It seems to the writer that the erection of a detached tower of any size within the fortified enclosure on the summit of many of the mottes would have been quite impossible. No doubt a certain number of these mottes have silted away, or have been pared away when slighted, but a very fair number which are still perfect—as is proved by the preservation of their banquettes or earthen ramparts which once carried the stockade -are of so small a diameter that they could never have borne any sort of detached central tower at all. We must remember that the stockade, with its accompanying fighting platform, would take off at the very least 20 feet from the present diameter of the motte, and when we get, as we occasionally do, mottes of only some 35 feet in diameter, the courtyard enclosed by the stockade cannot have been more than 15 feet in diameter, a space insufficient to allow of the erection of any sort of tower at all. In the case of these small mottes the palisade probably bore one or two small timber turrets, which would afford the necessary accommodation for the baron and his family, and also for the guard who, whether the lord slept in the bailey or on the motte, would certainly occupy the defences on the motte, for we must remember that the motte formed part of the outer defences of the castle, and would, therefore, require to be zealously guarded, more especially as it was always the citadel of the stionghold.

These earth - and - timber fortresses were formidable strongholds during the latter half of the eleventh and for some little time during the first half of the twelfth century. Their timber defences were effective enough when the assailants were armed only with swords, axes, slings and bows, weapons which could only be used at close quarters. Until their experience during the first and second crusades taught the Normans more advanced

1 We get a similar arrangement in hand character is proved not only by the stone on the large high motte at Arundel. Gesta Stephani, but by several other On the circuit of the stone wall, or shell records, including Sugar's Gesta Ludovici keep, running round the top of the motte, Grossi, ed. A. Molinier, pp. 63-66, are the remains of a tower containing which gives us a graphic account of the a chapel, and what is known as

capture, in 1, by Louis VI, of the king's chamber." This shell wall, with castle of Le Puiset. In an uncivilised its tower, was erected between 1170 country like Ireland, where the natives and 1187 at a cost, including the flooring were ignorant of the art of war, the vast of the tower, the making of a garden, majority of the castles erected by the etc., of £340, a sum equivalent to over Norman invaders down to the middle £6,000 of present-day currency (Pipe of the thirteenth century were Rolls, 1170-1187).

" the

con

methods of attack, the siege of a motte castle was more or less a question of hand-to-hand fighting, in which every advantage rested with the defenders. We know from our experience of present-day warfare against uncivilised tribes what a formidable defence may be offered, even to troops armed with powerful modern firearms, by a thick hedge and a strong stockade sheltering a determined enemy, and we can readily realise the difficulties an early mediæval force would experience in an attempt to capture one of these earth-and-timber strongholds. Even should they succeed in capturing the bailey, the defenders could take refuge in the stockaded citadel on the summit of the motte, from which advantageous position, a position commanding the entire bailey, they could inflict heavy punishment upon their assailants. Practically speaking, the defenders of one of these earth-and-timber castles had only three dangers to fear-fire, treachery, and starvation. An arrow, tipped with burning tow, might set fire, as occurred at Brionne, to the roof of the great hall in the bailey, or even, in very dry weather, to the stockading on the summit of the motte, but this danger was, to a certain extent, minimised by piling up sods, soaked in water, against the exterior face of the stockading, or by covering the timber defences with skins newly flayed or soaked in water. Treachery was always difficult to guard against, and was probably responsible for the capture of many an otherwise impregnable fortress. A prolonged siege by a large force who had possession of the surrounding country might lead to the ultimate surrender of the stronghold through scarcity of victuals, water, or ammunition, but we knowl that the blockade, by the Conqueror, of Hubert de Maine's castle of Ste-Suzanne lasted three years, and that eventually the assailants were compelled to abandon the attack, and there are numerous other instances which prove clearly enough that in case of attack the advantages lay preponderatingly on the side of the defenders.

We may now proceed to examine in more detail the Norman castles of the North Riding, taking them in alphabetical order for convenience in reference. The writer feels that some apology is necessary for the amount of space devoted to this catalogue of the Norman castles, the great majority of Castles of the British Isles, p. 345), constructed an earth-and-timber castle which castle was completely demolished in the Island of Rhé, at the mouth of and the motte destroyed in the reign the Garonne (Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1232of Edward I, when a stone castle was 1247, quoted by Mrs. Armitage, Early built (Mr. Orpen, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxii, Norman Castles, p. 350). 454). Even as late as 1242, Henry III 1 Ord. Vit., vii, 10.

which are now only represented by earthworks, but the bulk of the information given has never previously been placed before the readers of the Journal.

BROMPTON (in Pickering Lythe). Here we have what would certainly appear to be a mutilated motte, and signs of the presence of masonry foundations ; but until the site is excavated it is impossible to say anything definite. Hinderwell, writing in 1798, tells us that the foundations of an ancient castle were then visible on an eminence called “ Castle Hill," and a local tradition exists to the effect that a castle stood here. At the time of the Surveył the manor formed part of the honour of Settrington? (East Riding), held by Berenger de Todeni, and as no traces of a Norman castle exist on the twenty-one manors held by him in the North Riding except at this place, it does not appear unreasonable to suggest that these earthworks may mark the site of a stronghold erected by him during the reign of the Conqueror. Berenger died without issue, and his wife, Albreda, 3 married Robert de L'Isle some time previous to 1115-1118.4 “As early as the reign of Henry I," says Mr. William Farrer, D.Litt., in a letter to the writer, “Brompton had been granted out by Robert de L'Isle to the Cleres, who enfeoffed Eustace FitzJohn, after whose day it descended with Westthorpe and Snainton in the line of Vescy as a member of the Bigod fee. The principal demesne of the Cleres was at Sinnington; they were a Norfolk family, and had property in Hampshire also.” Of the history of the castle we know nothing.

BUTTERCRAMBE.

History.-At the time of the Survey this manor belonged to Hugh Fitz-Baldric, but on his death, late in the reign of

was

the Conqueror or early in that of Rufus, it came into the possession of Robert de Stuteville, nicknamed “Frontdebos," i.e. “Oxhead," who, previous to 1106, gave tithes and a bovate of land here to St. Mary's, York. The original Stuteville Castle was probably at Langton? (East Riding), and Buttercrambe may have been erected c. 1090. Robert was one of the adherents of Robert, Duke of Normandy, against Henry I, and being taken prisoner at Tinchebrai was imprisoned for life, and his North Riding estates confiscated.3 William de Stuteville, his son, would appear to have regained possession of a portion of his father's property_including Buttercrambe-and

one of the principal commanders at the battle of the Standard. His son, Robert, in II Henry II, certified his

, knights' fees as eight in number. The old timber castle probably developed into a stone fortress under William de Stuteville—the son of Robert II -in or about the year 1200,8 and remained the property of the family until Joan, daughter and heiress of Nicholas de Stuteville, carried it in marriage to Hugh Wake. Her Inq. p. m. was taken in 1276, when her son and heir, Baldwin Wake, was aged 38.? Description. This castle occupied a site of considerable

— strategic importance in what is now known as Aldby Park, on the west bank of the Derwent, amid beautiful scenery. Camden8 tells us that he saw upon the top of the hill what appeared to be the rubbish of an old castle,” which statement would go to support the theory that it evolved into a stone castle, but nothing appears to be known of its history. A modern house and garden now occupies the site, and the whole of the earthworks have been so much mutilated that only two small hillocks connected by a bank-possibly part of the bailey enceinte-now remain. D.Litt., V.C.H. of Yorks., vol. ii, p. 177), work near the rectory at Langton may but he does not appear to have had a son. represent Goisfrid's Castle. Mr. Farrer thinks (ibid., p. 178) that 3 Ord. Vit. Eccl. Hist., book xi, he died whilst the summary of the ch. xxi (ed. Le Prevost), iv, 234. Survey was being completed.

CARLTON-IN-COVERDALE.

At Carlton-in-Coverdale,1 some 900 feet above sea level, is what appears to be an artificial motte of conical shape, which may mark the site of a small outpost castle connected with the fortress of Middleham. Nothing, however, would appear to be recorded as to its history. If there really were a small castle here, it would probably be occupied by a few retainers whose principal duty may have been to protect the shepherds, for the Fitz-Randolphs of Middleham had extensive rights of pasturage in the vale of Kettlewell, and there was certainly an ancient road running via Carlton from Middleham to Kettlewell.

CASTLE LEAVINGTON.5 (Fig. 1.) History.-At the time of the Survey the manor on which this interesting earthwork stands was the property of the Crown, and was known as Alia Lenton.? Very late in the reign of the Conqueror or early in that of Rufus it was granted, 8 with other property in Cleveland, to Robert de Brus, a baron who would not appear to have come to England until about that time.' The castle was probably founded early in the reign of Stephen, and its erection may have been due to a desire to defend the outlying parts of the Brus barony during the intestinal disorders of that unhappy period. Like Castleton, the other fortress constructed by Robert de Brus, Castle Leavington was a purely motte stronghold, devoid of a bailey. We shall see, under Castleton, that Henry II took from Adam de Brus his castle and lordship of Danby, and it seems probable that he also compelled him to dismantle his fortress of Castle Leavington. An account of the manor in 1274 makes no mention

1 Carlton is thus mentioned in the Survey, fo. 3116: " In Carleton 6 carucates for geld, and 4 ploughs can be (there). Bernulf had a manor there ; now the same (Bernulf) has (it) of the Count, and it is waste. Underwood, with plain land, 4 leagues in length and half (a league) in breadth. T.R.E. it was worth 16s." Mr. William Farrer, D.Litt., in the V.C.H. of Yorks, vol. ii, p. 158, says that Bernulf's manors at a later date were incorporated in the fee of Ribald of Middleham, the ancestor of the Fitz-Randolphs. 2 Such

a castle would probably consist merely of a shed inside the palisade on the summit of the motte.

Middleham had extensive rights of pasturage in Kettlewelldale over the watershed from Coverdale."

Speight, in his Romantic Richmondshire, says that the coaches from Richmond to London used to go by this old road through Carlton from Richmond to Kettlewell.

5 The ancient and more correct spelling is Levington.

6 D.B., fo. 300b, col. 2.

? It was not until after the castle was erected in the reign of Stephen that the manor became known as Castle Levington.

$ D.B., fo. 332b, col. 1.

8