and probably the shell of Devereux Tower, and perhaps that of Bell
Tower, are at least as old as the reign of John; and that there is
great reason to regard the original Wardrobe and Lanthorn Tower and its
curtains, and the Cold Harbour wall and Gate towers, and the contained
palace, all now destroyed, as of the age of Wakefield Tower. Also, as
St. Peter’s Church existed in the reign of John, and was “apud Turrim,”
or within the walls, these, between the Bell and Devereux Towers, where
they pass close to the church, were also then existing. We should thus
have the wall of _enceinte_ of the present inner ward, from Lanthorn
Tower to Wakefield, Bell, and Devereux Towers, as the extent of the
fortress on the south and west fronts. The north curtain, now mostly
destroyed, seems to have been of the same date as is the east curtain,
though probably some of the towers upon these—the Bowyer, Jewel,
Constable’s Broad Arrow, and Salt—are of later reigns.
Then there was the ditch deepened and widened by Longchamp, with a wall
on the line of that of the present outer ward. The quay and the river
front, from Iron Gate to Byward, with St. Thomas’s Tower, were not then
constructed, nor was the Bloody or Gatehouse Tower. Probably the inner
ward wall abutted direct upon the river shore.
Henry III. began his reign in 1216, and the attention of his prudent
guardian, the “rector regis et regni,” seems at once to have been
turned to the Tower. In 1217 the sheriff of Essex and Herts is to pay
to Nicholas Rowland £10 for repairs of the king’s houses in the Tower;
to which is added, in the next year, £8. 9s. 11d. and £19. 9s. 11d.,
also to the same Nicholas. About the same time (2 Henry III.) 6s. 1d.
is paid for the transporting the king’s breastplates (loricas) to the
Tower; 3 Henry III., £9. 13s. 1d. is paid for repairs of the king’s
hall, and the broken wall of the chamber; and the houses within the
ballium of the Tower are to be repaired upon the view and testimony of
certain lawful men; and (5 Henry III.), at a cost of 17s., four tables
“ad mensam,” for the use of the king, are to be placed in the Tower.
The year before this (4 Henry III.), the Pleas of the Crown, in the
City of London, were heard before the justices in the Tower.
In 1221, Peter, Bishop of Winchester, was to have £11. 10s. for the
repairs of the king’s house, executed when the Tower was in his hands;
and Richard de Munfitchet was to supply Stephen de Segrave, the
constable, with timber of the best quality, from Havering, for planks
for the completion of the “jarellum” [jarolium, barrier] about the
Tower.
The king was there in person in these years, for his expenses for five
days there, in 1219, were £19. 1s. 7¼d.; and next year 100 marcs were
paid towards his expenses there during Lent, and 200 marcs repaid to
Pandulph the legate, then Bishop of Norfolk, advanced on the same
account. In that year, also, the king had at the Tower a supply of
10 lampreys, part of a debt due from the city of Gloucester to his
lamprey-loving father.
1221 was a busy year at the Tower. Many military implements and
stores, and seven cartloads of prisoners, were brought in by Alex. de
Sabrichtsworth, from Biham, the surrendered castle of Wm. de Fortibus,
at a cost of 5s. 10d. Henry was there 28th February and 5th March. The
next year also included several accounts connected with the siege of
Biham. The works were also continued. Stephen de Segrave had 30 marcs
for the repairs of the ballium wall; and Peter de St. Edward, with
Andrew Buckerell, the chamberlain, 70 marcs of the amerciament levied
on the London vintners, for works at the Tower. 8th December, 1221,
Nicholas Mazon, who made the well, had five marcs. Timber and materials
were sent in by the sheriffs of Essex and Bucks.
In 1222, 8s. 1d. was paid for the repairs of the wardrobe in the king’s
chamber at the Tower, and for making a chimney in the same, and 10s.
for a robe for Robert le Champenies, clerk of the works. Chimneys in
those days were not always flues within the wall, but shafts of wood,
or other temporary material, placed against it.
7 Henry III., 1222–3. The Close Roll credits Richard Benger and Thomas
Lamberde with £10. 12s. 1d., which they paid by the king’s precept to
Peter of Poictou and his companions, keepers of the works of the “New
Turrelle,” or turret, of the Tower of London, for the work of the said
turret. Mr. Hugo applies this entry to the Bell Tower; it may, with
equal or more probability, be applied to the superstructure of the
Wakefield Tower.
Pandulph the legate appears to have been custos in 1223, and in that
capacity entertained at the Tower John de Brienne, titular King of
Jerusalem, and the Grand Master of the Hospital, then in England to
promote a crusade. In this year the king acknowledged the receipt of
“unum austurcum” (a goshawk) at the Tower. John de Monmouth and the
vendors of “cableicium,” or underwood, in Dean Forest, out of the
king’s gift thereof to the Priory of Llantony, are to find 40 chevrons
for the repairs of the Tower; and the sheriffs of London are to restore
the “palum coram postico,” or “gallows before the postern” of the
Tower, and the gallows outside of the Tower. 26th May, 1224, the king’s
crown was lodged in the Tower by the treasurer.
The Pipe Roll of 9 Henry III., 1224–5, contains various entries
relating to the Tower:—34s. 1d. was paid for “pro husciis de cute et de
feltrio [housings of hide and of felt or compressed wool, or gambeson],
ad balistas Regis, etc., cooperiendas,” for housing the king’s balistæ
which are in the Tower; and for iron and steel (ascero) delivered to
the constable for the works there, 2 marcs. Also for charcoal (carbo),
for the king’s smiths’ work there, 8s. 6d.; and to Thomas de Blunvill,
50 marcs for the king’s works; and for charcoal for making the king’s
“quarells” (cross-bow bolts), &c., by “Thomas Faber” (the smith), in
the Tower, 8s. 7d.; and for mending the king’s houses in the Tower,
29s. 7¼d.
In the tenth year, besides the sum of 42s. and 3s. 11d., for charcoal
for works, Thos. de Blunvill received the value of £12. 3s. in six
caretatis, or cartloads, of lead, “ad novam turrellam turris Lond:
cooperiendam,” and four loads, value £8. 0s. 19d., for the same
purpose; so that the lead on the roof of the new turret cost at least
£20. 4s. 7d. At this time Blunvill had £40 per annum as custos.
In the two next years, 1226–8, 96s. 11d. was paid for charcoal, Thomas
Faber being the master-workman; and Henry Fitz-Alchi had 100 marcs for
the Tower works. For the three following years the rolls are silent.
In 1232, Hubert de Burgh had a fee of £50 per annum as constable; and
in 16 Henry III., 113s. 10d. was paid for iron, steel, and charcoal,
purchased and delivered to Roger le Smith, in the Tower, for making
quarells and other work.
In 1233, the Tower became the enforced residence of Isabel, the king’s
sister, until her marriage with the Emperor Frederick, in 1235; and
28th April, 1236, Henry adopted the unusual course of adjourning a
council of his magnates to the Tower. The assembly, as was to be
expected, was but thinly attended, and in consequence was further
adjourned to Westminster.
On 2nd March, 1238, 22 Henry III., the Liberate Roll contains an entry,
which is repeated as follows in the corresponding Pipe Roll:—“Et in
cameris Regis in turri Lond: reparandis et chimenee Camere Regine
perficiendis et uno spiro de bordis bono et decenti faciendo inter
cameram et capellam nove turrelle eiusdem turris prope aulam Regis
versus tamisiam xvi_li._ iij_s._ viij_d._ per breve, etc.” “And for
repairing the king’s chamber in the Tower of London, and completing
the chimney in the queen’s chamber, and for making a good and fitting
spur [partition] of boards between the chamber and chapel of the new
turret of the same Tower, near the King’s Hall, towards the Thames,
£16. 3s. 8d., by brief, &c.” This is one of the few notices of repairs
the precise place of which can be identified. The new turret is
undoubtedly the first floor of the Wakefield Tower, known to have been
near the King’s Hall and towards the Thames, and of which the chapel,
or oratory, still remains.
In the same 1238, 23rd November, the Liberate Roll shows the king to
have ordered the constable to cause the walls of the queen’s chamber,
“which is within our chamber at the Tower, to be whitewashed and
pointed,” and within the pointings to be painted with flowers; “and
to cause the drain of the privy chamber to be made in the fashion of
a hollow column, as our beloved servant John of Ely shall more fully
declare to thee.”
In the 24 Henry III. is a charge of £30. 16s. 4d. for purchasing and
conveying to the Tower “una navata,” or shipload, of marble, and four
shiploads of Purbeck marble, for the works of the Tower. It is only in
the cills of the two windows of the sacrarium of St. Thomas’s Tower
that Purbeck stone has been discovered in position; but much of this
material remains upon the rampart walks and in other places in the
fortress, whither, no doubt, much of it was imported in this reign,
and especially at this time, for the works then in progress, which in
1239 were considerable. A good deal of Kentish rag was used, and both
Ryegate and Caen stone for ashlar. Often the material for building
was brought a great distance. Henry II. and Edward III. used Egremont
stone for Windsor. Matt. Paris describes the treasury as well filled,
which unusual condition, and looming troubles of the realm, probably
disposed Henry to add to the security of his stronghold. The new works
were unpopular in the city, the citizens fearing, and not without
reason, that they would be employed in some way to their detriment. On
this subject they addressed a remonstrance to the king, who assured
them that the works were not intended to be employed to their injury.
“I only,” said he, “imitate my brother, reputed a wiser man than I, in
rebuilding my castles.”
It seems that a fine gateway and a wall were completed, but fell
suddenly on St. George’s night (23rd April), 1240, and were immediately
rebuilt by the king. A year later, in 1241, the same structures, or
as much of them as had been rebuilt, again fell down, and this time
the citizens found a supernatural reason for the event. On the night
of the second fall, says Matt. Paris, a certain grave and reverend
priest saw a robed archbishop, cross in hand, who gazed sternly upon
the walls with which the king was then girdling the tower, and striking
them sharply, asked, “Why build ye these?” on which the newly-built
work fell as though shattered by an earthquake. The priest, too alarmed
to accost the prelate, addressed himself to the shade of an attendant
clerk, “Who, then, is the archbishop?” “St. Thomas the Martyr,” was the
answer, “by birth a citizen, who resents these works, undertaken in
scorn and to the prejudice of the citizens, and destroys them beyond
the power of restoration.” On which the priest remarked, “What outlay
and labour of the hands he has destroyed!” “Had it been,” said the
clerk, “simply that the starving and needy artificers thence promised
themselves food, it had been tolerable; but seeing that the works were
undertaken, not for the defence of the realm, but to the hurt of the
citizens, even had not St. Thomas destroyed them, they had been swept
away utterly by St. Edmund, his successor.”
That night the priest told his tale, and next morning the walls about
the tower, built at a charge of about 12,000 marcs, were seen upon the
ground, to the surprise, but by no means to the grief, of the citizens,
to whom they had been as a thorn in the eye. Notwithstanding the
prediction of St. Thomas, the works were at once resumed, and this time
with complete success.
No doubt the wall and gateway were St. Thomas’s Water-gate and the
adjacent curtain along the south face of the fortress, and upon the
bank of the river, where the wet ground and the treacherous character
of the London clay, exposed more or less in the old city ditch and that
of Longchamp, would render the archbishop’s task an easy one. The story
may be taken to show that in 1239–40 Henry was engaged in extensive
works about the Tower, including the outer ward wall and tower, the
quay, and the present ditch; and the present works show that they
were of sufficient importance to be replaced, at whatever cost, when
destroyed by an accident. Probably the architect learned experience by
the event; for it is remarkable that no serious mark of settlement from
defective foundation has been observed either in the work of the outer
ward or in any other part of the fortress, and this is more singular
because part of the masonry must have traversed the line of the old
city ditch. This stability is probably due to the great breadth of the
foundations, and to the fact that the fortress contains no underground
chambers, the towers below the ground level, and sometimes far above
it, being solid.
The resumption of the works on the wall and west gateway did not lead
to the neglect of the royal residence within. 24th February, 1240, 24
Henry III., the king, according to the Liberate Roll, thus addressed
the custos of the works:—“We command you to cause the chamber of the
queen, in the aforesaid tower, to be wainscotted without delay, and to
be thoroughly whitened internally, and newly painted with roses; and to
cause to be made a wall [partition] in the fashion of wainscot between
the chamber and the wardrobe of the same, and let it be entirely
covered externally with tile; and also cause one great chamber in the
same tower to be entirely whitewashed and newly painted, and all the
windows of the same chamber to be made anew with new wood and bolts and
hinges, and to be painted with our arms, and barred with iron where
needful. Moreover, repair and mend all the glass windows in the chapel
of St. John the Baptist within the said tower, where necessary; and
repair all the windows in the great chamber towards the Thames with
new wood, with new bolts and hinges, and bar them well with iron; and
in the corner of the same chamber make a great round turret towards
the Thames, so that the drain of the last chamber may descend into
the Thames; and make a new cowl on the top of the kitchen of the great
tower.”
The Liberate Roll of the same year, January, 1240, orders “a mantel” to
be painted in the Tower, with a personification of Winter with a sad
visage and miserable contortions of the body.
And on the 10th December following (25 Henry III.) the keeper is
further ordered, “To repair the granary within the same tower, &c.,
and to cause all the leaden gutters of the great tower, through which
rain-water should fall from the summit of the same tower, to be carried
down to the ground; so that the wall of the said tower, _which has
been newly whitewashed_, may be in no wise injured by the dropping
of rain-water, nor be easily weakened. And make on the same tower on
the south side, at the top, deep alures of good and strong timber,
entirely and well covered with lead, through which people may look even
unto the foot of the said tower, and ascend, and better defend it, if
need should be. And also whitewash the whole chapel of St. John the
Evangelist in the same tower, and make in the same chapel three glass
windows, one, to wit, on the north part, with a certain small figure of
Mary holding her child; the other, on the south side, with the [subject
of the] Trinity; and the third on the same south side, with St. John
the Apostle and Evangelist; and paint the cross and beam beyond the
altars of the same chapel, and with good colours. And cause to be made
and painted two fair images, where they may be best and most decently
made in the same chapel, one of St. Edward holding a ring and giving it
to St. John the Evangelist. And whitewash all the old wall around our
aforesaid tower.”
From these orders, we learn that the chapel in the White Tower was
whitewashed, glazed, had three painted windows, and a painted beam and
rood behind the altar, besides painted figures, no doubt in fresco, on
the wall, of St. Edward and St. John the Evangelist. The great chamber
towards the Thames, being enumerated in conjunction with the chapel,
might be supposed to be the state-room in the White Tower; but “the
great round turret towards the Thames, with the contained drain,” could
not apply to the White Tower, nor indeed to any of the existing towers
on the Thames front. It may have been the Lanthorn Tower.
The White Tower is spoken of as newly whitewashed. This was no doubt
intended to make good any irregularities in the masonry, for 28 Henry
III., the tower at Corfe was ordered to be pargetted with mortar where
necessary, and the whole exterior to be whitewashed. It is not quite
clear what were the alures, so minutely specified, on the top of the
south front of the White Tower; probably a bretasche or hoarding, since
no other work would enable the defenders to see the foot of the wall.
It might have been supposed that at so great a height no extra defence
from missiles would have been necessary, and supposing the inner ward
to be taken, it would be from the higher ground on the north, rather
than on the south side, that the effect of archery or warlike engines
would be the greatest.
In this same 25 Henry III. Peter Bacun and Richard de Fresingfeld and
their fellows, keepers of the Tower works, had £36; also £24. 40d. was
paid for twenty breastplates and twenty halbergeons, purchased for the
defence of the Tower, and delivered to the constable. So important were
the works at this time that an order was made that “before closing the
Exchequer the barons were to audit the accounts of the custos of the
works of the king’s Tower of London.” In 26 Henry III. the chaplain
ministering in the Tower chapel had 50s. per annum.
Among the regulations in use about this time were several relating to
the legal position of the Tower, recorded in the Liber Albus. Thus,
when the Exchequer was closed, the mayor was to be presented at the
Tower, and the Pleas of the City with the crown were sometimes held
there; and when this was the case the city barons were to place their
own “janitors” outside the Tower gate, and the king’s janitor was to
be on the inside. They further had an “ostiarius” outside the door of
the hall where the pleas were held, to introduce the barons, and the
king had an “ostiarius inside.” The hall was no doubt the building
afterwards superseded by the office of Ordnance, and the entrance to
which is thought to have been by the modernised doorway close east of
the Wakefield Tower.
The next entry discovered is upon the Liberate Roll, 29 Henry III.,
3rd December, 1244, by which the constable of the Tower is ordered
to deliver to Edward Fitz-Otho as much lead as shall be necessary to
execute certain specified works at Westminster. It was in this year
that Griffith-ap-Llewelyn, in attempting to escape by a rope from his
prison in the Tower, fell and broke his neck. Griffith was corpulent,
and the White Tower whence he let himself down was lofty. His rope was
composed of bed linen and the like, and broke. 30th April, the king
publicly declares this unfortunate accident, and attributes the neglect
to the attendants, whose duty it was to take charge of the prisoner.
31 Henry III., 1246–7, the constable had sixty marcs for constructing
“quandam turrellam,” a certain turret; and next year forty marcs more
were paid for making a certain turret, a privy chamber, and other
works. 33 Henry III., fourteen cartloads of lead were purchased for
£32. 9s. 10d., and delivered to Peter Blund, the constable.
In 34 Henry III. the Pipe Roll shows Edward of Westminster and the
constable to have had sixty marcs for Tower works, and the keepers
thirty marcs for repairing and covering the king’s houses and for lead
for the works. Next year, 1250–1, ten marcs went for repairing and
covering walls and turrets, and £4. 8s. 6d. for two loads of lead for
the same operation upon the king’s houses.
37 Henry III., Adam de Lamburn, master of the Tower works, had £10, and
the keepers, also for works, £30, and Adam again £12, and next year the
keepers for works fifty marcs more. 39 Henry III., 1254–5, £22. 20d.
was paid for a house for the king’s elephant, 40 feet long by 20 feet
wide. This was a present from the King of France, and is said by Matt.
Paris to have been the first elephant seen north of the Alps. There
was also paid for repairs of houses and turrets, £59. 6s. 2d. Next
year, £52. 11s. 3d. was paid for works begun by the sheriff of the year
preceding, and for Tower shortcomings £37. 2s. 9d.; and 41 Henry III.,
£90. 14s. 9d. for stones for completing the already commenced Tower
quay, and for the Great Wardrobe and other deficiencies.
42 Henry III., 1257–8, two sums of 101s. 8d. and £4. 12s. 6d. were paid
for lead gutters and other repairs; and 43 Henry III., £36. 3s. 8d. for
repairs of the king’s houses, and for making a new stable and repairing
an old one, and gutters, and a “claustura,” or partition, for the same
tower, £17. 15s. 7d.
This was the year, 1258, in which, under the Provisions of Oxford,
the barons seized the Tower and placed in it Hugh le Bigod as custos.
There was in this year a brief,—“In emendacionem planchicii[8] turris
Lond: et turrella ejusdem turris versus aquam cooperienda, etc.” Henry
soon afterwards, by the permission of the pope, broke faith with his
subjects, and regained the Tower, where he was resident in February,
1261, and ordered 40s. to Theodore de Castell for iron for the King’s
Tower works, taken from him.
The circumstances of the country forced the king into active measures
for the conservation of the fortress. He spent Christmas, 1260, there
with his queen, and employed the money at his command in completing
the defences. Probably it was about this time that the water-gate was
ready, and the tidal ditch converted into a wet moat. Matt. Paris
mentions the efforts now made to strengthen the place, and how the king
at this time invited the citizens to swear fidelity to him, and to take
service in his army then mustering outside the city. He also again
named the Tower as the place of meeting for a Parliament to be holden
21st February, 1261, 45 Henry III.
The councillors did not respond to the summons. The king kept Easter
in the fortress, whither the bailiffs of Gloucester were directed,
18th March, to send up daily as many lampreys as they could take; and,
17th April, the bailiffs of Waltham were to supply 60s. worth of good
fine bread and loaves of four for a penny, and to send them to the
royal pantler at the Tower for the usual dole on Easter eve. Similar
perquisitions were addressed to the bailiffs of Barking and Dartford,
to those of Kingston and Watford, to the extent of 40s., and to the
mayor and sheriffs of London to £20. In all, £33 worth of bread was to
be distributed. There were also orders for 164 tunics on the part of
the king and queen, to be delivered to the royal almoner, and 21 tunics
on the part of the royal children; all to be distributed to the poor
according to custom. Henry remained at the Tower till about the 20th
April.
Prince Edward returned to England in that year, but did not act with
his father, whose advisers he distrusted. The king, however, seems
to have held the Tower, and kept Christmas of 1261 within its walls.
Thence, leaving John Mansell in charge, he went to Dover, and so by
Rochester to Winchester for Whitsuntide. There, however, the barons
prepared to seize him, and he retired to the Tower, where he remained
till October. Christmas of 1262 he again spent at the Tower.
After some time passed beyond sea, and a Christmas at Canterbury, Henry
failed to meet his enemies at Worcester, and returned, 47 Henry III.,
to the Tower, where, with his queen, Prince Edward, and the King of
the Romans, he consulted with the mayor and aldermen of London on the
subject of de Montfort, and soon afterwards with that nobleman himself.
One result was the placing Hugh le Despenser in charge of the Tower.
It was in this year that the queen, leaving the Tower by water to join
the prince at Windsor, was hooted at and pelted by the populace on the
bridge, and forced to put back. In the same year, John Sperling, at a
cost of £7, erected a “palicium,” or palisade, between the Tower and
the city wall; and two years later he had altogether £25. 10s. 3d. for
covering-in the king’s houses, repairing the king’s garderobe, &c.
Henry was again at the Tower in 1265, after the battle of Evesham; and
in 1268 the fortress, then commanded by Hugh Fitz-Otho, and containing
the papal legate, Ottobon, was besieged by Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester.
The Jews, who with their families had been harboured in the Tower,
contributed personally to its defence. Gloucester threw up earthworks
and attempted a blockade; but in May and June, Henry, approaching by
Windsor and Stratford, encamped there for two months, and, throwing in
a reinforcement, brought out the legate by the south postern towards
the river, and established him with the army at Stratford, forcing
Gloucester to sue for peace.[9]