Chapter XXV: Part 25

The material of the keep is chiefly the rag-stone of the country, with ashlar coigns and dressings of Caen stone. The ashlar is rather sparingly used, but is of sound quality and close jointed. The rubble is poor, imperfectly coursed, and held together by the excellence of the mortar, or rather of the lime, for the mortar is carelessly mixed and is full of sea shells, which have been brought with the sand and left uncrushed. It is clear from appearances, both inside and outside the building, that the south-east angle has, at some period soon after its construction, fallen down, and been rebuilt soon afterwards clumsily and in haste. No mere battering by a ram, no strokes from the missiles of a catapult, however ponderous, would have brought down both turret and wall. Such ruin must have been produced by a mine, and this is the more probable since the south-east is the most exposed angle for such an attack, the scarp of the ditch being here steep, the soil soft chalk rock, and the keep but a few feet from the ditch. A mine opened in the scarp, just outside the angle of the curtain, and driven 40 feet in the chalk, would reach the foundations of the turret, and thus undermined, its fall would bring down more or less of the adjacent walls, and falling outwards, would crush the angle of the curtain. This would account for the large mass of the angle which has fallen, and for the circular bastion tower, evidently an insertion, at the angle of the curtain. Supposing the keep, built in 1126, to have been mined and breached in the memorable siege of 1215, and the damage soon after made good, this would account for present appearances. It is true that the bastion tower is decidedly early English, while the restoration of the keep is Norman, but it is of a period when round and pointed arches were both in use, and when the character of the older part of the keep would naturally lead to the employment of the former; so that the restoration might have been effected as late as 1225, ten years after its probable destruction, and when an entry in the Pipe rolls shows that the sheriff of Kent repaired the tower.

There is a good deal in the character of the forebuilding that looks as though it was an addition to the keep; and yet this cannot be, seeing that the difference in its masonry includes that of the adjacent staircase turret, which could scarcely be an addition. Also the remains of the lower gatehouse, on the north face of the keep, are clearly as old as the keep, of which they are part.

It was long the custom to attribute this keep to Gundulph, making it contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the Tower of London, which it resembles in some of its arrangements, especially its mural gallery and fireplace. Attention to its other details shows, however, that this cannot be so, and that its more probable builder was Archbishop Walter Corboil, about 1126. Those who desire to see examples of Gundulph’s work, and to compare his masonry with that of Rochester keep, should examine St. Leonard’s Tower at Malling, some parts of the nave and transept of Malling Abbey Church, and the north tower of Rochester Cathedral. The White Tower in London has been so often repaired and refaced that it is difficult to be sure of its original masonry. Part of the curtain of the _enceinte_ of Rochester Castle may also be Gundulph’s work. The north wall looks very early, as does the east wall, which is of excellent though rudely coursed rubble, the stones being large and the joints broad, though there are no layers of flat stones as at St. Leonard’s.

Rochester much resembles Hedingham, a very pure and very perfect Norman keep, with three floors, the remains of a forebuilding, and the upper gallery in the main floor. In each ornamentation is effectively employed, and great use made of the chevron moulding. The two buildings are, probably, of about the same date.

* * * * *

The history of the castle of Rochester, in the proper sense, begins with the Norman Conquest, but there is something to be said of the preceding earthwork, subsequent to the Roman period. The bishopric, of which the city is the metropolis, was founded in A.D. 600, and Justus, its first bishop, was consecrated in 604. The church, dedicated to St. Andrew, was founded by Æthelbyrht, King of Kent, and his charter of 604 mentions certain land as extending from the west gate and the wall of the city, one boundary being “fram Suthgaete west, and langes wealles.” Also, other land granted is said to be, “extra murum civitatis versus aquilonem.” In 673 a synod was held here, says Bede, attended by Putta, “Episcopus castelli Cantuariorum quod dicitur Hrofescæstir;” so that it was then a strong place, and the bishop’s residence, and this whether “castellum” relates to the city, or, which is at least equally probable, to the adjacent fortress.

In 765, Ecgberht, King of Kent, granted by charter to Eardulf of Rochester, his faithful minister and bishop, “terram intra castelli mœnia supranominati, id est Hrofiscestri;” and in 781, Æthelberht, King of the West Saxons, says, “Concedo Hrofensis ecclesiæ ... aliquantulum terræ juris mei intra mœnia supradictæ civitatis in parte aquiloni”; and in 788, Offa, King of the Mercians, granted “terram ... sex aratrorum” at Trotescliff, “ad ecclesiam beati Andræ apostoli et ad episcopium castelli quod nominatur Hrofescester.” Also, in 789, King Offa, in another charter to the same Bishop Weremund, mentions the wall (murus) of the city, and says, “Ecclesia quæ sita est in castro quod nominatur Hrofesceaster.” Further, in 850, Æthelwulf, King of the West Saxons, mentions “murum civitatis Hroffi;” and in 855 he granted land “Dunne ministro meo ... in meridie castelli Hroffi.”

In 839 and in 885, the city was attacked by the Danes. On the former occasion they took and sacked it, on the latter it was relieved by Alfred. In 986, the city was attacked, but unsuccessfully, by Æthelred, and in 998 with more success by the Danes, who came up the Medway. Boley Hill is said to have been thrown up by the Danes in 884, but the greater part of the hill is natural, though, no doubt, with a very considerable addition; but even the addition would have required more time than was allowed them by Alfred, and a work of such a character would be far more useful for defence than for attack. The towers used in an attack were generally of timber, and so constructed as to admit of being pushed up to the walls. It is more probable that the mount was thrown up as a strong residence for the bishop, to give such personal security as was found necessary at Sherborne.

It is not known in whose hands the fortress of Rochester rested in the times preceding the Conquest, but Earl Godwin had certainly encroached upon the episcopal property; and what more probable than that he should have laid his hands upon a place which, with Dover, would give him the command of the great road from the South to London? We read in Domesday of the episcopal manor of Estockes or Stoke. “Hoc manerium fuit et est de Episcopatu Rofensi, sed Godwinus comes T. R. E. emit illud de duobus hominibus qui eum tenebant de Episcopo et eo ignorante facta est hæc venditio.” So when the term of the tenancy expired the bishop would find that instead of two nameless men ready to give up possession, he would have to deal with a powerful noble claiming the freehold. Stoke passed with Godwin’s Earldom of Kent at the Conquest to Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and was recovered by the archbishop, as Domesday goes on to relate, “Postmodum vero regnante W. Rege diratiocinavit illud Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus contra Baiocensem Episcopum et inde est modo saisita Rofensis Ecclesia.”

It is probable that in some such way Odo received the city with the earldom, and with it the fortress, which the Bishop of Rochester, however, may have recovered possession of in the way shown, and which he certainly afterwards exchanged with the king for land in Aylesford. “Episcopus etiam de Rouecestria pro excambio terræ in qua castellum sedet tantum de hac terra tenet quod xvii solidos et iiij denarios valet.” There never was a castle at Aylesford. The bishop gave up the site of Rochester Castle, receiving for it as much land as was worth 17s. 4d.

Gundulf, the follower and friend of Lanfranc, and consecrated Bishop of Rochester in 1077, was a great architect, and a very remarkable man, well deserving the panegyric bestowed upon him upon his promotion, “Eratque Gundulfus religione plenus, literarum non nescius, in rebus forensibus acerrime elimatus et qui putatus sit divina potissimum electione hunc honorem meruisse.” As to his architectural skill, and his work at Rochester Castle, it is said, “Gundulfus, quia in opere cœmentarii plurimum sciens et efficax erat, castrum sibi, Hrofense lapideum de suo construxit.... Igitur, hoc pacto coram rege inito, fecit castrum Gundulfus Episcopus de suo ex integro totum costamine, ut reor, LX librarum.” This transaction between the bishop and the king occurred about 1076. The king was to restore to the see the manor of Hedenham, in Bucks, and the bishop to employ his skill and spend £60 in building a castle, that is, a tower of some sort. What Gundulf certainly built is the tower which still bears his name, and which seems originally to have been upon the city wall. On the death of William the castle was a very strong place, and was seized upon and held by Odo for Duke Robert. Odo (Judas Iscariot, as he was called by the friends of Rufus), associated himself with Eustace of Boulogne and Roger de Belesme, and garrisoned the castle, storing there the spoil drawn from the adjacent country. Rufus, whose activity was a strong contrast to the indolence of his brother, attacked Rochester, while Odo retired to Pevensey to await succour from Normandy, which never came. Rufus took Tunbridge and Pevensey, and forced Odo to demand the surrender of Rochester by his allies. The garrison understood the sincerity of the demand, sallied out, captured their royal escort and their bishop, and installed him, nothing loth, in the government of the castle. Rufus converted the siege into a blockade of both castle and city, and finally, under the pressure of a pestilence, both were surrendered, and Odo was finally banished. Gundulf died in 1108. This first siege of Rochester is one of the great military events of a very stirring period, and one deserving far more notice than has hitherto been bestowed upon it.

The castle, thus taken in 1088, seems to have remained in the Crown for thirty-eight years, when, in 1126, Henry II. granted “to Archbishop William de Corboil and his successors the perpetual charge and constableship of the castle of Rochester,” thus leaving it in the Church, but detaching it finally from the see of Rochester. The archbishop, we are told, built, in consequence, a handsome tower, “egregiam turrim,” which is, no doubt, the existing keep. William died in 1139, between which date and 1126 the keep was, therefore, built.

Henry II., also alludes to the castle in his confirmation charter to the church of Rochester, “volo etiam et ipsi et homines sui sint liberi et absoluti ab omni opere castelli, et expeditione archisve constructione;” so that, probably, the arx, or citadel, was then in contemplation or in progress. It may be that Gundulph’s Tower was removed to make way for the new keep, but in this case its materials would have been made use of, and some trace of them would be almost certain to be detected. But there is no such trace, so that, probably, the new keep did not supersede the older tower.

The castle, especially with its splendid and very strong keep, was far too important a military post to remain unchallenged in the possession of the see of Canterbury, and both when the see was vacant and at other times the Crown got possession, and its repairs were then entered on the Pipe roll. In 1141, William of Ypres, a Fleming, was its governor for Stephen, and when the Earl of Gloucester was taken he was confined here for a short time—from September to November,—until he was exchanged for Stephen. Various sums were spent upon the castle between 1167 and 1202, when it was again given up to the archbishop, then Stephen Langton. Towards the close of John’s reign the castle was placed by Langton in the hands of William d’Albini, to be held in the interest of the barons, whose army proposed to march from London to its relief. John, however, interposed, and in 1215, after a severe siege of three months, it was surrendered. Wendover expressly states that the military engines employed on this occasion produced but little effect, but that the place was taken by the efforts of the miners, who first undermined and threw down the walls, and then applied the same method of attack against the tower. It was, without doubt, on this occasion that the south-east angle was destroyed. In May, 1216, it was taken, apparently without any difficulty, by the Dauphin, but on John’s death it fell, with other Crown possessions, into the hands of Henry III. Under Henry III. considerable sums were spent upon it in repairs, especially in 1225, when, probably the broken angle was made good. In 1226–7 a bretasche and drawbridge were repaired, and the gutters of the hall in the keep. Unfortunately, here as elsewhere, the repairs were commonly those of buildings in the courtyard, all which are now destroyed. The keep was not used save for stores. In 24 Henry III., the tower was ordered to be whitewashed in those places which had not been so washed before. In 31 Henry III., both chapels were ordered to be wainscotted. One of these, at the least, was pretty sure to be in the outer ward, for the use of the garrison.

In 1264, the castle was in charge of the celebrated Roger de Leybourne, who had just taken part with the king. As de Montfort was supposed to meditate an attack on Rochester, Leybourne defended it with a strong garrison, and stored it with ample provisions. In April, the attack being expected, Warren, Earl of Surrey, Henry’s brother-in-law, came to the castle. The barons laid siege to it just before Easter, and remained before it nearly a week, but without any result, and on their retreat most of the garrison, with Leybourne, joined the king at Lewes, and took part in the battle. The loss of that battle was followed by the surrender of the castle, but after the death of de Montfort and the fall of Kenilworth, Leybourne resumed his governorship. A century later, in 1367–8, extensive repairs were undertaken by Edward III., under Prior John of Rochester as chief clerk of the works. Stone was imported from Beer, Caen, and Reigate, with copings and crests for battlements, probably for buildings in the court. Since that period it has played no part in the transactions of the kingdom, nor is its military history of any special interest. An extant drawing, taken in 1588, shows the turrets domed over and capped with vanes, like those of the White Tower.

Excellent papers have been written upon Rochester Castle by Messrs. Beal Poste, Blaauw, Hartshorne, and Burtt, the latter in the form of an account of Roger de Leybourne’s share in the Barons’ war.

P.S. Since the above account was written, Mr. Irvine, the very able and acute superintendent of the late Sir Gilbert Scott’s works at Rochester Cathedral, has made a discovery which is not in accord with any of the existing opinions as to the particulars of the Roman settlement. It appears that the south transept is built across a ditch, which runs north and south, and, no doubt, underlies the whole breadth of the cathedral. The ditch is 12 feet broad at the top, and 7 feet at the bottom of the excavation, now 14 feet deep, but was probably much deeper. It is cut through sound old gravel, and was filled up with black soil, with occasional dressed stones of Roman workmanship, Roman tiles, and bits both of black and red pottery, one of the former having a stamped interior ornament. Mr. Irvine, it is said, is in a condition to show that this was the ditch of a wall standing to its west, or towards the river. If so, the original station may have occupied the site of the present castle, at the west end of the accepted place of the Roman town, of which it may have been the citadel.

ROCKINGHAM CASTLE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

Within the north-eastern border of Northamptonshire, abutted upon by the shires of Leicester, Rutland, and Lincoln to the north and east, and by that of Huntingdon to the south, is a large tract of rather elevated land, known as the Forest of Rockingham. Its natural limits are the valleys of the Nen and the Welland, whose general parallelism is continued in their course across the Holland fen to their common termination in the Wash. Towards the west this platform is further cut off by the Ise, which rises about four miles from the Welland and falls into the Nen by Wellingborough. The tract thus marked out by nature, and long known as the Forest, extends east and west twenty-four miles from Oxendon Bridge to that of Stamford, and is at its widest between Rockingham and Thrapston, about twelve miles. The position, when the meads of the Nen and the Welland were marshes, and the fens scarcely navigable, was one of great strength, and occupied at an early period by invaders and colonists of Danish blood, whose traces are largely preserved in the topographical nomenclature of the district. The soil, chiefly derived from the subjacent oolite, is not naturally fertile, and long remained as forest, which even now, though cultivation has made immense progress, is represented by large patches of woodland, such as the well-timbered parks of Rockingham, Boughton, Blatherwick, Burleigh, Drayton, and Dene; the wilds of Morehay and Sulehay; the Bedford purlieus; and the Chase of Geddington.

Rockingham, which gave name to the forest and to a much smaller tract of land still known as the Shire, is placed upon the right or south bank of the Welland, just above the point where the influx of the Eye brook marks the meeting of the counties of Northampton, Leicester, and Rutland. The village stands on ground rising from the river, and above and to its south, immediately over the parish church, is the castle. The castle is a marked feature in the landscape, as it is placed upon a sort of promontory which juts out from the table land of the forest towards the Welland, and is protected on each side by a deep ravine, two of many by which the steep margin of the valley is intersected. South-west of the castle, and divided from it by the larger ravine, is the park, a very ancient enclosure, at one time containing red deer, which, however, had disappeared before Leland’s visit; and behind, and south of the castle and the park, is the tract of recently-enclosed land called the Shire.

Rockingham has been described as a name of English formation, purely descriptive. The castle stands on the “Rock;” between it and the Welland is the broad and fertile “Ing,” or meadow; and the “Ham” represents the village, whether enclosed by bank, ditch, or hedge. Other authorities, with perhaps more reason, have objected to this use of the word “ing,” and have supposed the name to be the “hame” or home of the “Rockings.” However this may be, ancient as is the name, and important as must ever have been the position, the place is not to be found in any record previous to the Conquest, though a similar name occurs in Kent as Roegringham, in a charter by Cœnulf of Mercia, A.D. 811. It may be that the name is found elsewhere, for among the followers of Archduke Philip at his meeting with Henry VII. in 1500 occurs “Le Sieur de Rockingham de Flanders” (“Letters of Henry VII.”, p. 88). The earliest mention of the place is in Domesday, where it is stated that the king holds Rockingham. Bovi held it in the time of King Edward with sac and soc. It was waste when King William ordered a castle to be made. No doubt here, as generally elsewhere, William’s decision was guided by the existence of an earlier work. It is evident, from an inspection of the remaining earthworks, and from a comparison of them with others, such, for example, as Brinklow, that they belong to the class of moated mounds, and consequently are far older than the Conquest. Bovi, no doubt, dwelt here, and it was his strong dwelling that the Conqueror ordered to be converted into a castle.

Enough remains to show that the earthworks were composed of a conical flat-topped mound or donjon, with a base-court attached on one side. The mound seems to have been about 100 feet diameter on the top, and not less than 30 feet high. It was circumscribed by its proper ditch, which, to judge from indications on the south side, must have been broad and deep. To the north of the mound was the base-court, of an irregular but rounded figure, covering about 3½ acres. The outline of this court corresponded generally with the contour of the ground, the slope of which formed a part of the defence. The court abutted upon the north face of the mound, outside its ditch, and covered about one-third or five-twelfths of its circumference. Thus the greater part of the mound, as at Brinklow, was outside the general line of defence, of which it formed a part. Also it was posted on the side of the work opposite the high ground, between the heads of the ravines, and naturally, as at Brinklow, the weakest side. In advance of the mound, at some yards distance, is a bank and ditch crossing the approach, and again in advance, about a furlong from the keep, is a second ditch, even now containing water, and dividing the castle precinct from the shire. Probably these outworks are of later date than the keep. There are also other works to the east, beyond the ravine, and especially one large bank which now forms the central line of an avenue of lime-trees. These works are irregular, and were possibly thrown up when the castle has been besieged. On this side are also some small tumuli, placed two and two, said to cover the remains of cottages.

The changes made by the Norman builders, and by those who in their turn destroyed the Norman walls, have much effaced the traces of the early fortress. The bank, which no doubt encircled the court, has been thrown back so as to raise and level up the interior platform, and for the main ditch has been substituted a scarped revetment about 8 feet high, surmounted by a parapet, which represents the curtain wall. At the foot of this are the remains of the ditch, and lower down the hill certain terraces, which look as though they had been defended by lines of stockade for musketeers during the parliamentary siege. These irregularities of the surface have been thought to represent a British camp, for which the situation is, no doubt, suitable. Of the mound there remains only a semilunar bank, which formed its northern edge. The central and southern parts have been removed and thrown into the ditch, the line of which is indicated by a slight but clear and broad depression. This was evidently done when the Parliament obtained the place, to render it indefensible. It is also evident that the base-court was subdivided, as at Brinklow. This is shown by the levels of the different parts. One division ran north and south, cutting off on the east the entrance ward with the lodgings. The other ran east and west, and subdivided the western ward. The three courts are on different levels, the entrance court the lowest by 6 feet or 8 feet.

Whether the Conqueror built a work in masonry, or merely strengthened the existing defences, is unknown. There is no masonry extant of that century. But he or his successors certainly placed a shell keep upon the mound, and built a wall round the court. This wall seems to have had six faces, and to have occupied a circuit of about 490 yards. It still commences at the top of the keep mound, descends the slope, crosses the ditch, and runs 134 yards in a straight line, forming the east front of the castle. The lower courses of this wall, which is 9 feet thick, may be late Norman. The upper part, 25 feet to 30 feet high, is probably Decorated, as is the gatehouse, which is in this front. Towards the north-east angle the wall has been rebuilt, and supports a seventeenth-century building. At this, at a right angle, the wall is replaced by a revetment of late date, and runs westward for 83 yards, having the church, &c., below and in front of it. The direction of the wall then changes to the south-west at the angle of about 160°, which was capped by a round mural tower, of which the foundations remain. This face is 94 yards long, and ends in an angle of 130°, where, no doubt, was another drum-tower. Then follows a side of 64 yards, ending in an angle of 140°, followed by a side of 40 yards, then by an angle of 150°, and a short side of 25 yards, which ends in the keep mound in a mass of masonry, which, if not wholly original, is so in part, and formed of old material. Thus the whole circuit of the court wall from one side of the keep to the other is about 440 yards. The two western faces rise directly over the ravine. The two to the south-west are some way from its edge, and here are no traces of a revetment; and there was, no doubt, a ditch. The wall is now removed, but indications of its foundation are seen on the turf in dry weather. The distance from one end of the wall to the other, measured across the keep, is 50 yards, which thus completes the circuit of the court.

Between the two masses of masonry which mark the abutment of the two ends of the outer wall upon the keep, is a third, which points north-west, and shows the line of a cross wall which divides the entrance from the western wards. The line is followed by the later buildings and by the western end of the castle hall. The place of the cross wall branching westward from this is indicated by a double yew-tree hedge, and a step of about 4 feet.

The gatehouse is composed of two half-round towers, 26 feet diameter, flanking a gateway of 10 feet opening. The towers spring from a block 60 feet broad and 30 feet deep, having no internal projection, so that the towers and a part of the block stand out from the wall 47 feet, giving a fine, bold character to the entrance. The towers are of two stages, divided outside by a string-course, and crowned above by a plain embattled parapet resting upon a second string. The gateway has a low-pointed arch, over which the string is continued and raised so as to form a square head. The entrance passage, 10 feet broad, is 30 feet deep. Within the portal is a portcullis groove, rounded and narrow, as for an iron grate, and behind it a rebate for folding doors. At the other end of the passage is a second portal, also with gates. Each portal has had a bold internal drip, now cut flat. A plain cornice shows that the original roof was of timber, and flat. The present and new beams have by an oversight been laid lengthways. On each side is a small, heavily-moulded door, with an equilateral head, in very excellent style. The north tower contains two chambers, one 16 feet by 18 feet, with a loop into the courtyard, and from which a small Decorated doorway opens into a front half-round chamber of 12 feet span, having three loops to the front beneath deep arched recesses. In the south tower are also two chambers. That in front has two loops only. The other chamber has a door into a garderobe in the south wall. The roofs were all of timber, and the internal doorways heavy but excellent Decorated. The gatehouse has been much repaired. The plinth is new. The exterior has been chisel drafted, and the jamb mouldings of the portal apparently recut. The towers had till lately conical roofs, which, however, were not original, and the parapet, though in excellent taste, is modern. The loops are cruciform, with short cross-limbs, and œillets below. The late Rev. T. James attributes this gateway to the year 1200.

1872

Wyman & Sons, Gᵗ. Queen Sᵗ. London.]

Upon the curtain wall, a few yards south of the gatehouse, is a door, and near it a loop, both of Decorated date, and which evidently belonged to a mural tower, now replaced by a modern larder.

Entering the castle by the gateway, on the left and in front are the lodgings, buildings of very various dates. The entrance to the house on the left is, however, older than any other part of the front. It is an original door of Decorated date, and in a good style, and opens into what was once the hall or an antechamber leading into it. Opposite is a corresponding door, of the same age, which opens into a yard or court set round with buildings of all ages. The hall has long been converted into two floors, and is traversed by two partition walls, but the lateral or exterior walls are original, and contain two fireplaces, now covered up, but indicated by broad exterior buttresses, and several windows, no longer in use, and but partially seen. This is the only part of the present house that can be certainly shown to have belonged to the ancient castle, and it was probably begun about 1275. The place of the west window is occupied by a large Tudor or Stuart insertion.

The space within the ancient walls, from the doors to the west end, measures about 20 feet by 85 feet, too long for the proportions of a hall, so that it is probable that the actual hall was confined to the western portion of it, which contains one of the fireplaces and the jambs of four of the original windows.

Between the east end of the hall and the curtain wall is a fine pile of building bearing date 1585, the work no doubt of Edward Watson. This contains the kitchen and various offices, and probably includes parts of the ancient building. Another building on the north-east side of the court, and a long line of buildings facing the west, and containing the end of the hall, are dated 1660. A building on the curtain wall between the gatehouse and the keep is dated 1669.

The present cellars lie between the hall and the keep, and, though modern, are conjectured to occupy the place of the castle chapel, and near them is the well, though it is doubtful, from an old plan, whether there was not also a well in the keep.

With the exception of the lower part of the eastern curtain wall there is no masonry visible that can by any possibility be of the eleventh, and probably none of the twelfth, century. In the churchyard are some fragments in the Norman style, but they are not supposed to have come from the castle. Over the inner portal a stone carved in a sort of cable moulding has been inserted, but this does not appear to be Norman, and in any case has only lately been placed there.

The works of Henry III. and Edward I. are represented by the upper part of the curtain, the gatehouse, and the doors, walls, and windows of the hall, and probably by the three blocks of masonry that abut upon the keep mound, though two of these may be in substance earlier. All the rest of the castle is the work of the several grantees, and mainly, if not wholly, of the ancestors of the present owner. The general result of the mixture of buildings of so many styles and ages is exceedingly happy. The rooms, though not lofty, are comfortable and picturesque, and filled with fittings and furniture in harmony with their age and dimensions, and also with modern appliances. The walls, of the stone of the country, have a venerable aspect, and are covered with climbing plants, and the platforms of the several wards, and interior of the keep mound, are lain out in lawns and flower-gardens, whence the view over the village and beyond the Welland is very extensive.

Leland, who visited the castle in the reign of Henry VIII., while it was yet a military building, has left a description of it, and what he then saw:—“The castelle of Rockingham standith on the toppe of an hille, right stately, and hath a mighty diche, and bullewarks agayne without the diche. The utter waulles of it yet stond. The kepe is exceeding fair and strong, and in the waulles be certein strong towers. The lodgings that were within the area of the castelle be discovered and faul to ruine. One thing in the waulles of this castelle is much to be noted, that is, that they be embattelid on booth the sides, so that if the area of the castelle were won by cumming in at either of the two greate gates of the castelle, yet the kepers of the waulles might defende the castelle. I marked that there is a stronge tower in the area of the castelle, and from it over the dungeon dike is a drawbridge to the dungeon toure.”—“Itin.,” i. 14.

The mighty ditch, and bulwarks beyond it, refer probably to the keep and the ground to its south, where alone a ditch was needed. The keep was, of course, a circular or polygonal shell upon the mound. The strong towers on the walls were, no doubt, drums like those of the gatehouse, capping the angles of the curtain wall. The double parapet was not unusual, and with a wall 9 feet thick by no means impracticable. Where the strong tower stood is unknown, but it must have been within the court, north of the keep, and beyond the ditch of the keep or donjon, to which its drawbridge gave access. Of the second great gate no tradition is preserved, but it could not possibly have been anywhere save to the south, as on the other sides is no practicable approach. The latest works are two towers by Mr. Salvin, one plain, square, and solid, near the keep, the other octagonal, light, and lofty, placed near the end of the hall. They are a great and judicious addition to the building.

It so happens that there exists a still later evidence for the condition of the keep in a plan probably representing the temporary works thrown up during the parliamentary attack for the defence of the keep from an attack on the outer or south front. This shows the summit of the keep covered with buildings arranged in a polygon 80 feet diameter, with an open court in the centre. Outside these, along the edge of the mount, is a line of stockade, 180 feet long, resting on the walls of the court, and strengthened by two bastions of timber. The bottom of the ditch forms a covered way, and along the counterscarp is placed a second line of stockades, 240 feet long, and also resting at each end on the walls. The ends of the curtain and of the intermediate wall abutting on the keep are also shown. On the south margin of the keep is a well. This plan is specially interesting, as it not only shows that there was a building upon the mound, but lays down a plan of defence, which in all probability is precisely what the Conqueror found here in use when he ordered a castle to be made.

Among the Fabric rolls in the Public Record Office are several entries relating to Rockingham Castle, from which the following extracts were made by the late Mr. Burtt.

A small roll, 4 Edward I., of masons’ and carpenters’ work, amounting to £37. 6s. 6½d.

A fragment of a roll, undated, but early in the same reign: Expenses of a mason “circa turrem faciendam et murum turris ex parte meridionali punctuandum et petras in muro debiles et fractas extrahendas et alias petras ibi ponendas et petras ad eundem murum scapulandas.” A carpenter was employed “circa chevrones ad lardarium faciendas et fenestras ad celarium (the cellar) sub oriolo reparandas et faciendas.” Two masons are employed upon “murum castri ex parte orientali porte facientes;” and others upon the walls generally. There was also a payment “plumbariis facientibus et cooperientibus parvam cloacam super murum castri versus ecclesiam Rok’,” that is, on the north curtain.

Another roll, 4–5 Edward I., contains in two membranes a record of the expenses “ad petram liberam frangendam apud Pukesalter”; also of two men “operantes super gradus aule Regine”; and of a carpenter “ad garderobam Regine carpentandam ad tascam et cendulandam, 40s.”

5–6 Edward I. are three entries: a mason and other men were employed “circa novum oriolum ad hostium magne camere et veteram aulam erigendam.” Others were engaged “circa mantellam magni turris faciendam et erigendam”; and others “circa cumilum parve camere juxta le viz et fenestram et alia in garderoba Regis facienda.”

5–8 Edward I. is an incomplete roll of five membranes, written, but not closely, on the front and back. The entries relate to works upon the walls, the chimney, and other parts of a chamber “ultra volticium (drawbridge) circa crestos ad murum versus mantell’ (mantlet) turris.” Also repairs of the “porta de Durr’.” Also to windows, &c., of the same, carpenters’ work, and the door of the new turret. To masons, “ad novam cameram faciendam de veteri aula”; to carpenters for doors of the great cellar and new turret. The stone was quarried and conveyed from Weldon. Masons, &c., were engaged “circa cameram magnam Regis corrigendam”; and carpenters “circa claustrum faciendum et porcheam camere Regine cooperiendam.” At the end of the dorse of one of the membranes is the pious valediction addressed either to the accounts or the building, “Deus te comburet vel Diabolus”! something in the style of “Deil pike out the een,” said to have been invoked by old Q upon those who examined into the building accounts of Drumlanrig.

6 Edward I., a roll of three membranes, mentions men engaged “ad veterem aulam faciendam et emendam.”

6–7 Edward I. is a roll of five membranes, closely written on the face and partly so on the back. The entries are “circa novum turriolum faciendum”; “circa coquinam faciendam.” Carpenters’ work about “unam januam ad barbecanum et unam januam ad mantellum versus turriolum juxta magnam turrem.” Masons were engaged “circa cameram Regine faciendam,” and cutting stones, “ad circularem fenestram in magna camera Regis.” The expenses appear of Master Ralph the painter “circa parvas cameras juxta cameram Regine dealbandas” (whitewashing); also masons engaged “circa chimineum in magna camera Regis et muros ad cameram ultra volticium faciendos.” Again, the expenses of Ralph the painter “circa cameram Regis dealbandam,” and “circa cameram Regine dealbandam.” A carpenter was employed “circa claustrum et hostium ad camere Regine faciendas.” Master Richard “circa cameram ultra volticium faciendam et terram juxt coquinam removendam.” Of stores there were, “In iiij libras ære et dimidiam empt’ ad opus cement’ confectis cum thure code et pictivæ ad cementum faciendum.” More stone from Weldon; slates from Haringworth; “In vitreis fenestris emptis ad cameram Regine, 10s.”

7 Edward I. is a roll of two membranes. The expenses of a mason “in magno horre crestando”; of men “fodientes petras in quarreria juxta castellum ad fundamentum aule cohoperiendum.” Masons “ad muris aule, solarii, capelle, et garderobe cohoperiend’ et super fundamentum stabule per ij dies”; also a mason “ad capellam prosternendam in turre.”

Another roll of the same date contains the trades of the workmen employed. One master-mason, four cissores (trimmers or dressers of stone); four cubitores (bedders); six servitores (helpers); two quarrymen at Rockingham; six carpenters; two makers of boards and laths; and two sawyers.

8–9 Edward I., six membranes. A complete roll of works for the year, Michaelmas to Michaelmas, naming however but few places; only the tower, the chamber, near the new chapel; men engaged “circa capellam et cameram domini Regis faciendam”; also “circa murum aule et fundamentum celarii.” The stone came from Weldon and Haverne.

9–10 Edward relates to small works only.

13–14 Edward I., a full roll, Michaelmas to Michaelmas: Masons are busy “super capellam”; “super kernellos”; carpenters, “super magnam capellam Regis”; masons, “circa fenestram Reginæ inter duos turiolos erigendam,” and “circa murum et fenestram celarii reficiendam” and “circa unum baterat intrantem magnam cameram et circa dictum murum et fenestram”; also “circa gabulam capelle et circa turiolum,” and “super turiolum et murum versus magnam portam juxta boveriam”; also a carpenter was engaged “super sedem Regine ad capellam.” The total thus expended by and according to this roll was £103. 0s. 12d.

15–16 Edward I., also a full roll, Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Masons engaged “circa novum turiolum juxta coquinam,” a carpenter, making “gistas ad turriolum de Holebrooke”; a mason “cooperiens ij turiolos, muros aule, et in aliis locis emendans cohoperturam murorum.” Two masons “perimplentes warderobam Regine et viam de aula usque cameram Regis et domum Lawyte’ juxta capellam, et facientes astr’ (astra are fireplaces or hearths) in v caminis in turri et iiij caminis in castello ad tascham 8s.’ ... circa murum versus turrim erigendum et turridum versus turrim.”

In the same record mention is made of “stagnum,” or tin, for solder: of the gables of the solar or upper floor, next the sun. “Cyntles or cindules” are shingles for roofing. “Viz,” from “vis,” a screw, is a spiral staircase. “Vertevellis” are hinges, and “gumphis,” the big hooks on which they turned: gudgeon and pintle.

The above entries show much attention to the lodging of the King and Queen, and but little to those of any one else, or to the fortifications. The old hall is probably that which preceded the present structure, and was no doubt Norman. The cellar under the oriel is mentioned. The magna turris was probably the keep, and the drawbridge that which crossed the keep ditch. The barbican was no doubt a timber structure outside one of the two outer gates. The old chapel, probably that in which the council met, was destroyed, and a new one erected. The new hall seems to have been in progress 8–9 Edward I.

The history of Rockingham is closely bound up with that of the forest, of which its constables or castellans were almost always seneschals. It has been shown that the Conqueror here ordered a castle to be made, and probably therefore he visited the spot. In 1095 it was selected by Rufus as the place of meeting for the nobles and prelates of the realm to discuss with Archbishop Anselm the important question, “Utrum salvâ reverentiâ et obedientiâ Sedis apostolicæ posset Archiepiscopus fidem terreno Regi servare, annon”? When the King arrived from Normandy, 29th December, 1094; he found Anselm about to accept his pall from Urban II., whom the king had not acknowledged as pope, and the question arose whether the recognition of Urban was consistent with fidelity to the crown. The meeting took place at Rockingham on the fifth Sunday in Lent, 11th March, 1095. They met in the chapel, when Anselm called on the prelates for their advice. The prelates inclined to the feudal rather than the ecclesiastical view of the question, which they rather avoided, and decided that Anselm had treated the king with disrespect. The meeting was adjourned to the Monday, when the prelates agreed that the assembly was one of vassals of the crown, and not a synod, and they and the nobles advised Anselm to submit himself to the king. On the Tuesday a deputation of the prelates met Anselm. They persisted in regarding the difference from the secular point of view only, offering an opinion that as a vassal of the crown the Archbishop was in the wrong, but declining to go further, or to pass any censure upon their ecclesiastical superior. The meeting then broke up, Anselm refusing to give way. Soon afterwards the king acknowledged Urban and received his legate, but without consulting or informing Anselm. All this shows that Rockingham was then an important place. The chapel must have been more than a mere oratory in the keep like those of Arundel or Lincoln, and there must have been some sort of accommodation for the assembly, composed as it was of laymen of high rank and of bishops, in an age when men of that order were not remarkable for asceticism.

The forest is said anciently to have extended to Northampton, but the boundaries, as fixed by various perambulations from Edward I. to Charles I., limit it to Oxendon and Stamford bridges. It was divided into the Bailliewicks of Rockingham, Clive or Clyffe, and Brigstoke, each under a bailiff and verdurers, and in each of which was a forest lodge, kept in repair by the crown. At Geddington on the Ise was a larger residence, often visited by the sovereigns, where a great Curia Regis was once held, and where still remains one, the most perfect, of the memorial crosses set up by Edward I. to his Queen. Many manors also were held of the castle by the tenure of castle-guard. There is no regular list of these, but it is known that among them were Little Billing, Cottingham, Aldwinkle, Cogenhoe, Harwedon, Hanington, Horton, Isham, Uphall, Wotton, and the Barony of Chipping-Warden, which itself had tenants holding by like services. Also an inquisition, 18th February, 18th Edward I., shows that the Manor of Wahul was held of the king per Baroniam by the service of one knight’s fee, and sixty-nine shillings each Michaelmas, for the ward of Rockingham Castle. The sums for which the service was commuted ranged from twenty pence to seventy-five shillings annually, and were assessed at five shillings for a knight’s fee. The collection of these sums was the business of a special officer who held half a virgate of land by this tenure, besides hous-bote and hey-bote in Cottingham wood, a right to grass his horse in the Abbot of Peterborough’s meadows at Eston, and his diet when the king or his constable were in residence. He seems to have been called the castle bailiff, and in Henry III.’s time, when Geoffrey de Rockingham held it, the office was hereditary. There was also a weyte or watchman, who mounted guard at night, and held the weyte fee by the tenure of castle-weyte. Simon de (la) Weyte held the office 36 Henry III.

In 1137 we are told in the _Anglo Saxon Chronicle_ that the Abbey of Peterborough, under its indomitable abbot Martin, that “good monk and good man,” recovered from William Malduit, who held the Castle of Rockingham, the lands of Cottingham and Easton. Malduit was only constable, but in the lawless reign of Stephen the keeper of so strong a place must have exercised very independent powers. The castle was never actually alienated from the crown, and was frequently visited by the kings, together with Brigstoke and Geddington, and forest laws were very strictly enforced, through the Justice “in itinere forestarum.” In 1139–40 (5 Stephen) the king had a vinedresser at Rockingham, for whose livery was allowed thirty shillings, and twenty shillings were spent in procuring necessaries for the vineyard. In 1188, 11th February, a great assembly, “Curia Regis,” was held at Geddington to discuss the question of a crusade. In 1189–90 the Sheriff of Northamptonshire accounted for one hundred shillings for the rent of Rockingham.

In 1194 King Richard was here.

Henry II. and Richard I. allowed £4. 11s. 3d. for the castle porter and two watchmen. The custos or constable purchased his office. In 1157–8 Fulk de Lisoriis accounted for twenty pounds for the old rent of the forests of Rockingham and Selveston, and a similar sum was accounted for as the new rent of the same forests. In 1199 Robert Malduit paid for it one hundred pounds by four quarterly payments. He had already held it. King John was here at least fourteen times between 1204 and 1216, and dated many instruments from hence. In 1204, 5th May, the county of Rutland and the vill of Rockingham had been settled in dower by John on Queen Isabella. He probably retained the castle. In this settlement he followed precedent, for in 1209 Pope Innocent called upon him to restore to Berengaria, Richard’s queen, her goods, among which is specified “In Nordhantonscire Rokingham cum pertinenciis ejus” (Rymer). The dower was confirmed 5th May, 1215. In 1204 the Patent Roll shows that King John granted to Samson Wascelin, “our clerk,” the church of Rockingham with the attached chapel of Manneton, in free alms for life. In 1205, Scogernel, a king’s messenger, had ninepence for going to Rockingham. In October, 1207, Earl David (of Huntingdon) had paid the king in his chamber at Rockingham, by the hand of Peter de Stoke, £100 due on an imprest, and in 1208 Hugh de Nevil was to be prepaid his outlay, estimated by competent persons, on the king’s houses at Rockingham and Clyve.

In 1209 and 1210 occur divers entries in the Mise Roll concerning William Aquarius, who provided the king’s bath. Of eight baths, he had made one at Northampton. There is no bath at Rockingham. There are payments for the “roncini” [baggage ponies] of Thomas Marescal staying at Northampton and Rockingham for six days with the royal wardrobe, while the king wandered [‘spatiatum’] among the forests and rivers. He thus visited Geddington and Clyve, where he lost 4s. 10d. at tables with the Earl of Salisbury, and afterwards 4s. 11d. Also the keep of twenty-nine horses and twenty-four valets (garciones) for three days at Rockingham, with a workshop (fabrica), cost 24s. 5d.

The frequency of the royal visits was in some measure due to the necessity for supporting the household from the local resources; wine however, notwithstanding the vineyard, was imported and kept in store, especially at Southampton, and there delivered to the king when needed. Thus, in 1212, sixteen casks of wine were imported, of which five went to Rockingham, three to Clyffe, and four to Geddington; and John while here, 10th July, acknowledges the receipt of a coat of mail which had belonged to the Constable of Chester. Here also, according to the Mise Roll, John ordered 100 marcs given him by the burgesses of Nottingham to be expended in making a tower “in mota de Notingham.”

The castle was also a prison. In 1213, Gilbert de Gartington was to be set free from thence, with his chattels, on bail; also Robert de Mara, taken at Carrickfergus, was freed at the request of the legate. In 1214, the chancellor was directed to purchase five dolia of the best wine in London and to send them to Clyffe, Geddington, Rockingham, and Selveston. In this year £127. 8s. 6d. was allowed for works on the new tower and chamber in the castle, and Peter de Barr and Nicholas de Hugevill, foot crossbowmen, were sent to be employed in the defence of the castle, at six pence per day each. In January, 1215, the chancellor was to send more red wine. In March the king has restored to William, Earl of Albemarle, the manor of Rockingham, which had belonged to Alice his paternal aunt (amitæ suæ). This may be either Alice de Romeli his mother’s mother, or Alice Mareschal his sister. He is to have “homines, res, terras, et omnes possessiones.” In May, William de Harcourt is to be well received at the castle if he needs hospitality. It appears that the late custos had been enclosing, for the king gives to Roger de Nevil the whole assart of Rockingham which Hugh de Nevil had assarted or cleared, and adds common of pasture in the vill for his stock, by the tenure of a pair of gilt spurs annually.