Chapter IV

. is just, the Danish fortifications were not mottes, nor anything like them; and (as has already been pointed out) the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ indicates the nature of the fortress in this case by its expression, "they made a work around themselves";[626] that is, it was a circumvallation. Moreover, at Rochester the Danes would have had to pass under the bridge (which is known to have existed both in Roman and Saxon times) in order to get to the Boley Hill; and even if their ships were small enough to do this they would hardly have been so foolish as to leave a bridge in their possible line of retreat. It is therefore far more likely that their fastness was somewhere to the north or east of the city.[627]

It is a noteworthy fact that up till very recently the Boley Hill had a special jurisdiction of its own, under an officer called the Baron of the Bully, appointed by the Recorder of the city. This appears to date from a charter of Edward IV. in 1460, which confirms the former liberties of the citizens of Rochester, and ordains that they should keep two courts' leet and a court of pie-powder annually on the Bullie Hill. The anonymous historian of Rochester remarks that it was thought that the baron represented the first officer under the governor of the castle before the court leet was instituted, to whose care the security of the Bullie Hill was entrusted.[628] This is probably much nearer the truth than the theory which would assign such thoroughly feudal courts as those of court leet and pie-powder to an imaginary community of Danes residing on the Boley Hill. When we compare the case of the Boley Hill with the somewhat similar cases of Chester and Norwich castles we shall see that what took place in Edward IV.'s reign was probably this: the separate jurisdiction which had once belonged to an abandoned castle site was transferred to the citizens of Rochester, but with the usual conservatism of mediæval legislation, it was not absorbed in the jurisdiction of the city.

The value of Rochester at the time of the Survey had risen from 100_s._ to 20_l._[629] The increase of trade, arising from the security of traffic which was provided by William's castles on this important route, no doubt accounts in great measure for this remarkable rise in value.

ROCKINGHAM, Northants (Fig. 29).--Here, also, the castle was clearly new in William's reign, as the manor was uninhabited (_wasta_) until a castle was built there by his orders, in consequence of which the manor produced a small revenue at the time of the Survey.[630] The motte, now in great part destroyed, was a large one, being about 80 feet in diameter at the top; attached to it is a bailey of irregular but rectilateral shape (determined by the ground) covering about 3 acres. There is another large bailey to the S. covering 4 acres, formed by cutting a ditch across the spur of the hill on which the castle stands, which is probably later. The first castle would undoubtedly be of wood, and it is probable that King John was the builder of the "exceeding fair and strong" keep which stood on the motte in Leland's time,[631] as there is an entry in the _Pipe Roll_ of the thirteenth year of his reign for 126_l._ 18_s._ 6_d._ for the work of the new tower.[632] This keep, if Mr Clark is correct, was polygonal, with a timber stockade surrounding it.

Rockingham was only a small manor of one hide in Saxon times, though its Saxon owner had sac and soke. It stands in a forest district, not near any of the great ancient lines of road, and was probably built for a hunting seat.

The value of the manor had risen at the time of the Survey.[633]

During the Civil War, the motte of Rockingham was fortified in an elaborate manner by the Parliamentarians, part of the defences being two wooden stockades:[634] an interesting instance of the use both of mottes and of wooden fortifications in comparatively modern warfare. Only the north and west sides of this mount now remain.

[Illustration: FIG. 29. Rockingham, Northants.]

OLD SARUM, Wilts (Fig. 30).--Sir Richard Colt Hoare printed in his _Ancient Wiltshire_ a document purporting to be an order from Alfred, "King of the English," to Leofric, "Earl of Wiltunshire," to maintain the castle of Sarum, and add another ditch to it.[635] The phraseology of the document suggests some doubts of its genuineness, and though there would be nothing improbable in the theory that Alfred reared the outer bank of the fortress, recent excavations have shown that the place was occupied by the Romans, and therefore make it certain that its origin was very much earlier than Alfred's time. Moreover, the convergence of several Roman roads at this spot suggests the probability of a Roman station,[636] while the form of the enclosure renders an earlier origin likely. Domesday Book does not speak of Salisbury as a _burgus_, and when the _burgus_ of Old Sarum is mentioned in later documents it appears to refer to a district lying at the foot of the Castle Hill, and formerly enclosed with a wall.[637] Nor is it one of the boroughs of the _Burghal Hidage_. But that Sarum was an important place in Saxon times is clear from the fact that there was a mint there; and there is evidence of the existence of at least four Saxon churches, as well as a hospital for lepers.[638]

For more exact knowledge as to the history of this ancient fortress we must wait till the excavations now going on are finished, but in the meanwhile it seems probable that the theory adopted by General Pitt-Rivers is correct. He regarded Old Sarum as a British earthwork, with an inner castle and outer barbicans added by the Normans. After building this castle in the midst of it the Normans appear to have considered the outer and larger fortification too valuable to be given up to the public, but retained it under the government of the castellan, and treated it as part of the castle.

There is no mention of the castle of Salisbury in Domesday Book, but the bishop is named as the owner of the manor.[639] The episcopal see of Sherborne was transferred to Sarum in 1076 by Bishop Hermann, in accordance with the policy adopted by William I. that episcopal sees should be removed from villages to towns:[640] a measure which in itself is a testimony to the importance of Salisbury at that time. The first mention of the castle is in the charter of Bishop Osmund, 1091.[641] The bishop was allowed to lay the foundations of his new cathedral within the ancient fortress. As might be expected, friction soon arose between the castellans and the ecclesiastics; the castellans claimed the custody of the gates, and sometimes barred the canons, whose houses seem to have been outside the fortress, from access to the church. These quarrels were ended eventually by the removal of the cathedral to the new town of Salisbury at the foot of the hill.

[Illustration: FIG. 30. Old Sarum, Wilts.]

The position of the motte of Old Sarum is exceptional, as it stands in the centre of the outer fortress. This must be owing to the position of the ancient vallum, encircling the summit of one of those round, gradually sloping hills so common in the chalk ranges, which made it necessary to place the motte in the centre, because it was the highest part of the ground. The present excavations have shown that it is in part artificial. But though the citadel was thus exceptionally placed, the principle that communication with the outside must be maintained was carried out; the motte had its own bailey, reaching to the outer vallum. The remains of three cross banks still exist, two of which must have enclosed the _magnum ballium_ which is spoken of in the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II. Probably this bailey occupied the south-eastern third of the circle, which included the main gateway and the road to the citadel. In the ditch on the north side of this enclosure, an arched passage, apparently of Norman construction, was found in 1795; it was doubtless a postern or sallyport.[642] The main entrance is defended by a separate mount with its own ditch, which is conjectured to be of later date than the vallum itself. The area of the top of the motte is about 1-3/4 acres, a larger size than usual, but not larger than that of several other important castles.[643] In Leland's time there was "much notable ruinous building" still remaining of this fortress, and the excavations have already revealed the lower portions of some splendid walls and gateways, and the basement of a late Norman keep which presents some unusual features.[644] The earthworks, however, bear witness to a former wooden stockade both to the citadel and the outer enclosure. The top of the motte is still surrounded by high earthen banks.

As that great building bishop, Roger of Salisbury (1099-1139), is said to have environed the castle with a new wall,[645] it would seem likely that he was the first to transform the castle from wood to stone. But in Henry II.'s reign, we find an entry in the _Pipe Rolls_ for materials for enclosing the great bailey. An order for the destruction of the castle had been issued by Stephen,[646] but it is doubtful whether it was carried out. The sums spent by Henry II. on the castle do not amount to more than £266, 12s. 5d., but the work recently excavated which appears to be of his date is very extensive indeed.

The mention of a small wooden tower in Richard I.'s reign shows that some parts of the defences were still of wood at that date.[647] Timber and rods for _hoarding_ the castle, that is, for the wooden machicolations placed at the tops of towers and walls, were ordered at the end of John's reign.[648]

It is not known when the castle was abandoned, but the list of castellans ceases in the reign of Henry VI., when it was granted to the Stourton family.[649] Though the earls of Salisbury were generally the custodians of Sarum Castle, except in the time of Bishop Roger, it was always considered a royal castle, while the manor belonged to the bishop.[650] It is remarked in the _Hundred Rolls_ of Henry III., that no one holds fiefs for ward in this castle, and that nothing belonged to the castle outside the gate.[651]

The value of the manor of Salisbury appears to have risen very greatly since the Conquest.[652]

SHREWSBURY (Fig. 31).--The passage in Domesday Book relating to this town has been called by Mr Round one of the most important in the Survey, and it is of special importance for our present purpose. "The English burghers of Shrewsbury say that it is very grievous to them that they have to pay all the geld which they paid in King Edward's time, although the castle of the earl occupies [the site of] 51 houses, and another 50 are uninhabited."[653] It is incomprehensible how in the face of such a clear statement as this, that the new castle occupied the site of fifty-one houses, anyone should be found gravely to maintain that the motte at Shrewsbury was an English work; for if the motte stood there before, what was the clearance of houses made for? The only answer could be to enlarge the bailey. But this is exactly what the Norman would not wish to do; he would want only a small area for the small force at his disposal for defence. Shrewsbury was certainly a borough (that is, a fortified town) in Anglo-Saxon times; probably it was one of the towns fortified by Ethelfleda, though it is not mentioned by name in the list of those towns furnished by the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_.[654] Its ancient walls were certainly only of earth and wood, for a writ of 1231 says that the old stockade and the old bretasche of the old ditch of the town of Shrewsbury are to be granted to the burghers for strengthening the new ditch.[655]

The castle of Shrewsbury was built on the neck of the peninsula on which the town stands, and on the line of the town walls. The oval motte, which still remains, stands, as usual, on the line of the castle banks, and slopes steeply down to the Severn on one side. Its nearness to the river made it liable to damage by floods. Thus we find Henry II. spending 5_l._ on the repair of the motte,[656] and in Edward I.'s reign the abbot's mill is accused of having caused damage to the extent of 60 marks to the motte. But the men of the hundred exonerate the mill, and from another passage the blame appears to lie on the fall of a great wooden tower.[657] This can hardly have been other than the wooden keep on the motte, and thus we learn the interesting fact that as late as Edward I.'s reign the castle of Shrewsbury had only a wooden keep. The present tower on the motte is the work of Telford.

[Illustration: FIG. 31. Shrewsbury. Skipsea, Yorks.]

The bailey of Shrewsbury Castle is roughly semilunar and covers nearly an acre. The walls stand on banks, which shows that the first wall was of timber. The Norman entrance arch seems to render it probable that it was in Henry II.'s reign that stone walls were first substituted for a wooden stockade, and the _Pipe Rolls_ contain several entries of sums spent by Henry on this castle.[658] But the first mention of stone in connection with the castle is in the reign of Henry III.[659] In the reign of Edward I., a _jarola_ or wooden wall, which had been raised above the outer ditch in the time of the Barons' War, was replaced by a stone wall.[660] This perhaps refers to the second bailey, now destroyed, which lay to the south of the castle. In the time of Charles I. the castle still had a wooden palisade on the counterscarp of the ditch.[661] The two large drum towers on the walls, and the building between them, now converted into a modern house, belong to a much later period than the walls. The area of the present castle, including the motte, is 4/5 of an acre.

The value of the town of Shrewsbury had risen since the Conquest.

SKIPSEA, Yorks (Fig. 31).--There is no mention of this castle in Domesday Book, but the chronicle of Meaux Abbey tells us that it was built by Drogo de Bevrère in the reign of William I.[662] This chronicle is not indeed contemporary, but its most recent editor regards it as based on some much earlier document. It was the key of the great manor of Holderness, which the Conqueror had given to Drogo, but which Drogo forfeited by murdering his wife, probably on this very site. The situation of Skipsea is remarkable, but the original plan of Kenilworth Castle presented a close parallel to it. The motte, which is 46 feet high, and 1/5 of an acre in space on top, is separated from the bailey by a level space, which was formerly the Mere of Skipsea, mentioned in documents of the 13th century, which reckon the take of eels in this mere as a source of revenue.[663] The motte thus formed an island in the mere, but as an additional defence--perhaps when the mere began to get shallow--it was surrounded by a bank and ditch of its own. No masonry is to be seen on the motte now, except a portion of a wing wall going down it. It is connected with its bailey on the other side of the mere by a causeway which still exists. This bailey is of very unusual size, covering 8-1/4 acres; its banks still retain the name of the Baile Welts, and one of the entrances is called the Baile Gate. Skipsea Brough, which no doubt represents the former _burgus_ of Skipsea, is outside this enclosure, and has no defences of its own remaining. A mandate of Henry III. in 1221, ordered the complete destruction of this castle,[664] and it was no doubt after this that the earls of Albemarle, who had succeeded to Drogo's estates, removed their _caput baroniæ_ to Burstwick.[665]

The value of the manor of Cleeton, in which Skipsea lies, had fallen at Domesday.[666]

STAFFORD (Fig. 32).--The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ says that Ethelfleda of Mercia built the _burh_ of Stafford; and consequently we find that both in King Edward and King William's time Stafford was a burgus, or fortified town. Florence of Worcester, who is considered to have used a superior copy of the _Chronicle_ as the foundation of his work, says that Ethelfleda built an _arx_ on the north bank of the Sowe in 914. _Arx_, in our earlier chronicles, is often only a bombastic expression for a walled town, as, for example, when Ethelwerd says that Ethelfleda's body was buried in St Peter's porch in the _arx_ of Gloucester.[667] But the statement led many later writers, such as Camden, to imagine that Ethelfleda built a _tower_ in the town of Stafford; and these imaginings have created such a tangled skein of mistake that we must bespeak our readers' patience while we attempt to unravel it.

Domesday Book only mentions Stafford Castle under the manor of Chebsey, a possession of Henry de Ferrers. Its words are: "To this manor _belonged_ the land of Stafford, in which the king commanded a castle to be built, which is now destroyed."[668] Ordericus also says that the king placed a castle at Stafford, on his return from his third visit to the north, in 1070.[669] Now the language of Domesday appears to us to say very plainly that in the manorial rearrangement which followed the Conquest some land was taken out of the manor of Chebsey, which lies immediately to the south of the borough of Stafford, to furnish a site for a royal castle.[670] It is exactly in this position that we now find a large oblong motte, similar to the other mottes of the Conquest, and having the usual bailey attached to it. It lies about a mile and a half south-west of the town, near the main road leading into Shropshire.

The position was an important one, as the castles of Staffordshire formed a second line of defence against the North Welsh, as well as a check to the great palatinate earls of Shropshire.[671] The motte itself stood on high ground, commanding a view of twenty or thirty miles round, and both Tutbury and Caus castles could be seen from it. Between it and the town lies a stretch of flat ground which has evidently been a swamp formerly, and which explains the distance of the castle from the town; while the fact that it lies to the _south_ of the Sowe shows that it has no connection with Ethelfleda's work. There is no dispute that this motte was the site of the later baronial castle of Stafford, the castle besieged and taken in the Civil War; the point we have to prove is that it was also the castle of Domesday Book.[672]

[Illustration: FIG. 32. Stafford. Stanton Holgate, Salop. Tamworth, Staffs. Tickhill, Yorks.]

If the first castle of Stafford was of earth and wood, like most of William's castles, there would be nothing wonderful in its having many destructions and many resurrections. This castle was clearly a royal castle, from the language of Domesday Book. As a royal castle it would be committed to the custody of the sheriff, who appears to have been Robert de Stafford,[673] ancestor of the later barons of Stafford, and brother of Ralph de Todeni, one of the great nobles of the Conquest. Ralph joined the party of Robert Curthose against Henry I. in 1101, and it is conjectured that his brother Robert was involved in the same rebellion, for in that year we find the castle held for the king by William Pantolf, a trusty companion of the Conqueror.[674] It is very unlikely that this second castle of Stafford was on a different site from the one which had been destroyed; and an ingenious conjecture of Mr Mazzinghi's helps us to identify it with the castle on the motte. In that castle, when it again emerges into light in the reign of Henry II., we find a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas, which Robert de Stafford gives to the abbey of Stone, and the king confirms the gift.[675] The worship of St Nicholas came greatly into fashion after the translation of his remains from Asia Minor to Bari, in Italy, in 1087. William Pantolf visited the shrine at Bari, got possession of some of the relics of St Nicholas, and with great reverence deposited them in his own church of Noron, in Normandy.[676] It is therefore extremely probable that Pantolf founded the chapel of St Nicholas in Stafford Castle during the time that the castle was in his custody.[677] But about the situation of the chapel of St Nicholas there is no doubt, as its history is traceable down to the 16th century. It stood in the bailey of the castle outside the town. This castle was therefore certainly identical with that of Henry II., and most probably with that of Henry I. and William I.

So far, as we have seen, Stafford Castle was a royal castle. It is true that in the reign of Henry II.'s predecessor, Stephen, we find the castle again in the hands of a Robert de Stafford, who speaks of it as "castellum meum."[678] Apparently the troubles of Stephen's reign afforded an opportunity to the family of the first Norman sheriff to get the castle again into their hands. But under the stronger rule of Henry II. the crown recovered its rights, and the gift of the chapel in the castle evidently could not be made without the consent of the king. The gaol which Henry II. caused to be made in Stafford was doubtless in this castle.[679] John repaired the castle,[680] and ordered _bretasches_, or wooden towers, to be made in the forest of Arundel, and sent to Stafford:[681] a statement which gives us an insight into the nature of the castle in John's reign. But it was the tendency of sheriffdoms to become hereditary, as Dr Stubbs has pointed out,[682] and this seems to have been the case at Stafford. In the reign of Edward I. a local jury decided that Nicholas, Baron of Stafford, held the castle of Stafford from the king _in capite_, by the service of three and a half knights' fees;[683] and in 1348, Ralph, Baron of Stafford, obtained a license from Edward III. "to fortify and crenellate his _manses_ of Stafford and Madlee with a wall of stone and lime, and to make castles thereof."[684] The indenture made with the mason a year previously is still extant, and states that the castle is to be built upon the _moële_ in the manor, whereby the motte is evidently meant.[685] Besides, the deed is dated "at the Chastel of Stafford," showing that the new castle of stone and lime was on the site of an already existing castle.

We might spin out further evidence of the identity of the site of William's castle with that of the present one, from the name of the manor of Castel, which grew up around it, displacing the equally suggestive name of Montville, which we find in Domesday Book.[686] Against the existence of another castle in the town we have the absence of any such castle in William Smith's plan of 1588; the silence of Speed and Leland, who only mention the present castle;[687] and the statement of Plot, who wrote about the end of the 17th century, that "he could not hear any footsteps remaining" of a castle in Stafford.[688] We may therefore safely conclude that it was only due to the fancy of some Elizabethan antiquary that in an old map of that time a spot to the south-west of the town is marked with the inscription, "The old castle, built by Edward the Elder, and in memorie fortified with reel walls."[689]

The value of Stafford town had risen at the time of the Survey, as the king had 7_l._ for his share, which would make the whole revenue to king and earl 10_l._ 10_s._, as against 9_l._ before the Conquest. The property of the canons of Stafford had risen from £1 to £3.[690]

The area of the bailey is 1-3/5 acres.

STAMFORD, Lincoln and Northants.--This was one of the boroughs fortified by Edward the Elder, and consequently we find it a royal _burgus_ at the time of the Survey. But Edward's borough, the _Chronicle_ tells us, was on the south side of the Welland; the northern borough, on the other side, may have been the work of the Danes, as Stamford was one of the towns of the Danish confederacy of the Five Boroughs. The Norman castle and its motte are on the north side, and five _mansiones_ were destroyed for the site.[691] There is at present no appearance of masonry on the motte, which is partly cut away, and what remains of the castle wall is of the 13th century. It is therefore probable that the _turris_, or keep, which surrendered to Henry II. in 1153, was of wood.[692] Henry gave the castle to Richard Humet, constable of Normandy, in 1155.[693] It was a very exceptional thing that Henry should thus alienate a royal castle, and special circumstances must have moved him to this act. The castle was destroyed in Richard III.'s time, and the materials given to the convent of the Carmelite Friars. It appears to have been within the town walls, with a bailey stretching down to the river; this bailey is quadrangular. An inquisition of 1341 states that "the site of the castle contains 2 acres."[694]

Stamford had risen enormously in value since the Conquest. "In King Edward's time it paid 15_l._; now, it pays for _feorm_ 50_l._, and for the whole of the king's dues it now pays 28_l._"[695]

STANTON, Stanton Long, in Shropshire (Fig. 32).--At the time of the Survey, the Norman Helgot was Lord of Corve Dale, and had his castle at Stanton.[696] The castle was afterwards known as Helgot's Castle, corrupted into Castle Holdgate. The site has been much altered by the building of a farmhouse in the bailey, but the motte still exists, high and steep, with a ditch round about half its circumference; there are some traces of masonry on the top. One side of the bailey ditch is still visible, and a mural tower of Edwardian style has been incorporated with the farmhouse. The exact area cannot now be calculated, but it can hardly have exceeded 2-1/2 acres. The manor of Stanton was an agglomeration of four small manors which had been held by different proprietors in Saxon times, so it was not the centre of a soke. The value of the manor had risen.

TAMWORTH, Stafford (Fig. 32).--Although Tamworth Castle is not mentioned in Domesday Book, it must have been in existence in the 11th century, as a charter of the Empress Matilda mentions that Robert le Despenser, brother of Urso d'Abetot, had formerly held this castle;[697] now Urso d'Abetot was a contemporary of the Conqueror, and so must his brother have been. Tamworth Castle stands on a motte 50 feet high, and 100 feet in diameter across the top, according to Mr Clark. It is an interesting instance of what is commonly called a shell keep, with a stone tower; one of the instances which suggest that the shell did not belong to a different type of castle to the tower, but was simply a ward wall, which probably at first enclosed a wooden tower. The tower and wall (or chemise) are probably late Norman, but the remarkable wing wall (there is only one, instead of the usual two) which runs down the motte is entirely of herring-bone work, and _may_ be as old as Henry I.'s time.[698] A bailey court, which cannot have been large, lay between the motte and the river Tame, but its outline cannot now be determined, owing to the encroachments of buildings. Tamworth is about a mile from the great Roman road known as Watling Street. We have already referred to the fortification of the _burh_ here by Ethelfleda;[699] probably she only restored walls or banks which had existed before round this ancient capital of Mercia.

The value of the manor of Tamworth is not given in Domesday Book.

TICKHILL, Yorks (Fig. 32).--The name Tickhill does not occur in Domesday, but it is covered by that of Dadesley, the manor in which this castle was built: a name which appears to have gone out of use when the _hill_ was thrown up. There can be no doubt that it was the castle of Roger de Busli, one of the most richly endowed of William's tenants-in-chief, as it is mentioned as such by Ordericus.[700] He calls it the castle of Blythe, a name which it probably received because Blythe was the most important place near, and Dadesley was so insignificant. Florence of Worcester, when describing the same events, calls the castle Tykehill. The remains furnish an excellent specimen of the earthworks of this class. The motte is 75 feet high, and its area on top about 80 feet in diameter; about a third of it is natural, the rest artificial. Only a slight trace remains of the ditch separating it from the oval bailey, which covers 2 acres. The foundations of a decagonal tower, built in the reign of Henry II., are still to be seen on the top.[701] The bailey retains its banks on the scarp, surmounted now by a stone curtain, which, along with the older part of the gatehouse, is possibly of the time of Henry I.[702] The outer ditch is about 30 feet broad, and is still full of water in parts. On the counterscarp a portion of the bank remains. This bank carried a wooden palisade when the castle was besieged by Cromwell.[703] The site is not naturally defensible; it is about three and a half miles from the northern Roman road.

The value of the manor of Dadesley had risen at the time of the Survey.[704] The stone buildings which once stood in the bailey have been transformed into a modern house.

TONBRIDGE, Kent (Fig. 33).--This notable castle, the first English seat of the powerful family who afterwards took their name from Clare in Suffolk, is first mentioned in 1088, when it was stormed by William Rufus and his English subjects, who had adopted his cause against the supporters of his brother Robert.[705] The castle was one of great importance at several crises in English history; but it began as a wooden keep on a motte, and the stone shell which now crowns this motte cannot be earlier than the 12th century, and judging by its buttresses, is much later. The castle stands outside the town of Tonbridge, separated from it by moats which were fed from the river. The smaller bailey of 1-1/2 acres, probably the original one, is square, with rounded corners. The palatial gatehouse, of the 13th or 14th century, is a marked feature of this castle. There appears to have been only one wing wall down the motte to the bailey, but a second one was not needed, owing to the position of the motte with regard to the river.

The value of the manor of Hadlow, in which Tonbridge lay, was stationary at Domesday.[706] It belonged to the see of Canterbury, and was held by Richard de Bienfaite, ancestor of the House of Clare, as a tenant of the see.

[Illustration: FIG. 33. Tonbridge, Kent. Totnes, Devon.]

TOTNES, Devonshire (Fig. 33).--The castle of Totnes belonged to Judhael, one of King William's men, who has been already mentioned under Barnstaple. This castle is not noticed in Domesday Book, but its existence in the 11th century is made certain by a charter of Judhael's giving land _below his castle_ to the Benedictine priory which he had founded at Totnes: a charter certainly of the Conqueror's reign, as it contains a prayer for the health of King William.[707] The site was an important one; Totnes had been one of the boroughs of the _Burghal Hidage_; it was at the head of a navigable river, and was the point where the ancient Roman (?) road from Devonshire to Bath and the North began its course.[708] The motte of the castle is very high and precipitous, and has a shell on top, which is perfect up to the battlements, and appears to be rather late Norman. This keep is entered in a very unusual way, by a flight of steps leading up from the bailey, deeply sunk in the upper part into the face of the motte, so as to form a highly defensible passage. Two wing walls run down to the walls of the bailey. There is at present no ditch between the motte and the bailey. The whole area of the work is 3/4 acre. It stands in a very defensible situation on a spur of hill overlooking the town, and lies just outside the ancient walls.

The value of the town of Totnes had risen at Domesday.[709]

THE TOWER OF LONDON.--Here, as at Colchester, there is no motte, because the original design was that there should be a stone keep. Ordericus tells us that after the submission of London to William the Conqueror he stayed for a few days in Barking while certain fortifications in the city were being finished, to curb the excitability of the huge and fierce population.[710] What these fortifications were we shall never know, but we may imagine they were earthworks of the usual Norman kind.[711] Certainly the great keep familiarly known as the White Tower was not built in a few days; it does not appear to have been even begun till some eleven years later, when Gundulf, a monk celebrated for his architectural skill, was appointed to the see of Rochester. Gundulf was the architect of the Tower,[712] and it must therefore have been built during his episcopate, which lasted from 1077-1108.[713] In 1097 we read that "many shires which owe works to London were greatly oppressed in making the wall (weall) round the Tower."[714] This does not necessarily mean a stone wall, but probably it does, as Gundulf's tower can hardly have been without a bank and palisade to its bailey.

As the Tower in its general plan represents the type of keep which was the model for all succeeding stone keeps up to the end of the 12th century, it seems appropriate here to give some description of its main features. Its resemblance to the keep of Colchester, which also was a work of William I.'s reign, is very striking.[715] Colchester is the larger of the two, but the Tower exceeds in size all other English keeps, measuring 118 × 98 feet at its base.[716] As it has been altered or added to in every century, its details are peculiarly difficult to trace, especially as the ordinary visitor is not allowed to make a thorough examination.[717] Thus much, however, is certain: neither of the two present entrances on the ground floor is original; the first entrance was on the first floor, some 25 feet above the ground, at the S.W. angle of the south side, and has been transformed into a window. There was no entrance to the basement, but it was only reached by the grand staircase, which is enclosed in a round turret at the N.E. angle. There were two other stairs at the N.W. and S.W. angles, but these only began on the first floor. The basement is divided by a cross wall, which is carried up to the third storey. There are at present three storeys above the basement. The basement, which is now vaulted in brick, was not originally vaulted at all, except the south-eastern chamber, under the crypt of the chapel.

The first floor, like the basement, is divided into three rooms, as, in addition to the usual cross wall, the Tower has a branch cross wall to its eastern section, which is carried up to the top. This floor was formerly only lit by loopholes; Clark states that there were two fireplaces in the east wall, but there is some doubt about this. The S.E. room contained the crypt of the chapel, which was vaulted. It is commonly supposed that the rooms on the first floor were occupied by the guards of the keep. In the account which we have quoted from Lambert of Ardres, the first floor is said to be the lord's habitation, and the upper storey that of the guards; so that there seems to have been no invariable rule.[718] No special room was allotted to the kitchen, as in time of peace at any rate, the lord of the castle and all his retainers took their meals in a great hall in the bailey of the castle.[719] The ceilings of the two larger rooms of this floor are now supported by posts, an arrangement which is probably modern, as the present posts certainly are.[720]

The second floor contains the chapel, which in many keeps is merely an oratory, but is here of unusual size. Its eastern end is carried out in a round apse, a feature which is also found at Colchester, but is not usual in Norman keeps.[721] It is a singularly fine specimen of an early Norman chapel. This floor probably contained the royal apartments; it was lighted by windows, not loops. Both the eastern and western rooms had fireplaces; the eastern room goes by the name of the Banqueting Chamber.

The third storey is on a level with the triforium of the chapel.[722] This triforium is continued all round the keep as a mural passage, and it has windows only slightly smaller than those of the floor below. These mural galleries are found in most important keeps. As their windows were of larger size than the loops which lit the lower floors, it is possible that they may have been used for defence, either for throwing down missiles or for shooting with bows and arrows. But no near aim could be taken without a downward splay to the window, and the bows of the 11th and 12th centuries were incapable of a long aim. A plausible theory is that they were intended for the march of sentinels.[723]

The masonry of the Tower is of Kentish rag, with ashlar quoins. In mediæval times it had a forebuilding, with a round stair turret, which is shown in some old views; but it may reasonably be doubted whether this was an original feature.

As regards the ground plan of the castle as a whole, it is now concentric, but was not so originally. The Tower was certainly placed in the S.E. angle of the Roman walls of London, and very near the east wall, portions of which have been discovered.[724] The conversion of the castle into one of the concentric type was the work of later centuries, and the history of its development has still to be traced.[725]

TREMATON, Cornwall (Fig. 34).--"The Count [of Mortain] has a castle there and a market, rendering 101 shillings."[726] Two Cornish castles are mentioned in Domesday, and both of them are only on the borders of that wild Keltic country; but while Launceston is inland, Trematon guards an inlet on the south coast. The position of this castle is extremely strong by nature, at the end of a high headland; on the extreme point of this promontory the motte is placed. It carries a well-preserved shell wall, which may be of Norman date, from the plain round arch of the entrance.[727] It has been separated by a ditch from the bailey, but the steepness of the hill rendered it unnecessary to carry this ditch all round. The bailey, 1 acre in extent, in which a modern house is situated, still has an entrance gate of the 13th century, and part of a mediæval wall. A second bailey, now a rose-garden, has been added at a later period. In spite of the establishment of a castle and a market the value of the manor of Trematon had gone down at the time of the Survey, which may be accounted for by the fact that there were only ten ploughs where there ought to have been twenty-four. It was only a small manor, and no burgus is mentioned.

[Illustration: FIG. 34. Trematon, Cornwall. Tutbury, Staffs.]

TUTBURY, Staffordshire (Fig. 34).--In the magnificent earthworks of this castle, and the strength of its site, we probably see a testimony to the ability of Hugh d'Avranches; for we learn from Ordericus that in 1070 William I. gave to Henry de Ferrers the castle of Tutbury, which had belonged to Hugh d'Avranches,[728] to whom the king then gave the more dangerous but more honourable post of the earldom of Chester. Domesday Book simply states that Henry de Ferrers has the castle of Tutbury, and that there are forty-two men living by their merchandise alone in the borough round the castle.[729]

At Tutbury the keep was placed on an artificial motte, which itself stood on a hill of natural rock, defended on the N.W. side by precipices. There is no trace of any ditch between the motte and bailey. At present there is only the ruin of a comparatively modern tower on the motte, but Shaw states that there was formerly a stone keep.[730] A description of Elizabeth's reign says, "The castle is situated upon a round hill, and is circumvironed with a strong wall of astilar [ashlar] stone.... The king's lodging therein is fair and strong, bounded and knit to the wall. And a fair stage hall of timber, of a great length. Four chambers of timber, and other houses well upholden, within the walls of the castle."[731] The king's lodging will no doubt be the closed gatehouse; the custom of erecting gatehouse palaces arose as early as the 13th century. This account shows how many of the castle buildings were still of timber in Elizabeth's reign.

The bailey is quadrant-shaped, and has the motte at its apex. Its area is 2-1/2 acres. Its most remarkable feature is that it still retains its ancient banks on the east side and part of the south, and the more recent curtain is carried on top of them. This curtain is of the same masonry as the three remaining towers, which are of excellent Perpendicular work, and are generally attributed to John of Gaunt, who held this castle after his marriage with Blanche of Lancaster. The first castle was undoubtedly of wood; it was pulled down by order of Henry I. in 1175,[732] nor does there seem to have been any resurrection till the time of Earl Thomas of Lancaster at the earliest.

Though Tutbury was the centre of the Honour of Ferrers, it does not seem to have been even a manor in Saxon times. The borough was probably the creation of the castellan, who also founded the Priory.[733] There is no statement in the Survey from which we can learn the value T. R. E., but T. R. W. it was 4_l._ 10_s._

TYNEMOUTH, Northumberland.--Besieged and taken by William Rufus in 1095.[734] There is no motte there, and probably never was one, as the situation is defended by precipitous cliffs on all sides but one, where a deep ditch has been cut across the neck of the headland.

[Illustration: FIG. 35. Wallingford, Berks.]

WALLINGFORD, Berkshire (Fig. 35).--There is good reason to suppose that in the _vallum_ of the town of Wallingford we have an interesting relic of Saxon times. Wallingford is one of the boroughs enumerated in the _Burghal Hidage_; it was undoubtedly a fortified town at the time of the Conquest,[735] and is called a _burgus_ in Domesday Book; but there appears to be no evidence to connect it with Roman times except the discovery of a number of Roman coins in the town and its neighbourhood. No Roman buildings or pavements have ever been found.[736] The Saxon borough was built on the model of a Roman _chester_: a square with rounded corners. The rampart of Wallingford, which still exists in great part, is entirely of earth, and must have been crowned with a wooden wall, such as was still existing at Portsmouth in Leland's time.[737] The accounts of Wallingford in the great Survey are very full and important. "King Edward had eight virgates in the borough of Wallingford, and in these there were 276 haughs paying 11_l._ of rent. Eight have been destroyed for the castle."[738] This Norman castle was placed in the N.E. corner of the borough. At present its precincts cover 30 acres,[739] but this includes garden grounds, and no doubt represents later enclosures. No ancient plan of the castle has been preserved, but from Leland's description there appear to have been three wards in his time, each defended by banks and ditches. The inner ward, which was doubtless the original one, is rudely oblong in shape; it covers 4-1/2 acres. Leland says, "All the goodly buildings, with the towers and dungeon, be within the third dyke." The motte, which still exists, was on the south-eastern edge of this ward; that is, it was so placed as to overlook both the borough and the ford over the Thames.[740] It was ditched around, and is said to have had a stone keep on the top; but no foundations were found when it was recently excavated. It was found to rest on a foundation of solid masonry several feet thick, sloping upwards towards the outside, so that it must have stood in a kind of stone saucer.[741] The masonry which remains in the other parts of the castle is evidently none of it of the early Norman period, unless we accept a fragment of wall which contains courses of tiles. Numerous buildings were added in Henry III.'s reign; the walls and battlements were repaired, and the _hurdicium_, which had been blown down by a high wind, was renewed.[742] But the motte and the high banks show clearly that the first Norman castle was of wood.

The value of the royal borough of Wallingford had considerably risen since the Conquest.[743]

WARWICK (Fig. 36).--Here again we have a castle built on land which the Conqueror obtained from a Saxon convent, a positive proof that there was no castle there previously. Only a small number of houses was destroyed for the castle,[744] and this points to the probability, which is supported by some other evidence, that the castle was built outside the town. Warwick, of course, was one of the boroughs fortified by Ethelfleda, and it was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road from Bath to Lincoln, the Foss Way, against the Danes. Domesday Book, after mentioning that the king's barons have 112 houses in the borough, and the abbot of Coventry 36, goes on to say that these houses belong to the lands which the barons hold outside the city, and are rated there.[745] This is one of the passages from which Professor Maitland has concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda and her brother were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the magnates in the country were bound to keep houses in the towns.[746] Ordericus, after the well-known passage in which he states that the lack of castles in England was one great cause of its easy conquest by the Normans, says: "The king _therefore_ founded a castle at Warwick, and gave it in custody to Henry, son of Roger de Beaumont."[747] Putting these various facts together, we may fairly assert that the motte which still forms part of the castle of Warwick was the work of the Conqueror, and not, as Mr Freeman believed, "a monument of the wisdom and energy of the mighty daughter of Alfred,"[748] whose energy was very much better employed in the protection of her people. Dugdale, who also put the motte down to Ethelfleda, was only copying Rous, a very imaginative writer of the 15th century.

The motte of Warwick is mentioned several times in the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II.; it then carried wooden structures on its top.[749] In Leland's time there were still standing on this motte the ruins of a keep, which he calls by its Norman name of the Dungeon. A fragment of a polygonal shell wall still remains.[750] But there is not a scrap of masonry of Norman date about the castle. The motte, and the earthen bank which still runs along one side of the court, show that the first castle was a wooden one. The bailey is oblong in shape, the motte being outside it; its area is about 2-1/2 acres.

The value of Warwick had doubled since the Conquest.

[Illustration: FIG. 36. Warwick. Wigmore, Hereford.]

WIGMORE, Herefordshire (Fig. 36).--We have already referred to the absurdity of identifying this place with the _Wigingamere_ of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_.[751] We have the strongest indication that the Norman castle at Wigmore was a new erection, since Domesday Book tells us that William FitzOsbern built it on waste land called Mereston.[752] This express statement disposes of the fable in the _Fundationis Historia_ of Wigmore Priory, that the castle of Wigmore had belonged to Edric the Wild, and was rebuilt by Ralph Mortimer.[753] Wigmore had only been a small manor of two taxable hides in Saxon times. Whereas it had then been unproductive, at the date of the Survey there were two ploughs in the demesne, and the borough attached to the castle yielded 7_l._ Here we have another instance of the planting of a borough close to a castle, and of the revenue which was thus obtained.

There is a very large and high motte at Wigmore Castle, of oval shape, on a headland which has been cut off by a deep ditch. The earthen banks of its first fortification still remain, enclosing a small ward, but on top of them is a wall in masonry, and the ruins of a polygonal keep;[754] also the remains of two mural towers. Half-way down the end of the headland, below the motte, is a small square court, which _may_ have been the original bailey; below it, again, is a larger half-moon bailey furnished with walls and towers. But the whole area covered is only 1 acre. The masonry is none of it earlier than the Decorated period, except one tower in the bailey wall which may be late Norman.

[Illustration: FIG. 37. Winchester. (From a plan by W. Godson, 1750.)]

WINCHESTER, Hants.--We include Winchester among the castles mentioned or alluded to in Domesday Book, because we think it can be proved that the _domus regis_ mentioned under Alton and Clere is the castle built by William outside the west gate of the city, where the present County Hall is now almost the only remaining relic of any castle at all.[755] Under the head of "Aulton" we are told that the abbot of Hyde had unjustly gotten the manor in exchange for the king's house, because by the testimony of the jurors it was already the king's house.[756] That _excambio domus regis_ should read _excambio terræ domus regis_ is clear from the corresponding entry under Clere, where the words are _pro excambio terræ in qua domus regis est in civitate_.[757] The matter is put beyond a doubt by the confirmatory charter of Henry I. to Hyde Abbey, where the king states that his father gave Aulton and Clere to Hyde Abbey _in exchange for the land on which he built his hall in the city of Winchester_.[758] Where, then, was this hall, which was clearly new, since fresh land was obtained for it, and which must not therefore be sought on the site of the palace of the Saxon kings? The _Liber Winton_, a roll of Henry I.'s time, says that twelve burgesses' houses had been destroyed and the land was now occupied by the king's house.[759] Another passage says that a whole street _outside the west gate_ was destroyed when the king made his ditch.[760] These passages justify the conclusion of Mr Smirke that the king's house at Winchester was neither more nor less than the castle which existed until the 17th century outside the west gate.[761] Probably the reason why it is spoken of so frequently in the earliest documents as the king's house or hall, instead of the castle, is that in this important city, the ancient capital of Wessex, where the king "wore his crown" once a year, William built, besides the usual wooden keep on the motte, a stone hall in the bailey, of size and dignity corresponding to the new royalty.[762] In fact, the hall so magnificently transformed by Henry III., and known to be the old hall of the castle, can be seen on careful examination to have still its original Norman walls and other traces of early Norman work.[763] The palace of the Saxon kings stood, where we might expect to find the palace of native princes, in the middle of the city; according to Milner it was on the site of the present Square.[764] William may have repaired this palace, but that he constructed two royal houses, a palace and a castle, is highly improbable. The castle became the residence of the Norman kings, and the Saxon palace appears to have been neglected.[765] We see with what caution the Conqueror placed his castle at the royal city of Wessex without the walls. Milner tells us that there was no access to it from the city without passing through the west gate.[766] The motte of the castle appears to have been standing in his time, as he speaks of "the artificial mount on which the keep stands."[767] It is frequently mentioned in mediæval documents as the _beumont_ or _beau mont_. It was surrounded by its own ditch.[768] The bailey, if Speed's map is correct, was triangular in shape. With its ditches and banks the castle covered 6 acres, according to the commissioners who reported on it in Elizabeth's reign; but the inner area cannot have been more than 4-1/2 acres. We may infer from the sums spent on this castle by Henry II., that he was the first to give it walls and towers of stone; the _Pipe Rolls_ show entries to the amount of 1150_l._ during the course of his reign; the work of the walls is frequently specified, and stone is mentioned.

Domesday Book does not inform us whether the value of Winchester had risen or fallen since the Conquest.

[Illustration: FIG. 38. Windsor Castle (From Ashmole's "Order of the Garter.")]

WINDSOR (Fig. 38).--Here we have another of the interesting cases in which the geld due from the tenant of a manor is lessened on account of a castle having occupied a portion of the land.[769] The Survey tells us that the castle of Windsor sits in half a hide belonging to the manor of Clewer, which had become William's property as part of the spoils of Harold. It was _now_ held of the king by a Norman tenant-in-chief, but whereas it was formerly rated as five hides it was now (that is, probably, since the castle was built) rated as four and a half hides. Of course we are not to suppose that the castle occupied the whole half hide, which might be some 60 acres; but it extinguished the liability of that portion. At Windsor, however, we have no occasion to press this argument as a proof that the castle was new, since it is well established that the palace of the Saxon kings was at least 2 miles from the present castle and town, in the village long known as Old Windsor, which fell into decay as the town of Windsor sprang up under the Norman castle.[770] The manor of Windsor was given by Edward the Confessor to the convent of Westminster, but recovered by the Conqueror.[771] But as the Survey shows us, he did not build his castle in the manor of Windsor, but in that of Clewer. He built it for a hunting-seat,[772] and it may have been for the purpose of recovering forest rights that he resumed possession of Old Windsor; but he placed his castle in the situation which he thought best for defence. For even a hunting-seat in Norman times was virtually a castle, as many other instances show.

It is needless to state that there is no masonry at Windsor of the time of the Conqueror, or even of the time of his son Henry I., in spite of the statement of Stowe that Henry "new builded the castle of Windsor." This statement may perhaps be founded on a passage in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ which says that Henry held his court for the first time in the New Windsor in 1110. Perhaps the _Chronicle_ here refers to the _borough_ of New Windsor, as an entry in the _Pipe Roll_ of Henry I. seems to show that he was the first to enclose the _burgus_ of Windsor.[773] For it is probable that the first stone castle at Windsor was built by Henry II., who spent £1670 on it in the course of his reign. One of his first acts after his accession was an exchange of land at Windsor, which seems to have been for the purpose of a vineyard, and was possibly the origin of the second bailey.[774] At present the position of the motte is central to the rest of the castle, but this is so unusual that it suggests the idea that the upper ward is the oldest, and that the motte stood on its outer edge. Henry II. surrounded the castle with a wall, at a cost of about 128_l._[775] The other entries in the _Pipe Rolls_ probably refer to the first stone shell on the motte, and there is little doubt that the present Round Tower, though its height has been raised in modern times, and its masonry re-dressed and re-pointed so as to destroy all appearance of antiquity, is in the main of Henry II.'s building. The frequent payments for stone show the nature of Henry's work.

Although so much masonry was put up in Henry II.'s reign, the greater part of what is now visible is not older than the time of Henry III. The lower bailey seems to have been enlarged in his reign, as the castle ditch was extended towards the town, and compensation given for houses taken down.[776] The upper (probably the original) ward is rectangular in shape, and with the motte and its ditches covers about 6-1/2 acres.[777] The state apartments, a chapel, and the Hall of St George, are in the upper ward, showing that this was the site of the original hall and chapel of the castle. The charter of agreement between Stephen and Henry in 1153 speaks of the _motte_ of Windsor as equivalent to the castle.[778] Repairs of the motte are mentioned in the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II.[779]

The value of the manor of Clewer had fallen since the Conquest; that of Windsor, which was worth 15_l._ T. R. E., but after the Conquest fell to 7_l._, was again worth 15_l._ at the date of the Survey.[780]

WISBEACH, Cambridgeshire.--William I. built a castle here in 1072, after suppressing the revolt of Hereward, in order to hold in check the Cambridgeshire fen country.[781] There is an early mention of it in the Register of Thorney Abbey. This castle, after being several times rebuilt, is now completely destroyed, and "several rows of elegant houses built on the site." Nevertheless, there still remain distinct traces of the motte-and-bailey pattern in the gardens which now occupy the site of the original castle of King William; the present Crescent probably follows the line of the ditch. The meagre indications preserved in casual accounts confirm this. There was an inner castle of about 2 acres, just the area of the present garden enclosure, and an outer court, probably an addition, of some 4 acres.[782] Both areas were moated. Weston, a prisoner who was confined in the keep of this castle in the 17th century, has left an account of his captivity, in which he casually mentions that the keep or dungeon stood upon a high terrace, from which he could overlook the outer bailey, and was surrounded by a moat filled with water.[783]

The castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but as might be expected in a district which had been so ravaged by war, the value of the manor had fallen.

WORCESTER.--This borough, as we have seen, was fortified by Ethelfleda and her husband Ethelred in the 9th century. That the fortifications thus erected were those of a city and not of a castle is shown with sufficient clearness by the remarkable charter of this remarkable pair, in which they declare that they have built the _burh_ at Worcester to shelter all the people, and the churches, and the bishop.[784] The castle is first mentioned in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ in 1088, and it is to be noted that it is styled the king's castle. Urse d'Abitot, the Norman sheriff of Worcester, has the credit of having built the first castle, and Malmesbury relates that he seized part of the monks' cemetery for the bailey.[785] The monks, however, held on to their right, and in the first year of Henry III. the bailey was restored to them by the guardians of the young king, the motte being reserved for the king's use.[786] The first wooden castle was burnt in 1113.[787] The tower or keep which succeeded it, and which was repaired by Henry II.,[788] may have been either of stone or wood; but in the order of John, that the gateway of the castle, which is of wood, is to be made of stone, we get a hint of the gradual transformation of the castle from a wooden to a stone fortress.[789]

Worcester Castle was outside the town, from Speed's map, and was near the Severn. The area now called College Green was no doubt the outer ward of the castle, which was restored to the convent by Henry III. The tower called Edgar's Tower was built by the monks as the gatehouse to their newly conceded close.[790] From the map given by Green, this outer bailey appears to have been roughly square; but there was also a small oblong inner ward, retained by the king, where the gaol was afterwards built. The area of the castle is said to have been between 3 and 4 acres.[791] The motte, which is mentioned several times in mediæval documents,[792] was completely levelled in 1848; it was then found out that it had been thrown up over some previous buildings, which were believed to be Roman, though this seems doubtful.[793]

The value of Worcester had risen since the Conquest.[794]

YORK (Fig. 39).--William the Conqueror built two castles at York, and the mottes of both these castles remain, one underneath Clifford's Tower, the keep of York Castle, the other, on the south side of the Ouse, still bearing the name of the Baile Hill, or the Old Baile.[795] The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ implies, though it does not directly state, that both these castles were built in 1068, on the occasion of William's first visit to York. The more detailed narrative of Ordericus shows that one was built in 1068, and the other at the beginning of 1069, on William's second visit.[796] Both were destroyed in September 1069, when the English and Danes captured York, and both were rebuilt before Christmas of the same year, when William held his triumphant Christmas feast at York.

This speedy erection, destruction, and re-erection is enough to prove that the castles of William in York were, like most other Norman castles, hills of earth with buildings and stockades of wood, especially as we find these hills of earth still remaining on the known sites of the castles. And we may be quite sure that the Norman masonry, which Mr Freeman pictures as so eagerly destroyed by the English, never existed.[797] But the obstinate tendency of the human mind to make things out older than they are has led to these earthen hills being assigned to Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, anybody rather than Normans. A single passage of William of Malmesbury, in which he refers to the _castrum_ which the Danes had built at York in the reign of Athelstan, is the sole vestige of basis for the theory that the motte of Clifford's Tower is of Danish origin.[798] The other theories have absolutely no foundation but conjecture. If Malmesbury was quoting from some older source which is now lost, it is extremely probable that the word _castrum_ which he copied, did not mean a castle in our sense of the word at all, but was a translation of the word _burh_, which almost certainly referred to a vallum or wall constructed round the Danish suburb outside the walls of York. Such a suburb there was, for there in 1055 stood the Danish church of St Olave, in which Earl Siward was buried, and the suburb was long known as the Earlsburgh or Earl's Burh, probably because it contained the residence of the Danish earls of Northumbria.[799] This suburb was not anywhere near Clifford's Tower, but in quite a different part of the city. To prove that both the mottes were on entirely new sites, we have the assurance of Domesday Book that out of the seven _shires_ or wards into which the city was divided, one was laid waste for the castles; so that there was clearly a great destruction of houses to make room for the new castles.[800]

[Illustration: FIG. 39. York Castle and Baile Hill. (From a plan by P. Chassereau, 1750.)]

What has been assumed above receives striking confirmation from excavations made recently (1903) in the motte of Clifford's Tower. At the depth of 13 feet were found remains of a wooden structure, surmounted by a quantity of charred wood.[801] Now the accounts of the destruction of the castles in 1069 do not tell us that they were burned, but thrown down and broken to pieces.[802] But the keep which was restored by William, and on the repair of which Henry II. spent 15_l._ in 1172,[803] was burnt down in the frightful massacre of the Jews at York Castle in 1190.[804] The excavations disclosed the interesting fact that this castle stood on a lower motte than the present one, and that when the burnt keep was replaced by a new one the motte was raised to its present height, "an outer crust of firmer and more clayey material being made round the older summit, and a lighter material placed inside this crater to bring it up to the necessary level." This restoration must have taken place in the third year of Richard I., when 28_l._ was spent "on the work of the castle."[805] This small sum shows that the new keep also was of wood; and remains of timber work were in fact found on the top of the motte during the excavations, though unfortunately they were not sufficiently followed up to determine whether they belonged to a wooden tower or to a platform intended to consolidate the motte.[806] It is extremely likely that this third keep was blown down by the high wind of 1228, when 2s. was paid "for collecting the timber of York Castle blown down by the wind."[807] In its place arose the present keep, one of the most remarkable achievements of the reign of Henry III.[808] The old ground-plan of the square Norman keep was now abandoned, and replaced by a quatrefoil. The work occupied thirteen years, from the 30th to the 43rd Henry III., and the total sum expended was 1927_l._ 8_s._ 7_d._, equal to about 40,000_l._ of our money. This remarkable fact has slumbered in the unpublished _Pipe Rolls_ for 700 years, never having been unearthed by any of the numerous historians of York.

The keep was probably the first work in stone at York Castle, and for a long time it was probably the only defensive masonry. The banks certainly had only a wooden stockade in the early part of Henry III.'s reign, as timber from the forest of Galtres was ordered for the repair of breaches in the _palicium_ in 1225.[809] As late as Edward II.'s reign there was a _pelum_, or stockade, round the keep, on top of a _murus_, which was undoubtedly an earthen bank.[810] At present the keep occupies the whole top of the motte except a small _chemin de ronde_, but the fact so frequently alluded to in the writs, that a stockade ran round the keep, proves that a small courtyard existed there formerly, as was usually the case with important keeps. Another writ of Edward II.'s reign shows that the motte was liable to injury from the floods of the River Fosse,[811] and probably its size has thus been reduced.

The present bailey of York Castle does not follow the lines of the original one, but is an enlargement made in 1825. A plan made in 1750, and reproduced here, shows that the motte was surrounded by its own ditch, which is now filled up, and that the bailey, around which a branch of the Fosse was carried, was of the very common bean-shaped form; it was about 3 acres in extent. The motte and bailey were both considerably outside what is believed to have been the Anglo-Saxon rampart of York,[812] but the motte was so placed as to overlook the city.

The value of the city of York, in spite of the sieges and sacks which it had undergone, and in spite of there being 540 houses "so empty that they pay nothing at all," had risen at the date of the Survey from 53_l_. in King Edward's time to 100_l._ in King William's.[813] This extraordinary rise in value can only be attributed to increased trade and increased exactions, the former being promoted by the greater security given to the roads by the castles, the latter due to the tolls on the high-roads and waterways, which belonged to the king, and the various "customs" belonging to the castles, which, though new, were henceforth equally part of his rights.

THE BAILE HILL, York (Fig. 39).--There can be no doubt whatever that this still existing motte was the site of one of William's castles at York, and it is even probable that it was the older of the two, as Mr Cooper conjectures from its position on the south side of the river.[814] The castle bore the name of the Old Baile at least as early as the 14th century, perhaps even in the 12th.[815] In 1326 a dispute arose between the citizens of York and Archbishop William de Melton as to which of them ought to repair the wall around the Old Baile. The mayor alleged that the district was under the express jurisdiction of the archbishop, exempt from that of the city; the archbishop pleaded that it stood within the ditches of the city.[816] The meaning of this dispute can only be understood in the light of facts which have recently been unearthed by the industry and observation of Mr T. P. Cooper, of York.[817] The Old Baile, like so many of William's castles, originally stood outside the ramparts of the city. The original Roman walls of York (it is believed) enclosed only a small space on the eastern shore of the Ouse, and before the Norman Conquest the city had far outgrown these bounds, and therefore had been enlarged in Anglo-Saxon times. It appears that the Micklegate suburb was then for the first time enclosed with a wall, and as this district is spoken of in Domesday Book as "the shire of the archbishop," it was evidently under his jurisdiction. At a later period this wall was buried in an earthen bank, which probably carried a palisade on top, until the palisade was replaced by stone walls in the reign of Henry III.[818]

The evidence of the actual remains renders it more than probable that this rampart turned towards the river at a point 500 feet short of its present angle, so that the Old Baile, when first built, was quite outside the city walls.[819] This is exactly how we should expect to find a castle of William the Norman's in relation to one of the most turbulent cities of the realm; and, as we have seen, the other castle at York was similarly placed. By the time of Archbishop Melton the south-western suburb was already enclosed in the new stone walls built in the 13th century, and these walls had been carried along the west and south banks of the Old Baile, so as to enclose that castle within the city. This was the archbishop's pretext for trying to lay upon the citizens the duty of maintaining the Old Baile. But probably on account of his ancient authority in this part of the city, the cause went against him; though he stipulated that whatever he did in the way of fortification was of his own option, and was not to be accounted a precedent. A contemporary chronicler says that he enclosed the Old Baile first with stout planks 18 feet long, afterwards with a stone wall:[820] an interesting proof that wooden fortifications were still used in the reign of Edward III.

Though the base court of the Old Baile is now built over, its area and ditches were visible in Leland's time,[821] and can still be guessed at by the indications Mr Cooper has noted. The area of the bailey must have been nearly 3 acres, and its shape nearly square. This measurement includes the motte, which was placed in the south-west corner on the line of the banks; it thus overlooked the river as well as the city.[822]

##