Page images
[blocks in formation]

stockade on top of the motte, with the wooden tower or towers which would certainly be added to it. Wace states that this wooden castle was brought over in pieces in the ships of the Count of Eu.1



The masonry now existing at the castle is probably none of it older than the reign of Henry II. at the earliest, and most of it is certainly much later. The Pipe Rolls show that Henry II. spent £235 on the castle of Hastings between the years 1160 and 1181, and it is indicated that some of this money was for stone, and some was for a keep (turrim). There is no tower large enough for a keep at Hastings now, nor have any stone foundations been found on the motte, and Mr Harold Sands, who has paid particular attention to this castle, concludes that Henry II.'s keep has been carried away by the sea, which has probably torn away at least 2 acres from the area of the castle.* The beautiful

Bello, p. 3, ed. 1846. There is also the evidence of Ordericus, who says that Humphrey de Tilleul received the custody of Hastings Castle "from the first day it was built." iv., 4.

Par conseil firent esgarder

Boen lieu a fort chastel fermer.
Donc ont des nes mirrien iete,

A la terre l'ont traine,

Que le quens d'Ou i out porte
Trestot percie e tot dole.
Les cheuilles totes dolees
Orent en granz bariz portees.
Ainz que il fust avespre
En ont un chastelet ferme ;
Environ firent une fosse,

Si i ont fait grant fermete.-Andresen's edition, p. 289.

2 The north curtain is of ruder work than the other masonry.

3 In attractu petre et calcis ad faciendam turrim de Hasting 67. Idem 137. 125. Vol. xviii., p. 130. The work must have been extensive, as it is spoken of as "operatio castelli novi Hasting." 1181-1182. Though the sum given is not sufficient for a great stone keep, it may have been supplemented from other sources.

* See Mr Sands' paper on Hasting's Castle, in Trans. of the SouthEastern Union of Scientific Societies, 1908.

on the

fragment of the Chapel of St Mary is probably of Henry II.'s reign; the walls and towers east side of the castle appear to be of the 13th century. The ditch does not run round the motte, but is cut through the peninsular rock on which the castle stands, the motte and its ward being thus isolated. The form of this bailey is now triangular, but it may have been square originally. Beyond the ditch is another bailey, defended by earthen banks and by a second ditch cut through the peninsula. No exact estimate can be given of the original area of the castle, as so much of the cliff has been carried away by the sea.

Hastings itself had been a fortified town before the Norman Conquest, and is one of those mentioned in the Burghal Hidage. The name Hæstingaceaster, given to it in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1050), is a proof that the Saxons used the name chester for constructions of their own, as no Roman remains have been found at Hastings. But the Norman castle is outside the town, on a cliff which overlooks it. As in the case of the other ports of Sussex, the castle was committed to an important noble, in this case the Count of Eu.

The manor of Bexley, in which Hastings Castle stood, had been laid waste at the Conquest; at the date of the Survey it was again rising in value, though it had not reached the figure of King Edward's days.'

1 This bailey has been supposed to be a British or Roman earthwork, but no evidence has been brought forward to prove it, except the fact that discoveries made in one of the banks point to a flint workshop on the site

2 Totum manerium valebat T. R. E. 20 libras, et postea wastum fuit. Modo 18 libras 10 solidos. D. B., i., 18a, 2.

Since the above was written, Mr Chas. Dawson's large and important work on Hastings Castle has appeared, and to this the reader is referred for many important particulars, especially the passages from the Pipe Rolls, i., 56, and the repeated destructions by the sea, ii., 498-9. The reproduction of

[blocks in formation]

HEREFORD.-There can be little doubt that the castle of Hereford was built by the Norman Ralph, Earl of Hereford, Edward the Confessor's nephew, about the year 1048.1 It was burnt by the Welsh in 1055, after which Harold fortified the town with a dyke and ditch; but as Mr Freeman remarks, it is not said that he restored the castle. The motte of Earl Ralph is now completely levelled, but it is mentioned several times in documents of the 12th century, and is described in a survey of 1652, from which it appears that it had a stone keep tower, as well as a stone breastwork enclosing a small ward.* It stood outside the N.W. corner 'of the bailey, surrounded by its own ditch; the site is still called Castle Hill. If the castle was not restored before the Norman Conquest it was certainly restored afterwards, as in 1067 we find the "men of the castle fighting with Edric Child and the Welsh. The castle appears to have had stone walls by the time of Henry II., as the mention of a kiln for their repair proves." But these walls had wooden towers. The timber ordered in 1213 "ad hordiandum castellum nostrum de Hereford "" Herbert's plan of 1824 (ii., 512) seems to show more than one bailey outside the inner ward. The evidence for a great outer ditch, enclosing all these works, and supposed to be prehistoric, is given on p. 515, vol. ii.

[ocr errors]

1 See Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1048 (Peterborough) and 1052 (Worcester), and compare with Florence of Worcester.

2 N. C., ii., 394.

3 Pipe Rolls, 11 Henry II., p. 100, and 15 Henry II., p. 140. Stephen granted to Miles of Gloucester "motam Hereford cum toto castello." Charter cited by Mr Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Appendix O, p. 329.

4 Cited by Grose, Antiquities, ii., 18. Stukeley saw the motte, and mentions the well in it lined with stone. Itin. Curiosum, i., 71. See also Duncombe's History of Hereford, i., 229.

In custamento prosternandi partem muri castri nostri de Hereford, et preparatione rogi ad reficiendum predictum murum, 26s. 6d. Pipe Rolls, 1181-1182.

6 In operatione 5 bretaschiarum in castro de Hereford, £15, 35. 9d. Pipe Rolls, 1173-1174.

Close Rolls, i., 134a.

refers to the wooden alures or machicolations which were placed on the tops of walls for the purpose of defending the bases.

Though Hereford was a private castle in the Confessor's reign, it was claimed for the crown by Archbishop Hubert, the Hubert, the Justiciary, in 1197, and continued to be a royal castle throughout the 13th century.1

The bailey of Hereford Castle still exists, with its fine banks; it is kite-shaped and encloses 5 acres. The castle stood within the city walls, in the south-east angle.

The value of Hereford appears to have greatly increased at the date of the Survey.2

[ocr errors]

HUNTINGDON (Fig. 18).—“There were twenty houses on the site of the castle, which are now gone." Ordericus tells us that the castle of Huntingdon was built by William on his return from his second visit to York in 1068. Huntingdon had been a walled town in Anglo-Saxon times, and was very likely first fortified by the Danes, but was repaired by Edward the Elder. As in the case of so many other towns, the houses outside the walls had to pay geld along with those of the city, and it was some of the former which were displaced by the new Norman castle. Huntingdon was part of the patrimony of Earl Waltheof, and came to the Norman, Simon de Senlis, through his marriage with Waltheof's daughter and heiress. The line of Senlis ended in

1 Hubertus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus et totius Angliæ summus Justiciarius, fuit in Gwalia apud Hereford, et recepit in manu sua castellum de Hereford, et castellum de Briges, et castellum de Ludelaue, expulsis inde custodibus qui ea diu custodierant, et tradidit ea aliis custodibus, custodienda ad opus regis. Roger of Howden, iv., 35, R. S.

2 D. B., i., 179.

3 "In loco castri fuerunt 20 mansiones, quæ modo absunt." D. B., i., 203. 4 Ordericus, ii., 185.



another heiress, who married David, afterwards the famous king of Scotland; David thus became Earl of Huntingdon. In the insurrection of the younger Henry in 1174, William the Lion, grandson of David, took sides with the young king, and consequently his castle was besieged and taken by the forces of Henry II.,1 and the king ordered it to be destroyed. The Pipe Rolls show that this order was carried out, as they contain a bill for "hooks for pulling down the stockade of Huntingdon Castle," and "for the work of the new castle at Huntingdon, and for hiring carpenters, and crooks, and axes."2 We learn from these entries that the original castle of the Conquest had just been replaced by a new one, very likely a new fortification of the old mounds by William, in anticipation of the insurrection. We also learn that the new castle was a wooden one; for a castle which has to be pulled down by carpenters with hooks and axes is certainly not of stone. It does not appear that the castle was ever restored, though 'the chapel of the castle" is spoken of as late as the reign of Henry III.

The motte of Huntingdon still exists, and has not the slightest sign of masonry. The bailey is roughly square, with the usual rounded corners; the motte was inside this enclosure, but had its own ditch. The whole area was 2 acres, but another bailey was subsequently added.

1 Benedict of Peterborough, i., 70. The Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, threw up a siege castle against it.

2 "Pro uncis ad prosternandum palicium de Hunted, 7s. 8d. In operatione novi castelli de Hunted, et pro locandis carpentariis et pro croccis et securibus et aliis minutis rebus, 217" Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II., pp. 50, 63. It is clear that the operatio was in this case one of pulling down. Giraldus (Vita Galfredi, iv., 368, R. S.) and Diceto (i., 404, R. S.), both say the castle was destroyed.

3 Mon. Ang., vi., 80.

« PreviousContinue »