MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES
THE NAVY
THE CINQUE PORTS
DEFENSIVE CHAINS, ETC.
THE COASTGUARD
THE NAVY
The scope of the present volume is to review the defensive works which
have been carried out in various ages for the protection of our shores
against incursions of enemies: the story of our naval exploits does
not primarily come within it.
The first duty of our English navy is, and always has been, offensive,
as well as defensive. In times of peace we have been accustomed to
regard our Navy as our first line of defence, and this is a perfectly
accurate description of its functions. But it is obvious that these
functions have always been different from, and in most periods
independent of, what is generally understood by the term
coast defences.
Yet, again and again, the coast fortresses have assisted the
operations of our war-ships when resisting the enemy, and to a
certain extent the two forces have always been, and possibly always
will be closely connected.
Reference to the story of the Roman fleet for the defence of the shore
of Britain, and also to the English navy under King Alfred, has
already been made, but the beginning of the English navy may be traced
to a somewhat later period. It had its origin in the Cinque Ports.
THE CINQUE PORTS
The association of certain towns on the south-east shores of England
for the purpose of coast defence is of great antiquity. In the oldest
Cinque Ports charter on record, granted in the sixth year of Edward I,
reference is made to documents of the time of Edward the Confessor,
indicating an origin before the Norman Conquest.
In early times there were, as the name implies, five ports included in
this confederation, viz.: Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney and
Hythe. Almost immediately after the Norman Conquest, Winchelsea and
Rye were added with status equal to the original towns. Thereafter the
precise title of the corporation was "the five Cinque Ports and two
ancient towns." In addition to these seven head ports, there were
eight corporate members, viz.: Deal, Faversham, Folkestone, Fordwich,
Lydd, Pevensey, Seaford and Tenterden, and no less than twenty-four
non-corporate members.
The jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports extended from Reculver on the
north coast of Kent to Seaford on the south coast of Sussex. It will
be noticed that at least three of the corporate members are situated
at some little distance from the sea coast. Faversham, Fordwich, and
in a greater degree Tenterden are inland towns, although two are
placed on river-courses which afford access to the sea.
As will presently be seen, men as well as ships were contributed by
the Cinque Ports for the defence of the realm, and Tenterden received
its charter in 1449, in order that it might assist Rye to discharge
its obligations. Hence it is that we find a corporate member situated
so far from the coast.
The Cinque Ports were established primarily for the defence of the
sea-board on the south-east of England, but in the course of time
their purpose was extended. In these early times, when England
possessed no regular navy, it was the men of the Cinque Ports who
guarded our seas. They provided, in return for many privileges they
received from the Crown, almost the only form of naval defence which
England possessed until the reign of Henry VII. Until that period
nearly all the men and ships which guarded our shores from the enemy
were furnished by the Cinque Ports, and even after the time of Henry
VII they rendered important assistance to the regular navy.
The men of the Cinque Ports seem to have carried on a certain amount
of privateering at various times, but there have been times when their
skill in seafaring and their undoubted courage have been employed in
work of the utmost value in the defence of England. A celebrated
occasion occurred in the year 1217, when Hubert de Burgh, having
selected the best seamen of the Cinque Ports, set out with about
sixteen large ships and twenty small ones to attack the approaching
fleet of Louis the Dauphin of France, the numbers of which were no
less than eighty large and many smaller vessels. Hubert de Burgh had
grasped the important principle of naval strategy that in order to
free his country from the danger of invasion, it was above all things
necessary to attack and destroy the enemy's force at sea.
Although opposed by such unequal numbers the Englishmen skilfully
secured a windward position, bore down upon the enemy as they shaped
their course for the English coast, threw quicklime in their eyes,
poured into the enemy a volley of arrows from the long bows for which
the English were famous, and scattered and destroyed the enemy's
ships, so that only about seventeen escaped; fifty-five were captured,
and the rest were sunk. The credit of this signal victory in an
engagement at sea which may rank as almost the first in English
history, certainly the first subsequently to the time of King Alfred,
belongs to the men of the Cinque Ports.
The strength of the Cinque Port forces in the fourteenth century may
be gathered from the fact that at the Siege of Calais (1347), when the
fleet was called out to assist in the blockade and to defend the
Channel, the following ships and men were furnished by the Cinque
Ports:
Ships Men
Hastings 5 96
Sandwich 22 504
Dover 16 336
Romney 4 65
Hythe 6 122
Winchelsea 21 596
Rye 9 156
Seaford 5 80
Faversham 2 25
Margate 15 160
Among the privileges of the Cinque Ports to which reference has been
made there are one or two which point unmistakably to an early
origin. One is the right of open-air assembling in portmote or
parliament at Shepway Cross, and afterwards at Dover, where by-laws
were made for the governance of the confederation, the regulation of
the Yarmouth fisheries, and to give decisions in all cases of treason,
sedition, illegal coining, and concealment of treasure-trove. The
ordinary business was transacted in two courts, named respectively the
Court of Brotherhood, and the Court of Brotherhood and Guestling. The
formal installation of a newly appointed Lord Warden took place at the
Breding-Stone at Dover, also in open-air assembly. It is an
interesting fact that these moots or open-air assemblies were summoned
by the sound of a horn.
The Lord Warden, who is the chief officer of the Cinque Ports,
combining therewith the governorship of Dover Castle and maritime
jurisdiction as admiral of the ports, may be regarded as representing
to some extent the ancient office of Count of the Saxon Shore,
although the changes of time and the paramount importance of the
Royal Navy in more recent times in the work of defending our shores,
have tended to rob the office of much of its former importance. At the
present time the actual duties of the post are confined to presiding
as chairman of the Dover Harbour Board.
The freemen or "Barons" of the Cinque Ports are often mentioned in
connection with this subject, and it may be useful to put on record
the following precise account of the subject, written by Mr. Charles
Dawson, F.S.A.
"A NOTE ON THE TITULAR RANK OF THE BARONS OF THE CINQUE PORTS
"The Freemen of each of the Cinque Ports have from ancient times
been termed 'Barons,' because they held their lands and privileges
as joint Tenants-in-chief of the Crown, by fealty and special
Military (Naval) Service. Their title was almost unique, in this
sense, that as joint tenants of their Baronies they were not like
the individual Barons of the Realm, but Barons-corporate.
"When summoned to the King's councils, the Barons were addressed
collectively by writ, a copy of which was forwarded to each Cinque
Port.
"Simon de Montfort's general summons to Parliament was addressed
to 'the Earls and Barons of the whole of the Kingdom and of the
Cinque Ports,' and in the year 1293 the Barons of the Cinque
Ports claimed of King Edward I to be tried for their alleged
delinquencies by 'their Peers, Earls and Barons.'
"The title of Baron did not, of course, apply to every Freeman
of the Cinque Ports in an individual sense, except so far as
individuals represented, by election, the whole of their Combarons
at each respective Cinque Port.
"In the earlier Parliaments the order of nomination ranked the
Barons of the Cinque Ports above the Commoners, and with the
Barons of the Realm, the scale of their fines for non-attendance
being identical with that of the Bishops and Barons of the Realm.
"There yet remains one ancient custom which identifies the rank
of the Barons of the Cinque Ports with the Peers of the Realm,
namely:--that when their representatives perform their services
to the Sovereign at the Coronation, within the Abbey Church of
Westminster, they are entitled to assume their head dress at the
same moment as do the Peers of the Realm, and immediately after
the Crown has been placed on the Sovereign's head."
DEFENSIVE CHAINS, ETC.
_The Chain at Chatham._--When, early in the seventeenth century,
Chatham had grown to considerable importance as a naval centre, a
curious method of defence was devised. A long and stout iron chain was
placed across the Medway at the western end of Gillingham Reach, near
Upnor Castle, with the idea of effectually stopping the progress of
alien ships up the river beyond this point. When the chain was
originally placed here is not exactly known, but it was repaired in
1606, and soon after abandoned. In 1623 the chain was superseded by a
boom made up of masts, iron, and cordage. A few years later, in 1635,
either a new boom or a new chain was placed across Gillingham Reach.
The chain came into great prominence when the Dutch invaded the Thames
estuary and the Medway in 1667. It was fixed up at Gillingham either
on 27 April or soon afterwards. The published accounts are not quite
clear or consistent. The claws for fastening and heaving it up were
expected to arrive but apparently were not forthcoming on the date
mentioned.
Although there had been a great chain here before it does not appear
to have been stretched properly across the river. This was now
attended to under the direction of the Duke of Albemarle, who went
down to Chatham posthaste to complete the defensive works. The chain,
consisting of links made of iron bars, six inches in circumference,
was strained probably in such a way that it would not be visible above
water, and it was perhaps buoyed at intervals. A small battery of guns
was placed on shore at each end of the chain in order to protect it
from injury by the Dutch. The _Unity_, a warship, was stationed to the
east of the chain, whilst on the west side a Dutch prize was sunk, and
several ships were on guard.
The Dutch ships, which had been observed off the English coast 26
April 1667, and off Harwich 8 June, now approached. A letter amongst
the State Papers in the Record Office, dated 20 June 1667, tells us
that the Dutch fleet was seen off Harwich on the 6 June, but the only
result was that a few fishermen were frightened, and that some of the
Dutchmen landed and drove off some cattle. On the 10th the navy came
within shot of Sheerness, and after some hours took the guns. On the
11th, by degrees, twenty or twenty-two Dutch ships were brought up to
the narrow part of the river Medway, where ships had been sunk. Two
and a half hours fighting on the following day made the Dutch masters
of the chain. One guard ship after another was fired and blown up. The
chain was broken by Captain Brackel by order of Van Ghent. Fire-ships
were sent to destroy the English ships. The first hung on the chain,
but the weight of the second snapped it. The Dutch ships went forward
carrying destruction with them. The batteries on the banks of the
river and the guns from. Upnor Castle were now brought into action,
with the result that the enemy soon retired, leaving two ships
stranded.
The exploits of the Dutch in the Thames and the Medway caused
considerable alarm in London. Pepys, on hearing of the failure of the
chain of Chatham, writes of it as a very serious piece of news,
"which," he says, "struck me to the heart."
Another and rather more precise account of the occurrence is as
follows: On 12 June the Dutch sent up towards Gillingham a division
consisting of four men-of-war, three armed yachts, and two fire-ships.
Several of the ships charging at the same time, broke the chain,
entered the waters beyond and set fire to the Mathias. The Dutch next
dealt with the batteries at either end of the chain, and by means of
their guns quickly silenced them. Great damage was done to the
shipping in the Medway, many vessels being burnt and destroyed.
It seems probable that at least one purpose of the chain was to hinder
the progress of fire-ships which the enemy set in motion against our
shipping.
In order to defend the government works nearer London, batteries
mounting sixty pieces of ordnance were erected at Woolwich, whilst the
defensive works at Gravesend and Dover were strengthened.
About the middle of the following September workmen were employed in
clearing away the moorings of the chain at Gillingham Reach.
_Chains at Portsmouth, Great Yarmouth, etc._--The chain of Chatham
furnishes a curious example of coast defence, wholly ineffective
against powerful shipping; but it was not a novelty. Portsmouth
Harbour had been at an earlier period provided with a similar form of
defence. Edward VI, on the occasion of a visit to Southsea Castle,
determined to strengthen Portsmouth against invasion by the enemy. He
therefore directed the building of two massive towers at the entrance
to the harbour. To these an immense iron chain was fixed in such a way
that it could be raised and tightened or lowered at pleasure when the
approach of the enemy made this desirable. The fortifications of
Portsmouth were strengthened during the reign of Elizabeth (see p.
145).
_Great Yarmouth._--In addition to a boom and two timber jetties at the
entrance to the haven, Yarmouth possessed a chain for the protection
of its shipping.
_Hull_ possessed a chain, and an actual picture of it is preserved in
one of the Cotton MSS.
_Cowes_ also was defended by a chain.
_Fowey._--For the protection of this town Edward IV erected two towers
to carry a chain which was suspended, doubtless under the level of the
water, across the haven, or mouth of the River Fowey. Subsequently the
people of Fowey incurred the royal disapproval when they attacked the
French during a truce, and accordingly Edward IV had the chain removed
and sent to Dartmouth. It does not seem quite clear whether this
chain, when removed to Dartmouth, was used for the protection of
shipping, but there certainly was a chain bridge at this place in
which, conceivably, the old chain may have been utilized.
There is reason to think that chains for the protection of important
centres of shipping were more common than might be supposed from the
few definite particulars of them which have survived. As an effective
defence against the approach of the war-ships of an enemy, however, it
would perhaps be impossible to find a more feeble type of protection.
_Booms._--As we have already observed in dealing with chains, the
necessity must have been felt of supporting such very heavy barriers,
even under water and by means of buoys. The boom, although introduced
quite early, must have been an improvement upon the simple iron chain,
because it contained, to some extent, its own means of support. This
contrivance, a chain of linked up massive timbers reinforced with
iron, and armed with iron spikes was employed, as early as the time
of Queen Elizabeth at Great Yarmouth, and subsequently at many other
ports. Like the chain it, of course, provided an obstruction to
navigation, especially at the mouths of rivers and harbours; but its
massive iron spikes, calculated to pierce and damage shipping, gave it
a distinct advantage over the chain.
_Fire-ships_.--These were ships filled with combustibles and
explosives sent to drift among the shipping of the enemy. In the
action off Gravelines, fire-ships were used with considerable moral
effect against the remains of the Spanish Armada, and they materially
assisted in breaking up the sea-power of the Spaniards. Seven vessels
were charged with combustibles and primed with gunpowder. As they
neared the Spanish ships their appearance created panic. The
Spaniards, in order to avoid the danger of fire, cut their ships
adrift, and serious damage was caused by the collisions which ensued.
In 1667, again, fire-ships were employed in the daring raid made by
the Dutch in the Thames and Medway. This time they were used by the
Dutch near the chain at Gillingham Reach.
_Catamarans._--Another method of firing an enemy's shipping was by
means of a kind of raft charged with combustibles. The idea of the
Catamaran, as regards both its name and construction, was borrowed
from the coasts of India and Ceylon where a raft made of three long
timbers lashed together, the middle timber being the longest, is used
for fishing purpose. As adapted for destroying shipping the Catamaran
may be described as a kind of floating mine. Catamarans were much
favoured by Mr. Pitt, and in 1804 they were employed by the English
against the French fleet, but they proved unsuccessful.
THE COASTGUARD
The coastguard force is of great antiquity, although it is not known
at what period it was instituted. In 1403-4 (5 Henry IV, c. 3) it was
enacted by statute
"That the Watch to be made upon the Sea Coast through the Realm
shall be made by the Number of the People, in the Places, and in
Manner and Form, as they were wont to be made in Times past and
that in the same Case the Statute of Winchester[25] be observed
and kept."
There is every reason to believe that there was a properly organized
coastguard force at a much earlier period, although precise
information on the subject is not available. Certain manuscripts
relating to the defence of the coast of Norfolk, however, indicate the
existence of a coastguard in that county as, early as the thirteenth
century.[26]
In more recent times the duties of the coastguards included the
suppression of smuggling and the aiding of shipwrecked vessels.
Another purpose was to serve as a reserve to the navy: but in earlier
times the prevention and suppression of smuggling was the main work of
the coastguards. Early in the nineteenth century a coast blockade was
established on the coasts of Kent and Sussex, and detachments of men
and boats were stationed at the Martello Towers on the sea-coast.
It is time, perhaps, to bring these pages on the coast defences of
England to a conclusion, and to review very briefly the chief features
of the subject. There are one or two points which stand out with
peculiar prominence.
Firstly we are struck by the origin, development, deterioration, and
final degradation in the methods of coast defence. In the middle and
later periods of the Roman occupation of Britain the fortresses for
coast defence were built in massive masonry. In the earliest examples
reliance was placed alone in mass and weight, and no attempt was made
to protect the wall by enfilading. In the works built later on this
defect was made good. Protecting bastions gave opportunity of
attacking the invaders in flank, and so protecting the wall. In the
Norman period, again, and particularly in its earlier part massive
keeps of great strength and height were erected for the dual purpose
of resisting the enemy by passive force, and of keeping a good
look-out over the surrounding country or sea, by means of which
movements of the enemy could be discovered.
In the periods which followed, notably from the reign of Henry II to
that of Richard II, the art of building castles was constantly being
improved and developed. Defensive works were adapted to the new forms
and methods of offence.
From that time downward to the first few years of the nineteenth
century there is every indication of decadence. The defences became
more and more feeble. The "chain," as a serious bar to the progress of
unwelcome shipping, reached its most absurd and ridiculous stage
during the time of the Dutch invasion of the Medway in 1667, when the
"Chain of Chatham" was snapped without the slightest difficulty by the
Dutch ships.
As a matter of fact, as we have seen, the coast blockhouses erected by
Henry VIII have never taken any important part in the defence of our
coasts. This is mainly due, not to their inefficiency, but to the
absence of opportunity. The same is true of the Martello towers
erected along our south-eastern coast when invasion from France, under
Napoleon I, was anticipated.
History is full of accounts of attempted invasions of England. Up to
the period of the Norman Conquest, wellnigh every attempt to land on
our shores was eventually, although not always immediately,
successful. But from the Norman Conquest downward England has always
been strong enough to protect herself from enemies who have attempted
to make a permanent settlement. This is due to the fact that whilst we
have not neglected our coast defences, we have not relied on castles,
forts, and other forms of land defence. We have maintained a powerful
fleet of war vessels as our first line of defence. Experience has made
it abundantly clear that coast defence without the aid of a powerful
navy would be inadequate to protect our shores. Our navy is, and
always must be, the first and most important of our defences, and its
special business is not to act as a simple coastguard force, but to
seek out the enemy's naval force where-ever it may be, and destroy
it.
INDEX
Alfred, King, 79-80.
Anderida, 17, 58-62.
Angles, The, 75.
Anglo-Saxon buildings, 77-78.
Anglo-Saxon burhs, 88-89.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 75, 84-85.
Anglo-Saxon defensive works, 79.
Anglo-Saxon mints, 77.
Appledore, 191.
Arckcliffe Bulwark, 131.
Armitage, Mrs. E. S., 89.
Avon, River (Bristol), 153.
Bamborough Castle, 98-99.
Barbican (Gate), Sandwich, 126-127.
Bayeux tapestry, 89.
Beblowe Fort (Holy Island), 188.
Benfleet, Danish settlement at, 82.
Berwick-upon-Tweed, 97-98.
Black Bulwark, 132, 161.
Booms, 210-211.
Boulogne, 5.
Bradwell-on-Sea, 25-28.
Bramber Castle, 141-142.
Bramber, Danish settlement at, 82.
Brancaster, 17, 19-22.
Branodunum, 17, 19-22.
Breding-Stone, Dover, 201.
Brighton, defences and gates of, 181-182.
British fastnesses, 5.
Broadstairs, 122.
Burgh Castle, 19, 23-25.
Caesar, 5.
Caesar's Camp, 3-5.
Calshot ("Calste Point") Castle, 169-186.
Camber Castle, 119, 177-178.
Camps, prehistoric, 3-5.
Canterbury, 70.
Canterbury, Anglo-Saxon coins, 77.
Canterbury Castle, 119-122.
Carausius, 14.
Cardiff Castle, 67-69.
Carlisle Castle, 154-156.
Carrnase, 70.
Castles. _See_
Bamborough,
Bramber,
Burgh,
Calshot,
Camber,
Canterbury,
Cardiff,
Carlisle,
Colchester,
Cowling,
Deal,
Dover,
Dunstanburgh,
Folkestone,
Hastings,
Hurst,
Lancaster,
Liverpool,
Orford,
Pevensey,
Porchester,
Portland,
Queenborough,
Rochester,
Saltwood,
Sandgate,
Sandown,
Sandsfort,
Sandwich,
Scarborough,
Southampton,
Southsea,
Tynemouth,
Walmer,
Walton,
Wareham,
Weymouth,
Yarmouth (Little).
Catamarans, 212.
Chains (defensive). _See_
Chatham,
Cowes,
Fowey,
Gillingham Reach,
Hull,
Portsmouth,
Yarmouth (Great).
Chanctonbury Ring, Sussex, 5.
Chatham, chain at, 204-208.
Chichester, 70.
Cinque Ports, barons of the, 202-204.
Cinque Ports, Courts of, 201.
Cinque Ports, Lord Warden of the, 201-202.
Cinque Ports, origin and jurisdiction, 196-198.
Cinque Ports, privileges of, 200-204.
Cinque Ports and the Siege of Calais, 200.
Cinque Ports, The, 196-204.
Coast castles and walled towns, 95-156.
Coastguard, The, 212-214.
Colchester, 70.
Colchester Castle, 111-113.
Count of the Saxon Shore, 13-16.
Court of Brotherhood, 201.
Court of Brotherhood and Guestling, 201.
Cowling Castle, 113-116.
Cowes, chain at, 209.
Cowes (West), defences at, 186.
Cumberland (Fort), 185.
Danish incursions, 79-85.
Danish raids at Canterbury, London, Rochester, Sandwich, etc., 84.
Danish raiders, 99.
Dartmouth, bulwark at, 165.
Dawson, Mr. Charles, 202.
Deal, 5.
Deal Castle, 160, 171-173.
Defensive Chains, 204-210, 215.
Dover, 6, 42-50.
Dover, Anglo-Saxon coins, 77.
Dover, bulwarks at, 166.
Dover Castle, 127-133, 169.
Dover, Straits of, 13.
Dubris, 42-50.
Dunstanburgh Castle, 99-100.
Earthworks, 3-5.
East Mersea, Danish settlement at, 82.
Edward the Confessor, 89.
Edwardian castles, 96-97.
England, attempted invasions, 216-217.
England, Saxon settlement of, 75-80.
English Coast Defences, general conclusions, 214-217.
Falmouth, bulwark at, 165.
Fire-ships, 211-212.
Fisher Gate, Sandwich, 125-126.
Folkestone Castle, 133, 166.
Fort Cumberland, 185.
Fowey, bulwark at, 165;
chain at, 209-210.
Frome, River, 153.
Gariannonum, 19, 23-25.
Gillingham Reach, chain at, 204-207.
Gravelines, fire-ships off, 211.
Gravesend, bulwark at, 165.
"Great Castle," the, in the Downs, 165.
Gosport, bulwark at, 169.
Harwich, 111.
Hasting, 81.
Hastings, 139-141.
Hastings, Battle of, 87.
Hastings Castle, 139-141.
Haverfield, Professor, 63, 70.
Henry VIII's blockhouses, inactivity in coast defence, 188-189,
215-216.
Henry VIII's blockhouses, influence of gunpowder shown in their
plans, 189-190.
Henry VIII, coast defences constructed by, 159-191.
Higham, bulwark at, 165.
Holy Island, defences of, 188.
Honorius, the Emperor, 17, 61.
Hull, 101-102.
Hull, chain at, 209.
Huntcliffe, 70.
Hurst Castle, 183, 185.
Hythe military canal, 191.
Ipswich, 107-108.
Jutes, The, 75.
King's Lynn, 102-103.
Lambard, W., on coast defences of Henry VIII, 159-160.
Lancaster Castle, 153-154.
Landguard Fort, 180-181.
Lisle, Sir George, 112.
Liverpool Castle, 154.
Lucas, Sir Charles, 112.
Lymne, 17, 50-58, 77.
Martello Towers, 190-191.
Medway Estuary, defences of, 179-180.
Mersea, West, 27-28.
Navy, origin and province of, 195-204, 216-217.
Navy, the English, 80.
Navy, "the first line of defence," 216-217.
Navy, under Hubert de Burgh, 130, 198-200.
Navy, under King Alfred, 80, 196.
Norman castles built within Roman defences, 90-91.
Norman castles, types of, 89-90.
Norman coast castles in England, 87-91, 96.
Norman fleet, 87.
Norman invasion of England, 86-87.
Orford Castle, 108-111.
Othona, 25-28.
Peak, near Robin Hood Bay, 70.
Pevensey, 17, 58-62.
Pevensey (mediaeval) Castle, 141.
Pharos, at Dover, 45-49.
Pharos, at Richborough, 37-38.
Pharos, at West Mersea, 26-28.
Plymouth, bulwark at, 165.
Porchester, 17, 62-64, 67.
Portland, bulwark at, 165.
Portland Castle, 187-188.
Portsmouth, 142-149, 166.
Portsmouth, chain at, 145, 208-209.
Portsmouth, Tower of, 169.
Portus Itius, 5.
Portus Lemanus, 17, 50-58, 77.
Portus Magnus, 62-64.
Prehistoric camps, 3-5.
Queenborough Castle, 116-119.
Reculver, 12, 17, 19, 28-35.
Regulbium, 12, 17, 19, 28-35.
Richborough, 17, 35-42.
Rochester, 70.
Rochester, Anglo-Saxon coins, 77.
Roman forts, 12, 16-71.
Roman invasion, 5-13.
Round, Dr. J. H., 89.
Rutupiae, 17, 35-42.
Rye, 138, 191.
Rye Castle, 166.
Saltwood Castle, 133-138.
Sandgate Castle, 174-177.
Sandown (I. W.) blockhouse, 186.
Sandown (Kent) Castle, 160, 171, 174.
Sandsfort Castle (Weymouth), 187.
Sandwich, 122-127.
Sandwich, Anglo-Saxon coins, 77.
Sandwich, Anglo-Saxon defences at, 78.
Saxon Shore, Count of the, 13-16.
Saxon settlement of England, 75-80.
Scarborough Castle, 101.
Scottish invasions, 99.
Shoebury, Danish camp, 81-83.
Silchester, 76.
Southampton, 149-151.
Southampton Castle, 151.
South Coast, defences of, 182-191.
Southsea Castle, 146, 182-185.
Staithes, 70.
Straits of Dover, 13.
Swale, River, 117.
Swanscombe, Danish settlement at, 82.
Thames Estuary, defences of, 179-180.
Tilbury, bulwark at, 165.
Torne Bay, bulwark at, 165.
Tynemouth Priory and Castle, 100-101.
Upnor Castle, 179-180.
Walled Towns:
Berwick-upon-Tweed, 97-98.
Bristol, 152-153.
Canterbury, 119-122.
Carlisle, 154-156.
Colchester, 111-113.
Dover, 132.
Harwich, 111.
Hastings, 139-141.
Hull, 101-102.
Ipswich, 107-108.
King's Lynn, 102-103.
Lancaster, 153-154.
Portsmouth, 142-149.
Rochester, 117.
Rye, 138.
Sandwich, 122-127.
Southampton, 149-151.
Wareham, 151-152.
Winchester, 138.
Yarmouth (Great), 103-107.
Walmer Castle, 173.
Walmer, early defences of, 161.
Walton, 25.
Wareham Castle, etc., 78, 151-152.
Warkworth Castle, 100.
Welsh castles and walled towns, 153.
Weymouth, or Sandsfort Castle, 187.
White Bulwark, 161.
William, Duke of Normandy, 86.
Winchelsea, 138.
Wolstanbury Camp, Sussex, 5.
Wykeham, William of, 117.
Yarmouth (Great), 103-107.
Yarmouth (Great), boom at, 211.
Yarmouth (Great), chain at, 209.
Yarmouth (Little) Castle, 186-187.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] "Commentaries on the Gallic War"
[2] "Their way of fighting-with their chariots is this: first they
drive their chariots on all sides, and throw their darts, insomuch
that by the very terror of the horses, and noise of the wheels, they
often break the ranks of the enemy. When they have forced their way
into the midst of the cavalry, they quit their chariots and fight
on foot: meanwhile the drivers retire a little from the combat, and
place themselves in such a manner as to favour the retreat of their
countrymen, should they be overpowered by the enemy. Thus in action
they perform the part both of nimble horsemen and stable infantry; and
by continual exercise and use have arrived at that expertness, that in
the most steep and difficult places they can stop their horses upon
a full stretch, turn them which way they please, run along the pole,
rest on the harness, and throw themselves back into their chariots
with incredible dexterity." ("Comm. on the Gallic War," iv, xxix).
[3] See below, page 61.
[4] "Victoria History of Suffolk," i, 282.
[5] Archaeological Institute, Norwich volume, 1851, pp. 9-16.
[6] "Victoria History of Suffolk," i, 278.
[7] Proceedings, xvi, 422-429.
[8] Vol. xx, pp. 128-136.
[9] Now occupied by the Royal Military Canal constructed as part of
the defence against Napoleon's threatened invasion.
[10] Proceedings, xxi, 410.
[11] "Archaeologia," lvii, 335-352.
[12] "Notes on the Roman Coast Defences of Britain, especially in
Yorkshire" ("Journal of Roman Studies," ii, 201-214).
[13] "Memorials of Old Kent," p. 180.
[14] "Archaeological Journal," xlvii, 78-81.
[15] "Roman Ports," p. 51.
[16] "Northumberland County History," i, 22, etc.
[17] "Northumberland County History," ii, 196.
[18] Built in 1390.
[19] "Northumberland County History," viii, 150; "Archaeological
Journal," lxvii, 1-50.
[20] "The History and Antiquities of the Ancient Burgh of Great
Yarmouth," by Henry Swinden, 1772, pp. 82, etc.
[21] "Victoria History, Hampshire," iii (plate _op._), 186.
[22] A good account of the castle, with plans, will be found in
"Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire" (4th
series), xii, 95-122, from the pen of Mr. Edward W. Cox.
[23] 1576 edition, pp. 117-118.
[24] The Hermitage bulwark, near Tilbury, Essex.
[25] The Statute of Winchester was passed in 1285.
[26] Rev. William Hudson, in "Norfolk Archaeology," xvii, 150.
[Illustration: Coat of Arms]
CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
Standard Architectural Books
THE ARCHITECTURE OF ANCIENT EGYPT. A Historical Outline. By
EDWARD BELL, M.A., F.S.A. With 180 illustrations, Maps, and
Plans. _Post 8vo._ =6_s._= _net_.
A SHORT HISTORY OF RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND (A.D.
1500-1800). By REGINALD BLOMFIELD, M.A. With 134 Illustrations.
_Post 8vo._ =7_s._ 6_d._= _net_.
"This most interesting and well-arranged handbook ... is
to be commended to every student and every lover of
architecture."--_Architectural Review._
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE. By GEORGE HERBERT
WEST, D.D., A.R.I.B.A., Vicar of Selsley, Gloucester; late Head
Master of St. Christopher's School, Eastbourne. With about 250
Illustrations from photographs by the Author and others. _Post
8vo._ =6_s._= _net_.
"Dr. West is apparently one of those rare individuals who can
regard this complex subject from the many necessary points of
view, and can treat it as a whole.... This thoughtful and
illuminating little book."--_Westminster Gazette._
A HISTORY OF GOTHIC ART IN ENGLAND. By E. S. PRIOR. With 340
Illustrations, mostly drawn by G. C. HORSLEY. _Imperial 8vo._
=31_s._ 6_d._= _net_.
A HISTORY OF RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND (A.D.
1500-1800). By REGINALD BLOMFIELD. With 150 Illustrations
drawn by the Author and 100 Plates from Photographs and old
Prints and Drawings. _Imperial 8vo. 2 vols._ =£2 10_s._= _net_.
A HISTORY OF FRENCH ARCHITECTURE from the reign of Charles
VIII to the death of Mazarin. By REGINALD BLOMFIELD, A.R.A.,
F.S.A. _With upwards of 250 Illustrations._ 2 _vols. Imperial
8vo._ =£2 10_s._= _net_.
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND
EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES. A selection of Examples drawn and
photographed for the use of Architects. By HORACE FIELD and
MICHAEL BUNNEY. With Introductions and Notes. _Royal 4to._
=42_s._= _net_.
IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES. By A. C.
CHAMPNEYS. _Imperial 8vo. Profusely illustrated_. =31_s._
6_d._= _net_.
THE ANTIQUITIES OF ATHENS and other Monuments of Greece as
measured and delineated by JAMES STUART, F.R.S., F.S.A., and
NICHOLAS REVETT. _With many Illustrations engraved on steel.
Small post 8vo._ =5_s._=
Messrs. BELL'S Illustrated List of Architectural Books will be
sent on application.
* * * * *
G. BELL AND SONS, LTD., YORK HOUSE, PORTUGAL ST. LONDON, W.C.
Transcriber's Notes:
Words surrounded by _ are italicized.
Words surrounded by = are bold.
Hyphenation has been standardised.
Some illustrations were relocated to correspond to their references in
the text.
Caption added to captionless illustrations.