« PreviousContinue »
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.1 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 acres, a larger size than usual, but not larger than that of several other important castles.' 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. 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
1 Gentleman's Magazine, 1795.
* The area of the outer camp is 29 acres.
3 It is unlikely that this is the turris mentioned in the solitary Pipe Roll of Henry I. "In unum ostium faciendum ad cellarium turris Sarum, 20s." This entry is of great interest, as entrances from the outside to the basement of keeps were exceptional in the 12th century; but the basement entrance of Colchester keep has every appearance of having been added by Henry I.
(1099-1139), is said to have environed the castle with a new wall,' 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, 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. 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.*
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.5 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. It is remarked in the Hundred Rolls of Henry III., that no one holds fiefs for ward in
1 William of Malmesbury, Hist. Nov., ii., 91.
2 In 1152; the writ is given by Benson and Hatcher, p. 32.
3 "In operatione unius Bretesche in eodem Castro 50s." Pipe Rolls, 1193-4.
4 "Virgam et mairemium ad hordiandum castrum." Close Rolls, i., 198b (1215).
5 Benson and Hatcher, p. 704.
6 "Dicunt quod castrum cum burgo Veteris Sarum et dominicus burgus domini Regis pertinent ad coronam cum advocatione cujusdam ecclesiæ quæ modo vacat." Hundred Rolls, Edward I., cited by Benson and Hatcher, p. 802.
this castle, and that nothing belonged to the castle. outside the gate.1
The value of the manor of Salisbury appears to have risen very greatly since the Conquest.2
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." 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. Its
1 Cited by Benson and Hatcher, p. 802.
2 D. B., 66a, I. stated.
The value T. R. E. is not, however, very distinctly
3 "Dicunt Angligenses burgenses de Sciropesberie multum grave sibi esse quod' ipsi reddunt totum geldum sicut reddebant T. R. E. quamvis castellum comitis occupaverit 51 masuras et aliæ 50 masuræ sunt waste." D. B., i., 252.
* Some writers, such as Mr Kerslake and Mr C. S. Taylor, have supposed Sceargate to mean Shrewsbury.