far too important a military post to remain unchallenged in the
possession of the see of Canterbury, and both when the see was vacant
and at other times the Crown got possession, and its repairs were then
entered on the Pipe roll. In 1141, William of Ypres, a Fleming, was
its governor for Stephen, and when the Earl of Gloucester was taken he
was confined here for a short time—from September to November,—until
he was exchanged for Stephen. Various sums were spent upon the castle
between 1167 and 1202, when it was again given up to the archbishop,
then Stephen Langton. Towards the close of John’s reign the castle
was placed by Langton in the hands of William d’Albini, to be held in
the interest of the barons, whose army proposed to march from London
to its relief. John, however, interposed, and in 1215, after a severe
siege of three months, it was surrendered. Wendover expressly states
that the military engines employed on this occasion produced but little
effect, but that the place was taken by the efforts of the miners, who
first undermined and threw down the walls, and then applied the same
method of attack against the tower. It was, without doubt, on this
occasion that the south-east angle was destroyed. In May, 1216, it was
taken, apparently without any difficulty, by the Dauphin, but on John’s
death it fell, with other Crown possessions, into the hands of Henry
III. Under Henry III. considerable sums were spent upon it in repairs,
especially in 1225, when, probably the broken angle was made good. In
1226–7 a bretasche and drawbridge were repaired, and the gutters of
the hall in the keep. Unfortunately, here as elsewhere, the repairs
were commonly those of buildings in the courtyard, all which are now
destroyed. The keep was not used save for stores. In 24 Henry III., the
tower was ordered to be whitewashed in those places which had not been
so washed before. In 31 Henry III., both chapels were ordered to be
wainscotted. One of these, at the least, was pretty sure to be in the
outer ward, for the use of the garrison.
In 1264, the castle was in charge of the celebrated Roger de Leybourne,
who had just taken part with the king. As de Montfort was supposed to
meditate an attack on Rochester, Leybourne defended it with a strong
garrison, and stored it with ample provisions. In April, the attack
being expected, Warren, Earl of Surrey, Henry’s brother-in-law, came
to the castle. The barons laid siege to it just before Easter, and
remained before it nearly a week, but without any result, and on their
retreat most of the garrison, with Leybourne, joined the king at Lewes,
and took part in the battle. The loss of that battle was followed by
the surrender of the castle, but after the death of de Montfort and
the fall of Kenilworth, Leybourne resumed his governorship. A century
later, in 1367–8, extensive repairs were undertaken by Edward III.,
under Prior John of Rochester as chief clerk of the works. Stone was
imported from Beer, Caen, and Reigate, with copings and crests for
battlements, probably for buildings in the court. Since that period
it has played no part in the transactions of the kingdom, nor is its
military history of any special interest. An extant drawing, taken in
1588, shows the turrets domed over and capped with vanes, like those of
the White Tower.
Excellent papers have been written upon Rochester Castle by Messrs.
Beal Poste, Blaauw, Hartshorne, and Burtt, the latter in the form of an
account of Roger de Leybourne’s share in the Barons’ war.
P.S. Since the above account was written, Mr. Irvine, the very able and
acute superintendent of the late Sir Gilbert Scott’s works at Rochester
Cathedral, has made a discovery which is not in accord with any of
the existing opinions as to the particulars of the Roman settlement.
It appears that the south transept is built across a ditch, which
runs north and south, and, no doubt, underlies the whole breadth of
the cathedral. The ditch is 12 feet broad at the top, and 7 feet at
the bottom of the excavation, now 14 feet deep, but was probably much
deeper. It is cut through sound old gravel, and was filled up with
black soil, with occasional dressed stones of Roman workmanship, Roman
tiles, and bits both of black and red pottery, one of the former having
a stamped interior ornament. Mr. Irvine, it is said, is in a condition
to show that this was the ditch of a wall standing to its west, or
towards the river. If so, the original station may have occupied the
site of the present castle, at the west end of the accepted place of
the Roman town, of which it may have been the citadel.
ROCKINGHAM CASTLE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
Within the north-eastern border of Northamptonshire, abutted upon by
the shires of Leicester, Rutland, and Lincoln to the north and east,
and by that of Huntingdon to the south, is a large tract of rather
elevated land, known as the Forest of Rockingham. Its natural limits
are the valleys of the Nen and the Welland, whose general parallelism
is continued in their course across the Holland fen to their common
termination in the Wash. Towards the west this platform is further cut
off by the Ise, which rises about four miles from the Welland and falls
into the Nen by Wellingborough. The tract thus marked out by nature,
and long known as the Forest, extends east and west twenty-four miles
from Oxendon Bridge to that of Stamford, and is at its widest between
Rockingham and Thrapston, about twelve miles. The position, when the
meads of the Nen and the Welland were marshes, and the fens scarcely
navigable, was one of great strength, and occupied at an early period
by invaders and colonists of Danish blood, whose traces are largely
preserved in the topographical nomenclature of the district. The soil,
chiefly derived from the subjacent oolite, is not naturally fertile,
and long remained as forest, which even now, though cultivation has
made immense progress, is represented by large patches of woodland,
such as the well-timbered parks of Rockingham, Boughton, Blatherwick,
Burleigh, Drayton, and Dene; the wilds of Morehay and Sulehay; the
Bedford purlieus; and the Chase of Geddington.
Rockingham, which gave name to the forest and to a much smaller tract
of land still known as the Shire, is placed upon the right or south
bank of the Welland, just above the point where the influx of the Eye
brook marks the meeting of the counties of Northampton, Leicester, and
Rutland. The village stands on ground rising from the river, and above
and to its south, immediately over the parish church, is the castle.
The castle is a marked feature in the landscape, as it is placed upon
a sort of promontory which juts out from the table land of the forest
towards the Welland, and is protected on each side by a deep ravine,
two of many by which the steep margin of the valley is intersected.
South-west of the castle, and divided from it by the larger ravine, is
the park, a very ancient enclosure, at one time containing red deer,
which, however, had disappeared before Leland’s visit; and behind, and
south of the castle and the park, is the tract of recently-enclosed
land called the Shire.
Rockingham has been described as a name of English formation, purely
descriptive. The castle stands on the “Rock;” between it and the
Welland is the broad and fertile “Ing,” or meadow; and the “Ham”
represents the village, whether enclosed by bank, ditch, or hedge.
Other authorities, with perhaps more reason, have objected to this
use of the word “ing,” and have supposed the name to be the “hame” or
home of the “Rockings.” However this may be, ancient as is the name,
and important as must ever have been the position, the place is not
to be found in any record previous to the Conquest, though a similar
name occurs in Kent as Roegringham, in a charter by Cœnulf of Mercia,
A.D. 811. It may be that the name is found elsewhere, for among the
followers of Archduke Philip at his meeting with Henry VII. in 1500
occurs “Le Sieur de Rockingham de Flanders” (“Letters of Henry VII.”,
p. 88). The earliest mention of the place is in Domesday, where it is
stated that the king holds Rockingham. Bovi held it in the time of
King Edward with sac and soc. It was waste when King William ordered a
castle to be made. No doubt here, as generally elsewhere, William’s
decision was guided by the existence of an earlier work. It is evident,
from an inspection of the remaining earthworks, and from a comparison
of them with others, such, for example, as Brinklow, that they belong
to the class of moated mounds, and consequently are far older than the
Conquest. Bovi, no doubt, dwelt here, and it was his strong dwelling
that the Conqueror ordered to be converted into a castle.
Enough remains to show that the earthworks were composed of a conical
flat-topped mound or donjon, with a base-court attached on one side.
The mound seems to have been about 100 feet diameter on the top, and
not less than 30 feet high. It was circumscribed by its proper ditch,
which, to judge from indications on the south side, must have been
broad and deep. To the north of the mound was the base-court, of an
irregular but rounded figure, covering about 3½ acres. The outline of
this court corresponded generally with the contour of the ground, the
slope of which formed a part of the defence. The court abutted upon
the north face of the mound, outside its ditch, and covered about
one-third or five-twelfths of its circumference. Thus the greater part
of the mound, as at Brinklow, was outside the general line of defence,
of which it formed a part. Also it was posted on the side of the
work opposite the high ground, between the heads of the ravines, and
naturally, as at Brinklow, the weakest side. In advance of the mound,
at some yards distance, is a bank and ditch crossing the approach, and
again in advance, about a furlong from the keep, is a second ditch,
even now containing water, and dividing the castle precinct from the
shire. Probably these outworks are of later date than the keep. There
are also other works to the east, beyond the ravine, and especially one
large bank which now forms the central line of an avenue of lime-trees.
These works are irregular, and were possibly thrown up when the castle
has been besieged. On this side are also some small tumuli, placed two
and two, said to cover the remains of cottages.
The changes made by the Norman builders, and by those who in their
turn destroyed the Norman walls, have much effaced the traces of the
early fortress. The bank, which no doubt encircled the court, has been
thrown back so as to raise and level up the interior platform, and
for the main ditch has been substituted a scarped revetment about 8
feet high, surmounted by a parapet, which represents the curtain wall.
At the foot of this are the remains of the ditch, and lower down the
hill certain terraces, which look as though they had been defended
by lines of stockade for musketeers during the parliamentary siege.
These irregularities of the surface have been thought to represent a
British camp, for which the situation is, no doubt, suitable. Of the
mound there remains only a semilunar bank, which formed its northern
edge. The central and southern parts have been removed and thrown into
the ditch, the line of which is indicated by a slight but clear and
broad depression. This was evidently done when the Parliament obtained
the place, to render it indefensible. It is also evident that the
base-court was subdivided, as at Brinklow. This is shown by the levels
of the different parts. One division ran north and south, cutting off
on the east the entrance ward with the lodgings. The other ran east
and west, and subdivided the western ward. The three courts are on
different levels, the entrance court the lowest by 6 feet or 8 feet.
Whether the Conqueror built a work in masonry, or merely strengthened
the existing defences, is unknown. There is no masonry extant of that
century. But he or his successors certainly placed a shell keep upon
the mound, and built a wall round the court. This wall seems to have
had six faces, and to have occupied a circuit of about 490 yards. It
still commences at the top of the keep mound, descends the slope,
crosses the ditch, and runs 134 yards in a straight line, forming the
east front of the castle. The lower courses of this wall, which is 9
feet thick, may be late Norman. The upper part, 25 feet to 30 feet
high, is probably Decorated, as is the gatehouse, which is in this
front. Towards the north-east angle the wall has been rebuilt, and
supports a seventeenth-century building. At this, at a right angle,
the wall is replaced by a revetment of late date, and runs westward
for 83 yards, having the church, &c., below and in front of it. The
direction of the wall then changes to the south-west at the angle of
about 160°, which was capped by a round mural tower, of which the
foundations remain. This face is 94 yards long, and ends in an angle of
130°, where, no doubt, was another drum-tower. Then follows a side of
64 yards, ending in an angle of 140°, followed by a side of 40 yards,
then by an angle of 150°, and a short side of 25 yards, which ends in
the keep mound in a mass of masonry, which, if not wholly original, is
so in part, and formed of old material. Thus the whole circuit of the
court wall from one side of the keep to the other is about 440 yards.
The two western faces rise directly over the ravine. The two to the
south-west are some way from its edge, and here are no traces of a
revetment; and there was, no doubt, a ditch. The wall is now removed,
but indications of its foundation are seen on the turf in dry weather.
The distance from one end of the wall to the other, measured across the
keep, is 50 yards, which thus completes the circuit of the court.
Between the two masses of masonry which mark the abutment of the
two ends of the outer wall upon the keep, is a third, which points
north-west, and shows the line of a cross wall which divides the
entrance from the western wards. The line is followed by the later
buildings and by the western end of the castle hall. The place of
the cross wall branching westward from this is indicated by a double
yew-tree hedge, and a step of about 4 feet.
The gatehouse is composed of two half-round towers, 26 feet diameter,
flanking a gateway of 10 feet opening. The towers spring from a block
60 feet broad and 30 feet deep, having no internal projection, so that
the towers and a part of the block stand out from the wall 47 feet,
giving a fine, bold character to the entrance. The towers are of
two stages, divided outside by a string-course, and crowned above by
a plain embattled parapet resting upon a second string. The gateway
has a low-pointed arch, over which the string is continued and raised
so as to form a square head. The entrance passage, 10 feet broad, is
30 feet deep. Within the portal is a portcullis groove, rounded and
narrow, as for an iron grate, and behind it a rebate for folding doors.
At the other end of the passage is a second portal, also with gates.
Each portal has had a bold internal drip, now cut flat. A plain cornice
shows that the original roof was of timber, and flat. The present and
new beams have by an oversight been laid lengthways. On each side
is a small, heavily-moulded door, with an equilateral head, in very
excellent style. The north tower contains two chambers, one 16 feet
by 18 feet, with a loop into the courtyard, and from which a small
Decorated doorway opens into a front half-round chamber of 12 feet
span, having three loops to the front beneath deep arched recesses.
In the south tower are also two chambers. That in front has two loops
only. The other chamber has a door into a garderobe in the south wall.
The roofs were all of timber, and the internal doorways heavy but
excellent Decorated. The gatehouse has been much repaired. The plinth
is new. The exterior has been chisel drafted, and the jamb mouldings of
the portal apparently recut. The towers had till lately conical roofs,
which, however, were not original, and the parapet, though in excellent
taste, is modern. The loops are cruciform, with short cross-limbs, and
œillets below. The late Rev. T. James attributes this gateway to the
year 1200.
[Illustration: ROCKINGHAM CASTLE
1872
Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]
Upon the curtain wall, a few yards south of the gatehouse, is a door,
and near it a loop, both of Decorated date, and which evidently
belonged to a mural tower, now replaced by a modern larder.
Entering the castle by the gateway, on the left and in front are the
lodgings, buildings of very various dates. The entrance to the house
on the left is, however, older than any other part of the front. It
is an original door of Decorated date, and in a good style, and opens
into what was once the hall or an antechamber leading into it. Opposite
is a corresponding door, of the same age, which opens into a yard or
court set round with buildings of all ages. The hall has long been
converted into two floors, and is traversed by two partition walls, but
the lateral or exterior walls are original, and contain two fireplaces,
now covered up, but indicated by broad exterior buttresses, and several
windows, no longer in use, and but partially seen. This is the only
part of the present house that can be certainly shown to have belonged
to the ancient castle, and it was probably begun about 1275. The place
of the west window is occupied by a large Tudor or Stuart insertion.
The space within the ancient walls, from the doors to the west end,
measures about 20 feet by 85 feet, too long for the proportions of a
hall, so that it is probable that the actual hall was confined to the
western portion of it, which contains one of the fireplaces and the
jambs of four of the original windows.
Between the east end of the hall and the curtain wall is a fine pile of
building bearing date 1585, the work no doubt of Edward Watson. This
contains the kitchen and various offices, and probably includes parts
of the ancient building. Another building on the north-east side of the
court, and a long line of buildings facing the west, and containing the
end of the hall, are dated 1660. A building on the curtain wall between
the gatehouse and the keep is dated 1669.
The present cellars lie between the hall and the keep, and, though
modern, are conjectured to occupy the place of the castle chapel, and
near them is the well, though it is doubtful, from an old plan, whether
there was not also a well in the keep.
With the exception of the lower part of the eastern curtain wall there
is no masonry visible that can by any possibility be of the eleventh,
and probably none of the twelfth, century. In the churchyard are some
fragments in the Norman style, but they are not supposed to have
come from the castle. Over the inner portal a stone carved in a sort
of cable moulding has been inserted, but this does not appear to be
Norman, and in any case has only lately been placed there.
The works of Henry III. and Edward I. are represented by the upper part
of the curtain, the gatehouse, and the doors, walls, and windows of the
hall, and probably by the three blocks of masonry that abut upon the
keep mound, though two of these may be in substance earlier. All the
rest of the castle is the work of the several grantees, and mainly, if
not wholly, of the ancestors of the present owner. The general result
of the mixture of buildings of so many styles and ages is exceedingly
happy. The rooms, though not lofty, are comfortable and picturesque,
and filled with fittings and furniture in harmony with their age and
dimensions, and also with modern appliances. The walls, of the stone
of the country, have a venerable aspect, and are covered with climbing
plants, and the platforms of the several wards, and interior of the
keep mound, are lain out in lawns and flower-gardens, whence the view
over the village and beyond the Welland is very extensive.
Leland, who visited the castle in the reign of Henry VIII., while it
was yet a military building, has left a description of it, and what
he then saw:—“The castelle of Rockingham standith on the toppe of an
hille, right stately, and hath a mighty diche, and bullewarks agayne
without the diche. The utter waulles of it yet stond. The kepe is
exceeding fair and strong, and in the waulles be certein strong towers.
The lodgings that were within the area of the castelle be discovered
and faul to ruine. One thing in the waulles of this castelle is much to
be noted, that is, that they be embattelid on booth the sides, so that
if the area of the castelle were won by cumming in at either of the
two greate gates of the castelle, yet the kepers of the waulles might
defende the castelle. I marked that there is a stronge tower in the
area of the castelle, and from it over the dungeon dike is a drawbridge
to the dungeon toure.”—“Itin.,” i. 14.
The mighty ditch, and bulwarks beyond it, refer probably to the keep
and the ground to its south, where alone a ditch was needed. The
keep was, of course, a circular or polygonal shell upon the mound.
The strong towers on the walls were, no doubt, drums like those of
the gatehouse, capping the angles of the curtain wall. The double
parapet was not unusual, and with a wall 9 feet thick by no means
impracticable. Where the strong tower stood is unknown, but it must
have been within the court, north of the keep, and beyond the ditch
of the keep or donjon, to which its drawbridge gave access. Of the
second great gate no tradition is preserved, but it could not possibly
have been anywhere save to the south, as on the other sides is no
practicable approach. The latest works are two towers by Mr. Salvin,
one plain, square, and solid, near the keep, the other octagonal,
light, and lofty, placed near the end of the hall. They are a great and
judicious addition to the building.
It so happens that there exists a still later evidence for the
condition of the keep in a plan probably representing the temporary
works thrown up during the parliamentary attack for the defence of
the keep from an attack on the outer or south front. This shows the
summit of the keep covered with buildings arranged in a polygon 80 feet
diameter, with an open court in the centre. Outside these, along the
edge of the mount, is a line of stockade, 180 feet long, resting on the
walls of the court, and strengthened by two bastions of timber. The
bottom of the ditch forms a covered way, and along the counterscarp is
placed a second line of stockades, 240 feet long, and also resting at
each end on the walls. The ends of the curtain and of the intermediate
wall abutting on the keep are also shown. On the south margin of the
keep is a well. This plan is specially interesting, as it not only
shows that there was a building upon the mound, but lays down a plan of
defence, which in all probability is precisely what the Conqueror found
here in use when he ordered a castle to be made.
Among the Fabric rolls in the Public Record Office are several entries
relating to Rockingham Castle, from which the following extracts were
made by the late Mr. Burtt.
A small roll, 4 Edward I., of masons’ and carpenters’ work, amounting
to £37. 6s. 6½d.
A fragment of a roll, undated, but early in the same reign: Expenses of
a mason “circa turrem faciendam et murum turris ex parte meridionali
punctuandum et petras in muro debiles et fractas extrahendas et alias
petras ibi ponendas et petras ad eundem murum scapulandas.” A carpenter
was employed “circa chevrones ad lardarium faciendas et fenestras ad
celarium (the cellar) sub oriolo reparandas et faciendas.” Two masons
are employed upon “murum castri ex parte orientali porte facientes;”
and others upon the walls generally. There was also a payment
“plumbariis facientibus et cooperientibus parvam cloacam super murum
castri versus ecclesiam Rok’,” that is, on the north curtain.
Another roll, 4–5 Edward I., contains in two membranes a record of
the expenses “ad petram liberam frangendam apud Pukesalter”; also of
two men “operantes super gradus aule Regine”; and of a carpenter “ad
garderobam Regine carpentandam ad tascam et cendulandam, 40s.”
5–6 Edward I. are three entries: a mason and other men were employed
“circa novum oriolum ad hostium magne camere et veteram aulam
erigendam.” Others were engaged “circa mantellam magni turris faciendam
et erigendam”; and others “circa cumilum parve camere juxta le viz et
fenestram et alia in garderoba Regis facienda.”
5–8 Edward I. is an incomplete roll of five membranes, written, but
not closely, on the front and back. The entries relate to works upon
the walls, the chimney, and other parts of a chamber “ultra volticium
(drawbridge) circa crestos ad murum versus mantell’ (mantlet) turris.”
Also repairs of the “porta de Durr’.” Also to windows, &c., of the
same, carpenters’ work, and the door of the new turret. To masons, “ad
novam cameram faciendam de veteri aula”; to carpenters for doors of
the great cellar and new turret. The stone was quarried and conveyed
from Weldon. Masons, &c., were engaged “circa cameram magnam Regis
corrigendam”; and carpenters “circa claustrum faciendum et porcheam
camere Regine cooperiendam.” At the end of the dorse of one of the
membranes is the pious valediction addressed either to the accounts or
the building, “Deus te comburet vel Diabolus”! something in the style
of “Deil pike out the een,” said to have been invoked by old Q upon
those who examined into the building accounts of Drumlanrig.
6 Edward I., a roll of three membranes, mentions men engaged “ad
veterem aulam faciendam et emendam.”