room before that gate could be opened; and the two portcullises had to be raised; so that it was necessary for one man at least to pull at the heel of the bridge, another to draw into the west guardroom the beam from it, a third in the east guardroom to fetch home the bolt of the outer gate, and others upstairs to lift the herse, giving occupation enough without having also to attend to a windlass. Moreover, here there are no chain-holes, so that some other method than lifting by a chain and windlass must have been adopted.

Here, as at Cydweli, the inner portcullis-grate rose flush against the inner side of the north wall of the building, and immediately in front of the fireplace, so that no one could see or feel the fire when it was up. The chamber in which it rises is a state room certainly 25 feet, and possibly 36 feet, by 23, and 17 feet high, with handsome windows and stone seats in wrought recesses, and a grand fireplace; yet it follows either that the occupiers must have used it with the fire thus obscured by the raised portcullis, or the latter must have been kept lowered with the wind whistling through the slit, and the men entering the chamber to lift the former every time any one wanted to pass in or out of the Castle. And from the bedrooms adjoining, and their arrangements, with the oratory in front, I cannot doubt that this room was intended for the use of Thomas himself, and was actually that used by Edmund Earl of Richmond and his young Countess. It is certain that each of the first-floor windows had canopies over, and that the sills of some were supported on sculptured heads (two, indeed, remain), while the sculptured bosses of the portal-groin, and the corbels of the machicolations of the west turret, all portraits, the grand and separate stairs giving access, and the excellence of the masonry, leave no doubt as to these rooms being designed for the most distinguished occupation. The outer portcullis lifted against the wall of the oratory, as at Harlech. And in addition to all this, the two holes in the centre bosses

of the portal groining were fitted with movable stones lifted by an iron ring (one of which yet remains), and thus command was given from above of the whole space between the two portcullises. I believe these last were used for the purpose of listening to what was said, as well as for more active offence if necessary. Nearly every portal-vault I have examined has something of this sort, but I know of no other case so finished.

As regards the object of the ribbing of the portalpassage, so common in all Edwardian castles, I yet feel uncertain. It is most fully developed at Harlech, where the ribs and chases between take up the entire length. It may be that the floor above was of planks resting on the stone ribs, but capable of being removed so as to use the chases. At Pembroke the covering of the chases is of stone, and it looks ancient. I can scarcely think the chases were designed for letting down obstructive timbers. At Pembroke the room above is so low, it is impossible to lower from it timber sufficiently long to stand vertically, while there would certainly have been side-grooves if it was intended the timbers should have been horizontal, especially if they were to be used, as has been suggested, as barricades, with stone filling between them. Any way, these spaces seem gradually to have been abandoned, and to have been replaced by holes of various kinds and sizes,— finally, temp. Richard II, ending in the groined vault.

I do not know whether the term "bretache" should be applied to projecting constructions elsewhere than over the portal. Norman builders do not appear to have used either bridge or bretache; those named in the Roll first quoted were probably both of timber. But the bretache was shortly improved upon by being constructed on beams of timber supported on projecting stone corbels; and these again by regular masonry machicolations, of which many examples exist. The last culminated in recessing the bridge, and placing what I suppose should be called "meurtieres" in the vault. Caldecot has four entrances,-the earliest, that of the round moated keep, is a first floor entrance.

In

my opinion this tower is of King John's time, though the highly accomplished President of the Monmouthshire Association still thinks it Norman. It has neither bridge, bretache, nor portcullis. The second in date is probably temp. Henry II. It is round-headed, and has a portcullis, but no bridge. It has two round meurtieres in the arch of the door-frame, served from the portcullis-chamber over. This gateway is on one side of a horseshoe tower, like the earliest entrance at Pembroke, and is approached parallel with the curtain-wall. Certainly the whole of the external or circular part of this tower, and the whole circuit of the keep, had holes for projecting timbers above great stone corbels, some of which yet remain.

The third is that of the postern tower. It has the name of "Thomas" sculptured on its gate-jamb. It also has a portcullis, but no bridge. It has a portalpassage, and very bold machicolations in stone over it, and round the whole external demi-octagon of the tower.

The fourth is the highly finished portal of Richard II's time, before described, with bridge, portcullis, and gate housed in a recess, with meurtieres in its vault, and portal-passage, with porters' seats and guardrooms on each side. On completion of the last, the second seems to have been blocked, and that tower adapted for purposes of residence, a fireplace with windows on each side looking into the court occupying the roadway.

But besides the portal-defences, it seems to have been customary to construct projecting galleries on the towers and elsewhere. Mr. Clark speaks of these at Caerffili, stating that the stone corbels yet remain in the slanting, and therefore inaccessible, part of the south-east angle tower, and he mentions an external door at Norham, which could have been used only for access to an external gallery, and the case of Ledes, but adds that examples are exceedingly rare. The beamholes and other arrangements are very pronounced in the keep at Pembroke. I believe those galleries were alures, and that the term does not apply to the rampart walk inside the parapet, as generally considered.

At Caldecot the removal of a good deal of the overwhelming ivy shows the arrangement as complete as it can be so far as the masonry or stonework is concerned : of course the timber has all perished. The keep is a double horseshoe-tower, all of excellent ashlar, the heel of the larger embracing the heel of the smaller. The latter is solid up to the level of the rampart walk of the former; there it has a vaulted chamber with no window, but open, and with no side, towards the larger tower. From it, in the thickness of the wall at the back of the flues from the chambers below, is a passage leading to an external door, which opens on the level of the tops of square holes over corbels which projected about 18 inches from the whole exterior of the larger tower, at distances about 3 feet apart; and the smaller tower had like holes and corbels, at a level higher by a story, round its exterior. The chamber cannot possibly have been used for occupation, being open to the weather; and I doubt not it was designed as a depôt for the stones and other heavy missiles which were to be used from the alures, while the stone floor above was strong enough to carry any mediæval engine.

And not only on the keep, but on the external portions of each of the angle-towers on the south side, are the corbels still remaining,-great stone blocks about 4 feet long by 15 inches deep, and the like across, under holes about 14 inches square going through the parapet between each slit; and on each tower yet exist the stone steps by which these alures could be reached; and on each curtain joining the south-west angle tower there was a similar construction. The Castle with these projecting timbers, evidently of considerable length, must have looked something like an ironclad with its torpedo spars out. There are sculptured waterholes quite independent of these spar-holes, and much below their level. The completeness of these defences of the walls may account for the unusual absence of slits in angle-towers raking the faces of the wall.

JOHN LLOYD'S NOTE-BOOK, 1637-1651.

BY ALFRED NEOBARD PALMER.

THERE was exhibited at the recent Meeting of the Cambrian Archæological Association at Denbigh a book lent by Mrs. Townshend Mainwaring, which is thus described in The Catalogue of the Temporary Museum, Denbigh Meeting:-" Record of the Great Sessions for Denbigh and Flint, 1637-1651." Mrs. Townshend Mainwaring has been good enough to allow me to examine this book, which turns out to be, not the official record of the Great Sessions, but rather the private memorandum-book of an attorney in large practice, who constantly attended the Great Sessions of the two counties, and had to "appeare" in various cases there.

The question now arises, Who was the writer of the book? On one of the first pages of it "the oath of supremicie" is copied out, and herein the name of the writer, "John Lloyd", is plainly given. The latter speaks elsewhere of his brother David Lloyd, of his sister Alice Lloyd, of his brother John Lloyd (in which case he must mean his brother-in-law), of his brother Thomas Wynn, and of his cousins Edward Williams and Robin Pugh. I believe the writer to be John Lloyd of Wickwer (Wigfair), attorney, who lived at St. Asaph, and appears to have been buried there 9 Jan. 165. He was a son of Edward Lloyd, Proctor of the Consistory Court of Chester. He had a brother, David Lloyd, and a sister, Alice, who married John Lloyd of Berth, which last must be the John Lloyd whom he calls his "brother". When he speaks of his brother-in-law John Foulk, he must mean his wife's brother-in-law, John Foulk of Vaenol; and when he speaks of his brother "Tho. Wyn", he must also mean his wife's brother-in-law of that name, who appears to have been Thomas Wynn of Garthgarmon. His cousin