
In the west wall of the basement are two acutely-pointed recesses,
terminating in square-headed loops; and in the south wall is a doorway,
of 5 feet 6 inches opening, also under an acute arch. It is possible
that this basement was vaulted, though it is more probable that the
covering was of timber.
The first floor was originally lighted by three windows, in early
pointed recesses, of different sizes and heights, and above the
central recess, which was placed lower, to give place for it, are a
round-headed recess and a window, placed in the angle of the gable.
The three lower windows have been replaced by three lancets, and the
recesses reduced in height and proportion to suit. The later arch is
handsomely ribbed. It is uncertain how the first and main floor was
covered over. In the north wall are seen the springing-stones of three
ribs, evidently part of a vault; but near them is a short table, with
four corbels, possibly connected in some way with the stair-entrance.
Also there are fragments of two ribs in the west wall, so that the
arrangements of the vaulting are obscure. The ribs mentioned are
plainly chamfered, and may be early English, or later. An addition of
about 30 feet has been made to the original keep, giving it an upper
or second floor. In the west wall of this addition is a pointed window
in a segmental recess, resting on the old masonry. In the north wall
is another pointed window and a fireplace. There is a loop towards the
south; but this part of the wall, both inside and out, is obscured
by ivy. In the wall of this floor, cutting the line of the windows,
is a corbel-table, the corbels cut somewhat into the shape of heater
shields. This must have supported the roof, but have interfered
seriously with the windows. How this story was reached does not appear;
probably by a well-stair in the wall, now destroyed, a point which
could, no doubt, be ascertained by uncovering the fragments in the
ditch. The upper wall seems as thick as that below; and it is curious
that there are no traces visible of mural galleries or chambers.
The battlements remain perfect, so far, at least, as are the walls they
crown. The embrasures are of moderate size, and the merlons broad, and
the running moulding is carried round the whole. At each angle is a
square turret, rising about 10 feet above the curtains. These turrets
rest upon a light bracket outside, and each of the outer faces is
flanked by two light, slender buttresses, in tabernacle work, resting
below upon brackets, and, no doubt, once ending above in delicate
finials. In each face is a single embrasure. Of course, all these are
additions.
The question of the entrance to this keep is obscure. There remain
three doors, any one of which would serve. That on the ground floor to
the south; a small round-headed door at the first floor level to the
north; and a third door, in the same wall, a little lower down, leading
into the well-stair. There are, however, indications that none of these
was the real entrance. Against the south wall are traces of attached
masonry, probably of a forebuilding, containing and covering the
entrance, which in that case would have been in the south wall near the
east end, a part now destroyed. The staircase seems to have commenced
against the south-west end of this wall, and to have passed over the
present door, which probably, as at Rochester, opened into a cell below
the staircase of the forebuilding. This conclusion is strengthened by
the presence of seven holes in the keep-wall at the rampart level,
evidently to carry a brattice commanding the staircase below. Also,
high up in the same wall, there projects a mass of ashlar, which may
very well have been part of a machicolation, overhanging the door at
the stair-head: arrangements similar to these are not uncommon in keeps
of this pattern. Of the other doors the small round-headed one may very
well have opened upon the ramparts as at Clitheroe; and that which is
let into the well-stair, now closed and converted into a loop, looks
rather of a Decorated character, and may be an insertion, and may have
led into some annexed building now destroyed. At the period when this
tower was built there was no longer that extreme caution in allowing no
more than one entrance to the keep.
It would seem that the original keep was late Transition or pointed
Norman, and therefore might well have been built, as supposed, by
Robert de Ros, surnamed Fursan, who held the lordship from 1184 to
1226, and probably completed the work before 1200. Then came the
alteration in the first floor in a most decided early English style,
and therefore probably by Robert de Ros, Fursan’s grandson, who married
the heiress of Belvoir, and flourished between 1257 and 1285. Then
followed the addition of the upper story, and of the battlements and
turrets, all rather late Decorated. This might well be the work of
William de Ros, who held Helmsley from 1317 to 1342, to whom, in 1337,
was granted the tower built by Edward II. in London, near Baynard’s
Castle, and which seems to have stood on the bank of Fleet-ditch, where
some ancient foundations were recently laid open in the formation of
the new street. This he was to hold as appendant to his Castle of
Helmsley.
The domestic buildings standing opposite to the keep are composed
of two blocks. One a square mass of great height, and with walls of
considerable thickness, has traces of transition Norman or early
English work, but has undergone alteration in the Decorated period,
and finally in that of the sixteenth century. The other or northern
building may be on early foundations, and probably is so, but its
fittings are of the sixteenth century, and probably the work of the
Earl of Rutland, whose armorial bearings are embossed in plaster on a
deep cornice and on the panelled ceiling, all now in the last stage of
decay.
The northern gatehouse, and any structure that may have stood upon the
smaller barbican, have disappeared utterly from sight, though probably
their foundations could be laid open. To the south there is more to
be seen. The inner gatehouse indeed is ruined, and nothing is visible
above the rubbish save the outline of the western jamb, which shows a
portcullis groove and rebate for folding-gates.
The outer gatehouse and its barbican form a very remarkable work.
This barbican is, as has been stated, an expansion of the bank which
surrounds the inner ditch. It is here above 80 feet broad, and long
enough to cover completely the southern front of the place. The
gatehouse, like that behind it, is much nearer to the east than to the
west end of the work. It is composed of two small round turrets, and
two large drum-towers flanking the portal. On either side of these
extend the curtains, which terminate in a pair of large drum-towers,
which flank and close the outwork.
The gatehouse is tolerably perfect on the ground floor. The upper story
is in ruins. The portal, about 32 feet deep, is vaulted throughout at
different heights and with arches of different curves. It was defended
by a portcullis and a pair of gates. The outer portal is handsome and
peculiar. It is of about 10 feet opening, and shoulder-headed, the
shoulders being worked brackets. Above is a pointed arch of relief, and
the tympanum between the two is composed of stones joggled together
with great neatness. Above is a good flat-topped Decorated window of
two lights trefoiled. Traces of the chain-holes for the bridge are
seen in the spandrels of the portal. The gatehouse is evidently of
two periods. All behind the portcullis groove is original, either
late Norman or early English. The groove with all before it is late
Decorated, probably of the age of the upper story of the keep.
Much as the buildings of this castle have suffered, it is curious that
the piers, counter-piers, and bridge-pits of the four bridges should
remain quite perfect, and all of excellent ashlar. The inner, or pier
from which the bridge dropped, is from 9 feet to 12 feet long, and
the pit across which it dropped of 12 feet opening. The counter-pier,
upon which the bridge dropped, is much longer, from 40 to 45 feet, and
as this long and exposed causeway was but 12 feet broad, any body of
enemies approaching by it would be placed at a great disadvantage.
It is difficult to form an opinion upon the age of the earthworks of
this castle. Either the Romans or the Normans might have laid out an
earthwork on a rectangular plan, but when either people desired to
construct a place of excessive strength, they employed masonry rather
than earthworks. The Saxons and early English, on the other hand,
though much given to employ defences of earth, and often upon an
immense scale, are not known ever to have made them rectangular. What
was the practice of the Romanised Britons, who, inheriting something of
Roman arts and military rules, might also well have derived from their
Celtic forefathers a taste for works in earth, is not known. Such a
fortification as the present may possibly be in part their work. Of
course, it is possible that the whole may have been the work of Robert
Fursan, especially as, remarkable as it is, it is not named in Domesday
nor any early record.
Helmsley appears, as has been stated, in Domesday as “Elmeslae, in
the wapentake of Langeberg.” It is now in that of Ryedale; but that
this is the place meant seems certain, from its entry in company with
Sprostune, now Sproxton, one of its townships, and Harun, now Harome, a
chapelry in the parish. The entries are of a very ordinary description.
The tenants are—“In Sprostune Turloge Normand et Sortcolf; in Elmeslae,
tres Taini; in Harum Sortcol.” When these holders were swept away
and who succeeded to them, is not known; but, according to Dugdale,
Helmsley was held in the reign of Henry I. by Walter L’Espec, a very
famous baron. He appears as connected with Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, and
Carlisle, in the Pipe-roll of 31 Henry I., 1130–1; and having lost his
only son by a fall from his horse, he founded the abbeys of Kirkham
and Rievaulx in Yorkshire, and Wardon in Bedfordshire. L’Espec was a
Norman, and held estates in Normandy, but when or how he came over is
not recorded. A certain William Spech is recorded in Domesday as a
great tenant in Bedfordshire, and he may be the father of Walter, who
had lands there. He died in 1153, and in 1157–8 Walter de Bussei is
found moving against Robert de Ros for the partition of this estate.
Who this Robert de Ros was is uncertain. Adelina, Walter’s daughter and
co-heir, married Peter de Ros, who in her right was of Helmsley, or, as
it was always called, Hamlake.
Peter de Ros, whose name was derived from his lordship of Ros, in
Holderness, was, by Adelina, father of Everard de Ros, who appears in
the Liber Niger as the tenant _in capite_ of several Yorkshire fees,
which no doubt included Helmsley, as many of the tenants’ names are
local, as Hairun, Spouston, and Stainesgrave. Everard, being under age,
was then in the wardship of Ranulph de Glanvill. He died before 1186,
and was succeeded by his son Robert, third Lord of Hamlake, surnamed
Fursan, one of the Magna Charta barons, and the reputed builder of
Helmsley Castle. He died as a Templar, and his effigy is still pointed
out in their church in London.
Robert de Ros, his grandson, who probably executed the earliest
additions to the work of his grandfather, married Isabel d’Albini,
heiress of Belvoir.
From them came William de Ros, seventh lord of Hamlake, who died
1342–3, and probably completed the keep and the outer gatehouse and
barbican at Helmsley. With his descendant, Edmund, fifteenth lord, the
male line failed, and Helmsley passed with his sister and co-heiress
Eleanor, to Sir Robert Manners, or rather to their son, George Manners.
His descendant, Francis Manners, sixth Earl of Rutland, became Lord
Ros of Hamlake by patent, which, however, died with him, as he left
a daughter only, Katherine, who married George Villiers, Duke of
Buckingham, whose son dissipated the estate, which, at his death, was
sold to the ancestor of the present owner. The barony of Ros, or Roos,
of Hamlake, was called out of abeyance, but exists quite separated from
the castle or estate.
HEREFORD CASTLE.