Chapter XIX: Part 19

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.

The castle of Norham-upon-Tweed, “Old Norham,” the Queen of Border fortresses, and the most important stronghold between Carlisle and Berwick, was long the “Castle Dangerous” of that contested territory, and the strongest place on the Marches. It is a lasting monument of episcopal magnificence, founded, restored, and maintained by Flambard, Pudsey, and Beke, three of the most powerful prelates who sat in the chair of St. Cuthbert, and as an example of a great Norman keep is not unworthy to be named with Bamborough itself. The natural strength of the ground led to its early occupation for purposes of defence, and the traditions of Norham are in keeping with its architectural grandeur. Here the Roman legions paused in their progress northwards, and threw up earthworks which may still be recognised, and which were probably abandoned when, under the military occupation of the country, a permanent road was laid out a few miles to the eastward, near to the mouth of the river. An early settlement of the Saxon kings of Deira seems to have been on the steep side of Yevering Bell, the ancient Gebrium, a spur of the Cheviot range, about twelve miles south of Norham, where there yet remain formidable earthworks, which Mr. Raine regarded as traces of the residence of the celebrated Eadwine, King of Deira (585–633), the disciple and friend of Paulinus, but who derived his knowledge of Christianity and probably his taste for a hill residence from Cadvan of Gwynedd, by whom he was educated. Hence, in later times, his successors moved their seat to Millfield, a place near to the Till, and scarcely nine miles from Norham. Probably it was from here that the Saxon kings guarded the pass of the Tweed, then called Ubbanford; and it may well be that their handiwork remains in the banks and ditches, not to be confounded with the camp of the legions, but incorporated with the later castle, and which much resemble in their figure and strength other well-known residences of the ninth century. Here, near this “Northern home” of the successors of St. Cuthbert, Bishop Ecfrid of Lindisfarne founded the parish church dedicated to that saint, towards the middle of the ninth century, and placed in it the remains of Ceolwulph, king and saint. The two contiguous shires of Norham and Island, probably given by Oswald of Northumberland to Lindisfarne, are reputed the oldest possessions of the see of Durham, and detached from the body of the bishopric, presented a bold and strongly-fortified front of twelve miles, from Coldstream to Berwick, to the Scottish invaders. Early in the twelfth century arose the castle, of which the ruins are still so grand, and for the possession of which English and Scottish kings contended for centuries with varying success. The great Edward, “Malleus Scotorum,” made much use of Norham in his wars, and here, both in the church and in the castle, were assembled before him the competitors for the Scottish throne, of whom he selected one rather on the score of his subserviency than of his worthiness. It was also from Norham that Surrey and Dacre and the warders of the middle march directed that formidable raid which, following upon Flodden, carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Edinburgh. But although the broad stream of Tweed still flows at the base of the castle rock, and the scaurs and ravines that constituted the strength of the position still remain unaltered upon its southern frontier, all else is widely changed. The lofty, though ruined, battlements, rising far above the tufted trees, still, indeed, remain the landmark of the local shire, but they no longer look out over wasted lands and ruined villages, harried alternately by Englishman and Scot, “galling the gleaned land with hot assays.” In no part of Britain are the fields more skilfully cultivated, the rickyards more richly stored, the byres stocked with cattle of a higher breed, the farmhouses indicative of greater ease, or the agricultural labourer better able to care for his own interests. All shows plainly to the eye of the experienced traveller what has been achieved by the sturdy northern agriculturist, under the invigorating influence of an unfettered trade.

Norham occupies the hollow of a grand bend of the Tweed, which here cuts “a huge half-moon, a monstrous cantle,” out of the English bank to bestow it upon that of Scotland, in the form of a broad and fertile meadow. The castle stands upon a rocky platform, the south-western extremity of a cliff which forms the river bank for a considerable distance. A deep ravine cuts off the higher ground to the north-east, and is joined by a less marked depression, which, deepened by art, sweeps round and forms the southern defence until it opens upon the steep slope which descends to the river and forms the north and north-western front of the castle. Beyond this ditch, which contained the approach from the village of Norham, and more to the south, is a broad and level platform, also defended by deep ravines, upon which may be traced the remains of the Roman camp and the less regular banks and ditches of some of the besiegers of the castle. Both in its choice and in the manner of occupation of the position are shown much strategical judgment and engineering skill. It is both locally strong and well selected for the defence of St. Cuthbert’s and the Northumbrian frontier from Scottish inroads, as well as for the cutting off such invaders as, having advanced southwards, might be forced to retreat. The description of Simeon of Durham is both concise and accurate. Writing of Flambard, he says: “Condidit castellum in excelso præruptæ rupis super Tuedam flumen, ut inde latronum incursus inhiberet et Scottorum irruptiones. Ibi enim, utpote in confinio regni Anglorum et Scottorum, creber predantibus ante patebat excursus, nullo ibidem, quo hujusmodi impetus repellerentur, præsidio locato.”

The glories of Norham, indeed, have been honourably recorded in every stage of its stirring existence. Its sieges, misfortunes, reparations, and their particulars and cost, are entered in considerable fulness in the sheriffs’ accounts and in those of the Palatine see, and, finally, in its neglect and decay, it has been honoured with Scott for its poet and Raine for its historian.

The plan of the castle is irregular, following the general outline of the ground. Like Barnard Castle, its form is a sort of quadrant, the north and east faces 143 yards and 108 yards long, being nearly at right angles, and more or less straight, and the border to the south-west a curve of 223 yards, connecting the two sides. Of the area thus enclosed, the north-eastern portion is occupied by the upper or inner ward, the plan of which is roughly square, 57 yards east and west by 47 yards north and south, covering, therefore, within its walls 2,680 square yards. The north and east sides of this ward form part of the common curtain of the whole. In front of the other two sides is a broad and deep ditch, which extends from the eastern ravine to the northern steep, and is contained wholly within the outer ward, the available area of which is thus considerably reduced. The whole was contained within a curtain wall which, where it belonged to the inner ward, was high and strong, but where to the outer ward was unequal, being high where it crossed the ends of the inner ditch and along a part of the north front, but elsewhere either very low or of but moderate thickness. Most of the care of the engineer was lavished upon the inner ward.

Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]

The keep, the great, and, though a mere ruin, the best-preserved feature of the fortress, is rectangular, and measures at its base about 64 feet north and south by 86 feet east and west, and is or has been about 90 feet high. The walls range from 12 feet to 15 feet thick, and appear to be 8 feet to 10 feet at the summit, which is inaccessible. The east end is a part of the exterior line of defence, and ranges with the curtain. The south face looks into the outer, the two other faces into the inner, ward. The exterior faces have certain peculiarities. The south-east angle is capped by two pilasters, 11 feet broad and of slight projection, which, like the similar pilasters at Kenilworth, rise from a rough, bold, sloping plinth, 12 feet high, continued all along the east end. These pilasters have various sets-off reducing them to 10 feet at the summit. They meet at and cover the angle, which is solid. Near the centre of the east end is another somewhat similar pilaster, only 10 feet broad, and beyond this the wall has been pulled down to the first floor. The part left, forming the north-east angle of the keep, had no pilaster, but is bonded into the northern curtain, which is of its age. The southern curtain is not in the line of the keep, but sprung from its south face about 25 feet west of the south-east angle, where it is seen to have been 7 feet thick and of the height of the first floor of the keep, or about 30 feet. This also was of the age of the keep. The southern face of the keep, so far at least as its outer face is concerned, is of two dates. In the centre, but belonging to the eastern or older part, is a pilaster, 8 feet broad, but without setts-off. Between this and the south-east angle, above the curtain, and also without sett-off, is another pilaster, only 3 feet wide. A flat wall, without pilasters, but with two setts-off near the summit, occupies the next 36 feet westward. The base seems old, but the upper part is certainly later, into which the Decorated windows are probably insertions. Near the west end, about 16 feet from the angle, is a plain pilaster, 3 feet broad and 6 inches projection, which ascends to the second floor level, and stops at the cill of a small pointed doorway in the second floor; above this, in the two upper storeys, are two similar but rather smaller doors. It is probable that these opened from mural lobbies into garderobes of timber, projected from the wall: at least, it is difficult to suggest any other reason for doorways so placed.

The west face is all of one date; the doors and windows are of the Decorated period, but the wall itself is Norman. The curtain of the inner ward abuts upon the south-west angle, and is about 30 feet high and very thick, with a mural closet high up within it, which may be the garderobe, completed probably soon after 1431–2. There are two pointed doors, both at the ground level; one leading into the south chamber of the keep, the other, near the centre, into a well-stair, 10 feet diameter, which ascends in the wall to the summit, and terminates in a raised square turret, a marked feature in every view of the keep. Six loops, one over the other, show the line of this staircase, and a few feet from the top, and over the door, are four or five corbels, which evidently supported some kind of _brétasche_ of timber to protect the doorway below. Above are various windows, three of two lights, trefoiled, square-headed, but Decorated, and others of one light, with square labels. Towards the south end of this front, at the first-floor level, is a large round-headed doorway, evidently the original main door of the keep, the outer stair leading to which is removed. No doubt this stair ascended from the north end, and the chamber in the curtain, now inaccessible, was either an oratory or a garderobe, opening from the vestibule before the door. This end, like the south, is tolerably perfect.

The north front is almost all removed. About 15 feet from the west end there remains one jamb of a door at the ground level. Beyond this, about 26 feet is level with the ground. The remainder, about 45 feet, remains to the level of the first floor, and is pierced by two loops from the basement.

The interior of the keep shows it to have contained a basement and four floors, the whole divided east and west, or longitudinally, from bottom to top, by a party wall 5 feet thick, of which only the lower part remains. The basement, at the ground level, is composed of a north and south chamber, each 60 feet long, the northern 20 feet and the southern 15 feet broad. The southern was divided by a cross-wall into two chambers, both barrel-vaulted, the western rather the longer. The eastern has a loop to the east, high up, set in a splayed, round-headed recess; and in the north wall is a door leading into the north chamber. In the south wall, here 12 feet thick, is a breach 8 feet wide, at the ground level, which probably represents a loop. The western chamber has a loop in the south wall, the recess of which runs into the barrel, producing a groin. In the west end is a doorway and passage through the wall, here 15 feet thick, and by its side a loop. There must have been a door between these southern chambers, in the cross-wall.

The northern chamber seems to have been one room only, broken into four compartments by groined vaulting, between each bay being a broad flat band. There is a loop at the east end, and two others near it, in the north wall. The two western bays are broken down. In the west wall is a loop, and near it, in the north wall, the jamb of a door of entrance, probably the stone doorway into the dungeon vault made in 1429–30, and fitted with an iron gate. This basement vaulting is about 10 feet high to the springing, and is original, as at Bamborough, Mitford, and Newcastle, and the walls and loops all round, seen from within, seem also original, and their interior face work is excellent open or jointed ashlar. The remains of the cross-wall show the first floor to have contained two chambers, both probably vaulted; the southern certainly so. Each was entered by a door from the western staircase. The north and much of the east wall of this north chamber is gone. In the west end is a Decorated window in a large round-headed recess, flat-sided, and near it the entrance from the staircase. In the east end was a loop in a splayed recess. The southern chamber was probably a lower and lesser hall. In its east end is a door from the well-stair, and another door, large and round-headed, once the main entrance. Against the south wall are seen the remains of the vault, of four compartments, groined, the bays divided by cross arches springing from corbels. In the most western bay was a fireplace; in each of the three eastern a round-headed window in a splayed recess. In the east end is a pointed recess and a large lancet window, the whole evidently an insertion. The height of this floor was about 12 feet to the spring of the vault.

BASEMENT.

Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]

The second was the floor of state, and, in the original keep, also the uppermost floor. The two rooms had low-pitched open roofs, of which the weather mouldings are seen, as at Porchester, in the end walls. These rooms were entered, each by its own door, from the well-stair, but the northern door has been built up and a loop placed in it. Of the north chamber there only remains a large window in the west wall, in a drop arch, a Decorated insertion. If there was any fireplace, it must have been in the dividing wall. The south chamber was evidently the great hall. In its east end is a large full-centred Norman recess, containing a Norman window. In the west wall, besides the staircase door, here pointed below a square label, is a pointed recess and window. In the south wall are two bold, round-headed recesses splayed to small lancet windows, and west of these a pointed door, probably entering a mural chamber, and communicating with the door already mentioned, in the outer face of the wall.

Originally there was no third floor, and to provide this the hall roof was removed, and for it substituted a flat ceiling supported by nine joists, the holes for which remain. On these were laid the planks of the third floor. Of this the north chamber had in its west end a segmented arched window recess and the staircase door, now blocked up. In the north chamber, west end, was a similar staircase door and a pointed window recess. The east wall was not pierced, neither was the south wall, save by one window, and near it a small pointed door, near the west end. The covering of this storey was composed also of nine joists, which carried the planks of the fourth floor.

Of this floor the remains are but slight. It also was composed of two chambers. Of the north the west wall remains, but it contains neither window nor staircase door. The south chamber has in its west end a window, and in its south wall a fireplace. Of this wall only about 6 feet in height remains, so that probably about 4 feet to 6 feet of its upper part is gone. Considering the thickness of the walls, the absence of mural chambers and galleries in this keep is remarkable.

The keep was certainly built originally by Ralf Flambard in 1121, and the eastern end and adjacent halves of the north and south sides were certainly of the same date. It is also pretty certain that Flambard’s keep was of the same size with the present one, and the whole basement, and the vaulting of the first floor, seems original. Probably there was but one entrance, that in the west end at the first-floor level, and there would be, in that case, an exterior tower or fore-building, covering the staircase, and of which there seem to be traces in the face of the curtain against which, as at Kenilworth, it must have abutted. The entrance is quite plain, and without a portcullis. Bishop Pudsey, who ruled from 1158 to 1174, is said to have rebuilt the western half of the ruined keep. Possibly he only restored it, for it is scarcely probable that half of so very substantial a building should have been pulled down, either with the means or in the time at the disposal of any band of invaders; still, it must be admitted, that the western half differs materially from the eastern. In the latter, the plinth is bold and high, and the pilasters marked features. In the western part are no pilasters, and no plinth of any consequence, and the setts-off of the wall are at a different height. If Bishop Pudsey rebuilt the western half, he did so in the late Norman style, so that the work harmonises inside with that of Flambard. Pudsey, no doubt, raised the walls somewhat, converted the ridge roofs of the second story into a flat covering, and, in the space thus gained and created, added two more floors, as was done to the extent of one floor, at Porchester, Kenilworth, and Richmond, and in many other Norman keeps.

In the Decorated Period great changes were certainly made. Doors were opened at the ground level in the north and west walls. The fore-building was removed, and in its stead a well-stair inserted in the centre of the west wall, so as to provide a new and convenient approach to each floor; and this was carried up to the end in a raised turret, adding somewhat to the view. The entrance to this staircase was at the ground floor on the outside, but it did not lead into the basement. The whole of the west wall and the contiguous half of the south wall were faced with ashlar, and window-cases of the period inserted. All this may well have been the work of Anthony Beke, “Presul Magnanimus,” called “the maist prowd and masterfull Busshop in all England,” in that period—

When valour bow’d before the rood and book,
And kneeling knighthood served a Prelate lord.

The window recesses all through the building are mostly in the Norman style, and therefore in almost every case much older than the windows which they contain.

The three ends of the curtain abutting on the keep are of the same workmanship with, and bond into it, and are about 30 feet high. That proceeding northwards is capped at the north-east angle by a stout bastion, with a salient angle of 110 degrees, two faces of 17 feet, and shoulders of 4 feet. This is evidently a rebuilding after the introduction of artillery, and probably the work of Sir George Bowes. This curtain is continued 30 feet further along the river face, and is thence broken down. The kitchen seems to have been in the angle, the hall next to it, and then the chapel, all built against the north curtain. The curtain now standing corresponds closely to what the survey of 1515 calls the long high wall from the Dongeon to the north-west end of the kitchen (44 yards long and 30 feet high, contremured, so as to be 28 feet thick). We are told that in 1551 the chapel was 30 feet by 18 feet, with walls 8 feet thick, and with a crypt below capable of stabling 20 horses, and a “closet” above, and that the battlements above this closet and of the long wall were of the same height, and so extended from the north-east angle of the keep round to its south-west angle. In Sir George Bowes’s very able report upon the castle, he advises strengthening this wall by filling the hall and other buildings with earth, and forming a hall in the first floor of the keep, which seems then to have been much such a ruin as at present. Passing to the south-west angle of the keep, whence springs the southern curtain of this inner ward, also 30 feet high and very thick, this is continued 50 feet, and then broken by a nearly rectangular bastion tower of 40 feet projection, and 30 feet breadth, the “little Bulwark” of 1551;—a Decorated insertion to give a flanking defence where it was much needed. In the rear of this tower, which probably was of the nature of a bastion, that is not higher than the curtain, are remains of buildings. Beyond it, a high bank of earth and rubbish marks the line, but conceals the remains of the rest of the curtain. In this bank, towards the west, a gap marks the position of the gatehouse. The well remains near the north-east corner of the ward, and indicates the general position of the kitchen.

The _Outer Ward_, or that part of the castle outside the ditch of the inner ward, is of a lunated figure, 50 yards at the widest part. This ditch was crossed at each end by the curtain. The lower part of the wall at the east end still remains, and is about 8 feet thick, and 30 feet high, pierced by a Norman arch, probably for a postern, as at Carlisle. The curtain along the northern front is gone. The slope is there very steep, and in Sir George Bowes’s time this was trusted to, and the wall was a mere low breastwork. More to the west, as far as the lower gatehouse, the wall has been rebuilt. It is in parts about 15 feet thick, and 10 feet high inside, and from 15 feet to 20 feet outside. It probably rests in part on a Norman foundation, but the superstructure looks Decorated or later. It was pierced by deep recesses 11 feet broad under a flat arch, splayed to a loop, and intended to flank the approach from the town to the outer gate. Three of these recesses remain, and probably there were two more.

The lower gatehouse is a rectangular block 40 feet long by 20 feet broad, and of 30 feet projection within the curtain. It is pierced by a passage 15 feet wide, reduced at each end and in the centre by gate piers to 12 feet. These piers carried ribs to stiffen the barrel vault of the passage. The arches were round-headed. There was no portcullis. In front of the gate, as at Tickhill, are two projecting walls, between which there was probably a drawbridge. There was an upper floor. This gatehouse is evidently Norman, and no doubt Flambard’s work.

From the gatehouse eastward for about 130 yards the curtain is represented by a high and steep bank of earth and rubbish, which, no doubt, contains its foundations. The ground rises, and the original bank, as well as the curtain upon it, were evidently raised to command the platform opposite and beyond the ditch, which seems to have been the favourite position for besiegers. The curtain recommences, and is continued for 80 yards along the high ground, forming the east end of the southern front. This part of the curtain is very curious, and not a little difficult to understand. Upon it are the remains of one, or perhaps two, polygonal bastions, but in the line of the wall, between them, are six round-headed arches of about 12 feet span, springing from square piers about 3 feet or 4 feet broad. Most of the masonry is so rough that it evidently was intended, as at Southampton Castle, to be covered with earth, though why, while the foundation was excellent, this mode of supporting the curtain should have been employed, is not clear; but the first, that is, the most western, of these arches is of ashlar, and seems to have been a gateway, and is probably the gateway mentioned in the history of the castle as having had its gates unskilfully hung upon gudgeons so placed that they could be lifted off from the outside. Beyond these arches and bastions the curtain makes a sharp turn, and proceeds northwards to 60 yards, to cross the ditch and join the keep.

In front of the lower gate is a small platform, beyond the ditch, and 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.