Chapter XX: Part 20

These troops formed the van of the royal army, and penetrated as far as Aberdeen. He was present also in later campaigns, and in one was wounded. His power and arrogance were, however, too great for a subject, and excited the ill-will of Edward, whom, however, he survived, dying 1310. Beke was a magnificent builder, and it is probably to him that must be attributed the facing of the part of the keep which had been restored by Pudsey; and the insertion of the great well-staircase and Decorated window-frames. In 1314, the castle was conceded by Bishop Kellow to the Crown, and Edward II. is said to have executed some repairs there. In 1316 it was restored to the see. Norham had its full share of the troubles of the border during the weak reign of Edward II. Its captain, Thomas Gray, was twice besieged in form by the Scots, once by blockade for twelve months and once for seven months. On one occasion the outer ward was taken, but as, after three days’ possession, the enemy could produce no impression upon the inner ward, they retired from so dangerous a proximity. Later in the reign, 1322, it was taken, but recovered by Edward in person after a siege of ten days. In 1327, the night of the coronation of the new sovereign, it was near being taken by treachery, but the plot was frustrated by Thomas Manners, then captain. Edward II. is reputed to have executed great works at the castle.

Edward III. found Lewis Beaumont in the see of Durham. The bishop recovered Norham, though with some difficulty, but Barnard Castle remained alienated. In 1335, his successor, Bishop Bury, held an ordination at Norham.

In 1356, ten years after the battle of Nevill’s Cross, the Scots burned Norham, probably the village, and surprised the town, but not the castle, of Berwick, which held out till the arrival of Edward III. from Calais, when the affront was amply avenged, and Bishop Hatfield attested Baliol’s surrender of the crown at Roxburgh Castle in 1357. During the reigns of Henry IV., V., and VI., Norham was well maintained, and played a part in all the great transactions on the Border. The accounts kept by the Bishops of Durham are very copious, and contain many curious technical and local words. The outer bridge was repaired with timber in 1405, as was the roof of the Pex or Pox hall within the castle. A wheel was made for the well, with an axle, gudgeons, and a bucket. The great and other chambers and the kitchen were leaded. Mention is made of the chapel and of the chaplain. The nights being long and cold, extra wages were paid to the watchers, lights were allowed for the chapel, and repairs effected for the whole castle, excepting the great tower. In 1408, the west gate was wholly rebuilt in 298 days, at a cost of £37. 6s. 7d. This can scarcely be the lower or outer gate at the extreme west, which is much older, and was probably the inner gate, which is also to the west of the keep. “Les skafald” is mentioned, and a paling of wood round the tower. In 1422 was built the “new tower within the castle,” and in 1426–7 four iron doors were brought from the bishop’s forges at Auckland.

In 1429–30, during the episcopate of Cardinal Langley, “quædam nova latrina” was appended to the west side of the great tower, a work not completed in 1431–2. Also a great doorway in stone was made under the vault of the Dongeon of the great tower, probably the door in the north wall, of which one jamb remains. The doorway was fitted with an iron door. The draw-well had a new wheel, and a new horse-mill was constructed within the castle.

Hitherto the bishops, when in possession of the castle, had occupied it by their own officers, but in 1435 the cardinal introduced the practice of letting it for a term to some powerful captain who was bound to maintain and defend it, and received a good payment for so doing. This practice was found convenient, and resorted to not infrequently afterwards. The lessee seems sometimes to have been invested by the bishop with the offices of constable of the castle and sheriff and escheator of the see. Bishop Fox began his rule in 1495 by deepening the outer ditch, and, indeed, the aspect of the times rendered prudent all possible precautions for defence.

In that same year, Henry VII., alarmed at the reception of Warbeck in Scotland, prepared for war: a commission of array for the Marches was issued to the bishop, and Lord Surrey took the command north of Trent. King James crossed the Border from Scotland in two successive years, and in the second, 1497, appeared in person before Norham. It was strong and well garrisoned, and by some accounts the bishop threw himself into the fortress, within which shelter had been afforded to all the country round. During sixteen days of fierce assault the outer defences were much injured, but the place was not entered, and Surrey came to its relief. The bishop then laid aside the temporal arm and excommunicated Redesdale and Tynedale. In September, 1498, he was at Norham, and lifted his censure from the borderers who submitted. Hamerlin and Garth, his lieutenants, during the siege, were pensioned for their bravery in the defence.

In 1513, 22nd August, the year of Flodden, King James crossed the Tweed in force, and on the 29th Norham, imperfectly garrisoned, was surrendered to him and very roughly handled. The king then

Wasted his time with Heron’s dame,

while his army took Etal, Wark, and Heton, and the lesser holds of Tilmouth, Shoreswood, Twisel, Duddoe, and Thornton. This gleam of success was succeeded by the defeat of Flodden, after which, in 1514, Lord Dacre ravaged the Scottish border to beyond Borthwick. If the bishop’s garrison showed want of courage during James’s attack, the main body of the forces of the bishopric redeemed its character at Flodden, where they led the van under Sir William Bulmer. It was the last appearance of St. Cuthbert’s banner in the open field, and often as it had been displayed, it had never been attended by defeat. Bishop Ruthal once more put the castle in repair; the inner ward and the keep were made safe, and much money expended in masons’ and carpenters’ work on walls and roofs. The castle had been “prostratum et disruptum ad terram” by the Scots, a phrase which, however, is not to be taken literally. Bishops-Middleham is said to have been stripped for materials for Norham. By 1515 the castle was in order, victualled, and garrisoned. The walls were countermined as a precaution against “sawting,” or blowing up. The outer walls were buttressed and provided with “Murderers,” a well-known piece of ordnance of that day. When all was done, the masons were despatched to pull down Home Castle.

Nothing seems to have lasted very long at Norham, for William, Lord Greystoke, the captain, found the outer ward so ruined as to be defenceless. Its four towers were too low, but the inner ward was regarded, “with the help of God,” as impregnable. At this time the long wall between the inner gate and the nether gate next the water was ready to be embattled. The four towers were to be raised with ashlar, and quarry rubbish was ready to fill up three of them. Wolsey held the see from 1522 to 1528, but does not seem to have troubled himself about the castle.

About 1530 the Scots appeared before Norham, but the castle was saved by the valour of Archdeacon Franklin, who had a special coat-of-arms assigned to him by Henry VIII. for this service. At this time there was regular stabling for 60 horses, a byre for cattle, which, if necessary, could hold 50 more horses, and there was room beneath the chapel for another 20, or 130 in all. Besides stores of salt meat, fish, and grain, 6 fed oxen and 400 sheep lay nightly beneath the castle wall. The garrison was composed of 59 men, besides children. This state of defence was probably stimulated by a whisper of treason, which caused the Privy Council to direct the Duke of Norfolk “to look to it.” Bishop Tunstal seems to have maintained the defences during the reign of Mary.

In the next few years, however, great changes took place. In 1542, the castle was finally put in order by Bishop Tunstal; but in 1551 the bishop was deprived, and the castle was reported again to need repairs. The wall of the inner ward towards the Tweed was rotten, the water having got into it on the removal of the lead from the adjacent buildings, and in such a state that a very light battery on the Scots’ bank would suffice to bring it down with the hall and kitchen. Half the keep had some time since fallen. The reporter, Sir George Bowes, points out the weakness of the place, and then, at great length, how an old castle was to made defensible in modern warfare. He especially dwells on the absence of flanking works. The outer ward wall, on the east, west, and south, is old, thin, and weak, and its small ward towers badly placed as flankers. The north wall was a low parapet, and the outer ward gates so hung that they could be lifted from the outside. He advises filling hall and kitchen with earth to support the river ward wall, and constructing a hall in the ruins of the keep. He is said to have lowered the keep one storey, reserving only the stair turret as a look-out. Probably it was at this time that the north-east bastion was built, and the embrasures made in the outer ward wall.

In 1557 there was a fray in front of the castle, in the space between the bridge and the iron gate. There were but four men in the place. In 1559, Tunstal died, and the castle was finally and by law detached from the see of Durham and held by the Crown, Lord Hunsdon having a lease of it from Elizabeth. Lord Hunsdon’s representatives, the Careys, were induced by James to part with their lease to Home, Earl of Dunbar, in whose favour the property was converted into a freehold to be held by socage tenure of the Crown. As late, however, as 1583 it was kept up as a place of defence, probably for the police of the border, and had an establishment of a captain of horse, an ensign bearer, a trumpeter, a porter and assistant porter, a master-gunner, a quartermaster gunner, 16 gunners, a chaplain, and a surgeon, costing not less than £1,703. 6s. 8d. per annum.

The history of Norham Castle and Shire will be found given in great detail and with great accuracy in the history of North Durham, by the Rev. James Raine.

NOTTINGHAM CASTLE.

The annexed drawing, taken from the _Illustrated London News_, represents admirably, in Nottingham in the sixteenth century, the appearance of a very perfect castle of the first class. The Norman keep is seen on the curtain between two wards. The smaller or inner ward is original and Norman. It was enclosed in a lofty and strong curtain, following the outline of the rock on which it stood, and strengthened at its three most exposed angles by rectangular towers of no exterior projection. On two sides of the court were lodgings, and in the wall was a postern with exterior steps. The main gate of this ward was placed in the face next the tower, near the keep, and was covered by the middle ward. To the original castle was added, probably in the reign of John, or that of Henry III., a second or middle ward, having an entrance through the base of a square tower, so placed as to cover the least protected angle of the original castle. A square tower serving as a gatehouse shows the arrangement was an early one, probably not later than the reign of John. This ward was contained within a strong curtain, with cylindrical mural towers of bold projection, and was so placed as to cover one side of the inner ward, and had its own ditch. Again, outside the two preceding wards, and applied so as to cover them on two sides, and the keep-ward on one side, was a large outer ward calculated to contain a small army. This ward was also walled with round bastion towers, that is, towers on the wall, but not rising above it. It also had two, or probably three, gatehouses and a ditch. The utter destruction of so noble a remnant of early military architecture is much to be regretted.

The drawing shows the Trent and the castle mill, but not the two Burhs, mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon “Chronicle” as guarding the river.

ODIHAM CASTLE, HANTS.

About a mile north-west of the town of Odiham, in the tything of North Warnborough, stands what remains of this ancient castle. It is placed on the left bank of the Whitewater, a rather copious stream, which rises about two miles south, and flows northwards to fall into the Loddon at Swallowfield. About the castle the ground is low and flat, and, in consequence, very wet. The Basingstoke canal has been carried across the marsh, and being now abandoned and choked with weeds, adds to the dreariness of the scene. The place, no doubt, was always one of strength, and the open woodland about it was favourable to the preservation of game, and to the wilder kind of sporting in which the Plantagenet monarchs took great delight.

Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]

Whatever may have been the extent of the castle in its great days, its remains in masonry are confined to a single tower, now in a very dilapidated condition. This tower is an octagon, described within a circle of about 29 feet radius, the faces, not quite equal, averaging 22 feet 6 inches. The walls, casing included, were 10 feet thick; the interior faces, therefore, average 14 feet 9 inches, and the interior diameter from face to face is 38 feet. At each angle is set a buttress of 4 feet projection and 2 feet breadth, rising to the summit, or nearly so, of the building, now about 60 feet high, and which, the parapet and part of the wall being gone, may have been 8 feet higher. As the tops of some of the upper windows remain, it may be inferred that the height, when complete, did not exceed 68 feet.

The material of the tower is a conglomerate of small flint nodules grouted in a large quantity of very good mortar. The whole exterior seems to have been faced with small ashlar blocks, possibly of Caen stone. The casing is gone, but the mortar has preserved the beds of the stone more or less perfect. The same stone was used in the interior for dressings for the openings, and for a band about 4 feet high at the base of the wall, and for the groining of the internal angles. In these two latter positions, some of the ashlar has been left undisturbed. About one-third of the tower, including most of the two western faces, has fallen; but though the remainder is very rough and a mere mass of flint conglomerate, held together by the excellence of the mortar, the cores of the buttresses remain, and enough of the recesses of the window openings to show something of their original form and dimensions.

The tower is composed of a basement and two stories. The basement floor is about 6 feet below the exterior ground level. It was about 12 feet high, and six of its eight faces appear to have been pierced. Of these openings, five commence within at 4 feet from the floor. They were round-headed and 4 feet wide. They converged upon an ordinary loop, and as the cill rose by six steps, the base of the loop was about a foot above the exterior ground level. Three of these recesses are tolerably perfect; another, judging from an appearance in the wall above, may have been the door into the base of a well-stair, ascending in the wall to the summit. Such a stair there was likely to have been, and the hollow in the wall is more like that for a staircase than for a chimney-shaft or a garderobe vent, and the weakening of the wall by such staircase would account for its having fallen on this side. The stair, if such it was, occupied the south end of the south-west face. Two of the openings in the basement have been called doorways of entrance from without. What remains scarcely leads to this conclusion, and it is exceedingly improbable that there should have been a door on the ground level when there certainly was one on the first floor. Sir E. Home’s plan, mentioned below,[11] shows a sort of staircase in the centre of the tower, as though descending to a sub-basement floor. Of this not a trace is visible, and in so wet a soil a chamber much below the surface would be usually full of water. As regards the ground-floor entry, it is very possible that here, as usual, a basement window may, in modern times, for the convenience of entry, have been converted into a door, and so the present appearance produced.

The first or state floor was about 30 feet high. Its south face was occupied by a very capacious fireplace, with a bold hood and mantel-piece of ashlar, now gone, and it had a round back and a large circular chimney-shaft carried up vertically in the thickness of the wall. Of the other seven faces, two are gone, and four are pierced with lofty, round-headed arches, about 8 feet broad, and slightly splayed. These, no doubt, terminated in small coupled windows. In the east face is an opening without splay, evidently a doorway, and, no doubt, the main entrance, with an exterior stair, as at Brunless and Coningsburgh. In an adjacent face is a large square locker.

The upper floor also had a fireplace, a smaller one above that on the state floor, and in front of its chimney-shaft. This lesser shaft seems to have been of ashlar. The arch of the fireplace is of three rings, each of large, thin red tiles, having a very Roman aspect. In this floor the window recesses were ranged in pairs, two in each face. Of these, three and a half pairs, or seven window arches, remain. In the east face is a small locker. This story may have been 18 feet high.

The floors were of timber, and composed of large beams, laid about 6 inches apart. As the wall is the same thickness throughout there are no setts-off, and the walls are pierced with square recesses for the beams. As these recesses are not parallel but radiating, it is clear that the floor rested, as in the Wakefield Tower in the Tower of London, upon a central pier or post.

There are no traces of any mural chamber of any kind.

The history of this tower, the character of its casings, the thickness of its walls, and the round-headed figure of such arches as remain, point to the Norman, or commencement of the early English, period. Nevertheless, it is in plan very unlike the usual Norman structures, and the buttresses, clearly original, are characteristic of a very much later period. If it be Norman or transitional, it is very late indeed in the style; as late as the reign of Richard I., but it must be confessed that the buttresses are much more in harmony with the date of Richard II.

The tower stands near the centre of a roughly-circular platform, about 38 yards diameter, slightly raised above the marsh, and surrounded by a ditch. Beyond this ditch there is, on the north-east front another enclosure with its ditch, and the canal seems to have been carried through something of the same character. All this looks as though there had been an earlier fortification of earth and timber, possibly the seat of the Saxon Odo, of whom nothing is known or surmised but his name.

There are no traces of any other masonry than the tower, and if it stood alone this would account for the otherwise marvellous exploit of the castle having been held out by thirteen men for many days against the Dauphin’s army. Of course, the extent of wall which so small a garrison could defend would be very limited; but with a tower such as Odiham, well-victualled, and a fireproof door, an army, especially unprovided with mining tools or military engines, as with an invading force would not be improbable, could do but little. Nevertheless, some of the records relative to the castle indicate other buildings besides the tower, though all traces of them are now gone.

Odiham has no history before the time of Domesday. That it was the seat of a Saxon lord is to be inferred from its name, though some authorities repudiate “Odo” and his “Hame,” and substitute for him Woodyham, Oodyham, Odiham, an etymology, no doubt, applicable enough to the district.

In Domesday, King William is recorded as holding Odiham in demesne; Earl Harold had held it. It is twice mentioned in that record, and was in the hundreds of Edefele and Bermesplet, though a hundred of Odiham is also named. Nothing is said of a castle, nor does the name of the Bishop of Winchester, to whom it has usually been attributed, occur, either then or afterwards, in connexion with the lordship, borough, or castle. Among the royal tenants occur certain “Taini regis,” who were represented in the reign of Edward I. by the “Homines et sokemanni regis,” who then had common of pasture in Odiham.

Richard I. held Odiham. In the first year of his reign certain payments are entered upon the Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer connected with it. Roger Fitz-Renfrid accounted for 20s. for a cowhouse or vaccary there; William de Bend for 100s.; and the sheriff accounted for 12d. for land held by Richard de Rollos. The town also fined 20s. for a murder.

Odiham is frequently mentioned on the same rolls in the reign of John, who was there nineteen times in nine years, for at least forty days in all. In 3 John, William de Bend is probably represented by Adam de Benderges, who appears with Richard de Rollos.

5 John. The men of Odiham had a charter concerning the manor, and they held the vill in fee farm at a fine of 100 marks or £35. 4s. rent.

6 John, 1204. King John was here on the 28th July. Probably he had a palace here, for such there certainly was a little later at Odiham, and it is said to be represented by a farmhouse still known as “Palace” or “Place Gate.” 11th March, Hugh Fitz-John was to have his corn at Odiham, then in the king’s hands, and (26th May, 8 John, 1206) John Fitz-Hugh was allowed in his rent the value of his chattels which the bailiff of Robert de Vipont had taken, saving the stock sold from the same manor for the king’s use by his orders.

9 John, 1207. On the 23rd June the king was at Odiham; and on the 29th, John Fitz-Hugh was to take and hold the manor until the men there had paid the debt due to the king. 10th August, the same John was ordered to have 20 marcs from the king’s treasure for the works at Odiham; and 26th October, a new bed was ordered for Woodstock and another for Odiham, in which, no doubt, King John slept when there in December for three days. There also was an order for payment for making the ditches there at the king’s command (Close Roll, p. 94 b). In 11 John, £50 was ordered for works there. In February, May, and October, of the same year, 1210, John was at Odiham; in 14 John, 1212, he went from Lambeth to Odiham, and arriving on Sunday, 6th May, tested documents there. On Monday, 3s. were paid for the hire of three carts, travelling two days and resting one, conveying the wardrobe from Lambeth; also 13d. to Ferling the huntsman and Thos. de Porkericiis, with the hounds, for their expenses and sleeping one night on the road. John then left, but returned to Odiham on the 10th. While absent on the 8th at Freemantell, he paid 6s. for the heads of six Welshmen,—ghastly trophies sent to him. On the 10th, 5d. were paid for cords bought at Winchester to string the cross-bows, besides expenses for hiring carts. John was seven days at Odiham in the May of this year, and afterwards in December. On 25th May, he paid 5s. to Stephen de Guildford for a wolf caught by his master’s dogs at Freemantell.

15 John, 1214. Money had been spent by John Fitz-Hugh on repairs of the king’s castles of Windsor and Odiham. The king was at the latter place in January.

Magna Charta was tested 15th June, 1215, 17 John. In the preceding May the king was at Odiham, from the 21st to the 25th, and from the 28th to the 30th, seven days. On the 29th, he addressed the letter to Pope Innocent, in which he pleaded the contumacy of the barons as the reason why he could not go to the Holy Land. On the same day the castle of Devizes was ordered to be repaired, and Hugh de Beauchamp’s lands were to be taken possession of if he was with the rebels. From the 31st of May to the 3rd of June, the king was at Windsor. On 4th June, he was at Odiham, whence he went to Winchester and was there from the 5th to the 8th. He thence paid a hasty visit to Merton, but was at Odiham on the 9th, it is said, with seven knights only. On the 11th, he was at Windsor, and there remained, visiting Runnymede, from thence to grant the charter, and returning to Windsor till the 21st, when he was again at Runnymede. And so to and fro till the 26th, when he was at Odiham for a day. In that year there was also a charge for putting garrisons into Odiham and other castles.

At this time John seems to have been preparing for the struggle by collecting what he had portable of value. The prior of Reading brought to him at Odiham, on the 26th June, a silver cabinet and an ivory cabinet with precious stones and reliques, a gold cup given him by the Pope, much silver and silver-gilt plate, various rolls of the royal chamber and of the Exchequer and his seal, all which had been deposited in Reading Abbey. On the following day he was at Winchester, and there received by Adam, the cellarer of Merton, more plate and jewels, sapphires, balas rubies, &c., which had been in keeping of the convent there, and again on the same day a very much larger quantity also of plate and jewels, brought by Michael, a canon of Waltham, from the custody of the house there. The details of all these valuables are given at length on the Patent Rolls. From Winchester he went to various places in Wiltshire and the south of England.

In the following year, 1216, 17 John, the king was at Odiham for the last time for five days in April, and on the 15th ordered twenty tuns (“dolia”) of his prisage wines to be sent there from Southampton. He issued thence an immense number of instruments, and finally left for Farnham on the 18th. On 21st April, the manor of Odiham was to be transferred by Bartholomew Peche to the seneschal, Engelram de Cygoyn, or his attorney, who seems to have been John Fitz-Hugh, to whom it was again transferred on the 29th. The transfer, however, was confined to the manor, for by a mandate of the 31st of May, directing seisin to be given to Fitz-Hugh, the castle was specially retained in the king’s hands.

How strong the place was appears from the resistance it opposed in this year to the Dauphin Louis and the invading army. Marlborough, a very strong castle, had surrendered, when the French appeared before Odiham. The tower, says Wendover, was held by three knights and ten soldiers, who were besieged in form. On the third day when such engines as were with the army were in place, and an assault had been made and failed, the garrison sallied out and captured a number equal to their own as prisoners. After eight, or, as some accounts say, fifteen, days, the thirteen surrendered on terms, retaining their horses and arms and their liberty. Wendover says the tower belonged to the Bishop of Winchester, but all the evidence seems to show that neither the castle nor domain were ever alienated from the Crown.

The first mention of Odiham in the reign of Henry III. is an order to de Cygoyn to allow Bartholomew de Peche to hold the rents of the vill for his sustenance in the king’s service (18th April, 1 Henry III., 1217). John Fitz-Hugh appears to have been in opposition and to have been dispossessed, for on 12th August he returns to his fidelity, and is allowed seisin of the manor and hundred of Odiham. The great earl marshal’s policy was to pardon and reward all who gave in their adhesion to the new sovereign. The castle was kept up, even to storing the ditches with fish, for John de Venuz was ordered (4th April, 1222, 6 Henry III.) to allow to de Cygoyn twenty breams from the king’s marsh of Woolmer for stocking “our ditches at Odiham.” On 2nd May, 1222, 6 Henry III., two tuns “dolia”) of the king’s prisage wines were ordered from Southampton to Odiham. 16th November, 1222, 7 Henry III., the king had let the manor of Odiham to farm for £50 per annum, but regard was to be had to the rights of the “Men of Odiham.” 15th January, 1224, 8 Henry III., the Archbishop of Canterbury, who holds the castle of Odiham, is directed to give up to Engelram de Cygoyn all his chattels and farming stock at the castle (Close Roll, p. 581); and again, on 20th February, the constable of Odiham is directed to permit Engelram to remove all his chattels, stock, mares, &c., from the park of Odiham, and what he bought with his own money. This done, the king seems to have taken to farming on his own account, for on 23rd February following, the treasurer is directed to pay to Walter de Kirkeham and Walter de Brackel £100 to defray their expenses, and to Ralph Brito 50 marks for the purchase of oxen for the king’s ploughs at Windsor and Odiham, and for seed for the lands there. Further, on the 5th of May, by virtue of an order directing the distribution of wine from Southampton to certain of the royal residences, a tun (“dolium”) of spiced wine was sent to Odiham. On 4th June, in the place of Henry de Feslegh, deceased, Gilbert de la Dene is appointed a verderer in the forest of Odiham, and is to take the usual oath.

In 18 Henry III. the royal forests of Windsor and Odiham were committed to the care of Engelram de Cygoyn—then a very old servant of the Crown, and (20 Henry III.) he had also the park of Odiham. In 21 Henry III., Alianor, Countess of Pembroke, the king’s sister, had the castle, and afterwards (33 Henry III.), as Countess of Leicester, the manor. Meantime, however (28 Henry III.), her husband, Simon de Montfort, held the park as the king’s tenant. In the same year, de Cygoyn had a writ of “allocate” for £40, due to the king for two years’ rent of the manor of Odiham; also in the same year, however, de Cygoyn was dead, and the sheriff was to receive from his executors all his ploughs and stock, and to deliver them to de Montfort.

In 30 Henry III., Richard le Male held the manor. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had a grant of three acres of land out of Odiham to augment the park of Dogmersfield. In 34 Henry III., John, the representative of the de Beninges family, long connected with Odiham, had been outlawed, and inquiry was directed as to what he held in chief there, which appears to have been three virgates. In 35 Henry III., William de Synago had a grant of Stapelegh in the parish of Odiham, and Gilbert de Eversley appears among the tenants, as (38 Henry III.) does William Villiers for two acres.

It appears from a document of this reign, printed by Rymer, that upon William, the son of Durandus Nanus (the dwarf), proposing to become a monk, the king allowed his land to pass to his cousin Margaret, wife of Alexander de Barentin. The land lay in Warnburn (Warnborough) and Odiham, and had been purchased by Durandus “de suffacio” in the time of Henry I. with the king’s consent. The land carried with it certain rights of herbage, cutting firewood, enclosing within hedges, &c., and the whole was evidently held direct from the Crown.

The chief interest of Odiham ceases with the reign of Henry III. Edward I. was much engaged in the north and west, and the value of fortresses in the interior of England was small under a prince whose sway no Englishman ventured to contest. His visits to Odiham were but few. The park or forest seems to have been kept up, but only as a place of diversion, and the castle probably was allowed to fall into decay.

2nd September, 1274, 2 Edward I., the king was at Odiham. In the third year of the reign, John de London, the king’s escheator, was to hold the castle during pleasure. He probably did not hold it long, for (10 Edward I.) it was committed to Nicholas le Gras in succession to Ralph de Sandewych, and in 12 Edward I. Hugh le Despenser had it. In 27 Edward I. the castle, park, town, and hundred of Odiham were included in the ample jointure settled on Queen Margaret, and described as “Castrum et villa de Odeham et appruamentum [emolument] parci ibidem”; or, in another schedule, “The castle and vill, with the park and hundred and appurtenances in the county of Hants.” In 33 Edward I., John de Beauchamp of Fyfhed held the manor.

Edward II. appears to have seen little of Odiham. In 5 Edward II. the castle, which Queen Margaret had, was committed to Robert le Ewer during pleasure. In 9 Edward II., Robert atte Burgh had licence to enfeoff for Stapelegh Manor and Odiham Manor with suit of court, and a document of this date throws some light on the extent of the hundred of Odiham, which, it appears, included the vills of Odiham, Greywell (now Grewell), Monks Hartley, Helvethan (now Elvetham), Wynchesfelde, Dogmersfelde, Bynteworth (now Bentworth), Brocham (now Burkham), Lassham, Shaldene (now Shaldon), Weston-Patrik, Horefeld, and Lys—the two last only not having been identified, unless Lys be the present chapelry of Lyss-Turney. Of all these, Odiham only belonged to the king. Next year (10 Edward II.) Thomas de Warblyngton held the manor, and (12 Edward II.) Ewer again held the castle, manor, vill, hundred, and park. The change was perpetual—inspired probably by perpetual distrust. In 13 Edward II., Hugh le Despenser, junior, held the castle and manor, and (15 Edward II.) the former was again committed to Ewer. In this year the king’s circumstances probably led him to look to his strong places, for William de Kyngeston, clerk, is made receiver and keeper of provisions, stores, &c., within the castle. In 17 Edward II., Margery de Burgh held the castle and suit of court, as had (18 Edward II.) John de Loxle and Constantia, his wife. In this year is an order to repair the king’s houses within Odiham Castle.

Edward III. seems to have turned Odiham to account as a place for breeding horses, and he kept up the castle. At his accession, John de Meriet and Maria his wife had the manor, and (4 Edward III.) John de Mohun had it, and it was in the hands of Joan, widow of John, 6 Henry IV. The custody of the castle was then in John Wodelok—he paying for it £60 per annum, and Nicholas de la Beche had the reversion after the queen’s death. In 5 Edward III., the king committed to Master William Mareschal the care of the great horses, and the supervision of the royal stud in the park at Odiham. The king himself was there October 25th. In 7 Edward III., Sir Bernard Brocas had a grant of the lordship for life. In 14 Edward III., Richard de Rokeland was keeper of the colts (“pullanorum”) in the king’s park at Odiham. In 1346 (19–20 Edward III.) the battle of Nevill’s Cross was fought and King David Bruce was taken prisoner and committed to Odiham, where he stayed the better part of fifteen years. In 25 Edward III., John atte Berwe held twelve acres in Odiham of the castle of Winchester, and William Talemache and others held four virgates of land there; and (33 Edward III.) the sheriff is to provide oats, litter, and carriage for the support of the royal stud in the parish of Odiham, and there is a specified allowance for grooms, their robes, and their shoes. In 38 Edward III., the people of Odiham had been making free with the boards and timber purchased for the king’s work at the park. Five years later (43 Edward III.), Walter Walsh holds the castle, vill, &c., providing carpenter, park-keeper, and tiler for the repair of the houses outside and inside the castle, except the covering of the great tower and the working stone for the castle walls. He was also to feed the beasts in the park. In 46 Edward III., Elizabeth, wife of James de Wyndesor, held the manor.

It appears from a record (2 Richard II.) that Odiham contained places called Shepcote, Smethes, Romeles, and Dunton. We read also of the “campus de Odiham”—probably the common field. In 5 Richard II., Henry Esturmy held the manor—probably the son of a man of that name who had it 33 Edward I. In 15 Richard II., Alianore, wife of William Fremelesworth, has Le Potte and other lands in the parish.

The castle does not seem to have attracted the notice of royalty during the reigns of Henry IV. or V. In the former reign Lord Beaumont had it for life, probably after the death of Joan de Mohun. The domain was still held by the Crown. In 19–23 Henry VI., a jury affirms that within the king’s manor of Odiham was a house called “le Shippe,” which Joan, Queen of England, held in dower. Also, in 1450 (28 Henry VI.), the lordship, manor, and hundred of Odiham, for which £21. 7s. 3d. is paid by John Basket, Esq., form an item in the royal civil list; and in 1454 (32 Henry VI.) the “Castrum, dominium, manerium, et hundredum de Odyham,” form a part of the jointure settled on Queen Margaret, who, indeed, seems to have had a previous settlement (22 Henry VI.). Later in the reign (35 Henry VI.) William Warbleton has a grant in fee of the office of constable of Odiham Castle and park.

In 1467–8 (7 & 8 Edward IV.), Odiham again was included in a royal jointure in favour of the queen of that prince.

In 1 Richard III., the king took advantage of his brief power to appoint Richard Hansard constable and porter of the castle, parker and warrener of the lordship, and steward for life. Whatever might be the arrangements as to its mesne lords, the principal officers seem to have been always appointed by the Crown, and in the Act of Resumption of 1485 (1 Henry VII.) is a saving clause in favour of the right of Nicholas and John Gaynesford to the offices of steward of the manor, constable and porter of the castle, and keeper of the park and warren—all held for their lives. The interest of the Crown was not finally extinguished until the reign of James I., who alienated the whole.

OSWESTRY, SHROPSHIRE.

OSWALDESTRE.

The hundred of Oswestry, though but of moderate extent, represents a tract of country which was for centuries a field of contest between the Britons and the men of Mercia, the Welsh and the English; for it was placed within the old Welsh district of Powys-Fadog, in the centre of the English march, and itself a marcher lordship. Its changes of name have been numerous, adopted as either language prevailed, or as any event occurred which seemed to the party in possession worthy to be commemorated.

The earliest known name of the district is “Maesdir,” compounded of the Welsh _maes_, a meadow, and _tir_, land, which in the hands of the English, and, no doubt, upon becoming the seat of a _burh_, or strong place, became Maesbury, and afterwards Maserfield, an unconscious but not uncommon reduplication of the same idea in the two languages. It was so called when here was fought the great battle between the Christian Oswald and the pagan Penda, about A.D. 642, in which Oswald fell; and his members are said to have been suspended to a cross or tree, in remembrance of which the place was long afterwards known as “Croes Oswald” and “Oswaldestre,”—a not very probable etymology. No doubt the former name really indicated a cross erected in memory of the Christian king; and the latter, also part Welsh and part English, meant “Oswald’s strong place.” The old Welsh _maes_ possessed much vitality, and may be recognised in “Mersete,” the name of the hundred in Domesday, and probably in “Meresburie,” the name of the manor.

The next change was consequent upon the erection of a handsome Norman church, the precursor of the present structure, when Oswaldestre became Blanc-Minster, or, in the language of the records, “Album Monasterium.” Later on, however, as Oswald’s fame as a martyr gained ground, his name took the ascendency, and both town and hundred became known as Oswestry. The church was probably transferred from the Saxon foundation of Maesbury.

The oldest work of man in the district is, no doubt, a British entrenchment placed on high ground a little north of Oswestry, and known as “Hên Ddinas,” the old fortress, and which in later days has been called, for no sufficient reason, Old Oswestry. “Hên Ddinas,” however, though the British, did not become the Mercian centre; this was probably in the first instance at Maesbury—a name found about 3 miles south of Oswestry—but, so far as is known, not connected with any earthwork, the usual mark of an early residence. This evidence is found on a large scale at Oswestry, which, therefore, there is reason to suppose was the English centre at least as early as the tenth century.

The contention for the possession of the district does not seem to have commenced in the Roman times,—at least there are no Roman remains at or very near to Hên Ddinas. The Welsh assert that, before the departure of the legions, the district was held by Cunedda Wledig, a prince of the Strathclyde Britons, 328–89, who gave it to his son. However this may have been, it would seem that in the seventh century the Cymric Britons had retired from Hên Ddinas, and it had become part of the Mercian territory, so that Penda (635–55) held it, and fought the battle of Maserfield against the Northumbrian Oswald. This was a short time before the Mercians accepted Christianity. That the English held the district in the latter half of the eighth century is evident from its position within the Dyke of Offa (759–94); but as it is just outside of, or slightly intersected by, Wat’s Dyke, generally regarded as a few years earlier than that of Offa, it may be that the possession was at that time but recently settled. No doubt, after the construction of the greater dyke, the boundary, though often transgressed by either people, on the whole, in ordinary times, served its purpose, and established what the English at least came to regard as a right. The greatest, and before the arrival of the Normans the last, Welsh incursion was that of Griffith ap Llewelyn in the eleventh century, in alliance with Algar, the rebel Earl of Mercia. The result of their frequent and severe attacks was to lay waste the whole country, which, like Irchenfield in Herefordshire, so remained, and is so recorded in Domesday. The long period of English occupation is marked here, as all along the border, by frequent and strong earthworks in the fashion employed by Edward the Elder and Æthelflaed in the tenth century, of which those at Oswestry and Whittington are among the chief; and those of West Felton, Aston, and Belan Banks, though smaller, are said to be of a similar pattern. Maesbury was, no doubt, at one time the _caput_ of the English lordship; but it is evident, from the fashions and dimensions even of the poor remains of the earthwork at Oswestry, that it became the chief place at least as early as the commencement of the tenth century, and so remained, although not actually designated in Domesday.

The Domesday hundred of Mersete and the later of Oswestry are very nearly identical, the addition being Ruyton, and the subtractions, Cynllaeth and Edeyrnion. Mersete extended from Weston-Rhyn, on the Morlais brook, in the north, to Melverley, at the junction of the Vyrnwy with the Severn, on the south; and from, or a little beyond, the Cynllaeth brook on the west, to Wykey on the Perry, to the east; about 12 miles each way.

Domesday calls Meresberie the _caput_ of the lordship; but this, though a corruption of Maesbury, must be taken to indicate Oswestry. In it were five berewicks which are not specified, but which evidently included about twenty-four manors, of which nearly all bear English names. Two centuries later an inquest was taken, which gives the lordship as composed of two parts, Oswestry proper and the Welshery. In the latter was included nearly the whole of the hundred, five manors, Weston and Coton (now Weston Cotton), Mesbury or Maesbury, Middleton, and Treveleth or Treflach. Of vills there were very many: Blodnorvawr, now Cefn-Blodwell, Blodowanan or Blodwell, Brongarth, Bren or Bryn, Clanordaffe or Glyn-yr-Afon, Crucket or Crickheath, Dudleston, Fenches and Juston (now lost), Kahercohon or Carrechova, Radioners or Rhandir, Swine or Sweeny, Tibeton (now lost), Travereleuche or Trefar-Clawdd, Treveltholnel or Treprenal, Trevenen or Trefonen, Weston or Weston-Rhyn, Wigeton or Wigginton, and Yston, now Ifton-Rhyn. The lord’s advowsons were the chapel of the Castle of Blanc-Minster, and the churches of Blodwell and Llanmenagh or Llan-y-Mynech. In this latter parish, though in an island of Denbighshire, was the celebrated Castle of Carreghova. This township, however, was a later addition to the hundred, and never belonged to its lords. Osbaston seems at one time to have been in the lordship. In it was Knockyn, the celebrated castle of the Lords Strange, a fief held indirectly of Oswestry. There was also a castle at Kinnerley, also in the lordship.

Mersete, in the reign of the Confessor, and probably much earlier, was a royal domain, and under the names of the hundred of Mersete and manor of Maesbury was included in the grant by the Conqueror in 1071, on the forfeiture of Morcar and Edwin, to Earl Roger of Montgomery, who sub-granted it to Warin the Bald, his sheriff, and second in command, who held seventy manors in Shropshire, and by the earl’s niece Arnieria had a son Hugh. Warin died 1085, just before Domesday was compiled, and the shrievalty was given to Rainald de Bailleul, who married his widow, and built a castle. The entry under Meresberie is, “Ibi fecit Rainaldus Castellum Luure,” which is explained as Luvre or “l’Œuvre”, the work _par excellence_ of the district. It is clear, however, that, as usual, Rainald’s castle was upon an earlier foundation, and not improbably was only an adaptation of existing works. Rainald dwelt at Oswestry, and either he or Warin granted its church of St. Oswald, with the tithes of the town, then for the first time mentioned, to Shrewsbury Abbey. It is uncertain on what tenure Rainald held his office, but it seems to have been held for a short time by his stepson, Hugh, son of Warin, till his early death; and on Hugh’s death, it was to Alan FitzFlaald, the ancestor of the succeeding lords, that the shrievalty and the fief were granted a little before the death of the Conqueror.

The Welsh claim to have recovered and held the lordship for a space about this time, and state that it was given, as part of Powys-Fadog, by Meredith ap Bleddyn to his nephew, or son, Owen, who destroyed Rainald’s castle and rebuilt it in 1148; and that the tower, in memory of Meredith, was called Tre-Fred. However this may be, the Welsh occupation must have been very brief, and Alan must have recovered possession. At this time the house of Montgomery had, in England, become extinct, and Oswestry was held of the Crown direct, as a marcher lordship, by the tenure of the defence and maintenance of the castle and the defence of the march.

Mr. Eyton, the extent of whose information concerning the early history of Shropshire is only equalled by its accuracy, has thrown great light upon the descent of this Alan, whom he shows with more than probability to have been the son of Fleance, and grandson of Banquo, Thane of Lochaber, killed about 1048–53. Fleance, or Flaald, seems to have married Gwenta, daughter of Griffith ap Llewelyn, Prince of North Wales, by Aldith, daughter of Algar Earl of Mercia. Alan, who was dead in 1114, was unquestionably direct ancestor of the houses of Fitz-Alan of Oswaldestre, and of the royal house of Stewart.

Alan FitzFlaald, lord of Oswaldestre, was father of I, William; 2, Walter, steward of Scotland, who died 1177, having married Eschina, daughter of Thomas de Londoniis, “hostiarius” or “durward” to the King of Scotland. He was father of “Alanus Dapifer,” whose great-grandson, Walter, who died about 1320, married Marjory Bruce, and had Robert Stewart, King of Scotland.

William Fitz-Alan, the head of the house, born about 1105, and who died 1160, acquired with Isabel de Say, his second wife, the lordship of Clun, which long remained united with Oswaldestre, in the person of their descendants, the FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel, and afterwards by the female line in the Howards.

On the death of Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, in the reign of Henry V., a curious question arose. He died childless, and his sisters, Joan, Lady Bergavenny, Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, Margaret, Lady Lenthall, and Alice, Lady Powis, became his heirs general; but his heir male was John Fitz-Alan, called Arundel, Lord Maltravers. The Duke of Norfolk, John Mowbray, claimed the earldom in right of his mother; but when the earldom was adjudged to Lord Maltravers, he was allowed the baronies of Clun and Oswaldestre with it, nor did the duke claim them. So also when Earl John’s descendant, Humphrey, Earl of Arundel, Lord Maltravers, Clun, and Oswaldestre, died childless, 16 Henry VI., the baronies were not claimed by Amicia, Lady Ormond, his sister and heir general, but passed to William Fitz-Alan, with the earldom, as heir male.

A good deal of constitutional, or rather peerage, lore has been exercised upon these two baronies, which were borne among the long train of titles which at various times have accrued to the houses of Arundel and Howard, and so appear upon the garter plates of Thomas, Earl of Arundel, in 1611, and of Henry, Duke of Norfolk, in 1685, with other and Parliamentary baronies. Nevertheless, these do not appear to be like Fitz-Alan, Mowbray, Greystoke, and the rest, really Parliamentary baronies, but land baronies only, which strictly should only be appended to the name of the possessors of these manors. However, after their alienation, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, heir general of the FitzAlans, was, by Act of Parliament, 1627, created Baron Fitz-Alan and Lord of Clun and Oswaldestre—in right of which, and of that date, and under the then limitation only, these titles are borne by the Dukes of Norfolk, his descendants.

THE CASTLE.