which was, no doubt, stockaded to cover the entrance and enclose the
barriers.
The archway described as probably a gate may have been intended to
facilitate the entrance of the villagers and their cattle, in the event
of a raid. The outer ward was intended by Flambard, it is said, to
afford this shelter, and the deep outer ditch was also so employed. In
late times a complaint is made, that whereas formerly the castle ditch
was, under all circumstances, a place of security for the villagers
and their property, now they are attacked and captured by the Scottish
rievers under the very walls of the fortress.
The southern and outer ditch is said to have been used as a mill-pool,
its mouth being closed by a dam. This ditch is reputed to have been
excavated in 1495; but though it may have been then deepened and a dam
formed, it must always have been part of the original defence.
Although there is no record of any fortress or residence here before
the time of Flambard, it is most probable, looking to the position
and the earthworks, that it was so employed by the Saxon kings of
Deira. These earthworks and the general treatment of the position are
thoroughly English, just as the manner in which they are incorporated
with the works in masonry is thoroughly Norman.
The authentic history of the castle begins with 1121, when Bishop
Flambard is recorded by Hoveden to have commenced it. Probably
Flambard’s keep much resembled in outline and dimension, save that it
was from 10 feet to 20 feet lower, that we now see, and his inner and
outer ward must necessarily have been the same with the present, and in
great part within the existing walls. Fifteen years later, in 1136, the
castle was taken by David, King of Scotland, and held for his niece,
the Empress Maud, for some months, until, under a treaty with Stephen,
it was restored to the bishop. David, however, again attacked and took
it in 1138, when it is said to have suffered much injury, and to have
been dismantled.
Bishop Hugh Pudsey, or Puisét, reputed to have been Stephen’s nephew,
succeeded to the see of Durham in 1153, and probably at Stephen’s
suggestion restored the keep. What he did it is very difficult to
determine, since the lapse of forty years had not materially changed
the style of architecture then in use, but whatever it was, it was
confined to the western parts of the keep, and did not affect the
eastern end. His funds were raised by the sending his archdeacon round
the country provided with a fragment of St. Cuthbert’s winding-sheet,
to be shown to subscribers only. Puisét’s labours were only too
successful, for, being suspected of a leaning towards the party of
Prince Henry and the Scots, he was called upon by Henry II. to give up
Norham, together with Durham and Northallerton Castles, and did so in
1174–7, when his castellan, Roger de Conyers, was superseded by William
de Neville. Soon afterwards, upon paying a fee of 2,000 marks, the
castles of Durham and Norham were restored to the see: Northallerton
had been destroyed. On the bishop’s death in 1195, Norham again fell
into the king’s hands, and £29. 6s. 8d. was paid for its maintenance.
King John was here, it is supposed, four times during the vacancy of
the see, and the consequent holding of the castle by the Crown. First,
4th August, 1209, the only visit recorded in his itinerary, when he
was preparing to invade Scotland. He stayed at least three days, for,
as Mr. Raine has pointed out, an instrument given in the “Fœdera,” as
dated 7th August, Northampton, is clearly from Norham. A little later
he seems to have negotiated a treaty here with William the Lion, which
was confirmed at another meeting about November, 1211, when William
brought his son Alexander to do homage. He is also said to have paid
another visit. All that can be shown is, that in April, 1210, he was at
Durham, and in 1213 at Warkworth, places within easy reach of Norham.
In 1215, the castle was besieged without success for forty days by
Alexander, King of Scots, who thence advanced into England, leaving
Norham and Bamborough unsubdued in his rear. He retired before John,
whose followers harried the Scottish border up to Edinburgh.
Early in the reign of Henry II., in 1219, Norham was visited by
Pandulf, the legate, who had recently consecrated Bishop de Marisco to
the see. With him came Stephen de Segrave, on the part of England, and
King Alexander, to settle disputes between the two kingdoms. On the
bishop’s death, 1226, and even after the consecration of Bishop Poer,
1228, Norham was held by the Crown. In 1258, Robert Nevill of Raby was
constable for the Crown. Bishop Anthony Beke succeeded to the see in
1283, and held it till 1310. He was rather a warrior and statesman than
a priest, and bore a prominent part in Edward’s northern transactions.
In May, 1291, Edward I. was at Norham, attended by a large muster of
northern barons, to meet, hear, and decide between the claimants of the
Scottish crown. Edward resided in the castle; the Scots were quartered
at Ladykirk, then Upsetlington, beyond the Tweed. The proceedings were
opened on the 10th of May with great state in the church of Norham,
and in the same church, that now standing, Edward, on the 3rd June,
received the recognition of his authority by the claimants. The court
was then adjourned to Berwick, and Baliol, who was said to owe his
selection to the bishop’s interest, rendered homage for Scotland at
Newcastle. In 1296, Bishop Beke raised the banner of St. Cuthbert, and
attended his sovereign into Scotland, at the head of 140 knights, 1,000
foot, and 500 horse, he himself leading them in armour. The roll of
Caerlaverock describes him as—
Le noble eveske de Doureaume,
Le plus vaillant clerk de Roiaume.
These troops formed the van of the royal army, and penetrated as
far as Aberdeen. He was present also in later campaigns, and in
one was wounded. His power and arrogance were, however, too great
for a subject, and excited the ill-will of Edward, whom, however,
he survived, dying 1310. Beke was a magnificent builder, and it is
probably to him that must be attributed the facing of the part of the
keep which had been restored by Pudsey; and the insertion of the great
well-staircase and Decorated window-frames. In 1314, the castle was
conceded by Bishop Kellow to the Crown, and Edward II. is said to have
executed some repairs there. In 1316 it was restored to the see. Norham
had its full share of the troubles of the border during the weak reign
of Edward II. Its captain, Thomas Gray, was twice besieged in form
by the Scots, once by blockade for twelve months and once for seven
months. On one occasion the outer ward was taken, but as, after three
days’ possession, the enemy could produce no impression upon the inner
ward, they retired from so dangerous a proximity. Later in the reign,
1322, it was taken, but recovered by Edward in person after a siege of
ten days. In 1327, the night of the coronation of the new sovereign,
it was near being taken by treachery, but the plot was frustrated by
Thomas Manners, then captain. Edward II. is reputed to have executed
great works at the castle.
Edward III. found Lewis Beaumont in the see of Durham. The bishop
recovered Norham, though with some difficulty, but Barnard Castle
remained alienated. In 1335, his successor, Bishop Bury, held an
ordination at Norham.
In 1356, ten years after the battle of Nevill’s Cross, the Scots
burned Norham, probably the village, and surprised the town, but not
the castle, of Berwick, which held out till the arrival of Edward
III. from Calais, when the affront was amply avenged, and Bishop
Hatfield attested Baliol’s surrender of the crown at Roxburgh Castle
in 1357. During the reigns of Henry IV., V., and VI., Norham was well
maintained, and played a part in all the great transactions on the
Border. The accounts kept by the Bishops of Durham are very copious,
and contain many curious technical and local words. The outer bridge
was repaired with timber in 1405, as was the roof of the Pex or Pox
hall within the castle. A wheel was made for the well, with an axle,
gudgeons, and a bucket. The great and other chambers and the kitchen
were leaded. Mention is made of the chapel and of the chaplain. The
nights being long and cold, extra wages were paid to the watchers,
lights were allowed for the chapel, and repairs effected for the whole
castle, excepting the great tower. In 1408, the west gate was wholly
rebuilt in 298 days, at a cost of £37. 6s. 7d. This can scarcely be the
lower or outer gate at the extreme west, which is much older, and was
probably the inner gate, which is also to the west of the keep. “Les
skafald” is mentioned, and a paling of wood round the tower. In 1422
was built the “new tower within the castle,” and in 1426–7 four iron
doors were brought from the bishop’s forges at Auckland.
In 1429–30, during the episcopate of Cardinal Langley, “quædam nova
latrina” was appended to the west side of the great tower, a work not
completed in 1431–2. Also a great doorway in stone was made under the
vault of the Dongeon of the great tower, probably the door in the
north wall, of which one jamb remains. The doorway was fitted with an
iron door. The draw-well had a new wheel, and a new horse-mill was
constructed within the castle.
Hitherto the bishops, when in possession of the castle, had occupied it
by their own officers, but in 1435 the cardinal introduced the practice
of letting it for a term to some powerful captain who was bound to
maintain and defend it, and received a good payment for so doing.
This practice was found convenient, and resorted to not infrequently
afterwards. The lessee seems sometimes to have been invested by the
bishop with the offices of constable of the castle and sheriff and
escheator of the see. Bishop Fox began his rule in 1495 by deepening
the outer ditch, and, indeed, the aspect of the times rendered prudent
all possible precautions for defence.
In that same year, Henry VII., alarmed at the reception of Warbeck
in Scotland, prepared for war: a commission of array for the Marches
was issued to the bishop, and Lord Surrey took the command north of
Trent. King James crossed the Border from Scotland in two successive
years, and in the second, 1497, appeared in person before Norham. It
was strong and well garrisoned, and by some accounts the bishop threw
himself into the fortress, within which shelter had been afforded to
all the country round. During sixteen days of fierce assault the outer
defences were much injured, but the place was not entered, and Surrey
came to its relief. The bishop then laid aside the temporal arm and
excommunicated Redesdale and Tynedale. In September, 1498, he was
at Norham, and lifted his censure from the borderers who submitted.
Hamerlin and Garth, his lieutenants, during the siege, were pensioned
for their bravery in the defence.
In 1513, 22nd August, the year of Flodden, King James crossed the
Tweed in force, and on the 29th Norham, imperfectly garrisoned, was
surrendered to him and very roughly handled. The king then
Wasted his time with Heron’s dame,
while his army took Etal, Wark, and Heton, and the lesser holds of
Tilmouth, Shoreswood, Twisel, Duddoe, and Thornton. This gleam of
success was succeeded by the defeat of Flodden, after which, in 1514,
Lord Dacre ravaged the Scottish border to beyond Borthwick. If the
bishop’s garrison showed want of courage during James’s attack, the
main body of the forces of the bishopric redeemed its character at
Flodden, where they led the van under Sir William Bulmer. It was
the last appearance of St. Cuthbert’s banner in the open field, and
often as it had been displayed, it had never been attended by defeat.
Bishop Ruthal once more put the castle in repair; the inner ward
and the keep were made safe, and much money expended in masons’ and
carpenters’ work on walls and roofs. The castle had been “prostratum
et disruptum ad terram” by the Scots, a phrase which, however, is not
to be taken literally. Bishops-Middleham is said to have been stripped
for materials for Norham. By 1515 the castle was in order, victualled,
and garrisoned. The walls were countermined as a precaution against
“sawting,” or blowing up. The outer walls were buttressed and provided
with “Murderers,” a well-known piece of ordnance of that day. When all
was done, the masons were despatched to pull down Home Castle.
Nothing seems to have lasted very long at Norham, for William, Lord
Greystoke, the captain, found the outer ward so ruined as to be
defenceless. Its four towers were too low, but the inner ward was
regarded, “with the help of God,” as impregnable. At this time the long
wall between the inner gate and the nether gate next the water was
ready to be embattled. The four towers were to be raised with ashlar,
and quarry rubbish was ready to fill up three of them. Wolsey held the
see from 1522 to 1528, but does not seem to have troubled himself about
the castle.
About 1530 the Scots appeared before Norham, but the castle was saved
by the valour of Archdeacon Franklin, who had a special coat-of-arms
assigned to him by Henry VIII. for this service. At this time there
was regular stabling for 60 horses, a byre for cattle, which, if
necessary, could hold 50 more horses, and there was room beneath the
chapel for another 20, or 130 in all. Besides stores of salt meat,
fish, and grain, 6 fed oxen and 400 sheep lay nightly beneath the
castle wall. The garrison was composed of 59 men, besides children.
This state of defence was probably stimulated by a whisper of treason,
which caused the Privy Council to direct the Duke of Norfolk “to look
to it.” Bishop Tunstal seems to have maintained the defences during the
reign of Mary.
In the next few years, however, great changes took place. In 1542,
the castle was finally put in order by Bishop Tunstal; but in 1551
the bishop was deprived, and the castle was reported again to need
repairs. The wall of the inner ward towards the Tweed was rotten, the
water having got into it on the removal of the lead from the adjacent
buildings, and in such a state that a very light battery on the Scots’
bank would suffice to bring it down with the hall and kitchen. Half the
keep had some time since fallen. The reporter, Sir George Bowes, points
out the weakness of the place, and then, at great length, how an old
castle was to made defensible in modern warfare. He especially dwells
on the absence of flanking works. The outer ward wall, on the east,
west, and south, is old, thin, and weak, and its small ward towers
badly placed as flankers. The north wall was a low parapet, and the
outer ward gates so hung that they could be lifted from the outside. He
advises filling hall and kitchen with earth to support the river ward
wall, and constructing a hall in the ruins of the keep. He is said to
have lowered the keep one storey, reserving only the stair turret as a
look-out. Probably it was at this time that the north-east bastion was
built, and the embrasures made in the outer ward wall.
In 1557 there was a fray in front of the castle, in the space between
the bridge and the iron gate. There were but four men in the place. In
1559, Tunstal died, and the castle was finally and by law detached from
the see of Durham and held by the Crown, Lord Hunsdon having a lease
of it from Elizabeth. Lord Hunsdon’s representatives, the Careys, were
induced by James to part with their lease to Home, Earl of Dunbar, in
whose favour the property was converted into a freehold to be held by
socage tenure of the Crown. As late, however, as 1583 it was kept up as
a place of defence, probably for the police of the border, and had an
establishment of a captain of horse, an ensign bearer, a trumpeter, a
porter and assistant porter, a master-gunner, a quartermaster gunner,
16 gunners, a chaplain, and a surgeon, costing not less than £1,703.
6s. 8d. per annum.
The history of Norham Castle and Shire will be found given in great
detail and with great accuracy in the history of North Durham, by the
Rev. James Raine.
NOTTINGHAM CASTLE.
The annexed drawing, taken from the _Illustrated London News_,
represents admirably, in Nottingham in the sixteenth century, the
appearance of a very perfect castle of the first class. The Norman
keep is seen on the curtain between two wards. The smaller or inner
ward is original and Norman. It was enclosed in a lofty and strong
curtain, following the outline of the rock on which it stood, and
strengthened at its three most exposed angles by rectangular towers of
no exterior projection. On two sides of the court were lodgings, and
in the wall was a postern with exterior steps. The main gate of this
ward was placed in the face next the tower, near the keep, and was
covered by the middle ward. To the original castle was added, probably
in the reign of John, or that of Henry III., a second or middle ward,
having an entrance through the base of a square tower, so placed as to
cover the least protected angle of the original castle. A square tower
serving as a gatehouse shows the arrangement was an early one, probably
not later than the reign of John. This ward was contained within a
strong curtain, with cylindrical mural towers of bold projection, and
was so placed as to cover one side of the inner ward, and had its own
ditch. Again, outside the two preceding wards, and applied so as to
cover them on two sides, and the keep-ward on one side, was a large
outer ward calculated to contain a small army. This ward was also
walled with round bastion towers, that is, towers on the wall, but not
rising above it. It also had two, or probably three, gatehouses and a
ditch. The utter destruction of so noble a remnant of early military
architecture is much to be regretted.
The drawing shows the Trent and the castle mill, but not the two Burhs,
mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon “Chronicle” as guarding the river.
ODIHAM CASTLE, HANTS.
About a mile north-west of the town of Odiham, in the tything of North
Warnborough, stands what remains of this ancient castle. It is placed
on the left bank of the Whitewater, a rather copious stream, which
rises about two miles south, and flows northwards to fall into the
Loddon at Swallowfield. About the castle the ground is low and flat,
and, in consequence, very wet. The Basingstoke canal has been carried
across the marsh, and being now abandoned and choked with weeds,
adds to the dreariness of the scene. The place, no doubt, was always
one of strength, and the open woodland about it was favourable to the
preservation of game, and to the wilder kind of sporting in which the
Plantagenet monarchs took great delight.
[Illustration: NOTTINGHAM CASTLE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]
Whatever may have been the extent of the castle in its great days,
its remains in masonry are confined to a single tower, now in a very
dilapidated condition. This tower is an octagon, described within a
circle of about 29 feet radius, the faces, not quite equal, averaging
22 feet 6 inches. The walls, casing included, were 10 feet thick; the
interior faces, therefore, average 14 feet 9 inches, and the interior
diameter from face to face is 38 feet. At each angle is set a buttress
of 4 feet projection and 2 feet breadth, rising to the summit, or
nearly so, of the building, now about 60 feet high, and which, the
parapet and part of the wall being gone, may have been 8 feet higher.
As the tops of some of the upper windows remain, it may be inferred
that the height, when complete, did not exceed 68 feet.
[Illustration: GROUND PLAN OF ODIHAM CASTLE, HANTS.]
The material of the tower is a conglomerate of small flint nodules
grouted in a large quantity of very good mortar. The whole exterior
seems to have been faced with small ashlar blocks, possibly of Caen
stone. The casing is gone, but the mortar has preserved the beds of the
stone more or less perfect. The same stone was used in the interior for
dressings for the openings, and for a band about 4 feet high at the
base of the wall, and for the groining of the internal angles. In these
two latter positions, some of the ashlar has been left undisturbed.
About one-third of the tower, including most of the two western faces,
has fallen; but though the remainder is very rough and a mere mass of
flint conglomerate, held together by the excellence of the mortar,
the cores of the buttresses remain, and enough of the recesses of the
window openings to show something of their original form and dimensions.
The tower is composed of a basement and two stories. The basement floor
is about 6 feet below the exterior ground level. It was about 12 feet
high, and six of its eight faces appear to have been pierced. Of these
openings, five commence within at 4 feet from the floor. They were
round-headed and 4 feet wide. They converged upon an ordinary loop,
and as the cill rose by six steps, the base of the loop was about a
foot above the exterior ground level. Three of these recesses are
tolerably perfect; another, judging from an appearance in the wall
above, may have been the door into the base of a well-stair, ascending
in the wall to the summit. Such a stair there was likely to have been,
and the hollow in the wall is more like that for a staircase than for
a chimney-shaft or a garderobe vent, and the weakening of the wall
by such staircase would account for its having fallen on this side.
The stair, if such it was, occupied the south end of the south-west
face. Two of the openings in the basement have been called doorways of
entrance from without. What remains scarcely leads to this conclusion,
and it is exceedingly improbable that there should have been a door on
the ground level when there certainly was one on the first floor. Sir
E. Home’s plan, mentioned below,[11] shows a sort of staircase in the
centre of the tower, as though descending to a sub-basement floor. Of
this not a trace is visible, and in so wet a soil a chamber much below
the surface would be usually full of water. As regards the ground-floor
entry, it is very possible that here, as usual, a basement window may,
in modern times, for the convenience of entry, have been converted into
a door, and so the present appearance produced.
The first or state floor was about 30 feet high. Its south face
was occupied by a very capacious fireplace, with a bold hood and
mantel-piece of ashlar, now gone, and it had a round back and a large
circular chimney-shaft carried up vertically in the thickness of the
wall. Of the other seven faces, two are gone, and four are pierced with
lofty, round-headed arches, about 8 feet broad, and slightly splayed.
These, no doubt, terminated in small coupled windows. In the east face
is an opening without splay, evidently a doorway, and, no doubt, the
main entrance, with an exterior stair, as at Brunless and Coningsburgh.
In an adjacent face is a large square locker.
The upper floor also had a fireplace, a smaller one above that on the
state floor, and in front of its chimney-shaft. This lesser shaft seems
to have been of ashlar. The arch of the fireplace is of three rings,
each of large, thin red tiles, having a very Roman aspect. In this
floor the window recesses were ranged in pairs, two in each face. Of
these, three and a half pairs, or seven window arches, remain. In the
east face is a small locker. This story may have been 18 feet high.
The floors were of timber, and composed of large beams, laid about 6
inches apart. As the wall is the same thickness throughout there are
no setts-off, and the walls are pierced with square recesses for the
beams. As these recesses are not parallel but radiating, it is clear
that the floor rested, as in the Wakefield Tower in the Tower of
London, upon a central pier or post.
There are no traces of any mural chamber of any kind.
The history of this tower, the character of its casings, the thickness
of its walls, and the round-headed figure of such arches as remain,
point to the Norman, or commencement of the early English, period.
Nevertheless, it is in plan very unlike the usual Norman structures,
and the buttresses, clearly original, are characteristic of a very
much later period. If it be Norman or transitional, it is very late
indeed in the style; as late as the reign of Richard I., but it must be
confessed that the buttresses are much more in harmony with the date of
Richard II.