space inclosed within a mound, and probably intended for the protection
of cattle. East of the moat are various holes and ruined inclosures,
the former probably old places for burning lime, and the latter
shepherds’ huts and folds.
This castle, in 1833, was partially excavated by Lady C. E. Guest,
when a metal seal was discovered in an adjacent field. The legend is,
S . INON . FILI . HOWEL . GOR .; but the names of Einon and Howell
are exceedingly common in Glamorgan pedigrees, and the concluding
abbreviation, no doubt a distinguishing cognomen, has not been
explained, unless it may be read “Goch” or “the Red.” Coins have also
been occasionally picked up. Very recently there were found together
several silver pennies of Edward I., and one of Alexander I. of
Scotland.
The castle at this time is a ruin, only the mere outline of the walls,
and the _débris_ of the towers remaining. The keep alone is above
ground. The foundations are, however, tolerably perfect, and have been
excavated and traced very recently with a view to the annexed plan.
There is reason, from the disposition of the rubbish, to infer that
the walls and towers were regularly pulled down from the top, and not,
as usual in later days, blown up; so that the castle was probably
deserted and dismantled at an early period. Mr. Stephens, whose general
authority is in this instance strengthened by accurate local knowledge,
was of opinion that this castle was never completed; and this may
certainly have been the case.
In the course of the recent excavations a few discoveries were made.
The oven was before unknown, as were the staircases of the two eastern
towers, and the chambers in the wall of the upper story of the keep,
and in the western wall. Very many cut stones, parts of door and
window-cases, brackets, &c., were dug up, but all were perfectly plain,
having only the chamfer moulding.
The brothers Buck engraved a view of Morlais from the north-west in the
last century, which shows the keep, and a small part of the curtain, in
a much more perfect state than at present.
The details of Morlais, though good, are, as became an obscure castle,
so bare of ornament that it is difficult to refer the building to
any precise date. Still the general proportions of the openings, the
character of the crypt, and, perhaps, the general plan of the building,
point with tolerable certainty to the latter period of the early
English style, or the close of the thirteenth century, as about the
time of its construction.
The history of Morlais is scanty, but it corroborates the internal
evidence supplied by its architecture, and connects it with one of the
most remarkable legal struggles between the Crown and the lords of the
Welsh marches.
It appears from the public records that, towards the middle of the
reign of Edward I., a quarrel arose between Gilbert de Clare, the Red
Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, Lord of Glamorgan, and Humphrey de
Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, Constable of England and Lord of
Brecknock. Both were powerful peers, and De Clare, during the quarrel,
had married, 29th April, 18 Edward I., 1290, Joan, the king’s daughter,
while De Bohun’s wife, Maud de Fienles, was of kin to the queen. De
Clare was the elder, and had the wardship of De Bohun.
The cause of quarrel was a castle, which De Clare had built upon his
frontier, and, it was said, upon land belonging to De Bohun. That
Morlais was the disputed castle is certain from the general tenor of
the evidence, and from the mention of Penderyn Church, which is near to
no other fortified place to which the particulars given would apply.
The trespass was the subject of a suit at law, and the king in
Parliament, eight days before the Purification of the Virgin, 18 Edward
I. (25th of January, 1290), gave a formal order to the two earls to
abstain from hostilities. This order they disobeyed, and the new
offence, of a far more serious nature than the original one, was at
once noticed by the king, and the proceedings upon it are recapitulated
with great minuteness in the parliamentary record, made on the occasion
of the sentence, on the 7th January, 20 Edward I., 1292.
It appeared from the complaint of De Bohun, that De Clare’s retainers,
headed by William de Valers, Richard le Fleming, and Stephen de
Cappenore, with horse and foot, and the earl’s banner of arms
displayed, had made three forays into Brecknock.
The first time, on Friday (3rd February) after the Purification, 1290,
marching from the contested ground, they entered two leagues; the
second time on Monday (5th June), before St. Barnabas, five leagues;
and the third time, on Monday (27th Novem.), before St. Andrew, they
entered seven leagues.
In these incursions they lifted and carried home 1070 head of cattle,
50 farm horses and colts, and sheep, goats and swine unnumbered. Also
they wasted the land, and killed several people. The damage was rated
by a jury at £100. Of the spoil, De Clare, according to the custom of
marcher war, received one-third.
On other occasions, following this example, the loose rogues, “latrones
et esketores,” of the district, perhaps some of those who gave name to
“Bwlch-y-Lladron” above Aberdare, and “Rhyd-y-Milwr” above Rhymney,
repeated the forays; and, besides other outrages, burned the house of
“Tyraph,” and the church of Penderyn, taking from the latter a chalice,
certain ornaments, and other matters. The earl and his captains were
not charged with any knowledge of, or share in, these robberies or
sacrileges.
It seems probable that the league (leuca) was not above an English
mile, and that their depredations were confined to the south side of
the Beacons. If so, that tract of country must have been at least
as well stocked as it is now. And it may be doubted whether the
modern church of Penderyn, with its hassocks and cassocks, and old
prayer-books, would yield as much to any modern “esketores.”
Upon the receipt of this complaint, the king appointed by letters
patent William de Luda Bishop of Ely, whom Nicholas calls Lord
Chancellor (a statement unconfirmed by the very accurate Foss),
William de Valence the king’s uncle, John de Mettingham the honest
Chief Justice, and Robert de Hertford one of the judges of the Common
Pleas, to inquire into the matter, and especially as to whether the
outrages were committed after the royal inhibition. They were to summon
witnesses from the counties of Hereford, Caermarthen, and Cardigan, and
the parts of Gower, Ewyas, and Grosmont, and they were to report to the
king by fifteen days from Easter (22d April), 1291.
The sheriff of Berkshire was to summon the Earl of Gloucester, and
Robert de Typetoft, justiciary of West Wales, was to summon his
captains. The sheriff of Hereford, the justiciary, Geoffrey de Genville
and Theobald de Verdun bailiffs of Ewyas, and Edmund the king’s
brother’s bailiff of Grosmont, were to provide the jury. Strathwelly,
in Brecknock, was to be the place; and the Monday (12th March) after
Quadragesima the time of meeting. Also, to prevent any collusion, the
inquiry was to proceed, even should one of the parties withdraw.
The following magnates were also summoned by the king as jurors: John
de Hastings, John Fitz-Reginald, Edmund and Roger Mortimer, Theobald
de Verdun, John Tregoz, William de Braose, Geoffrey de Cammill (no
doubt “Camville,”), and Roger Pycheworth, together with the king’s
Welsh seneschals, and his brother’s seneschals of Monmouth, Grosmont,
Skenfrith, and Whitecastle. Also were summoned the sheriffs of Hereford
and Gloucester, and the seneschal of Crickhowel, so as to provide a
jury of twenty-four knights and others. The preparations were not
unsuitable to the rank and power of the offenders, and to what it is
clear our English Justinian regarded as the excessive heinousness of
the offence.
On the appointed Monday, Hastings, then Lord of Abergavenny, and his
companions, met the commissioners at Brecknock, and were adjourned to
Wednesday, at Laundon; but the commissioners proceeded the same day to
Strathwelly, which they reached about three o’clock.
The Earl of Hereford was punctual, but Gloucester and his captains were
not forthcoming, though the sheriff and Typetoft proved their summons.
It was, perhaps, the probability of this contumacy that had caused the
previous adjournment to Laundon, to which place the commissioners next
proceeded.
Here, his opponents being still absent, the Earl of Hereford stated his
complaint, and demanded an inquiry. Upon this the magnates were called
upon to swear, placing their hands upon the book. Hastings and the rest
unanimously refused compliance. Their ancestors, they said, in those
parts, had never heard of a compulsory oath, except in certain march
affairs, sanctioned by custom. They were admonished that the king’s
power was supreme, but they still, each for himself, declined, without
consulting their peers.
The excuses of certain jurors were next stated. De Braose did not
appear, because his lands were in the king’s hands. Pycheworth was
a name unknown; but Pychard, who came, was not received. Genville
had enfeoffed his son Peter with his Welsh lands. The seneschal of
Abergavenny had received no summons. Certain Crickhowell jurors came
unsummoned, as their seneschal testified. Roger de Mortimer held his
Welsh lands under the Earl of Hereford, and of course could not act;
and Edmund’s lands were far off, so no summons had found its way
thither. From Tregoz and Camville came neither jurors nor seneschal.
The inquisition then proceeded, and the jury found that the three
forays had occurred, and the robberies, &c., as stated; but that John
de Creppyng, who had been indicted as a captain, had not been present
in person, but had sent his men, and shared the booty.
Before the commission broke up, the charge to the earls to keep the
peace was repeated.
The next step, the commission having apparently reported, was taken
by the king in council, who summoned the two earls to appear at
Ambresbury, on Monday (3rd September) preceding the Nativity of the
Virgin. Thither accordingly they came; and as it was well known that
there had been new and repeated breaches of the peace, the matter had
become still more serious. With a view to fresh evidence on this point,
the king further adjourned the inquiry to Abergavenny, where he, his
council, the jurors, and the two earls, finally met about Michaelmas.
The Earl of Hereford was asked whether he had disobeyed the royal order
either before or since the Laundon meeting; but the Earl of Gloucester,
having absented himself, was taken as guilty of the former charge, and
invited to meet only the latter. To this he pleaded not guilty; but
he was permitted to take objections to the former judgment, and, by
special favour, to hear read the previous proceedings.
The points he raised were ingenious, but rather fine spun. He took
objection to the writ of _scire facias_, under which he was summoned,
as not having been issued through a court of law in the regular way.
This was overruled, on the ground of the importance of the case, and
the pressing necessity for action. Next, he objected to the commission
itself as an _ex officio_ proceeding, and not binding upon him. Then
he advanced that his father, under the orders of the late and present
king, had slain or done various injuries to the parents and kin of many
of the jurors from Caermarthen and Cardigan, which disqualified them
from sitting on the inquest. These also were overruled, the latter on
the ground that judgment had gone by his non-appearance. He then said
that, between the date of the original prohibition and the first foray
(25th January to 3rd February), there had not been time to communicate
with his distant and scattered retainers. This also was pronounced
invalid.
As to the second foray, the earl pleaded that he was not responsible
for it, as the king had at that time seizin of his Glamorgan lands.
This was no doubt on the occasion of his marriage, with a view to
which event he surrendered, 18 Edward I., his estates, and, after the
marriage, took a regrant of them to himself and his wife, under new
limitations. It appeared, however, from the records, that the earl had
received seizin nine days before the second foray; so this also failed.
As to the third foray, he pleaded the recent enfeoffment, which, being
entirely new, removed the effect of any prohibition issued to the old
feoffee. This, however, was met by a declaration that the prohibition
was not territorial but personal; consequently the verdict of guilty
was confirmed against himself and his captains.
The breaches of the peace after the Laundon meeting were then inquired
into. It was proved that, on the Thursday (29th July) before St.
Peter ad Vincula, the Earl of Gloucester’s people having put certain
_averiæ_, or “plough bullocks,” to feed in the disputed ground, the
Earl of Hereford’s bailiff and retainers appeared in force. Upon this,
De Clare’s men retired with the cattle into their own lands. The others
followed, slew some of the men, captured and drove off the cattle,
and lodged them in Brecknock Castle. De Bohun had not known of this;
but, on its being reported, he directed the cattle to be retained and
ransomed. At the time of the inquiry some of them had been killed, and
others were in custody at Brecknock.
Further, on Monday (9th August) after the Assumption of the Virgin, the
Earl of Gloucester’s men went by night, like robbers, into the Bohun
territory. The Bohun retainers, alarmed, drove them back three leagues
into their own lands, recovered all the cattle they had stolen, and
took several others besides, which they brought home and still kept.
Of these expeditions the Earl of Gloucester was entirely ignorant. The
Bohun leaders were John Perpoynt, seneschal of Brecknock Castle, and
the earl’s bailiff, John Deucroys, or Everoys, Philip Seys, Howell
Vaughan, and Howell ap Trahern. Their earl, however, not only did not
approve of this second expedition, but on hearing of it, he bound over
his captains to bail, under which they still remained. Also, it was
shown that, on receiving the royal order, the Earl of Hereford caused
it to be proclaimed at church, and market, and other public places.
Nevertheless, as he had sanctioned the retaining of the captured
cattle, he was also found guilty.
The Earl of Hereford, however, had not offended before the Laundon
meeting, neither had the Earl of Gloucester after it.
In each case the jury notice with reprehension that the earls allowed
proceedings in the marches which elsewhere would, as they knew, have
been punished.
Both earls, with their followers, were committed to jail, and their
Welsh franchises taken in hand by the king.
Upon this Edmund, the king’s brother, William de Valence, his uncle,
Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and John de Hastings, gave bail for
Gloucester; and Reginald de Grey, Robert Typetoft, Robert Fitz-Walter,
and Walter de Beauchamp, for Hereford; and, while thus at large, they
were permitted to hold their franchises. The earls themselves, thus
bailed, were permitted to become bail for their followers, and thus
passed 1291.
The parties appeared again at Westminster on the morrow of Epiphany,
1292, but sentence was not finally pronounced until Thursday (17th
January) after the octaves of Epiphany, when the parties again appeared
before the king at Westminster.
With regard to the Earl of Gloucester, his whole franchise or royalty,
_totum regale_, in Morganwg, was declared forfeited. But whereas he had
married the king’s daughter, and had by her offspring; and whereas she
had an equal share in the franchise, the earl having a life interest
only, he could not forfeit more than his own rights, neither was it
lawful to punish the innocent for the guilty. His forfeiture therefore
was to be for life only. He was further to be imprisoned during
pleasure, and to pay £100 damages to the Earl of Hereford.
The Earl of Hereford’s Welsh franchises, being held by him without
limitation, were forfeited altogether, and he also was remitted to
prison. But, inasmuch as his offence _non est ita carcans_, nor
deserving of punishment so heavy as that of his brother earl, and as
he had married a kinswoman of the queen, who made the marriage, so
that the earl’s children and the king’s children would be of kin, his
forfeiture also was limited to his life.
The obvious unfairness of the punishment seems to have been in some
degree adjusted by the fines under which the earls were restored,
Gloucester paying 10,000 marcs, and Hereford 1,000 marcs.
Neither earl long survived this transaction. Gloucester died in the
castle of Monmouth in 1295, and Hereford in 1298, but not before he
had on more than one occasion made a bold and successful, and strictly
legal, opposition to his sovereign.
The retainers were let off lightly, on the plea that they had not been
warned by their lords of the royal prohibition. John de Creppyng was
fined fifty marcs; his securities being Richard de Creppyng, of co.
York, and John Wogan, of Somerset.
Richard le Flemyng was fined £20; his securities were John le Waleys,
of Somerset, and Stephen Haucumb, of Cornwall.
Stephen de Cappenore was fined twenty marks; his securities being
Robert de Typetoft, and John Lovel, of co. Northampton, at ten marcs
each.
William le Valers was fined £10; his securities were John de Creppyng,
of Lincoln, and Robert Fylliot, of Cumberland.
Perpoynt and his fellows were left to the ordinary course of law, with
a hint that their punishment was not likely to be very severe. And thus
ended one of the most important transactions in the history of the
Welsh marches; a trial evidently pressed forward by Edward with a view
to break down the great, ill-defined, and ill-exercised power of the
Lords Marchers, intended to be regulated by the celebrated statute of
Rhuddlan.
No apology is necessary for introducing this event at some length of
detail into the history of a march castle; besides which, the names
contained in it show who were at that time the great lords of the
district. They show also, that while De Bohun’s captains were native
Welshmen, for the Perpoynts, descendants of Giles Perpoynt, had become
naturalised at Gileston a generation or two earlier, De Clare’s affairs
were in the hands of strangers to the soil, men whose names, with
the exception of Flemyng, do not appear then or since in Glamorgan
pedigrees. (“Rolls,” i., 70; Carte, “History of England,” ii., 221;
Dugd., “Bar.,” i., 182; Jones, “Brec.,” iii., 143; “Rot. Fin.,” 20
Edward I.)
The original cause of dispute seems to have been overlooked in the
consequences, for nothing more is heard of the contested boundary. It
is, however, noteworthy, that very near Morlais the county boundary
quits the well-defined Taff Vechan, and crosses the mountain in a
direction unmarked by any natural features, so that, until an amicable
arrangement was arrived at twenty years ago, the actual limit of each
county continued to be subject of dispute between the manorial lords on
either side.
Morlais, though thus founded amidst contentions, seems, on the whole,
to have enjoyed a peaceful, if not an ignoble, existence. No doubt
the settlement of the country under the long reign of Edward III.
destroyed its value as an outpost, and led to its neglect, or perhaps
destruction. No mention of it has been discovered until the days of
Leland, who says,—
Morlays Castelle standith in a good valley for corn and grass and
is on the ... ripe of Morlais brook. This castelle is in ruin and
longith to the king.—(“Itin.,” iv., 39.)
Leland probably had not visited the spot which he thus somewhat
incorrectly describes, but his evidence as to the proprietorship is
likely to be correct.
The circumstances that led to the construction of Morlais are
sufficiently evident from its general position. The lower part of
the county was protected not only by the lord’s castles of Cardiff,
Llantrissant, and Kenfig, but by a considerable number of lesser
castles belonging to private persons, and intended, primarily, for the
protection of their estates. It remained to guard against the sudden
inbreaks of the Welsh, who, descending from the north, and moving with
great rapidity, and having, besides, the advantage of what strategists
call “interior lines,” could readily select their point of attack,
and cutting off detached parties, or sacking an occasional village
or castle, could retreat through paths and at a rate which rendered
useless any pursuit by the heavily armed Normans.
To check such marauders, or at any rate to cut them off in their
retreat, other castles were constructed by the marchers, such as
Castell Coch on the Taff, the tower of Whitchurch a little below it,
and finally, at the head of the two great valleys of the Nedd and Taff,
and at the apex of this contained triangle of mountainous country,
Morlais.
Caerphilly belongs to the same class of defences. It was built hastily,
and probably decided upon hastily also. It never was, and Cardiff being
the chief seat of the lord, it may be doubted whether it ever could
have been, of an importance at all commensurate with its extent and
cost. Morlais, on the contrary, seems to have been solidly constructed,
and to have been in all respects suited to the purpose it was intended
to fulfil.
Local tradition, the tendency of which is, naturally enough, to ascribe
all considerable works to the native lords of the soil, attributes
this to Ivor Bach, a celebrated chieftain of east Glamorgan, late in
the twelfth century, who is reputed to have fallen in fight upon an
adjacent spot, still called “Pant-Coed-Ivor.”
That Morlais, like Caerphilly and Castell Coch, was built on the
territory of the family of Ivor Bach is no doubt true, since he, his
ancestors, and his descendants, as Lords of Senghenydd above and below
the Caiach, possessed the whole tract of country between the Taff and
the Rhymney, from Cardiff northwards to the Brecon border; but it is
clear, from the position of the work, that it was not built by, but
intended to curb the aggressions of, those turbulent native chieftains,
among whom Ivor and his son Griffith, and their neighbour Llewelyn Bren
(1315), played in their day a conspicuous part.
Moreover, the residences of Ivor and his descendants, said to have
been anciently at Castell Coch, but known to have been afterwards
at Brithdir, at Merthyr, and finally at the Van, have never been
recorded as at Morlais, nor is it at all probable that they would
have constructed so expensive a dwelling upon the very verge of their
domain, and upon a spot far too high and rocky for ordinary cultivation.
It may be objected that, had Morlais been built by the Earls of
Gloucester, it would have remained, like Caerphilly, in the hands of
the chief lords; for the site of Caerphilly, seized upon by De Clare in
the reign of Henry III., still remains an isolated part of the Cardiff
lordship in the midst of the Van estate; but it may well be that, while
the size and importance of Caerphilly, and its later use as a prison,
caused the lords of Cardiff to retain it in their possession, Morlais,
from its moderate dimensions and distant position escaping notice,
would be dismantled, and the site allowed to revert to the descendants
of its original owners, who still held the surrounding estate. It was
probably soon after Leland’s time that the Crown allowed its right, as
the then Lord of Glamorgan, to fall into disuse.
The Morlais property, including the castle, passed from Ivor Bach’s
male descendant, Thomas Lewis of the Van, by the marriage of his
daughter with an Earl of Plymouth, to the Windsor family, in which
family it still remains.
NORHAM CASTLE, DURHAM.