Chapter VII: Part 7

Space will not permit us to narrate the varying fortunes of the opposing forces—English and Danes—in the almost incessant struggles which marked the period preceding the Norman Conquest—struggles in which Stamford was held sometimes by one party, sometimes by the other, and not infrequently was in the hands of both, when the river formed the dividing line between the rival camps.

In the year 972 Eadgar granted, or, it may be, confirmed to the Abbey of Peterborough the privilege of coining money at Stamford, but the exact position of the mint in the southern part of the town cannot now be determined. It is an interesting and significant fact that coins of the Stamford mint have been met with in considerable numbers in hoards found in Scandinavia.[87]

The fortification on the north bank of the Welland was doubtless originally a Danish earthwork, an English stronghold being erected by Alfred in opposition on the south side, near the present Midland Railway Station. When the Danes had secured a foothold they seem to have replaced their earthen defences by stone walls which encircled their settlement. At the present day considerable portions of the Stamford town walls are in existence, though these have obviously been reconstructed from time to time, and nothing earlier than Norman work can be positively identified in the portions still remaining. Perhaps the most striking vestige now to be seen is a round bastion on the west side of the town, near Rutland Terrace. Speed’s map of Stamford (1600) shows eleven towers in the line of the walls, together with seven principal gates and two posterns. The southern town does not appear to have ever been defended by walls, though it had five fortified gates.[88] All the gates in both sections of the town have now been demolished, the last (St. George’s Gate) as lately as 1806. The water-mill, situated near the Castle, was originally built by Edward the Confessor, and is still known as the King’s Mill, though the present structure is of the eighteenth century.

Soon after the Conquest the Danish castle was replaced by a substantial Norman building, and the site is still marked by an Early English gate and a portion of the arcaded wall of a chamber which was subsequently used as a manor court. At present the Castle site is occupied by an iron foundry, and it is among the buildings, sheds and heaps of scrap iron connected therewith, that the visitor has to search for what remains of the old mediæval stronghold. It seems a sad pity that a spot of such historic interest and picturesque position should ever have been allowed to fall into the state of unsightly neglect which characterises it to-day.

The dawn of the twelfth century saw the beginning of the long era of building in and around Stamford, the visible results of which have rendered the town so famous among generations of ecclesiologists and students of architecture. St. Leonard’s Priory, already mentioned, which had suffered severely during the Danish incursions, was rebuilt at this time, and, judging by the remains of the nave of the Priory Church (which is all that now remains), must have been a noble edifice. The west front, the portion latest in date (_c._ 1190) of the existing fabric, is one of the finest examples of its kind in the country. In the centre of the lowest stage is a blocked doorway surmounted by a round arch of four highly enriched orders. The arch is supported by groups of elegant detached shafts, terminating in foliage caps of Early English character and exquisite workmanship. On either side of this central door is another smaller recess of similar character. Above, in the second stage, is an arcade of seven round-headed arches with chevron ornament, three being open and four blocked; while over this again, in the gable, is a vesica-shaped moulded recess. Sad to relate, this beautiful old building is now doing duty as a cart-shed!

Stamford is not rich to-day in architecture of the Norman style, and St. Leonard’s Priory, a small portion of what remains of St. Paul’s Church (now used as part of the Grammar School premises), an arch on the west side of St. Mary’s Hill, known as the “Pack-horse Arch,” and a few fragments of the original Hospital of SS. John and Thomas (now incorporated in Lord Burghley’s Bedehouse at the south extremity of the bridge), are perhaps all that we can assign to this period. We must not, however, conclude from this that Stamford was ill equipped with churches and religious foundations in the twelfth century. All Saints’, Water Street, on the south side of the river, was erected in 1066, but has now entirely disappeared, while the original church on the site of the present St. Martin’s was begun in 1133. All Saints’ College (attached to Crowland Abbey) and St. Mary’s Benedictine Nunnery, founded in 1109 and 1120 respectively; St. Giles’ Lazar House (1150); the House of the Holy Sepulchre and Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene (of about the same date and with some remains still visible in a private residence known as “The Hermitage,” close to the George Hotel); St. Michael’s Priory (1156); the Hospital of St. John the Baptist and St. Thomas of Canterbury (1170); and a cell (_c._ 1200) of Peterborough Abbey, in Burghley Park (traces of which are said to remain in the kitchens of Burghley House)—form a list which, though incomplete, abundantly attests to the religious activity which existed here at this time. All the above were in the Northamptonshire part of the town. Of those on the north side, there is documentary evidence that the Church of “All Saints in the Mercat” (_i.e._ Market), so called to distinguish it from All Saints’, Water Street, was in existence in 1170, while we may assert, on architectural grounds, that the Church of St. Paul was also erected in the twelfth century. Among buildings of slightly later date we may mention the Hospital of St. Leger (1208), near St. Paul’s Church; St. Mary’s Priory, Newstead, for Austinian Canons, founded in 1230 and situated about a mile eastward of the town; and the Friary of SS. Mary and Nicholas, for Dominicans (1230), on the south side of St. Leonard’s Street—of all of which houses no traces now remain.

Of the Franciscan or Black Friary (_c._ 1250), near St. Paul’s Gate on the eastern side of the town, a small postern gate may still be seen; and of the Carmelite or White Friary (1260), situated a little to the north-east of the preceding, the picturesque gateway which now gives access to the grounds of the Stamford Infirmary but which is of later date (_c._ 1350), is one of the architectural features of the town. In 1292 the Gilbertine Canons of Sempringham, a community which has a special interest as being the only order originating in England, founded a Hall in St. Peter’s Street, on the west side of the town, a few remains of which are still visible; and in 1335 an Austinian Friary was established not far from the same spot, of which a fragment or two remain, built into an almshouse hard by. The list here given, which, it is to be feared, is somewhat in the nature of a catalogue, cannot fail to establish the fact that Stamford was an important centre of religious life during this period, an assertion which receives additional corroboration when we examine further the records of the church-building in the town.

Although Stamford can never have covered what we should now consider a large area, she possessed as many as sixteen churches, a number now reduced to six; and if those which remain may stand as a fair sample of the whole, Stamford, in her halcyon days, must have been able to furnish a veritable feast of architectural beauty. Of some of the churches which no longer exist little is recorded, as, for example, All Saints’, Water Street (already mentioned), St. Stephen’s, St. Thomas’, St. Michael’s Cornstall, St. Mary’s Bennewerk (_i.e._ within the “works” or walls), and Holy Trinity. These were all destroyed in 1461 under circumstances to be noticed hereafter. St. Clement’s (near Clement’s Gate, now known as Scotgate), St. Peter’s (situated on St. Peter’s Hill, and originally belonging to Hambleton, Rutland), and St. Andrew’s (in Broad Street), were removed under an Act of Parliament in 1553. The parishes belonging to both the above groups of vanished churches were subsequently apportioned to one or other of the surviving parish churches.

Perhaps this will be a convenient place at which to offer a few remarks—necessarily very brief and inadequate—concerning the churches which are still in existence, since no account of Stamford could be deemed complete which did not include some notice, however imperfect, of what many would deem her chief glory—namely, her Gothic architecture.

As a recent writer[89] has pointed out, it is essential that the student of the Stamford churches should bear in mind that the memorable year 1461, when the town was laid waste by the Lancastrian army, witnessed the partial or complete destruction of every church in the place; and that when the work of restoration began, the materials were re-used so far as was found possible, portions of those churches which it was decided not to rebuild being in all probability worked into the fabric of those of which the restoration was taken in hand. When we bear this fact in mind, certain features found in some of the churches can be explained which would otherwise be most difficult to account for.

_St. Mary’s Church_ occupies a striking position at the top of the hill leading from the Welland Bridge to the centre of the town. The thirteenth-century tower, surmounted by a beautiful fourteenth-century spire of the broach type, forms what many would consider Stamford’s fairest architectural possession. The arcading on the belfry and the elegant tracery in the spire lights are among the many exquisite features of this part of the building. The nave appears to have been rebuilt in the Perpendicular Period, though the material is largely of thirteenth-century date. The chancel is in the Early English style, while the chapel on the north side, of fifteenth-century work, contains a fine contemporary wooden roof which still preserves its original gilding and decoration.

_All Saints’ Church_ is favoured by its open situation, having in this respect a great advantage over the majority of the Stamford churches. Though alluded to in a document of the twelfth century, as stated above, no portion of the present fabric can be assigned to a date earlier than the thirteenth century. Of the latter period are the nave and chancel arcades and the remarkable arcading on the outside of the south and east walls. The pillars of the south nave arcade are singularly beautiful, having foliage caps surmounting banded, detached shafts. This church, moreover, is rich in monumental brasses, one of which commemorates William Browne (the restorer of this church in the fifteenth century) and his wife. Of this William Browne we shall have occasion to speak when we describe “Browne’s Hospital.”

_St. John’s Church_ is a strikingly uniform Perpendicular building, and affords an admirable example of the style. It contains a well-preserved oak screen as well as a good specimen of a timber roof, which retains some of its original colouring and has carved figures of angels under the principals. In the windows are some remains of fine old glass.

_St. George’s Church_ exemplifies better than any other what has been said concerning the restoration of the Stamford churches after the 1461 havoc. Without this explanation a visitor would be sorely puzzled on beholding a series of nave columns, each consisting of an Early English base supporting an octagonal drum of Decorated date, above which is an Early English cylindrical section, surmounted in its turn by another octagonal portion and a cap, both of Decorated style. The church once possessed a series of windows containing representations of King Edward III. and the first Knights of the Garter, but unfortunately this glass, which would have been of inestimable value and interest at the present time, was destroyed during the Parliamentary wars.

_St. Michael’s Church_ is quite modern (consecrated in 1836), though it occupies the site of an eleventh or twelfth century building. It contains but little of interest to the ecclesiologist.

A portion (the south aisle) of the _Church of St. Paul_ survives, and has been used since the sixteenth century as a class-room in connection with the Grammar School. It is a curious and somewhat puzzling building, being partly of thirteenth-century date, but having on the south wall a Norman corbel-table. It also contains fragments of later date, a piscina and a small heart shrine.

So far all the churches we have been considering are on the Lincolnshire side of the river, but for the sake of completeness a word or two must be said of the _Church of St. Martin_ in the Northamptonshire part of the town, though this is strictly outside our subject. It is mainly a fifteenth-century structure, though there are traces of the older building which is known to have existed on this site. Some of the windows contain some fine old glass which was brought here from Tattershall Church and elsewhere; but perhaps the chief interest of the church to the visitor is afforded by the series of tombs of the Cecil family, including those of the great Elizabethan statesman, Lord Burghley, and of his father and mother, as well as a very pretentious Italian marble monument commemorating John, Earl of Exeter (_ob._ 1700), and his wife Anne. An opportunity occurs here to correct an error which has found its way, by repeated copyings, into almost all the printed accounts of this church, to the effect that William Laud, who became Archbishop of Canterbury, was once curate of St. Martin’s, Stamford, whereas the parish which can in reality claim this distinction is Stanford (formerly known as Stanford-on-Avon), near the borders of Warwickshire. Both places being in the same county and diocese, the mistake is a not unnatural one.[90]

Before we pass from the consideration of Stamford’s architectural features, we must briefly notice another class of institutions with which the borough is exceptionally well endowed, namely, almshouses; and chief among these is Browne’s Hospital or Bedehouse, founded towards the end of the fifteenth century by that William Browne whose name has already been mentioned as the rebuilder of All Saints’ Church. He was a wealthy merchant of the Staple of Calais, born of an old Stamford family, and was himself six times Mayor of the borough. The Bedehouse is under the care of a Warden and Confrater, and accommodates ten men and two women. The residential part of the establishment was rebuilt in 1870, but the old dormitory (no longer so used), with the audit-room over it, the cloisters, and the small chapel communicating with both, and extending upwards to the full height of the building, remain as they were. The oak screen, through which the chapel is entered from the west, is an exquisite example of woodwork of the best Perpendicular Period, and the windows of the chapel and audit-room contain some very beautiful contemporary glass. The Bedehouse, moreover, possesses some fine and valuable furniture and fittings, including a very curious almsbox discovered in a wall during the 1870 restoration.

Hopkins’ Hospital, founded in 1770, contains in one of its walls a gargoyle and part of a window, the only remaining fragments of the Austinian Friary which stood close by.

Lord Burghley’s Bedehouse was founded by the great Lord Treasurer in 1597. It occupies the site of the old Hospital of St. John and St. Thomas at the south end of the town bridge.

Fryer’s Almshouses, Truesdale’s Hospital, Snowden’s Hospital (or St. John’s Callis), Williamson’s Hospital, and St. Peter’s Hospital (or All Saints’ Callis), of which a mere enumeration must suffice, combine to make a formidable list of such charitable institutions, which speaks well for the philanthropy and public spirit of past generations of Stamfordians.

After this somewhat lengthy architectural digression it is time to resume the thread of Stamford’s general history where we left it at the beginning of the church-building period. In 1206 the manorial rights of Stamford were conveyed by the King to the Norman noble, William, Earl Warren, whose name figures largely in the early history of the town. He made considerable additions to the castle, and, according to tradition, was responsible for instituting the famous “bull running” in the river meadows below the Castle, which became a popular annual celebration. The story goes that Earl Warren observed one day in the water meadows an infuriated bull, which made its way into the town, scattering and attacking in its wild career those of the inhabitants who were unlucky enough to come in its way. The spectacle appears to have appealed to Warren’s sporting instincts, and he thereupon made over the meadow to the butchers of the town on condition that they provided a bull annually on 13th November for a repetition of the pastime. It was not until 1839, after a keen struggle between the public and the authorities lasting for several years, that this ignoble “sport” was suppressed.

Earl Warren’s arms (checquy argent and azure), impaling the royal arms of England, are borne by the borough of Stamford to this day, as can be seen by a glance at the shield on the front of the Town Hall on St. Mary’s Hill.

In 1256 Henry III. granted the first charter to the town, and we may, perhaps, pause here for a moment to consider the municipal history of the borough, which has been a long and honourable one. Edward IV., in the first year of his reign, bestowed a second charter on the town by which the chief alderman was raised to a position of exceptional privilege and responsibility, being within his jurisdiction the immediate lieutenant of the King. The next charter dates from the reign of Charles II., and in this the chief alderman is for the first time styled “Mayor.” The last charter was granted by James II. The early archives of Stamford perished, like so many other valuable possessions, in the Lancastrian onslaught upon the town in 1461, but the subsequent municipal deeds and documents, including the 1461 charter, have been carefully preserved. The Stamford corporation, moreover, possess exceptionally fine regalia, including a small and very beautiful silver mace believed to be of the time of Edward IV., a larger mace dated 1660, and a third of majestic size presented in 1678. The last, which bears the initials of King Charles II., was given by Charles Bertie, who was one of the members representing Stamford in Parliament. He also presented the corporation with a valuable silver punch-bowl, capable of containing five gallons. Two additional silver cups were the gifts of other donors in 1650 and 1658.

In 1266 a situation arose in connection with Stamford which forms a curious chapter in her annals. Following on the revocation by Henry III. of a licence under which a number of students from Oxford and Cambridge had established themselves at Northampton, a migration of these young men to Stamford took place, and their numbers being increased by a further secession from Oxford in 1333, there grew up in the town a species of rudimentary university which at length incurred the jealousy of the older universities. Both parties appealed to the King, with the result that the Stamfordians were ordered to disperse. It was not, however, till some of the more recalcitrant of the students had been removed in custody to Oxford that the royal mandate could effect its purpose. It is believed that up to comparatively recent years the undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge were called upon to register a definite undertaking that they would abstain from studying at Stamford. The scene of this episode in Stamford’s history was on the south side of St. Paul’s Street, the site being now occupied by a girls’ school, still known as Brazenose, and standing where the old Brazenose College of the Oxford seceders formerly stood until demolished in 1668. The famous Brazenose knocker, which the Oxonians are said to have carried with them from their Oxford hall, remained behind at Stamford until late in the nineteenth century, when the authorities of Brazenose College, Oxford, purchased the premises and bore the precious relic in triumph back to its original home on the banks of the Isis.

In 1293 Queen Eleanor’s body rested here on its way from Harby to Westminster, and a cross (of which nothing now remains to mark the site) was erected on the western side of the town, near St. Clement’s Gate, as was done at each point where the cortège halted on its journey.

In 1363 the Castle and manor of Stamford were given by Edward III. to his son Edward, Duke of York. The connection thus established naturally led the inhabitants to espouse the Yorkist cause in the Wars of the Roses which followed in the next century, and they thus brought upon themselves the calamities which have already been referred to in dealing with the churches in the town. In 1461 the Lancastrian army, marching towards St. Albans under Sir Andrew Trollope, attacked, captured and well nigh demolished the town, at the same time destroying all the municipal archives. Ten years later, however, occurred what is known as the “Lincolnshire Rising,” which ended in the defeat of the Lancastrians near Empingham, a few miles north of Stamford.[91] In this fight the Stamfordians by their courage earned for themselves such distinction that King Edward IV. marked his appreciation of their services by granting permission for the royal lions to be placed on the coat-of-arms of Stamford side by side with the arms of Earl Warren.

Of the events of the next half century we will only mention the re-establishment and re-endowment of the old Grammar School (which is known to have been in existence for over two centuries previously) by William Radcliffe in 1530, the benefits of whose munificence are enjoyed to this day by the boys of the town and district.

The latter half of the sixteenth century witnessed the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. This event in a town which, as we have seen, contained religious foundations of nearly every order then in existence, must have wrought an overwhelming upheaval, and as we contemplate the situation we are forced to realise that, to a great extent, Stamford’s glory had departed.

In Elizabeth’s reign began the rise of the Cecil family, whose fortunes have since been so closely bound up with Stamford.

Richard Cecil, the father of the great Lord Treasurer, obtained possession of the manor of Burghley in 1528, and, after adding considerably to the estates, died in 1552, and was buried in St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster. His more famous son William, afterwards first Lord Burghley, was born at Bourne, and received part of his education at Stamford Grammar School, proceeding thence to St. John’s College, Cambridge. He rose to be a statesman of eminence under Edward VI., but his name is, of course, more intimately associated with the reign of Elizabeth. The Queen on more than one occasion visited Stamford, and the room, with its furniture, which she occupied at Burghley House is still shown to visitors. The Lord Treasurer was a great benefactor to Stamford, of which he was made lord of the manor by his royal mistress. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to state that both branches of the Cecil family, now represented by the Marquises of Exeter and Salisbury, trace their descent from the Elizabethan statesman.

In 1565 William Cecil employed John Thorpe to design “Burghley House by Stamford town,” which remains one of the stateliest of England’s stately homes. Seeing, however, that it stands in Northamptonshire, it is not intended to deal at length with the building or the wealth of artistic treasures which it contains.

The troubles of the Civil War did not leave Stamford untouched, and Cromwell’s iconoclastic followers have left their mark on many a church and monument, while Burghley House underwent a siege in 1643.

It is said that Stamford can claim to have been the last place to shelter King Charles I. as a free man; for, after spending a night at a house on Barnhill as the guest of a Mr. Wolph, he passed out under cover of darkness accompanied by two friends, and made his way to the headquarters of the Scottish army near Newark, only to be basely sold by them to the enemy immediately afterwards. The gateway by which the King departed still exists, but was considerably altered by the well-known antiquary, Dr. Stukeley, who occupied the premises in the eighteenth century. From the close of the Civil War, Stamford has enjoyed a period of unbroken peace and quiet prosperity. Before the advent of railways the town was an important posting station from its position on the Great North Road. The immense range of stabling at the back of the famous old “George Inn” sufficiently testifies to the amount of coaching and posting traffic which passed through Stamford during the period in which these were the recognised methods of travelling. The fact that the main line of the Great Northern Railway was taken through Peterborough, instead of through Stamford as was first contemplated, resulted in the latter town being left for a time somewhat in a back-water, though at the present time the railway facilities are admirable. The rapidly increasing use of motor vehicles seems likely to revive to some extent the conditions of the old coaching days; but, like many another venerable and historic town, Stamford seems to have wrapped herself in an atmosphere of dignified repose which even the clamorous passage through her main streets of a stream of turbulent automobiles appears powerless to disturb.

In bringing these memories of old Stamford to a close, the writer is only too conscious that he has been able to do but scant justice to his subject. If, however, any reader be tempted hereby to visit this fascinating old town and thus to supply by his own observation and research all that in these pages is lacking of historical and topographical description, assuredly he will not be disappointed.

TATTERSHALL CASTLE AND CHURCH

BY THE EDITOR

The ancient castles of this country, almost without exception, are full of interest to all sorts and conditions of men and women. The remote antiquity of the rude hill-top fortresses of Cornwall, Wiltshire, and Wales; the huge earthworks of Old Sarum; the story of a gallant defence like Newark; the close association with history of the Tower of London, and with the magic of romance like Conisboro’, Kenilworth, and Carlisle, find devotees for each. Often, too, castles are among the most picturesque objects of picturesque scenery, as Manor Bier, Dunolly, and Tantallon may testify; while to the archæologist they present a world of interest as their plans, their builders, and their history are discussed, occasionally with a wordy vigour which recalls the fights their walls have witnessed.

Few indeed of these attractions can be claimed for Tattershall. A huge square pile of perhaps the most admirable mediæval brickwork in the kingdom (its only real rival being Hurstmonceaux), it can scarcely be called picturesque; its military history is of the slightest, and its plan and general arrangements are fairly well known. Still, from the great architectural charm of its construction and the many and various noble families who have been concerned in its building and possession, no “Memorials of old Lincolnshire” would be complete without some notice of its history.

The word Tattershall is defined by Mr. Streatfield as meaning the house or hall of Teitr, a Scandinavian name, signifying blithe or gay, thus showing that before the Norman Conquest there probably was a Norse or Danish dwelling on this spot.

But in Domesday it only appears as Thorp (now Tattershall Thorpe, a hamlet half a mile away on the road to Kirkstead). This manor was given by William the Conqueror to one of his attendant knights called Eudo, son of Spirewic. His son, Hugh Fitz-Eudo, who was also called Le Breton, erected the neighbouring Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstead in 1139. A small fragment, part of the south transept apparently, alone is left, reminding one of the stately remains at Kirkstall and Roche, by its unadorned simplicity of style, which distinguished the early buildings of the Cistercian, itself a reformed branch of the Benedictine Order. The chapel (_Capella extra portas_, as it is termed), a few yards south of the abbey ruins, is described elsewhere in this volume, and is a most delightful and dainty specimen of Early English architecture. It contains the earliest wooden screen work (after that in the loft above the altar at Compton, Surrey) in the kingdom, and a Purbeck marble figure of an armed knight, which with its barrel helmet with perforations for the eyes, no breathing holes, the general character of the armour, and the foliage beneath the head, is dated somewhat between the years 1200 and 1225, and is most probably the effigy of Robert de Tatesale and Kirkstead (a grandson of Hugh le Breton) who died in 1212. In 1220 he obtained from King John, by present of a well-trained goshawk, a licence for a market on Fridays for Tattershall. The cross still exists, with arms of Tattershall and Cromwell on it. His son, also a Robert, obtained a licence from King Henry III. in 1230 to erect a castle of stone in Tattershall:—“Pro Roberto de Tatteshale—Rex concessit Roberto de Tatteshale quod libere et sine impedimento unam domum de petra et calce firmari faciat apud manerium de Tatteshal: et mandatum est vice comiti Linc. per literas clauses quod ipsam dictam domum firmare permittat sicut praedictum est. Teste ut supra.”—(Patent Roll, fifteenth year of the reign of King Henry III. m. 2.) Nine years afterwards he obtained the same King’s leave to embattle this house (“quod possit kernellare mansum suum.”—Patent Roll, 23 Henry III. m. 12). No remains of this castle are known to exist now; it seems doubtful whether some portions may not have endured into the early years of the last century, but this point will be more fully dealt with later on. If this were not so, then probably the first castle—as far as regards its masonry at least, for the mounds and moats are remnants of its original fortifications—was entirely swept away when the second castle was rising on its site in all its whilom magnificence. The third Robert de Tattershall married Mabel, eldest sister and co-heir of Hugh de Albini, fifth Earl of Sussex and Arundel, and his grandson, the fifth Robert, was summoned to Parliament in 1297 as the first Baron de Tateshale, and died in the following year. His son, the sixth Robert, died in 1303, and the seventh Robert in 1305, without any children. So that three aunts—Emma, who married Adam de Cailli, and died in 1306; Joan, who married Robert de Driby, and died in 1330; and Isabella, who married Sir John de Orreby, became co-heirs. Tattershall seems to have become part of the share of the second one, Joan. By her marriage with Robert de Driby she had four children—Simon (died in 1323), Robert, John, and Alice. The third son, Sir John de Kirketon (Kirton in Holland), apparently acquired and held, from certainly 1334 till his death in 1367, the castle and manor of Tattershall. And in Kirton there is still an entrance-gate which has on it the arms of Tattershall quartered with those of Cromwell, showing that this connection was kept up after his death. Owing to the deaths of her brothers without leaving any children the Tattershall property came through the family of Bernak by the marriage of Alice with Sir William de Bernak (who died in 1339), and she herself died in 1341. Their eldest son, Sir John de Bernak, had married Joan, sister and eldest co-heiress of Robert Marmion, second Baron of Winteringham. This is another link between Lincolnshire and this noble family besides Scrivelsby, which, with “Tamworth tower and town,” had been granted to Robert de Marmion, Lord of Fontenoy, by William the Conqueror, and the parish of Coningsby, only a mile away from Tattershall, was Marmion property also. Sir John de Bernak and his wife had two sons—John who died in youth, William who died in 1359—and a daughter, Maud or Matilda. Consequently the reversion of the Tattershall property came in 1367 to her and her husband, Sir Ralph Cromwell. As pointed out above, the property being in possession of Sir John de Kirketon till this year 1367, the Bernaks can never have actually possessed it, though, curiously enough, William, brother and heir of John, son of John Bernak, has the barony of Tateshale (put wrongfully in Norfolk) twice attributed to him in an inquisition post-mortem in 1360, the thirty-fourth year of King Edward III. The family of Cromwell seems to have been settled in the villages of Cromwell and Lambley in Nottinghamshire, a few miles north-east of Nottingham, from about the year 1166; but I know of no connection between this family and those of Thomas Cromwell, the “Malleus monachorum,” and of Oliver Cromwell, the Protector. The Cromwells had already, in the thirteenth century, been allied with the family of Marmion, as the fourth Ralph Cromwell married Mazera, second daughter and co-heiress of Philip de Marmion. The ninth Ralph Cromwell, knight (son of Sir Ralph Cromwell and Amicia de Beler, daughter and heiress of Roger de Beler, co. Leicester), who married Maud Bernak, was summoned to Parliament as Baron Cromwell in 1375 and 1398, in which year he died, his widow surviving till the year 1419. The second Ralph, Lord Cromwell of Tattershall, died in 1416. His son, also Ralph, was Lord Treasurer of England from 1433-1443, a peer of great wealth and influence, and the builder of the existing castle and church of Tattershall. Another building of his in stone (no doubt because it was easy to procure, as brick was at Tattershall) has been described and illustrated in a previous volume of this series, _i.e._ Wingfield Manor House, Derbyshire. He also held the appointment in 1435 (after the death of the Duke of Bedford, Regent of France, at Paris) of Master of the Mews, and Falconer to the King. He married Margaret, daughter of John, Baron Deincourt, and his wife Joan, daughter and heiress of Lord Grey de Rotherfield, also connected with the family of Marmion. Lord Cromwell died in 1455 (his wife having predeceased him in 1454), and left no family. They both were buried in Tattershall Church. Consequently, his two nieces, daughters of his sister Maud (who had married Sir Richard Stanhope of Rampton, Notts, and who had died in 1455), became his co-heiresses. Of these Maud married, first, the distinguished soldier, Robert, sixth Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, who died in 1452, having had no children by her; next, Sir Thomas Nevile, third son of Richard, first Earl of Salisbury, who was killed at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, also leaving no family; and thirdly, Sir Gervase Clifton, of Clifton, Notts, who was killed at Tewkesbury in 1471. Maud herself died in 1497 and was buried in Tattershall Church. Joan married Sir Humphrey Bouchier, third son of the first Earl of Essex, who was summoned to Parliament (_jure uxoris_) in 1461 as Baron Cromwell, and who was killed at the battle of Barnet in 1471. She married, secondly, Sir Robert Ratcliffe, and died in 1472, leaving no children. She also was buried in Tattershall Church.

According to the poet Skelton, King Edward IV. possessed Tattershall, as he makes him say—

“I made the Tower strong—I wist not why—
Knew not for whom, I purchased Tattersall;”

and his badge, the falcon and fetterlock, may be seen in the east window of the church.

The property, being forfeited to the Crown, was bestowed in 1487, by King Henry VII., on his mother Margaret, Countess of Richmond. King Henry VIII. granted it, in 1520, to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, upon his marriage with Mary, the King’s sister. In default of heirs, it again reverted to the King. In 1551 King Edward VI. granted the castle and manor to Edward Fines, Lord Clinton, who was created Earl of Lincoln in 1572. His great-grandson, Theophilus, fourth Earl, in 1649 petitioned Parliament for compensation for the damage done to Tattershall Castle during the civil war. Tradition has assigned the dismantling and unroofing of the castle to the time just after the battle of Winceby, near Horncastle, in 1643, and W. A. Nicholson[92] has recorded several inscriptions on its walls, of the years 1642, 1644, 1645, and 1648, showing that it probably was not in good keeping about that period. It continued in the possession of the male line of the Earls of Lincoln till the year 1692, when Bridget (only daughter and heiress of Hugh Boscawen by Margaret his wife, fifth daughter and eventually co-heiress of Theophilus Clinton, Earl of Lincoln) married Hugh Fortescue of Wear Gifford, North Devon (one of the most charming manor houses imaginable), an ancestor of the present noble proprietor, the Earl Fortescue.

We may now turn our attention to the past and present state of this once magnificent residence. It was built, as mentioned above, by Ralph, the third Baron Cromwell, of whom William of Worcester speaks as follows in his _Itinerary_: “The Lord Treasurer expended in building the principal and other towers of his Castle of Tattershall above four thousand marks; his household there consisted of above a hundred persons, and his suite when he rode to London commonly of one hundred and twenty horsemen, and his annual expenditure was about five thousand pounds.” The date of the castle’s erection can be told, within a very few years, by the heraldry which is its most prevalent ornament. There is the coat of arms of Tattershall (chequy _or_ and _gu._, a chief _erm._), which might be used by any lord of Tattershall since heraldry began; of Driby (_arg._ 3 cinquefoils _gu._, a canton _gu._), which would date from the reign of King Henry III.; those of Bernak (_erm._ a fesse _gu._) and of Cromwell (_arg._ a chief _gu._ over all a bend _az._), from the reign of King Richard II. (the first shield in the fireplace on the ground floor, i.e. _gu._ 10 annulets _or_, has been supposed to be an early shield of the Cromwell family), but the shields of Cromwell and Tattershall impaling Deincourt (_az._ a fesse dancetté between 10 billets _or_) show that not until after Lord Cromwell’s marriage with Margaret Deincourt could the castle have been thus decorated, and, as there were no children of that marriage, there could be no such union of arms after their deaths. Also, the very frequent repetition of the Purse (with its double bags and the motto, “N’aj je le droit?”), the badge of office, marks the period of building as coinciding with that of Lord Cromwell’s tenure of the Lord Treasurership, _i.e._ from 1433 to 1443. It is an interesting thought for Lincolnshire folk that very probably a celebrated Lincolnshire man, William Patten of Wainfleet, Bishop of Winchester, was the architect of these “bricky towers”; the school at Wainfleet, also in brick, is another token of his architectural skill in this material, as his work at Winchester Cathedral and at Magdalen College, Oxford, testified in stone. He was a great architect, a personal friend of Lord Cromwell’s, and was one of his executors (another one being, curiously enough, Chief-Justice Sir John Fortescue, an ancestor of the present proprietor); the neighbouring church of Tattershall being unfinished at Lord Cromwell’s death, William of Wainfleet helped to complete it, having probably designed it also.

The plan of a mediæval castle was, generally speaking, as follows: There was an outer wall surrounded by a ditch, over which a drawbridge would give access to the main entrance. Then separated from the first by a second ditch would be the second (the inner) wall. Both walls would be strengthened by towers at suitable points. Within this inner ward, as the space inside the inner wall was termed, the chief living rooms—the barracks, so to speak—would stand. Finally, there would be the donjon or keep, the strongest of the castle buildings, frequently erected on a mound, and capable itself of withstanding for some time a hostile attack even though the rest of the castle was in the enemy’s hands.

Tattershall Castle was defended by an incomplete outer moat, which, starting from the north-east angle of the area, went along the north and west sides, and communicated with the river Bain; there is still some water in portions of this ditch. It probably was carried eastwards so as to enclose the church, but there is a noticeable dip in the ground on the eastern side of the castle area, which is probably the same moat defending that portion of the castle. From a plate of the castle published by Buck in 1727 (which is in the writer’s possession), much knowledge can be gathered of the arrangements and buildings of Tattershall at that date. The inner moat was complete, and the outer wall which surrounded it, for the most part of brick, is in fair condition; it was supplied with water from the outer moat by a culvert piercing the outer bank and wall about the middle of the north side, which is plainly visible, and around which the bank is faced with stone. This, according to Buck, was protected by a strong and tall tower over it. On the east side of the moat may be seen a blocked up arch, which was connected with the outer moat at that point, and ran eastwards beneath the church to that part of the moat. The main entrance to the castle was evidently a little north of this arch, much in the line of the present pathway, for Buck plants a large gateway with two towers and portcullis here, on the inner side of the inner moat. Just outside and to the eastwards is a brick building of two storeys, and of exactly similar work to that of the rest of the castle. This house, which was probably used for guard-rooms, had at the north-west angle a turret staircase, and the only door on the ground floor was originally on the southern end, opening on to a terrace wall which defended this part of the castle. The outer wall was about twelve feet high (judging from the mark where it joined the house), with arched recesses and loopholes, and over all a platform with a crenellated parapet. A brick turret was at the south end of it, and the ruins of this and the drain into the moat are still visible. On the south side of the inner moat can be seen some stone corbels in the brick-facing wall, which were evidently to support a drawbridge. On the west side of the outer wall is a large brick one-storeyed building (with little arched cupboards or recesses in the walls, as will be found elsewhere), probably a guard-room, and the ruins of a strong tower farther to the north and east, on the edge of the outer moat.

On the south of the inner court is a large piece of ground, elevated and surrounded by a stone wall, except on its eastern side; this was probably an adjunct of the original castle, and was used for tilting and other exercises. It was approached doubtless by the drawbridge already mentioned. Eastward it joins a still larger portion of ground on the south of the church—the castle garden or pleasaunce. This is walled in partially with brick, and has had two doorways in the south side. In the spandrils of one were the coats of arms of Cromwell and Tattershall quarterly, and that of Deincourt.

The inner ward now is nearly flat, and contains no buildings save the great tower or keep, having unfortunately been levelled about 1790. Besides the entrance-gate already mentioned, we find from Buck’s view that in 1727 there still existed the eastern portion of the chapel, showing an apse of which two perpendicular windows were visible, and a great part of the dining-hall, which had a fine bay window and five other windows. To the left of the keep, and in the left foreground, are some buildings which very possibly were the remains of the castle of King Henry III.’s date.

Next we come to the chief feature of the place, the so-called Castle, which in reality was only the representative of the keep of earlier days. The inner ward wall joined it at the north-east and south-east towers, where the marks are plainly visible; the north, west and south sides were defended by the outer moat. It is 87 feet long by 69 feet wide, and the parapet of its angle turrets is no less than 112 feet above the level of the ground at its base. It is almost entirely constructed of small red bricks, traditionally supposed to have been brought from Flanders, though there is no reason why they should not have been made in the county. The walls externally have patterns, chequers, and lozenges in blue-black bricks upon their surface, and the groining of brick in the upper rooms is most delicately moulded, and may well serve as a lesson to us, even in this twentieth century, in artistic workmanship. On this work still exists considerable traces of pink plaster with red lines, to imitate brickwork—a curious case of carrying coals to Newcastle! Local stone (Ancaster probably) is used for the windows (which retain most of their tracery and mullions, except those of the ground floor), the machicolations, the battlements (in one place cement has been used for repairs), and the very admirably executed chimney-pieces, which will receive special attention later on. There are brick relieving arches over all the windows, doorways, and fireplaces in the castle. The large windows, which are more evident on the west, the exposed side, than on that facing the inner ward, show that the great change in warfare was in progress—that “villainous saltpetre” was altering the type of fortification from a massive tall keep like Rochester or Conisboro’, or the Edwardian castles of Harlech or Conway, to low-walled earthworks, such as those which still surround Berwick, and which were erected in the “spacious times of great Elizabeth”; also, these windows show that the nobleman’s castle was changing into the nobleman’s palace or mansion, of which, again, the Elizabethan buildings, such as Longleat, Hatfield, and Haddon Hall, are the finest examples.

The basement storey contains a large central room, with a very flat arched ceiling, a room in each of the towers, except the south-eastern one (which contains the staircase), and a room in the thickness of the eastern wall, which has similar arched recesses in its north and south walls to those already described. There has been a well in the centre of this basement area. A staircase leads down to the central room from the outside of the east wall.

There seem to have been no less than forty-eight separate apartments, four of these being very large (about 38 feet long by 22 feet wide and 17 feet high), and occupying the centre of the building one over another.

That on the ground-floor may have been the common hall or hall of entrance; it is entered by a door in the east wall, and has four large windows, which have lost their tracery and mullions, two in the western side, and one at each end, and an exceedingly fine stone fireplace in the eastern wall. Its arch is of ogee shape, well moulded, much flattened, the ogee ending in a finial above the upper battlemented edge, which has small pilasters with capitals at each end. The heraldic decoration is as follows, reading from left to right:—Cromwell (ancient?), the treasurer’s purse, a lion rampant (for D’Albini), treasurer’s purse, Marmion, Bernak, treasurer’s purse, Cromwell and Tattershall impaling Deincourt, treasurer’s purse, Cromwell and Tattershall quarterly. In the lower line come treasurer’s purse, barry of ten (if Cailli, it should be barry of eight; it is sometimes assigned to Clifton, but it does not agree with the shield of Clifton of Buckenham[93] who married Elizabeth, sister of the second Baron Cromwell, or of Clifton of Clifton,[94] Maud Stanhope’s third husband), treasurer’s purse, Deincourt, Driby, treasurer’s purse, Grey of Rotherfield, and treasurer’s purse. In the middle, beneath the point of the ogee, is the shield of Cromwell, much defaced.

The room on the first floor might have been the hall of state or the audience chamber. Approach to it is gained by a newel staircase, the steps being stone, in the south-east turret, which begins a few feet above the level of the ground, and ends at the fourth storey, the ground-floor large room having had an entrance, now blocked up, from its south-east corner into this staircase. The hand rail, continuous and ingeniously moulded in stone, flush with the wall, is noticeable. A similar one, but slightly projecting, is in the staircase of the Alnwick Tower in the Bishop’s Palace, Lincoln; another in the staircase to the crypt in Grantham Church; and another, of much later date, in Kirby Hall.

The large room on this storey has three windows with excellent Perpendicular tracery, and the two western ones have the recess ribbed and vaulted; there is no window opening through to the north, as a chamber has been constructed in the thickness of the wall. The fireplace, which is in the east wall, has a well-moulded depressed arch, with amusing grotesques in the spandrils on either side and at the side of the circles, reminding one of the hard-working creations of Dicky Doyle on the cover of _Punch_. The pilasters and battlemented top are much the same as in the lower fireplace, but its chief ornament is a row of heraldic shields and badges in circles across its front. First comes the familiar purse, then Tattershall, St. George and the Dragon, Cromwell and Tattershall impaling Deincourt, Cromwell and Tattershall quarterly, on a shield couché, with two savage men as supporters, on an esquire’s helmet a cap of maintenance inflamed. Next comes a representation under an embattled arch of a lion being rent asunder by a man, a feat which was related of Hugh de Nevile, who served in the Crusades under King Richard I. It does not seem quite clear why this achievement of a Nevile should appear here, though, as we have seen, Maud Stanhope married a Nevile as her second husband. Then comes a lion rampant for D’Albini, and the treasurer’s purse. The spaces between the roundels above are occupied with shields of Bernak, Driby, Cromwell (one defaced), Cromwell, Tattershall, and Deincourt below, with the treasurer’s purse. About the end of the eighteenth century this fireplace was bricked up and opened at the back, to be used for the room in the eastern wall, where dwelt a pensioner, whose duty it was to be in readiness to light a cresset beacon-fire on the south-east tower in case of invasion.

The large room on the second floor was perhaps the state bedroom, and has three beautiful windows; a chamber in the thickness of the south wall preventing a similar window in that wall. The fireplace is of much the same general character as the last one, but has the spandrils filled with foliage, and the place of the roundels is taken by ten panels, ornamented with foliated tracery, making altogether an exceedingly delicate architectural composition. Alternating with the treasurer’s purse are the shields of Bernak, Deincourt, Driby, Cromwell, and Tattershall. In the thickness of the eastern wall of this floor is a beautifully vaulted gallery, 38 feet in length, vaulted in five compartments, with diagonal ribs of brickwork; on the connecting bosses are the shields of Driby, Tattershall, Deincourt, and Cromwell. It is lit by three fine mullioned and traceried windows.

The large room on the third floor has very similar windows to the others, and the fireplace also is very like that in the floor beneath; but the treasurer’s purse has invaded the spandrils, and the shields of Deincourt, Driby—one broken and defaced—Cromwell, and Bernak being separated by small treasurer’s purses, are enclosed in eleven dainty panels, with different tracery. On this floor in the eastern wall are two rooms even more richly vaulted than the gallery below, the spandrils being filled in with quatrefoils of moulded brickwork, enriched with the shields of Tattershall, Cromwell, Deincourt, and D’Albini (or Beler).

The floors of these great rooms were constructed of timber, and plastered; each floor resting on four great massive girders of oak, the upper one having a lead roof. Till a few years ago there were still four beams remaining _in situ_, but after the castle was struck by lightning, and one beam was thrown down, the others were taken down to avoid the chances of any accident. The lightning seems to have struck the north-east tower (which alone had kept its conical roof), and jumped across to the western wall, where it tore out the external footings of one window on each floor, till it reached the ground.