at Penwortham in Lancashire, which was excavated in 1856, surpassed all others in interest, inasmuch as it contained the foundations and what we may perhaps call the cellar of the original Norman bretasche.1 An iron prick spur, found in the ruins, is evidently Norman, being of exactly the same type as the one on the effigy of Geoffrey de Mandeville in the Temple Church.2 The top of the motte had been defended by an outer wall of wattles. The bretasche appears to have been round, the broken stumps of uprights taking that form. A motte at Hallaton in Leicestershire, and the motte at Almondbury, near Huddersfield, have also yielded objects which point to the Norman period.

These are the only cases that I know of in which the excavation of mottes has produced any results worth mentioning. I need not say that the mere finding of Roman or Saxon coins in an excavated motte is no evidence that it was thrown up in Roman or Saxon times, for these objects may have been lying in the soil out of which the motte was dug. Ancient barrows have probably sometimes been utilised to form the nucleus of mottes, as cases are recorded in both England and France in which burials have been found in the heart of these mounds. But this very circumstance points to a late origin for the mottes, as a grave would never have been utilised for a castle except by a generation which had forgotten the use of these tumuli.

To sum up: There is no evidence that the Anglo-Saxons built mottes ; there is strong evidence that the burhs they built during the Danish wars were large enclosures, generally town walls or banks; there is certain evidence that the Normans built mottes both in Normandy, England, Wales, and Ireland; the name of the motte is Norman; the type belongs to the age of feudalism, and answers precisely to the needs of the Normans during the first period of their conquests; mottes are found in connection with almost all English castles known to be of Norman

1 Transactions of Lancashire and Cheshire Historic Society, vol. ix., 1856-7. Unfortunately the article is so loosely written that many important questions are unanswered.

2 Saxon spurs were much shorter.

origin; and the evidence of excavations, scanty as it is, supports the theory that they are Norman work. If we weigh these facts carefully, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that these mottes and baileys so thickly scattered over England are the footprints of the Norman Conqueror, and an important part of the organisation by which he held England down. Alfred and his House, on the other hand, did not build little castles of wood and earth for their own personal defence; they saved England by defending, and thus developing, the English town.

APPENDIX A.

The fortification of Worcester is not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but only in the very interesting charter already referred to in the text. (Birch, Cartularium, ii. 222.) Chester is not called a burh in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but is spoken of under the year 894 as "a waste chester in Wirral." Stafford has a motte which was once crowned by a Norman castle, but as it is on the South bank of the Sowe, it is clearly not the work of Ethelfleda. Runcorn at the beginning of this century had still the remains of an earthwork enclosing the headland known as the Castle Rock, but its very small area makes it improbable that it can have been the burh spoken of by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; more likely it was a small castle erected by the Norman baron of Halton to protect the ferry which started from that point. Ethelfleda's burh would certainly have included the church, which she is traditionally said to have founded. At Bedford the motte which was the site of the Norman Castle is on the N. side of the Ouse, whereas Edward's burh was on the S. side. Stamford is a precisely similar case. Worcester, Chester, Colchester, and Manchester were, of course, Roman castra, which were only rebuilt by Edward or his sister; Tamworth also had been fortified before Ethelfleda's restoration (Florence says urbem restauravit), as it was the ancient seat of the Mercian Kings. At Maldon, Witham and Eddisbury there are still remains of the ancient earthworks which enclosed the Saxon burh; the area of which in these three cases is from 22 to 25 acres. Eddisbury is extremely interesting, as it is almost in its original condition, except for the building of a hunting lodge, now in ruins, in the reign of Edward III.

There are two cases in the list where the evidence for the existence of a Norman castle may not be thought conclusive: Towcester and Bakewell. I have not hitherto been able to find any evidence of the existence of a castle at Towcester except the fact that there was a lord's oven in or near the precincts of the present intrenchments, to which the citizens owed soke, as they commonly did to the ovens of castles. King John stayed in the town in 1207, and there must have been some residence fit to receive him. But Towcester is a case in which there can be no doubt whatever what the work of Edward was, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us expressly that "he wrought the burh at Towcester with a stone wall." At Bakewell we have not only the name Castle Hill,

but such names as Castle Field, Warden Field, and Court Yard testify to the existence of a castle. It was the seat of jurisdiction for the High Peak Hundred in medieval times. The Chronicle says that Edward "commanded a burh to be built and manned in the neighbourhood of Bakewell." I am tempted to look for this burh on the top of Carlton Hill, where the first Ordnance Survey marks an intrenchment. But no intrenchment can be seen there now.

APPENDIX B.

In eleven of the cases mentioned in the list, Domesday records the clearance of houses to make room for the site of the Castle. (Cambridge, Gloucester, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Norwich, Shrewsbury, Stamford, Wallingford, Warwick, Winchester, York.) The Castles of Clifford, Rockingham, and Wigmore are expressly said to have been built on waste or uninhabited ground. Wigmore has been absurdly identified with the burh of Wigingamere built by Edward the Elder, but a careful study of Edward's campaigns will show what a mistake this is. At Chepstow and Nottingham it can be seen at a glance that the original castle has been on the motte-and-bailey plan, though in neither case is there an artificial motte at present. At Montgomery and Montacute the motte is of natural rock. Hastings is particularly interesting as the only case in which we have actual documentary evidence, in the Bayeux tapestry, that the motte was built by the Normans. Pevensey was a Roman castrum which the Normans utilised by putting a motte and bailey in one corner of it, just as they did at Porchester and Burgh Castle, and at the probably Saxon burhs of Wareham and Wallingford. At Cambridge, Carlisle, Chepstow, Durham, Hastings, MontacuteRochester, Stafford, London, Oxford, Winchester, York, and probably at Canterbury, the Norman castle was placed outside the town. There can be no doubt that the Dane John at Canterbury was the motte of the original Norman castle, as the name Dane John can be proved to be only a corruption of Dungeon. (See Somner's Antiquities of Canterbury, p. 144.) And if the theory of this paper be correct, there can be equally little doubt that the Boley Hill was the motte of the original Norman castle of Rochester, the present castle belonging to two later periods. At Canterbury, Rochester, Montacute, Wareham, and Winchester, Domesday records that the site of the castles was obtained from the church by an exchange of lands, a clear proof that no castle existed there before, as we never hear of Saxon prelates thus entrenching themselves, though Norman bishops frequently did. Stafford is a case of peculiar difficulty, owing to the apparent evidence for the existence of two castles, one in the town, the other on the motte which still exists about a mile south-west of the town. Yet after carefully studying the arguments in the 8th volume of the Salt Archæological Society, I cannot help thinking that the existence of a castle in the town is due to the fancy of antiquaries of the 17th century, (1) because all the evidence adduced turns on the interpretation of the word villa, which appears to me to be used not of the town itself, which was properly called a burgus, but of its liberty or banlieu; (2) in the long series of records concerning the castle outside the town, it is invariably called the Castle of Stafford, without any expression to distinguish it from any castle in the town. I believe, therefore, that the motte outside the town was the site of a wooden castle built by William I., and was the same of which Domesday says "Ad hoc manerium (Chebsey)

pertinet terra de Stadford in qua rex precepit fieri castellum quod modo est destructum"; and that this castle was restored by his son Henry 1.

The figures given of the acreage of these castles must only be regarded as approximate; in many cases it has been impossible to find out whether the authorities were speaking of the whole area of the castle, motte, ditches, banks and bailey included, or of the bailey court alone. But the repeated recurrence of low figures shows that the original area of Norman castles was generally very small; and that when we meet with such large areas as 12 or 20 acres, we must ascribe it to the addition of other courts in later times.

III.

NOTICES OF THE KING'S MASTER WRIGHTS OF SCOTLAND, WITH WRITS OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS. BY THE REV. R. S. MYLNE, M.A., B.C.L. OXON.

The King's Master Wright was a personage of less importance than the King's Master Mason or the King's Master of Work. Still, the history of his office resembles in many respects that of the two lastnamed officials, and we find him and his assistants mentioned from time to time in the early records of Scotland. The number of wrights in the royal employment seems to have varied considerably, according to the various exigencies of the Crown; and these wrights could readily turn their hands to boat-building, the construction of instruments for military warfare, or the internal fittings of the Royal Palace.

Some notices of the wrights and carpenters employed by the Kings of Scotland in early times may be found in the Exchequer Rolls. Thus, in 1290 Alexander, the Carpenter, receives pay for his work executed in Stirling Castle by the King's command. In 1361 Malcolm, the Wright, receives £10 from the fermes of Aberdeen, and this payment is repeated in later years. Between the years 1362 and 1370 Sir William Dishington acted as Master of Work to the Church of St Monan's in Fife, and received from King David II. the sum of £613, 7s. Od. The King also paid for carpenter's work at this church £6, 13s. 4d. In 1377 David Bell, Archdeacon of Dunblane, receives money from the King for expenses incurred in connection with the building of Edinburgh Castle. John of Preston

and Roger Hog were also connected with these works. In 1380 Duncan Wright, Carpenter of Edinburgh Castle, receives £10 for his year's fee, and again in 1381 and subsequent years. In 1383 Dedericus (or Theodoricus), the Carpenter, is paid £20 for making a great machine' for warfare. In 1426 Martin Wright receives 262 boards for the King's work at Edinburgh Castle, which cost £6, 18s. 5d., besides £4, 18s. 9d. for carriage, etc. from Leith. In 1429-30 John Wright receives £6, 10s. Od. by command of the King

The account of John Weir for works at Linlithgow Palace, rendered in the year 1451, includes wright's work amongst other particulars. In 1454 Friar Andrew, the Wright, "servitor domini regis," receives for his yearly fee £10, and also £1, 12s. Od. for iron for the siege of Blackness Castle. In the same year William, the heir of Gilbert Wright, receives £5 from the fermes of Aberdeen. This old payment keeps recurring from time to time, and seems to be hereditary.

In 1457 the French Smith receives a cottage free for life. In 1460 Friar Andrew, the Wright, receives £7, 2s. Od. for the carriage of the King's artillery from Perth to the port of Leith, and thence to Edinburgh Castle. In the same year David Wright, the King's Smith, receives £3, 6s. 8d. in part payment of his fee. In 1462 he receives £16, and in 1467 receives 10s. for visiting and removing bombards in Dunbar. Friar Andrew (Lisouris), a lay brother of Cupar, is now the King's Carpenter, buys joists for Ravenscraig, and timber for Edinburgh Castle, repairs the Royal Chapel at Stirling, prepares timber for roofs in Darnaway Forest, and sends timber from Moray for the works at Linlithgow. In 1476 Robert Lourison became King's Carpenter. In 1474 David Wright receives the brass for the artillery, and a grant of £4 from the lands of Drumtennand. He dies in 1477, when £3, 6s. 8d. is paid to his widow Janet by the King's grace, and is repeated in 1478 and 1479. In 1494 James IV. employed a number of wrights in the construction of a large barge at Dumbarton, and he took his wrights with him to the raid of Ellem and the raid of Norham. In 1497 he had wrights at work on the roof of the "Hannis toure" of Dunbar.

VOL. XXXIV.

T