Page images



hands of Richard Fitz Pons, the ancestor of the celebrated house of Clifford, and one of the barons of Bernard de Neufmarché, the Norman conqueror of Brecon.1


The castle has a large motte, roughly square in shape, which must be in part artificial. Attached to it on the south-west is a curious triangular ward, included in the ditch which surrounds the motte. The masonry on the motte is entirely of the "Edwardian" style, when keepless castles were built; it consists of the remains of a hall, and a mural tower which is too small to be called a keep. There is also a small court, with a wall which stands on a low bank. Below the motte is an irregular bailey of about 2 acres, with earthen banks which do not appear to have ever carried any masonry, though in the middle of the court there is a small mound which evidently covers the remains of buildings. The whole area of the castle, including the motte and the two baileys, is about 3 acres.

The value of the manor had apparently risen from nothing to 8. 5s. Clifford was not the centre of a large soke.

CLITHEROE, Lancashire (Fig. 13). There is no express mention of this castle in Domesday Book, but of two places in Yorkshire, Barnoldswick and Calton, it is said that they are in the castellate of Roger the Poitevin. A castellate implies a castle, and as there is

1 "Ancient Charters," Pipe Roll Society, vol. x., charter xiii., and Mr Round's note, p. 25.

2 It is extraordinary that Mr Clark, in his description of this castle, does not mention the motte, except by saying that the outer ward is 60 or 70 feet lower than the inner. M. M. A., i., 395.

3 This passage occurs in a sort of appendix to Domesday Book, which is said to be in a later hand, of the 12th century. (Skaife, Yorks. Arch. Journ., Part lv., p. 299.) It cannot, however, be very late in the 12th century, as it speaks of Roger's holdings in Craven in the present tense.

no other castle in the Craven district (to which the words of the Survey relate) except Skipton, which did not form part of Roger's property, there is no reason to doubt that this castle was Clitheroe, which for centuries was the centre of the Honour of that name. The whole land between the Ribble and the Mersey had been given. by William I. to this Roger, the third son of his trusted supporter, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. One can understand why William gave important frontier posts to the energetic and unscrupulous young men of the house of Montgomeri, one of whom was the adviser and architect of William Rufus, another a notable warrior in North Wales, another the conqueror of Pembrokeshire. As it appears from the Survey that Roger's possessions stretched far beyond the Ribble into Yorkshire and Cumberland, it seems quite possible-though here we are in the region of conjecture-that just as his father and brothers had a free hand to conquer as they listed from the North and South Welsh, so Roger had a similar commission for the hilly districts still unconquered in the north-west of England. But fortune did not favour the Montgomeri family for long. They were exiled from England in 1102 for siding with Robert Curthose, and in the same year we find the castle of Clitheroe in the hands of Robert de Lacy, lord of the great Yorkshire fief of Pontefract.1

The castle of Clitheroe stands on a lofty motte of natural rock. There are no earthworks on the summit,

1 See Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 385. The castle is not actually mentioned, but "le Baille" (the bailey) is spoken of. Mr Farrer also prints an abstract of a charter of Henry I. (1102): "per quam concessit eidem Roberto [de Laci] Boelandam [Bowland] quam tenuit de Rogero Comite Pictavensi, ut extunc eam de eodem rege teneat." P. 382.

In an inquisition of Henry de Laci (+1311) it is said that "castelli mote et fossæ valent nihil." (Whitaker's History of Whalley, p. 280.) This is probably an instance of the word motte being applied to a natural rock

[blocks in formation]

but a stout wall of limestone rubble without buttresses encloses a small court, on whose south-west side stands the keep. It is just possible that the outer wall may be the original work of Roger, as limestone rubble would be easier to get than earth on this rocky hill. The keep is small, rudely built of rubble, and has neither fireplace nor garde-robe, nor the slightest ornamental detail-not even a string course. But in spite of the entire absence of ornament, a decorative effect has been sought and obtained by making the quoins, voussoirs, and lintels of a dressed yellow sandstone. The care with which this has been done is inconsistent with the haste with which Roger must inevitably have constructed his first fortification, if we suppose, as is probable, that he received the first grant of his northern lands on William's return in 1070 from his third visit to the north, when he made that remarkable march through Lancashire to Chester which is described by Ordericus. It seems more likely that even if the outer wall or shell were the work of Roger, he had only wooden buildings inside its circuit. Dugdale attributes the building of the keep to the second Robert de Lacy, between 1187 and 1194, and it is probable that this date is correct. The bailey of Clitheroe lay considerably below the keep, and is now overbuilt with a modern house, offices, and garden. It covers one acre. A Roman road up the valley of the Ribble passes near the foot of the rock.2


which served that purpose. See another instance under Nottingham,

post, p. 176.

1 Dugdale's Baronage, i., p. 99. Dugdale's authority appears to have been the "Historia Laceiorum," a very untrustworthy document, but which may have preserved a genuine tradition in this instance. The loopholes in the basement of the keep, with the large recesses, appear to have been intended for crossbows, and the crossbow was not reintroduced into England till the reign of Richard I.

2 Victoria History of Lancashire, ii., 523.

As the very name of Clitheroe is not mentioned in Domesday Book, it clearly was not an important centre in Saxon times. The value of Blackburn Hundred, in which Clitheroe is situated, had fallen between the Confessor's time and the time when Roger received it. It is quite possible that he never lived at Clitheroe, as he sub-infeoffed the manor and Hundred of Blackburn to Roger de Busli and Albert Greslet before 1086.1

COLCHESTER, Essex.-The remarkable keep of this castle has been the subject of antiquarian legend for many centuries, and Mr Clark has the merit of having proved its early Norman origin, by its plan and architecture. A charter of Henry I. is preserved in the cartulary of St John's Abbey at Colchester, which grants to Eudes the Dapifer "the city of Colchester, and the tower and the castle, and all the fortifications of the castle, just as my father had them and my brother and myself." This proves that the keep and castle were in existence in the Conqueror's time; the Norman character of the architecture proves that the keep was not in existence earlier. We see, then, that the reason there is no motte at Colchester is that there was a stone keep built when first the castle was founded. As far as we are aware, Colchester, the Tower of London, and the recently discovered keep of Pevensey are the only certain instances of stone keeps of the 11th century in England.

That one of the most important of the Conqueror's castles, second only to the Tower of London, and actually exceeding it in the area it covers, should be found in Colchester, is not surprising, because the Eastern counties at the time of the Conquest were not

1 See Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, i., 260.

2 Printed by Mr Round in Essex Arch. Society's Transactions, vii., Part ii. The charter is dated 1101.

[blocks in formation]

only the wealthiest part of the kingdom (as Domesday Book clearly shows1), but they also needed special protection from the attacks of Scandinavian enemies. Mr Round has conjectured that the castle was built at the time of the invasion of St Cnut, between 1080 and 1085.2


The castle is built of Roman stones used over again, with rows of tiles introduced between the courses with much decorative effect. The original doorway was on the first floor, as in most Norman keeps; but at some after time, probably in the reign of Henry I.,* the present doorway was inserted; and most likely the handsome stairway which now leads up from this basement entrance was added, as it shows clear marks of insertion. Henry II. was working on the walls of the castle in 1282, and it may be strongly suspected that the repairs in ashlar, and the casing of the buttresses with ashlar, were his work." One item in the accounts of Henry II. is £50 "for making the bailey round the castle.' There were two baileys to the castle of Colchester-the inner one, which scarcely covered 2 acres, and the outer one, which contained about II. The inner bailey was enclosed at first with an earthwork and stockade, the earthwork being thrown up over the remains of some

1 See Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 22. 2 History of Colchester Castle, p. 141.

[ocr errors]

3 It has been much debated whether these tiles are Roman or Norman ; the conclusion seems to be that they are mixed. See Round's History of Colchester, p. 78.

4 The single Pipe Roll of Henry I. shows that he spent £33, 15s. on repairs of the castle and borough in 1130.

In operatione unius Rogi (a kiln), £13, 18s. In reparatione muri castelli, £16, 3s. 2d. The projection of the buttresses (averaging 1 ft. 3 ins.) is about the same as that found in castles of Henry I. or Henry II.'s time.

• Ad faciendum Ballium circa castellum, £50. Pipe Rolls, xix., 13. This is followed by another entry of £18, 13s. 7d. "in operatione castelli," which may refer to the same work.

« PreviousContinue »