bold, hardy, and aggressive races of men, having for their patrimony
the moor and the morass, the wild bleak upland which occurs on the
Scottish frontier, or the steep crags and rugged defiles which gave
strength and, in ordinary cases, impunity to the Welsh. The Scots,
indeed, came of the same stock with the English, and had recently
formed a part of the same kingdom, under the same lords; nor was the
land immediately south of the Tyne or the Tweed materially richer
than that to its immediate north. But the Welsh had other more potent
and better causes for their continual and ferocious transgressions.
They were the earlier possessors of the whole country, a possession
still attested by the names of hills and rivers, and, indeed, of many
of the chief cities of England. They were of an entirely different
blood and language from either Saxon or Norman: by the one they had
been gradually driven into the western and less fertile tracts of the
island, and the other held them cooped up and at bay within their
mountain fastnesses, and responded to their continual partisan warfare
by occasional invasions on a large, and, for the time, irresistible
scale.
Full in view of the Welsh mountains were spread out some of the most
fertile lands in Britain—cultivated, inhabited, and fortified by the
invaders, who, not content with the slopes of the Cotteswold and the
velvet meads on the left bank of the Severn, had pushed their conquests
far beyond the right bank, holding the stately ridge of Malvern and the
rich pastures of the Teme, the Lug, the Frome, the Worm, and the Wye,
even up to the Dyke of Offa. That dyke, still to be traced along much
of its length, between the estuaries of the Severn and the Dee, was
felt to be a perpetual mark of inferiority, an abiding affront to the
patriotic feelings of every Welshman. No marvel, then, that the Welsh
were ever insurgent, ever breaking forth with fire and sword into the
English territory, and especially into the most rich and, by nature,
least-protected tract of it, the fair county of Hereford.
Herefordshire was first subjugated by the Romans. Three miles north of
the city are the remains of a camp, probably British, covering about
thirty acres of ground, and now known as Sutton Walls, a little south
of which runs the line of the road which led to the Roman town of
Magna Castra, four miles to the west, and was continued onward in the
same direction.
At what precise period Herefordshire passed under the Saxon yoke, and
became annexed to Mercia, is unknown—probably under Creoda, early in
the seventh century. The see was founded in 680, when a synod was
held here under Putta, the first bishop. Sutton, or Southton, so
called from its position close south of the Roman camp to which it
has given its name, was at a very early period a residence of the
Mercian kings. Here, in the middle of the eighth century, resided the
celebrated Offa, probably during the construction of his dyke, which
passes about six miles to the west; and here in 794 was committed the
murder of Ethelbert, his intended son-in-law, a deed which led to the
aggrandisement of the cathedral church, to which Offa’s penitential
donations were largely paid. A charter of King Cœnulf, A.D. 799,
mentions Hereford, as do others by Deneberht, in 802 and 803, the
last recording certain “monasteria quæ olim in antiquis dictis ad
Herefordensem ecclesiam præstita fuerunt.” Sutton continued a Mercian
palace until the union of the seven kingdoms, under Egbert of Wessex,
in 827.
Edward the Elder, a great constructor of strong places, who repaired
the citadel and walls of Chester in 909, is said by Grafton also to
have fortified Hereford, erecting a strong castle there. His sister
Ethelfleda, a still greater castle-builder than he, and to whom are due
the mounds of Tutbury, Tamworth, Leicester, and some others, was the
widow of Ethelred, Duke of Mercia, in 915, when the Danes had advanced
by the Wye, and taken captive the Bishop of Archenfield. She attacked
and defeated them before Hereford, no doubt making use of the new
defences. She died shortly afterwards.
Early in the eleventh century, the Saxon sway had been so far
extended as to have left the Dyke behind, and Wales was regarded as
a part of England, and an attempt made to force it to contribute to
the common tax for the defence of the island against the Danes. For
this purpose Edwin, the Ealderman of the Mercians, led an army as
far as St. David’s, punishing the people for their refusal. At that
period, and during the reign of the Confessor, the Welsh were led by
Griffith-ap-Llewelyn, the ablest of their princes, and, indeed, the
only one who ever held the Welsh together, or gave the English cause
for anything like serious apprehension. Aided sometimes by the Danes
from Ireland, sometimes by traitorous Saxon chiefs, and sometimes
even by the discontented Normans, he is found during the first half
of the eleventh century waging on the whole a successful war against
Herefordshire. It is certain, from the number, magnitude, and character
of the existing earthworks, that Irchen or Archenfield, called from
its beech-trees “Trefawrth” by the Welsh, and sometimes by the English
“Fernley,” had from a very early period been inhabited by the English;
but either distrusting these, or because he wished to quarter afar
off the visitors whom he attracted, but of whom he was afraid, the
Confessor made large grants of land along this district to his Norman
courtiers, with whom, therefore, Griffith had not unfrequently to deal.
The earliest of these grants seems to have been made to Richard
Fitz-Scrob, whose fortress, built after a fashion till then unknown in
England, gave great and general offence. His original castle has been
replaced by later structures, now also in ruin, but the earthworks are
probably original; and the name of Richard’s Castle shows how deeply
the fear of its builders was impressed upon the people; and it is,
moreover, a very rare example of a parish bearing a purely Norman name.
These grants were opposed by Earl Godwin and his sons, and it was to
enforce his remonstrances against them that the English Thane led a
force from Beverstone, and challenged the Confessor to give up his
stranger favourites—a struggle which finally ended in the temporary
banishment of that truly English noble.
In 1052, during Godwin’s exile, Griffith invaded Herefordshire, and
advanced as far as Leominster before Fitz-Scrob and his Normans were in
the field to meet him. They were beaten in a pitched battle, and upon
open ground.
In 1055, the earldom of Hereford was in the hands of Ralph, surnamed
“the Timid.” Griffith, uniting with Ælfgar, the Saxon lord of the East
Angles, who was accompanied by an Irish force, burst into Archenfield,
and again laid waste the border. Two miles from Hereford, Griffith and
Ælfgar were met by Earl Ralph, who seems, with the Norman contempt for
infantry, to have placed undue weight upon his cavalry, the result
of which was a complete defeat. Griffith entered Hereford, which was
undefended, sacked and burnt the city, treated the cathedral and the
clergy with excessive severity, and destroyed what the “Brut” calls
the gaer, that is, the castrum or fort. The account seems to imply
that the city was not then fortified. Mr. Freeman thinks the gaer was
a work of masonry. However that may be, there is little doubt but that
it was a work on the site of the later castle, for by the riverside,
for defence, it would certainly be placed; and as the position of the
cathedral has doubtless always been the same, there would scarcely be
room for a fortress between its precincts and the western marsh. The
position of the bridge, too, is probably ancient, and this would lead
into the city, not into the gaer. The appearances of the earthworks,
as they existed before the removal of the mound and the filling up of
its proper ditch, much resembled those of Tamworth, and other works
attributed to Edward and Ethelfleda, and the gaer may well have been of
that date, so far as the earthworks were concerned. This inroad of the
Welsh in 1055 was the most severe and the most lasting in its effects
of any on record. All Archenfield suffered, and traces of the spoiler
are recorded long afterwards in Domesday.
Although Godwin’s return from banishment in 1052 had been followed by
the putting forth of most of the Norman intruders, Richard Fitz-Scrob,
one of the most offensive, seems to have remained, and long afterwards
to have put down Edric the Wild; and his son Osborn, after a short
exile in Scotland, came back to Herefordshire, and held office and
dignities both before and after the Conquest.
In 1055 Godwin was dead, and to Harold, as Earl of the West Saxons, it
belonged to redeem the disgrace incurred by Ralph the Timid. He lost
no time in preparation. In the course of the same year he mustered his
forces at Gloucester, and by his mere presence cleared Hereford of the
Welsh and Ælfgar. He at once fortified Hereford. Whether he restored
the castle is unknown, but he surrounded the city with a wall, no doubt
along the line of the later structure. Mr. Freeman supposes Harold’s
work to have been a mere “dyke of earth and loose stones,” Florence
of Worcester describes it as “Vallum latum et altum.” Domesday,
however, records a “murus” at Hereford as having stood in the time of
the Confessor, so that Harold, when Hereford came under his immediate
government, may, as Mr. Freeman suggests, have replaced his vallum
with a wall of masonry. Harold’s defences probably did not include the
suburb, which even then must have existed, since we read in Domesday of
burghers within and burghers without the walls; though the latter would
derive a not incomplete protection from the broad belt of marsh which
then surrounded the city.
Griffith had sought and received terms of peace. Nevertheless it did
not suit him to allow Hereford to become a strong post. Early in 1056
he again crossed the border. He was opposed by Leofgar, the new bishop,
who, however, was slain in the first combat. His successor, Ealdred—a
man of equal determination with better fortune,—held the Welsh in
check, and negotiated a peace, and the fortifications of Hereford were
completed.
In 1062 Griffith again appears upon the scene. Probably he traversed
Herefordshire, for he crossed the Severn in the diocese of Worcester.
On this occasion Harold—appearing, not as the defender of this or
that province, but of the whole kingdom—executed a counter movement,
and invaded North Wales. This was followed in 1063 by Harold’s great
invasion, in which Griffith was murdered by his own countrymen, and
Wales submitted, having deprived herself of her greatest son. It was at
the conclusion of this war that Harold employed himself in constructing
a sort of hunting-lodge for his sovereign in the low lands of Gwent, at
Port-skewet, where earthworks are still seen. The lodge was attacked
and destroyed while in progress by Caradoc-ap-Griffith-ap-Rhydderch, of
South Wales.
Hereford played no part in the Conquest; but the city and shire
occupy a respectable place in the Domesday Survey, where the customs
are related in great detail. The king had six moneyers there, and
the bishop one. Of the city burgesses 103 held of the king, and
twenty-seven had held of Earl Harold. All the tenants of the burgh were
liable to military service against the Welsh.
The customs called of the Welsh in King Edward’s land in Arcenefeld,
or Irchenfield, also there recorded, are curious, and show not only
the early existence of a local militia to resist the Welsh, but that
the people were mostly of Welsh blood, and were employed against their
countrymen. The king held three churches there, and the priests of them
were to be the king’s legates or ambassadors in Wales, and when the
army marched against an enemy, to the men of Archenfield was committed
the post of trust and danger. During the advance they were to form the
“Auantwarde,” and in retreat the “Redrewarde.”
Such, then, having been the antecedents of Herefordshire, it is not to
be wondered at that it bristled with strong places, nearly all of which
show indications of early dates, and in many may be traced the mount or
motte, which in England there is strong reason to regard as in favour
in the tenth century. Domesday, usually so silent as to fortresses, and
enumerating only forty-nine in all England, mentions in this county
eight, and two strong houses. There were, however, many more, and at
this day there remain traces more or less considerable of twenty-eight,
of which many preserve the mount, and others earthworks of an early
character. Similar works are found at Brecon and Builth, places known
to have been held by the English at an early period. No doubt these
strongholds, originally strengthened with timber, were burned again
and again by the insurgent Welsh; but the positions of most of them
were well chosen, and each had its surrounding estate, so that when,
after the Conquest, the great Norman barons marched into Wales, they
constructed upon these sites castles of masonry after their fashion,
of which a few remain, though many, having been destroyed, have been
rebuilt in the reign of Henry III., or later.
William’s arrival no doubt confirmed and extended any local power that
may have been allowed to Richard Fitz-Scrob and his son, under Harold.
Osborn, as sheriff, held Hereford, and either he or the first Norman
earl probably rebuilt the castle in the Norman manner.
William FitzOsborn, the great Norman chief, “Magister militum
bellicosus,” Earl of Hereford from 1067 to 1071, was a fearful scourge
of the Welsh, whom he drove back and vanquished on the banks of
the distant Rhymny. To him are attributed the castles of Strigwil,
Clifford, Wigmore, and Ewias—that is, the Norman part of them, for some
at least preserve older earthworks.
Roger de Bretuil, William’s third son, succeeded him in the earldom. He
plays no part in the history of shire or castle. Failing in rebellion
in the eastern counties, he ended his days in prison.
When Bretuil died is unknown, but in 1138 Hereford, commanded by
William Talbot, held out successfully against Stephen during a long
siege. The defence was much aided by Milo, the Constable of England,
who received the earldom of Hereford from Maud, in 1140, and it
remained in his family till the end of the century. Milo’s patent
gave him the moat, probably the “motte,” and all the castle. As earl,
however, he was unfortunate. Stephen returned and took the castle, and
wore his crown in state in the cathedral.
Roger, son of Milo, was in opposition to Henry II., but escaped by
the wise counsels of Foliot, the bishop. In the reign of John, a less
discreet or bolder prelate—Giles, Baron de Braose—united with Llewelyn;
but failing to bring over the men of Hereford to support him, died in
exile. The castle seems then to have fallen into the possession of the
Crown, and so to have remained. Prince John gave the custody of it to
Roger Bigod, and in the sixth of his reign as king, and in the seventh
of Henry III., William, brother to Thomas, Lord Cantelupe, and sheriff,
was also governor. The turbulent reign of Henry III. gave value to
the castle of Hereford. 15 Henry III., John Fitz-Terrick and William
de Stowe, surveyors of works at Hereford Castle, were allowed £20 for
repairing the walls. 16 Henry III., Terrick and Roger Carlton were
surveyors of mangonels and petards within the castle. 26 Henry III.,
John and Roger le Werrur were surveyors, and had spent £7. 8s. 6½d. on
artillery, and £12. 1s. 4d. in making a trebuchet called “Blythe,” and
£40. 14s. 4d. in building a tower in the castle. 42 Henry III., the
castle was in the hands of the sheriff, Henry de Pembridge, until the
barons forced the king to appoint John de Grey.
44 Henry III., Roger Mortimer was governor, and penetrated into Wales
as far as Builth. He was, however, in turn attacked, and held the
castle, though for a few weeks only, against Simon de Montford and
Prince Llewelyn. Bishop Acqua Blanca was taken and imprisoned at
Eardesley. Peter de Montford, the Earl’s son, had charge of the county,
and employed its issues in the repairs of the castle. After the battle
of Lewes, Prince Edward was a prisoner here.
Edward’s escape hence has often been related. Widemarsh, whence he
galloped off, still bears that name, and lies about a mile north of the
city.
During the whole of this time, from 1199, the title of Earl of Hereford
had been borne by Henry de Bohun, whose mother was a co-heir of a
previous earl, but neither he nor his celebrated descendants, Earls
of Hereford and Essex, although they held Huntington Castle and the
lordship of Brecknock, and built the Castle of Caldecot, ever seem to
have been seized of that of Hereford, which remained in the Crown.
Soon after the time of Edward’s flight, John le Werrur and William
Valet were surveyors of works for the king, at Hereford, and charged
£45. 6s. 10½d. for repairs of the walls and of the king’s houses.
William Capon also held lands at Marden, by the serjeantry of keeping
the door of the castle, and this, under Henry III., was commuted into
military service in the field.
Possibly the castle was employed as a local treasury; for, 1 Edward I.,
Henry Pigot held 46 acres _in capite_ by the tenure of transporting
the king’s treasure from Hereford Castle to London. In the same year
Richard Porter and Richard le Panner, surveyors, charged £21. 1s. 6d.
for expenses and repairs of the king’s house in the castle, and in the
next year they had fifteen oaks from the king’s forest of Haywood, a
mile south-west of the city, allowed for repairs.
2 Edward I., Giles Berkeley, sheriff, had spent £4. 15s. in repairs,
and in 7–8 Edward I., Roger Burghull, his successor, had spent £2. 5s.
4d. Hugh Turberville, one of a very unruly race, had, it appeared,
when sheriff, burnt and destroyed in the castle the king’s house, and
certain engines of war and military stores, to the value of £100. For
this he had a pardon, November 5, 48 Henry III.; but the debt remained,
and, 9 Edward I., the sheriff was ordered to distrain upon his goods.
12 Edward I., a new chapel was erected in the castle, and the barons of
the exchequer, by the king’s precept, allowed Roger de Burghull £10.
6s. 8d. on that account. 15 Edward I., Henry de Solers, a Herefordshire
man, had charge of the castle, with arms and stores. 32 Edward I.,
Miles Pychard charged 40 marks for repairs, which were disallowed
because not certified by the surveyor. John de Acton was governor, 33
Edward I.
1 Edward II., Alan Plukenet, keeper of the king’s forest of Haywood,
was to allow twelve oaks and stone for the repairs of the castle walls
and towers. Ralph Freeman held lands _in capite_, in Fromyngton, by
the service of carrying the cord round the castle walls when they
were measured. 5 Edward II., he paid half a mark for his relief, and
commuted future payments for 7s. 7d. per week. 10 Edward II., Hugh de
Hacluyt charged £5 for repairs.
13 Edward II., Sheriff Richard Walwyn charged £6. 13s. 6d. for repairs.
At the close of the reign the queen held a great council at Hereford,
and Hugh le Despenser, the younger, was hanged upon a tall gibbet,
outside Friar’s Gate. During the reign of Edward II., Wales was loyal,
and Hereford, therefore, neglected. John of Gaunt was its governor,
1 Richard II., but even his great love of building was not exercised
here. As late as 8 Henry VI., the city had a grant of timber to replace
the wall where wanting.
The castle lay unnoticed, and more or less of a ruin for some
centuries, until it became the scene of one of the struggles between
Charles and his people. It was first seized by Sir William Waller
for the Parliament in 1643, with the city, then also walled, and the
position of which is naturally strong. He retired from it before Prince
Maurice, but shortly afterwards, without stroke of sword, recovered
possession, again to retire, so that in 1644 it was still held by the
king. In 1645, however, its troubles began in good earnest. Leslie
and the Scots laid regular siege to it, and from the south of the Wye
opened a destructive fire upon the castle, cathedral, and bishop’s
palace. Sir Barnabas Scudamore, with eleven guns, held out stoutly,
beat off an attempt at a storm, and forced the enemy to be content
with a blockade. As the mills without the walls were destroyed, others
were extemporised within them. The Scots then encamped on Burtonshaw
Meads, close under the castle, between it and the river. Scudamore,
whose defences were out of repair, and his garrison weak, sent out for
country folks to assist as workmen. The enemy found this out, and,
entering under the guise of workmen, succeeded in taking the place.
Much injury was then done to the public buildings, and the castle, as
belonging to the Crown, and a ruin, was sold about 1652, for the value
of the materials.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENCES.
The castle of Hereford was one of the strongest, most advanced, and
most important fortresses upon the Welsh March, and one which, being
posted in a very fertile and open district, was peculiarly offensive
to, and very liable to the attacks of, the Welsh people. The present
remains are not inconsiderable, but, as is often the case with
fortresses of pre-Norman date, they are confined chiefly to earthworks,
and include but slight traces of the later defences of masonry.
The castle was placed upon the left or northern bank of the Wye, east
of and below the city bridge, the cathedral, and in some measure the
city, of which it occupied the south-eastern corner. Though excluded
from the city liberties, it is, in common with the city, covered at
some distance by a steep slope, at the foot of which lies the Yazor
brook, which, rising far off to the west beyond Kentchester, and the
remains of Magna Castra, supplied the broad tract of lowland still
known as Forster’s Moor, Moorfield, Canon’s Moor, Prior’s Moor, Eastern
Moor, Moor Barn, and Widemarsh, to the north-west of the city, and
which, after skirting its north front below Baron Court, turns Monkmoor
and Scult Mills, and finally falls into the Wye, at Eigne Mill, some
traces of which remain about half a mile in advance of, and below the
castle. The ground thus included is to the north-east, a broad and
dry platform of gravel, very fertile, and probably employed as a safe
pasture in wild times. The lower tract to the north-west, now drained,
and either cultivated or built upon, must, in former days, have been an
almost impracticable morass.
The city of Hereford, within its walls, was, in plan, about
three-fourths of an irregular circle, placed upon the Wye, which forms
its concave chord. Its dimensions were, north and south, 600 yards;
east and west, 770 yards; and along the river bank, about 600 yards;
including the cathedral and the castle. The total girth was about 2,350
yards. The walls—no doubt Norman—upon the older lines, were confined
to the landward sides, excepting about 50 yards above the city bridge,
and were in length about a mile and a quarter. They were pierced by six
gates—Wye Bridge, removed in 1782; Friar’s Gate and Eigne, on the west,
removed in 1787; Widemarsh Gate and Bye or Bishop’s Gate, towards the
north, removed in 1798; and St. Andrew’s or St. Owen’s Gate, on the
east, removed in 1786.