Chapter 9

Stafford.Stanton Holgate, Salop.Tamworth, Staffs.Tickhill, Yorks.

Stafford.

Stanton Holgate, Salop.

Tamworth, Staffs.

Tickhill, Yorks.

Fig. 32.

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 StaffordCastle 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 orderedbretasches, 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 reignof Edward I. a local jury decided that Nicholas, Baron of Stafford, held the castle of Stafford from the kingin 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 hismansesof 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 themoëlein 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 7l.for his share, which would make the whole revenue to king and earl 10l.10s., as against 9l.before the Conquest. The property of the canons of Stafford had risen from £1 to £3.[690]

The area of the bailey is 1⅗ acres.

Stamford, Lincoln and Northants.—This was one of the boroughs fortified by Edward the Elder, and consequently we find it a royalburgusat the time of the Survey. But Edward’s borough, theChronicletells 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 fivemansioneswere 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 theturris, 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 avery 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 15l.; now, it pays forfeorm50l., and for the whole of the king’s dues it now pays 28l.”[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 2½ acres. The manor of Stanton was anagglomeration 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, andmaybe 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 theburhhere 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 thehillwas 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 thebank 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 1½ 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 byRichard de Bienfaite, ancestor of the House of Clare, as a tenant of the see.

Tonbridge, Kent.Totnes, Devon.

Tonbridge, Kent.

Totnes, Devon.

Fig. 33.

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 landbelow his castleto 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 theBurghal 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 ¾ 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 thatafter 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 succeedingstone 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 inNorman 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 marketthe 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.

Trematon, Cornwall.Tutbury, Staffs.

Trematon, Cornwall.

Tutbury, Staffs.

Fig. 34.

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 thecastle.”[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 2½ 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 4l.10s.

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.

Wallingford, Berks.

Fig. 35.

Wallingford, Berkshire (Fig. 35).—There is goodreason to suppose that in thevallumof the town of Wallingford we have an interesting relic of Saxon times. Wallingford is one of the boroughs enumerated in theBurghal Hidage; it was undoubtedly a fortified town at the time of the Conquest,[735]and is called aburgusin 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 Romanchester: 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 11l.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 histime, each defended by banks and ditches. The inner ward, which was doubtless the original one, is rudely oblong in shape; it covers 4½ 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 thehurdicium, 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 wasdestroyed 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 kingthereforefounded 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 employedin 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 thePipe Rollsof 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 2½ acres.

The value of Warwick had doubled since the Conquest.

Warwick.Wigmore, Hereford.

Warwick.

Wigmore, Hereford.

Fig. 36.

Wigmore, Herefordshire (Fig. 36).—We have already referred to the absurdity of identifying this place with theWigingamereof theAnglo-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 theFundationis Historiaof Wigmore Priory, that the castle of Wigmore had belonged to Edric the Wild, and was rebuilt by Ralph Mortimer.[753]Wigmore had only beena 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 7l.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, whichmayhave 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.

Winchester.(From a plan by W. Godson, 1750.)

Fig. 37.

Winchester, Hants.—We include Winchester among the castles mentioned or alluded to in Domesday Book, because we think it can be proved that thedomus regismentioned 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 ofHyde 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]Thatexcambio domus regisshould readexcambio terræ domus regisis clear from the corresponding entry under Clere, where the words arepro 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 Abbeyin 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? TheLiber 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 streetoutside the west gatewas 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 theking “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 frequentlymentioned in mediæval documents as thebeumontorbeau 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 4½ 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; thePipe Rollsshow entries to the amount of 1150l.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.

Back to Index Next