Chapter VIII: Part 8

Edward’s Burhs may have been preceded by an earlier earthwork, for Hertford is reputed to stand on the site of a chief town of the Trinobantes, the British occupants of the district north of this part of the Thames. The Britons, however, if they here established a stronghold, are more likely to have placed it upon one of the adjacent heights, where are several excellent positions for an entrenchment. Probably the existence of a British settlement in a neighbourhood so well protected by its watercourses attracted the invading settlers, for here the East Saxon kings are said to have had a residence, and to this place Archbishop Theodore, consecrated in 668, convened a synod of the national Church in 673.

The Danes overran this part of England more than once, and the camp at Danesbury was probably their work. Also, they are thought to have had a camp upon Port Hill, of which, however, it is said that no traces are now to be seen. It was upon the river Lea, between Hertford and Waltham, that Alfred rendered the Danish fleet useless by blocking up the river, and so preventing their return. It is on record that this was effected, not by actually throwing a dam across the stream, but by the far more scientific process of cutting a number of channels for its waters, each too shallow to allow the vessels to float down. By this means the retreat of the Danes to the Thames was cut off, and they were fain to march inland to the Severn at Bridgenorth.

In 913 the protection afforded by the Hertford Burhs seems to have attracted inhabitants, who occupied both banks of the river Lea, and the town thus situate was raised by Edward into a royal Burgh, held of the Crown by burgage tenure. Hertford was so held of the Confessor, and so accepted by the Conqueror, and entered in Domesday, which, however, as was not uncommon, makes no mention of the castle, nor, indeed, of the churches. William is said to have strengthened the castle, and he gave it in charge to Peter de Valoignes, one of his followers, who transmitted it to his son Roger, and he to his two sons in succession, Peter and Robert. The male line closed with Robert, whose daughter and heiress, Gunnora de Valoignes, married Robert Fitz-Walter. The charge of the castle does not seem to have descended, but to have been resumed, possibly as a male fief, by the Crown.

King John, that most erratic of monarchs, held the castle, and visited it in 1212, 1213, and 1216. In this latter year, however, it was attacked by Lewis of France, who laid siege to it from St. Martin’s (November 11) to St. Nicholas’s Day (December 6), and finally took it. Robert Fitz-Walter, an adherent of Lewis, took the opportunity to revive his wife’s claim, but without success. It was finally recovered by John, and transmitted to his son Henry III., who placed Richard de Argentin in charge of it, and expended £20, and probably other sums, in its repairs. In 1226 it was held by Hubert de Burgh, on whose fall Henry granted it to be held _in capite_ by William de Valence, after whom it was held by his son, Aymer, Earl of Pembroke.

Edward III. resumed possession in 1327, and granted the castle to John of Gaunt, his son, from whom it finally passed into the Duchy of Lancaster, to which it is nominally attached. Henry IV. kept his Easter here in 1429, and Henry VII. continued to appoint a constable and a porter. It is described as “castrum non immensum sed pulcherrimum.” Hertford fared better than most royal castles, possibly from its convenient position as regarded London, for in the reign of Henry VIII. it contained lodgings suitable for the king, and Edward VI. and the Princess Elizabeth were both here. By the latter, when queen, it was alienated to Sir William Harrington, who built a large brick house on the site of the inner gatehouse, which still remains. In the time of James I. the castle is described as covering 7¾ acres. The ditch then extended to the roads or streets now known as the Mill Bridge, the Wash, and Castle Street. The mill was upon the Lea just below the castle mounds. The Church of St. Andrew stands about 150 yards from the remaining mound, beyond the river. There was a second mill, probably that on the river above the castle. The castle was finally leased to Mr. Secretary Cecil, in whose descendant, the Marquis of Salisbury, it remains. It is remarkable that Hertford Castle at no time belonged to the earls who bore the title of Hertford. They were, of course, earls of the county, though this is not specified in the peerages. Their principal eastern seat was at Clare in Suffolk, round which they possessed considerable property.

The strength of Hertford as a military position was very great, and depended upon the low marshy ground by which it was almost surrounded, and which was liable to be flooded by the waters of three, or rather four, considerable streams, “flumina non profunda sed clarissima.” Of these, the Lea, flowing from the west, received, a few yards above the castle, the Mimram from the north-west, while a little below the castle the combined stream is swollen by the waters of the Beane from the north, and the Rib from the north-east, the combined volume flowing forward under the name of the Lea. Below, or south-west of the castle, along the course of the Lea, is a wide breadth of lowland, which even now is occasionally flooded, and which in former days must have been an impracticable morass. In the other direction the ground, though built upon and forming a part of the town, is for some distance around but little higher than the meadow, though here and there, elevated 4 feet or 5 feet, appear small deposits of gravel. The castle stands upon the right bank, south-east of the river, and its extreme limit, within the counterscarp or outer edge of its main ditch, included a space something in the figure of an ear, the river forming the shorter side or concavity. In length, north-east and south-west, this space measures 234 yards; its breadth varies from 100 yards to 200 yards, with a mean of 140 yards. The ditch, now almost filled up and in part built over, was about 30 yards broad, and no doubt filled from the river with which it communicated at each end. Within the ditch, taking the line of the old bank, or of the present wall, the area is about three and a half or four acres. The mound is placed on the edge of the river, at the north angle of the enclosure. The bank does not include it, but points to its centre, so that the mound, as was not unusual, formed a part of the enclosing defence. The proper ditch of the mound has been filled up.

Of the mediæval castle there remains only a considerable part of the wall of the _enceinte_, and, it may be, some ancient masonry built up into Sir William Harrington’s house, which is still inhabited. This is said to have been the gatehouse; if so, it was that of the northern ward, and was upon the line of the wall dividing the one ward from the other. The curtain wall is about 7 feet thick, and 25 feet to 30 feet high, and composed of flint rubble. The battlement is gone or nearly so, and there remains but a part of one mural tower, circular in plan, which capped the south-east angle of the wall of the northern ward. The wall covers the northern and most of the eastern sides of the area. There is no trace of it along the western or river side. No doubt it was less substantial on that side, upon which the natural defence was strong. The south or smaller ward does not appear to have been walled in. It was covered on the three sides by the river and the marsh, and may have been palisaded only. The wall evidently crossed the ditch of the mound, and abutted upon it, or possibly upon the shell keep, all vestiges of which are gone.

The present entrance to the castle is at the eastern angle of the ditch, which is traversed by a road leading to a small and apparently modern doorway in the wall. There is no trace of a main entrance in this direction, but it must be confessed that if the main entrance lay to the south of the gatehouse, it must have been difficult to approach, save by water.

HOPTON CASTLE, SHROPSHIRE.

About five miles south-east of Clun, upon a tributary of the Teme, is placed the parish and castle of Hopton, the Opetune of Domesday, when it was, like Clun, held by Picot as the successor of Edric. It was a fief of Clun. In 1165 it was held by Walter de Opton as two knights’ fees under Geoffrey de Vere, one of the three husbands of Isabel de Say; and Peter de Opton held it in 1201. William de Hopton may have followed, but Mr. Eyton is not clear whether he may not have been of Monk-Hopton in the same county.

However this may be, Walter de Hopton held the fief in 1223, as did another Walter, 1255–72, and was bound to provide for the defence of Clun Castle one soldier all the year round, and a second for forty days in time of war. In 1304–5, upon the death of Walter de Hopton, he was seized of the Vill of Hopton with its hamlets, and a considerable property about it, chiefly held under Clun, as continued to be the original two fees, by Sir John de Hopton, in the 21 Richard II. The family seems to have remained at Hopton till the reign of Elizabeth, but the castle was still standing and of sufficient strength to be held for King Charles in the seventeenth century. It was taken after a gallant resistance, and dismantled.

Hopton Castle or Tower stands about half a mile south of the parish church. It occupies a knoll or patch of gravel, which rises out of a marshy bottom, caused by the waters of the brooks which here fall into the main stream. There is a central mound, low but well defined, which is surrounded by a circular ditch, and beyond this ditch are the traces of two or three platforms, but slightly elevated, and which have been fortified by ditches fed with water by a streamlet from the west. No doubt the place was occupied by some tenant of Edric, for its earthworks are certainly pre-Norman, and perhaps of the tenth century. It is probable that its Norman tenant and his descendants, who derive their names from the place, were for some centuries content with such defences as they found ready to their hands, for there is no trace of masonry, either of the eleventh or twelfth centuries.

The castle consists of a single tower, quadrangular, 48 feet by 50 feet, with walls 10 feet thick. It stands upon the mound, which is not above 6 feet high, and through which the foundations are no doubt carried. It has a basement at the ground level, a first or main floor, and an attic in the roof. The exterior is plain, having a double-scroll stringcourse from 4 feet to 6 feet from the ground. Each angle is capped by a pair of broad pilasters of slight projection, which ascend to the summit, and probably carried four square turrets. The doorway is on the north side, not far from its west end, and nearly at the ground-floor level, ascended from the exterior by three or four steps. The south front has a square projection at its west end, in which is a garderobe. The doorway, the only entrance, is 6 feet wide, and has an equilateral arched head. Its mouldings are two convex quarter circles divided by a step. Their character is plain but excellent Decorated. Over the doorway was a triangular hood, now broken away. There is no portcullis, only a strong door.

Entering, a vaulted passage leading to the basement has a small door on the right, which leads into a well-stair, 6 feet in diameter, occupying the north-west angle of the building, and ascending to the roof. At the first floor is a lobby, with a small window above the outer door. This is the only staircase. The basement chamber is 29 feet by 21 feet. In the north wall is a deep recess, 7 feet wide, containing a small square-headed loop. Opposite, in the south wall, is a similar recess and window, but in the jambs are two doors, which by short passages lead into two chambers in the two southern angles. That in the south-east angle is 7 feet by 6 feet, with two loops. The other is a garderobe, with one loop. Both are covered in with overhanging slabs. In the west side is another window, in a recess, similar to those above described, and a fireplace with a vertical tunnel. In the east wall are two recesses, one blank and one pierced with a loop. From the jamb of this latter a door opens into a small chamber in the north-east angle.

The first floor is lofty. The joists and boards are gone, and the walls and window recesses are so thick with brambles and so inaccessible that the details are not to be seen. This floor seems to resemble the basement, save that it is higher, and the windows are larger.

The remains of two gables in the north and south fronts show that there was a ridge roof, with a small window at each end. Altogether this is a very peculiar building, much more like a Scottish than an English castle. It is all of one date, probably the work of Walter de Hopton, who died in 1304–5, and seems to have been a man of considerable wealth and power.

HUNTINGDON CASTLE.

It has generally been supposed that the town of Godmanchester, upon the right bank of the Ouse, represents the Roman station of Durolipons. It is traversed by the Ermine Street, which here receives the Via Devana from Cambridge, and another Roman road from the station at Salenæ, or Sandy. The Roman town, however, seems, as was often the case, to have been destroyed in the centuries of war that followed on the departure of the Roman armies, and its memory is chiefly preserved in the termination of “Chester” suffixed to its later name. The northern invaders did not much care to build upon or employ Roman foundations, and in this case they passed over from the low and watery side of the old station and established themselves on the higher position of the Hunters, or Hunting-down, on the opposite, or left and northern, bank of the river. By whom, or precisely when, the capital of the future county was founded is not known. The first mention of it, or rather of Huntingdon Port, in history, is in A.D. 657, when it occurs in the foundation limits of Medehampstede (Peterborough). As a military post it is named in A.D. 918, when, according to the Saxon Chronicle, the Danish army from Huntingdon and East Anglia threw up a work at Tempsford, and for it deserted another at Huntingdon. That work must necessarily be the earthworks now remaining, which may either have been thrown up by the Danes or by earlier Saxons. Later in the year, King Eadweard with his West Saxons brought the Danes of Northampton and Welland to obedience, “reduced the burgh at Huntingdon, and repaired and renovated it, where it was before in a state of ruin.... And all the folk that were left there of the peasantry submitted to King Eadweard, and sought his peace and his protection.”

Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who wrote towards the close of the eleventh century, mentions the three burhs (_tria castra_) of Buckingham, Bedford, and Huntingdon. The castle is mentioned several times in Domesday. It was within the borough of Huntingdon. The Bishop of Lincoln had a residence (_mansio_) in the place of the castle (_in loco castri_). In the place of the castle were twenty residences (_mansiones_). “Besides these were and are LX. ‘mansiones’ waste ... and on account of these are VIII. ‘mansiones’ waste.” William the Conqueror was at Huntingdon 1068, when he ordered a castle to be built, evidently on the site of the old fortress restored by Edward the Elder in 918. The names in Domesday show how complete had been the removal of the larger English landowners. The new castle was probably built by, and in the hands of, Eustace, one of the most rapacious of the Norman sheriffs; but the earldom was given to Judith, the king’s niece, and descended to and through Maud, her daughter, by Earl Waltheof. Maud married, first, Simon de St. Liz, in her right Earl of Huntingdon. The earldom, on his death, was held by David, afterwards King of Scots, Maud’s second husband, and, with the castle, was long a subject of contention between the two families, until David, the third son of Henry, son of Maud and David, laid siege to and took the castle, on which Simon de St. Liz, the son of Maud, retook it. The result was that Henry II. had the castle demolished, nor does it appear ever to have been rebuilt. The town occurs from time to time in the public records, and the honour remained attached to the earldom. The king also had a prison there; but there is never any allusion to a castle. In 1205 King John granted to Robert Rufus the demesne and mill at Huntingdon, and in 1218 and 1219 the sheriff had order to give seizin, under certain limitations, to Alexander, King of Scotland, as custos of the honour. The junior branch of the house of Hastings took the title of Huntingdon, to commemorate the descent of the elder line from the Scottish earls.

It is difficult to suppose that Henry would, within a century of its construction, demolish a first-class castle, commanding a shire town, and posted upon the edge of a very strong and inaccessible tract of country. The usual course with an important structure was to attach it to the Crown. And yet, whatever stood there was certainly then demolished, and Huntingdon Castle is not again heard of. Was there really a castle built there, or was it, as was often the case, a mere strengthened form of the older English work in timber? It is difficult, after this lapse of time, to say, though an excavation judiciously conducted would no doubt set the question at rest.

There does not appear to be any plan of Huntingdon Castle, that is, of the earthworks known as Castle Hill, which still are seen; and as they are extensive and partly included within a private garden, a mere handsketch is scarcely practicable. The position is a fine one. The Ouse, here deep, broad, and sluggish, in its way from Bedford and Eaton to the Fens, recedes from the higher land to the northward, and makes, between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, a bold curve to the south; thus enclosing a grand circle of meadow about half a mile in diameter, and now used as the racecourse. Along the northern edge of this breadth of sward flows the Alconbury brook, a considerable watercourse, which skirts the foot of the high land, and joins the Ouse opposite the Castle Hill, and just above the bridge by which the Ermine Street is carried across the river. Here, upon the edge of the high land, and protected from the south by the river and the brook, and the low and formerly impassable levels beyond them, are the ancient earthworks, which, though partially levelled, and reduced both in height and depth, and traversed by a road and a railway, are still very considerable, and form a remarkable feature in the view of the town from the south. In general outline the work is rather a circle than a square, and about 180 yards in clear diameter. The outer ditch, which is included in this measurement, encircles two-thirds of the whole, communicating at each end with the brook, which thus completes the investment. Upon the western margin of the area thus enclosed, and projecting boldly into it, is a large mound, the flat top of which, now crowned by a neglected mill, is 100 feet diameter, and about 30 feet high above the inner platform, and 40 feet or more above the country outside. This mound, which was the citadel of the work, had its proper surrounding ditch, which at the outer face was identified with the main ditch, but elsewhere cut off the mound from the general area of the fortress. This remainder, which, by the indentation of the mound and ditch cutting out a huge cantle, was converted into a sort of crescent, was defended along its outer edge by broad and high banks of earth, perhaps 20 feet above the contained area, and 30 feet or 40 feet above the circumscribing ditch. The railway passes east and west, close south of the mound, and cuts off a part of the work; the road passes north of the mound; and north of this a close fence shuts off from the visitors a part of the earthwork.

The entrance was on the east, or town side. Towards the west, outside the ditch, is a natural elevated platform, which, at 100 yards distance, terminates in a steep slope, and which may have been a part of the defences, or perhaps a safe penfold for cattle. There was a mill mentioned in Domesday, upon the river below the castle. There is now no trace of masonry above ground, but the earthworks look as though they had been built upon.

The two town churches are handsome. One seems, except perhaps the tower, wholly Perpendicular; the other contains some Norman or early English work, with much of Decorated work, and some of Tudor date. Near the George Hotel are two large round-headed arches springing from three fine Norman piers. The building to which they belong has been rebuilt, or nearly so, in brick. There is said to have been a hospital here.

Although the evidence is, on the whole, in favour of the English origin of these earthworks, and of those at Eaton-Socon, the mound at Eaton does not form so important a feature as usual in the burhs of the tenth century, although it is nevertheless present. But both these works present a feature which is, independently of the mound, very common in works of their class, and very uncommon in those of admitted British or Roman origin. Not only is there a mound, but the level of the area contained within the inner ditches is generally higher than the land immediately around. This is remarkably so at Builth and Kilpeck, among many other places, and was apparently intended to give the domestic buildings greater safety and an advantage when actually attacked. This distinction does not seem to have been pointed out, and it is possible that upon it may turn the identification of many of the earthworks, the date of which is now unknown.

HUNTINGTON CASTLE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

This is one of the moated mounds with appended courts of which there are so many in the counties of Hereford and Salop, and here as usual the earthworks were employed to support and defend the masonry of a Norman castle. There remains but little of these additions; but the earthworks are remarkably perfect and show in great completeness the mound, the inner ward, and its proper ditch, and the outer ward, also with its ditch. The annexed plan is taken from the pages of the “Archæologia Cambrensis,” where also there is a valuable paper upon the castle.

THE CASTLE OF KENILWORTH, WARWICKSHIRE.

The three midland counties of England, happily for those who dwelt in them, were not rich in castles, and such as remain are rarely of a very striking character. The position of Belvoir, indeed, is very noble, and Warwick stands without a rival; but these are brilliant exceptions, and the early castle-builders of the shires of Leicester, Warwick, and Northampton, in the absence of those wilder features of nature to which many of the Welsh and Scottish fortresses owe much of their celebrity, had to be content with defences often wholly artificial, and, where natural, seldom of a bold character, though sometimes of formidable strength.

The Castle of Kenilworth is an excellent example of a midland fortress. To an ordinary observer, its site presents much of quiet sylvan beauty, but nothing of obtrusive military strength; and yet, in the hands of skilful engineers, it became, in point of size, strength, and accommodation, one of the most important military posts in England. It had walls capable of great passive resistance, a capacity for containing a numerous garrison and immense stores of provision, and a front protected by a large sheet of water, which again was covered by a formidable outwork. Moreover the midland districts were, from an early period, traversed by main and cross roads, favourable to the concentration of troops and the transfer of stores, seldom sought in vain in so fertile a country. For all these qualities, strength, capacity, a central position, and facilities for collecting and feeding a garrison, there was, in the days of its pride, no fortress in England superior, probably none equal, to Kenilworth; and now, when its grassy lawns and ivy-covered walls are redolent of peace and prosperity, and of English rural life, the thoughtful visitor cannot but feel that the place was a fitting one for the conclusion of that celebrated contest between monarchical power and civil liberty, in which, though the honour and nominal victory were with the Crown, the real and permanent gain remained with the English people.

Half-way between Warwick and Coventry, where the action of water upon the soft rock of the new red sandstone has wrought the surface of the country into an immense network of low, round-topped hills and broad and gentle valleys, the Inchford brook, one of the many tributaries of the river Sow, receives, on its left or northern bank, a smaller and nameless streamlet. At the point where the waters and their respective valleys unite, a knoll, partly of rock and partly of gravel, juts out from the north-east as a sort of low headland between the two, and is somewhat farther isolated by an expansion of the valley lower down, the general effect of which is to invest the high ground with a marshy frontier upon its west, south, and south-eastern slopes, leaving it toward the north and north-east connected with larger tracts of equally raised land.

Such was the spot selected in remote times, probably by some wealthy English franklin, for a residence, and adopted by his Norman successors. By one or other, or possibly by both, a deep trench was dug across the neck of the high ground, on the north and north-east, and the slopes were made steeper on the other sides. The central plot, thus isolated, was raised artificially about 15 feet, probably from the surrounding excavations, and works were thus formed which may still be traced amidst the additions and alterations due to many generations of inhabitants. As usual with these concentric earthworks, the inner and higher part, which carried the residence of the lord, was placed out of centre with the outer and lower area. This was intended not only as an outer defence to the citadel, but as a place of security for the dependents, and in times of danger for the herds and flocks. It was important that all these should be placed near together, hence one or two sides of the base court were of large area, while the remainder was narrow and used for defence only. Such is the arrangement at Berkhampstead, Caerleon, Wigmore, Richard’s Castle, Tonbridge, Ewias-Harold, Kilpeck, Shrewsbury, and in many other fortresses where the Norman engineer has built upon the earlier lines, and such is the case at Kenilworth, where the eastern and north-eastern sides of the outer ward are by much the most spacious.

The mound, so common in English strong places, and found at the adjacent fortress of Warwick, is not here distinctly visible; the question being, whether its site is occupied by the Norman keep or encroached upon by John of Gaunt’s Hall, both of which are connected with ancient earth-banks. A part of one of these banks is seen on the west front of the inner ward, and, though mutilated, may well represent the original burgh. The Norman keep is also connected with made ground. It includes within its walls a very decidedly artificial mound, from 10 to 15 feet high, against which its walls are built. Kenilworth, as it now stands, is a castle of several periods, but its general plan is original and concentric, the principal additions having been the lake and the outwork beyond it. It is composed of a keep, an inner and outer ward, a lake now drained, a large outwork beyond the lake, and a dam which supported the lake, and across which lay the main approach to the castle.

The _Inner Ward_ measures about 80 yards north and south, by 84 yards east and west. Its north-eastern angle is a right one, and its eastern and much of its northern sides are straight lines, but the southern and western sides are irregular. The keep forms and fills up the north-eastern angle. West of it, on the north front, are the kitchens, and at the north-west angle the strong tower. The west front is occupied by the hall, and other domestic and state buildings stand along the south side. Leicester’s buildings form the south-east angle, and Henry VIII.’s lodgings and the curtain, now gone, covered the remainder of the east side. In the centre was an open court, about 40 yards north and south, by 50 yards east and west.

The _Keep_, known as “Cæsar’s,” and with more justice as “Clinton’s Tower,” is, in magnitude, general proportions, and excellence of material and workmanship, a fine example of a first-class late Norman keep of the rectangular type. It forms the north-east angle of the inner ward, and is built mainly on the rock, here near the surface. The ground is lowest on the east and south faces, so that on these the base is composed of a bold battering wall from 8 to 12 feet high, divided into eight or ten steps, and of 6 to 8 feet projection at the ground line. At the top of this base, which corresponds to the level of the ground floor, the keep measures, from curtain to curtain, 58 feet north and south, by 87 feet east and west, and is from the level about 80 feet high. Its west face is covered by the forebuilding, which projects 38 feet more, and is as long as the keep is broad, or 73 feet from the front face of the turrets. The angles of the keep are capped by four turrets, projecting 7 feet 6 inches, and the faces of which are 26 feet and 22 feet, the latter to the east and west. Between these there are on the south face four, and on the east face three, pilasters, 5 to 7 feet broad, and 1 foot projection. These rise from the common plinth and ascend to the summit of the present wall, which is broken, but which includes 5 or 6 feet of parapet. It is remarkable that this parapet has no exterior projection, not even a stringcourse to mark the level of its base.

The turrets are broken down nearly to the level of the curtains, but parts of their chambers remain. The west face is modified by the forebuilding. There are upon it two pilasters, but they stop at the level of the first floor. The turrets have an offset of 6 inches at two-thirds of their height, and the curtains one at a rather lower level. These are the only exterior reductions in the thickness of the wall, which is vertical. The walls, at the floor level, are 13 to 14 feet thick, and there were two floors only—a basement and an upper or main floor. The basement chamber is 60 feet by 30 feet, and 20 feet high; the upper floor about 4 feet larger, the wall being reduced by 2 feet, upon which shelf the floor rested. This main chamber was about 40 feet high. The basement has lately been probed and opened. It is filled with made ground, varying from 6 to 15 feet deep. The walls evidently go through the made ground, and rest either upon the rock or on the original black vegetable soil. The sacrifice of so much space in so costly a structure is curious. It is evidently intentional, for the character of the masonry shows it was not meant to be seen.

The north-east turret contained a well-stair 10 feet diameter, which ascended from the basement to the battlements, communicating with the first floor. It was lighted by six round-headed loops, of which three to the south-east remain, and open upon a chamfer which fills up the hollow angle between the turret and the east curtain. The stair seems to have opened below by a short bent passage in the north wall, though in the restoration it has been made to open into the chamber in the east wall. The whole north curtain is gone, from the plinth upwards, and has been removed with some care, its junction with the north-west turret being cut smooth. At the other end its removal has necessarily carried away half the staircase, the base of which has been entirely restored. This basement chamber is surrounded by a low, narrow plinth or step, 2 feet high and 1 foot broad. The floor was paved. In the south wall are three grand window recesses, round-headed, and each placed in a reveal about 1 foot broad and deep and square-headed. The arches spring from a plain abacus. They are 8 feet wide and 12 feet high to the springing. At present these recesses are parallel-sided, and open throughout. It is evident they once were deeply splayed, and contained small lights or loops, but the splays were cut away, and the loops replaced by large heavily-mullioned windows of the Tudor period, which windows have again been removed. In the east wall is a similar recess, 6 feet broad, and unaltered. Here the splay from outside and inside contracts in an hour-glass fashion to a loop in the centre of the wall, with a slight shoulder to intercept an arrow. As the parallel sides of the loop are 2 feet thick, and it is 6 feet from the face of the wall, it is clear that no arrow could be discharged hence save nearly straight forwards. As usual, these loops were for air and light, not for defence. Between this loop and the south angle is a square-headed door, of 3 feet opening, under a curious round-headed arch, of which the tympanum is partly formed by the arch stones. This leads to the well, which is in the centre of the wall. It is 4 feet diameter, and much choked up. It ascends to the upper floor. At the north end of this side the wall has been broken away and a small mural chamber laid open, 5 feet wide by 8 feet long, having a plain barrel vault. A door opened into it from the great chamber, and it was lighted by a loop, now converted into a sort of window. The inner wall about the doorway has been strengthened by a pilaster of 1 foot projection, which stops at the first floor. In the recent restoration, this chamber has been made the lobby at the foot of the staircase.

In the west wall is a plain, round-headed doorway, of 6 feet opening, and with ashlar ring-stones 2 feet deep. This is the opening of a straight passage through the wall, here 12 feet 9 inches thick. There are in the passage rebates for two doors, opening towards each other. At Rochester, a small door in this position led only into a sort of prison in the base of the forebuilding, and this may have been the case here; but the size of the door, as at Corfe, makes it at least possible that it was a regular entrance, approached through the forebuilding from the common exterior door. In small keeps the basement was often entered from the first floor only, as at Clitheroe, by a trap, or, in the larger keeps, by a well-stair, as at Middleham. Unfortunately, as the forebuilding is almost always more or less injured, it is impossible in most cases where there is a large basement door to say positively whether it was an independent entrance. There is also the further doubt, as at the Tower of London, Guildford, and Malling, whether the doorway in the basement be not a later introduction. The cill of this doorway is about 10 feet above the outer or main entrance of the forebuilding, the floor of which rises to it. Close north of the large doorway is a small one, of 2 feet 6 inches opening, which leads into a garderobe, the seat of which is corbelled out into the interior of the north-west turret. This interior, 10 feet 6 inches square, seems to have been a vast cesspit, receiving the contents of garderobes from each floor and from the battlements. There is no drain below, and the lower part of the pit contained sand, which has recently been removed. There is a somewhat similar pit in the keep at Ludlow, and one at Sherborne which resembles them. Large as this pit is for such a purpose, it is much smaller than the turret, the wall of which to the west, if solid, must be 11 feet thick. Can there be a second and smaller shaft in that part of the turret, not now accessible? There was no way from this floor to either of the southern turrets, both of which, at this level, were filled with earth.

The main or upper floor is 34 feet by 64 feet, and was about 40 feet high. As the span is long for single joists, it is possible that these rested upon a central beam, and this upon posts; or, as no bases have been found, it may be that they were stiffened by struts from the side walls. Some traces in the ashlar of the broken staircase at the north-east corner seem to point to an entrance from the stair through the north wall, similar to that supposed below. In the south wall are three window recesses corresponding to those below, but of 6 feet opening, with segmental heads. They rest on the floor and are 12 feet high. Above one of these openings, on the outside, may be traced the head of one of the original Norman windows, which shows that it was of small size—probably of 2 feet opening. These have been replaced, with small regard for congruity, by late Tudor windows of three lights, divided in the centre by a transom. In the east wall are two similar windows, and over the well-pipe is the well-chamber, 7 feet square, rudely vaulted and groined. Its floor has been relaid, but it is evident that the pipe ascended into this chamber, and that a pulley hung from the centre of the vault for the working of the bucket. In the south-east corner is a locker for a spare rope or tools. The entrance to this chamber was through the jamb of the adjacent window, but a second doorway has been broken direct from the great chamber. Close to this breach a door and bent passage lead into the south-east turret, where is a chamber 12 feet 6 inches by 15 feet. The floor is of earth, with which the turret is filled to this level. Above are traces of an upper chamber, entered probably by a ladder and a trap-door. There is no fireplace, but a loop high up in the south wall has been converted into a window, and a second loop remains in the east wall.

The west wall of the great chamber contains two windows similar to the other side—save that they do not descend to the floor, but begin about 8 feet up, so as not to interfere with the forebuilding outside. North of these windows, in the part of the north-west turret which abutted on the north curtain, is a door of 3 feet opening, and 8 feet or 10 feet high. This is the cross section of a mural passage leading from the great chamber. Close south of it, in the west wall, and above the similar door on the ground floor, a small round-headed door leads into the garderobe turret. The other opening in the west wall is at its south end, and is the main entrance to the keep. It is a plain doorway of 6 feet opening, with a flat, segmental head beneath a full-centred arch of relief. The passage has a segmental barrel vault. It goes direct through the curtain, here 12 feet thick. It has no portcullis. In the south wall of the passage a side door opens into the south-west turret. This also had an original upper chamber, but below the entrance or first-floor level it was filled with earth; this has been removed, and the lower part fitted up, and windows opened in the south wall, and a rude door at the base, but the rough character of the masonry shows that the turret was originally filled up to the first-floor level. Dudley’s alterations converted the interior of this turret into five tier of rooms, the windows of which are seen in the south wall. It is said also to have been fitted up as a staircase.

The great chamber had an open roof, the holes for the joists of which are seen in the southern wall. The pitch was low, almost flat, as is shown by the original weather-moulding in the east and west walls, which has been masqued by a thin interior facing, carrying a moulding for a roof of a rather higher pitch, all which, however, has disappeared under the recent repairs. This is different from Porchester, Rochester, and Bridgenorth, where the original pitch was steep. On the outside, above the windows, but much below the base of the parapet, is seen a row of loops, square-headed, with a plain chamfer, expanded below into a broad fantail. There are three of these in the south wall and two in the east and west, and each turret has besides one on each of its two outer faces. The turret loops are at a higher level, and this shows that the turrets themselves stood clear above the curtains. These apertures are curious. The loop ascended in the wall and opened in the base of the parapet beneath a flat, three-centred arch. The loops are probably original, but the parapet seems to have been rebuilt, either when the pitch of the roof was altered or in Dudley’s time. The walls are covered with ivy and in a dangerous condition, so that even with the aid of long ladders their upper part is not very accessible. There are traces of doorways opening from the rampart walk into the upper parts of the turrets, the floors of which were of timber.

The forebuilding covering the entrance forms almost as remarkable a feature here as at Rochester or Middleham, though it has suffered much from alterations. It was a rectangular tower built against the west wall of the keep, and projecting 38 feet. Its walls are 6 feet thick, bonded into and of the date of the keep. The west wall has been in part removed down to the plinth, but the two other walls are tolerably perfect. It was of two stages and about 40 feet high. The door was in the south wall, opening from the inner ward. It may be traced, but has been in part replaced by an entrance of Perpendicular date, now also broken away. Above the old door, 12 feet from the ground, is a plain Norman string. From the door a straight stair, reversed with a second flight, must have risen 25 feet to reach the first floor. At that level, over the entrance, was a chamber, of which part of the Norman wall remains, but which was rebuilt by Dudley, and has been nearly all destroyed. Here was possibly a chapel, as at Middleham. The entrance to the first floor of the keep opens from this level, in the curtain, close to the south-west turret. The doorway, like that within, is quite plain, and has a flat, segmental head under an arch of relief, also segmental, but less flat. It looks as though the lower arch had been inserted to carry the joists of the roof, but it is really original. The pitch of the roof of the forebuilding has been thrice altered, as is shown by the grooves cut in the wall of the turret. The flattest is the latest. The roofs seem to have been of the lean-to character. Whether there was a chamber below the stair, or whether there was a way at the base of the stair into the lower floor of the keep, as has been already pointed out, cannot now be ascertained.

It would seem that in the Perpendicular period this forebuilding was much altered, its entrance a little shifted, and in it were placed several piers, 3 feet square, supporting full-centred arches, of 9 feet span, on which the timbers of the floor above were laid. A plain doorway of 6 feet opening was cut in the curtain forming the north end, and in the exterior of the wall an alcove was formed of 13 feet span by 6 feet deep, having a segmental arch, and supported by three plain ribs with a hollow chamfer. This alcove opened upon a terrace, which overlooked the northern part of the outer ward, and formed a sort of landing and staircase, giving a descent of four or five steps from the door to the terrace. The object seems to have been to form a handsome way from the inner ward to the garden north of the keep. The piers and arches might be of the date of Elizabeth or James, but their mouldings and parts of the adjacent walls are clearly earlier, and no doubt the work of the Lancastrian owners, who in that case must have indulged in a garden. Dudley made further alterations, and a part of the south front of the forebuilding still bears the date of 1575, and has Italian ornaments.

There is to be remarked in this keep, the absence of a cross wall, the basement filled up with earth, the unusual projection of the four turrets, the probably distinct entrances from the forebuilding to the ground and first floor, and the well-stair, nearly as large as that of the Tower of London. Also, there is no portcullis, and there are but few mural chambers or galleries. This is the more remarkable as the walls are unusually thick and the material excellent. Further, there are no fireplaces in the three remaining walls, and there is no ornamentation of any kind, inside or outside. The keep is the only distinctly Norman building remaining in the inner ward, although much of the curtain is Norman, and more rests upon the Norman lines.

It has been stated that the keep forms the north-eastern angle of the inner ward. The curtain abutting upon it on either face is of its own date. At the north-west corner the curtain forms the north wall of the forebuilding, and for some yards is original. At the south-east corner of the keep are the remains of the entrance into the inner ward. This, as at Bridgenorth, was a doorway in the east curtain, close to the keep, and, as at Bridgenorth, although the curtain has been removed, a part of the doorway remains. The curtain was here 11 feet thick and 21 feet high to the rampart wall, above which were a parapet and rear wall of about 5 feet more. One whole jamb and the springing-stones of the portal remain. There was no gatehouse, only an opening in the wall, as at Ogmore, and probably at Ludlow. The defences were:—First, a portal 3 feet deep, and in it a square portcullis groove; then a rebate for a door opening inwards; and, finally, an arched passage 3 feet higher than the portal and 6 feet deep. The entrance appears to have been a foot-gate only, so that carriages could not enter the inner ward.

What are called Lancaster’s buildings occupy most of the inner ward. They commence at the forebuilding, and extend along the rest of the north side, the whole of the west, and much of the south side. They evidently replaced similar buildings of the Norman period, and were built towards the end of the fourteenth century. Next west of the forebuilding are the remains of the kitchen and buttery, now a mass of ruin, much of which is covered up with earth. An immense fireplace has been inserted into the wall of the forebuilding, having two very perfect ovens lined with thin bricks; another fireplace is formed in the adjoining curtain; the fire-backs are also of thin brick, set herring-bone fashion. Further on, a curious triangular buttress outside the curtain contains a garderobe shaft, the drain from which is a squared-headed opening in the rock below, about 6 feet high and 4 feet broad. There is a second drain, which traversed the kitchen, and the mouth of which, fitted with a groove for a sluice, is seen in the inner ward, near the hall door. Probably if the rubbish was removed, the plan of these buildings would be visible. Beyond them, the north-western angle of the ward is capped by the strong tower, quadrangular, 50 feet by 40 feet, with octagonal turrets at the two western angles, and between them a rather remarkable triangular buttress. The tower is of three stages, all vaulted and groined, each vault of four bays springing from a central pier. It is of the date of the hall and kitchens, from the foundations. This tower probably derived its name of the “Strong Tower” from its use as a prison, though evidently for persons of consequence. The windows are plain, flat-topped openings. In the sides of one of the splayed recesses, looking towards the west, are some coats-of-arms scratched in the stone. Those that have been made out are four.

1. Six cross-croslets flory, on a bend three pheons bend-wise, points depressed to the sinister.

2. Quarterly, per fesse embattled.

3. On a quarter a fret (or fretty).

4. Quarterly, 1 and 4, a cross botonné.

„ 2 and 3, three crescents inverted.

Next to this tower is the _Hall_, which occupies nearly the whole west side of the ward. This, for dimensions, proportion, material, and workmanship was probably the finest hall in the kingdom, wholly of the early Perpendicular period. It measured 90 feet by 45 feet, and stood upon a basement of the same size, of which the roof was vaulted in eighteen square bays, springing from ten piers, arranged with the walls in three equal aisles, while against the wall are fourteen responds, besides one at each of the four angles. Between each pair is an arched recess. This vast and beautiful cellar was aired by loops upon the east side only. The cross aisle at the north end was partitioned off by a stone screen as a passage, which traversed the cellar, having at its east end a door from the inner ward, and to the west a postern opening on the outer ward. This postern is a square-headed doorway, with a bold portcullis groove, and immediately above it is a small square window traversed by the grate, and in the cill of the hall window above is a round hole for the chain, by which the grate was lifted. This portcullis is rather a tribute to the military character of the building, than for the affording any special security, for the large windows of the hall above would have admitted an army. The cellar was entered by a side door from the passage, and at its south-west corner was a small apartment, a cellaret, whence a small well-stair led to the “buffet” above. The hall, resting upon its vaulted floor, is one storey above the inner ward level. It was approached by a broad, straight staircase, which landed in a porch at the north end of the east side of the room. The porch rested upon a vault, and was itself vaulted and groined and richly panelled. The hall was lighted by four large windows towards the west or outer ward, and by three towards the inner ward. At the upper two-thirds of the room, opposite each other, and between two pair of windows, are two large fireplaces. They have lintels slightly shouldered, no hoods or projection, and their splays are panelled.