# Archaeological Journal/Volume 29/Some Account of Guildford Castle

The Archaeological Journal.
MARCH, 1872.
SOME ACCOUNT OF GUILDFORD CASTLE.
By G. T. CLARK.
Guildford Castle, of which the keep was always the most prominent, and is now the chief remaining feature, is in position, age, structure, and dimensions a very remarkable fortress.
It is true, indeed, that though of great age, neither the town nor the castle have played any great part in English history. The town was never walled; the castle never stood a siege. No considerable battle was ever witnessed from its towers; no parliament nor great council was ever held within its hall. Though always a royal manor, and long maintained as a royal residence, it was used also as a prison, and is but rarely mentioned, either in the records or by the chroniclers. The castle was not garrisoned in the great civil war, and so escaped being dismantled and blown up by either king or parliament. Its state of decay is due to the effects of time, powerfully aided by the local greed for building materials. Nevertheless, though wanting in many of the points of interest often attaching to English military buildings, Guildford Castle has certain peculiarities of its own not unworthy of notice, and which it is the object of this paper to set forth and explain.
The great chalk range, which forms the bulwark of London, and the southern limit of the vale of the Thames, from its mouth to the border of Hampshire, is contracted towards the west into a narrow but elevated ridge, which extends from Reigate nearly to Farnham, and, resting upon the firestone and gault of the Weald of Kent and Surrey, supports the clay and gravels of the London basin.
​This ridge, generallv unbroken, is traversed by two wellknown gorges about twelve miles apart, of which the eastern is occupied by the Mole at Dorking and Mickleham, and the western by
"The chalky Wey, that rolls a milky wave."
The Wey, the tributaries of which rise widely over much of Surrey and the eastern part of Hampshire, is, where it cleaves the chalk, a considerable stream, much less milky than in the days, or rather in the verse, of Pope; and twelve miles below the pass it falls into the Thames at Weybridge.
The town of Guildford is placed Upon the right or eastern batik of the river, well within, that is, north-east of the gorge, and within and a little above the town is the castle. As the ridge is here steep and lofty, and the gorge deep and moderately narrow, it might be supposed that this pass would at all times have been important to whoever wished to defend London and the Thames from invaders from the south. In position it is to the south of London what Berkhampstead Castle is on the north; both are placed in gorges of the chalk, both upon tributaries of the Thames; both are late Norman castles, founded upon earlier Saxon earthworks, and both were for centuries held direct by the Crown. Guildford, however, unlike Berkhampstead, though the nucleus of a large town, has no military history. Although Surrey and Sussex are by no means deficient in traces of early occupation, the immediate neighbourhood of Guildford is in this respect almost a blank. An early trackway has been talked of as taking the ridge of the Downs, and traces of an irregular and therefore British camp are said to have been formerly observed on St. Martha's hill; but the long chalk crest and slopes of the Downs, so tenacious of the slightest works ever executed on their surface, are not known to exhibit any traces of the encampments or pits, or other works usually attributed to the British, which, considering the dense forest that certainly extended to the foot of the high ground on the south side, and probably on the north, is very singular. Antiquaries, indeed, have placed the capital of the British Regni at Guildford. and the city of Vindomis at Farnham, but nothing beyond general probabilities have been brought forward in favour of either supposition. It is curious, also, ​to observe how completely Celtic names have disappeared from the neighbourhood. Even the rivers, the first to receive and the last to change their names—the Wey, the Wandle, and the Mole—are Saxon, as are the names of Guildford, the chief town of the county and district, Farnham, the ancient episcopal seat, and the villages about them.
Neither are there any very decided marks of Roman occupation in Guildford, The Castle Hill at Hescomb, Hilbury in Puttenham, and Holmbury in Ockley, are said to be rectangular, and therefore Roman earthworks; but neither of the two great Roman roads from the south passes through Guildford. The Watling Street leads from Canterbury by Rochester to Southwark, and the Icknild Street, from Chichester, takes the pass of Mickleham in its way to the same destination. It is very curious that a town so remarkable in position, so strongly posted, and so directly in the way from the south-west to London, and withal so sheltered, and placed close to pastures so fertile, should exhibit no marks of occupation by the Romans, or the earlier or later Britons.
The early history of Guildford, like its name, is Saxon, and, like its name, savours wholly of the arts of peace. Of the "guild," or mercantile community, which in early times must have been established on the "Ford" of the Wey, nothing is recorded; but from the lingering presence of such names as Burgh Road, Burgh Field, and the Bury, it has been supposed that the earliest Saxon municipality was seated on the west, and not, as now, on the east bank of the river. It has been said that the cause of this was the establishment of the fortress on the east bank, and the consequent want of Space for private dwellings. But the fact is probably just the reverse. A fortress, whether Saxon or Norman, would, as a rule, attract inhabitants to place themselves under its protection; and however spacious may have been the area enclosed—and a little under six acres is the very utmost that has ever been assigned to it,—there must always have been ample room between the walls and the river to the north, where the present town is located. If ever the town stood upon the west bank, the balance of probability is in favour of its having been transferred across the stream as soon as the Saxon hold was established there.
​There is reason to believe that the principal thoroughfare of the present town—the High Street—existed in the thirteenth century, and probably some centuries earlier. Guildford is a borough by prescription, and therefore may be of any Saxon date, however early. It has paid the castle the fitting compliment of placing it on the borough shield, which bears "on a mount vert, a castle." The town stands in three parishes; St. Mary's, which includes the castle; Trinity; and, on the west bank of the river, St. Nicholas.
The recorded history of Guildford has no ignoble beginning. It was the property of Alfred, and is first mentioned in his will, between 872 and 885. "To Ethelwald, my brother's son," says the great king, "I bequeath the manor at Godalming and at Gyldeford, and at Steyning." On the death of Ethelwald, childless, Guildford reverted to the West Saxon crown. In the following century, in 1036, Guildford was the scene of the capture of Alfred, the elder brother of the Confessor, and of the massacre of his Norman attendants. As to the particulars of the event, and as to the parts played in it by Godwin, Queen Emma, and Harold Harefoot, testimonies differ, but all agree in the mention of Guildford as the place to which the Atheling was conveyed.
When the Conqueror marched northward from Canterbury, he went by the Watling Street, through Rochester, to Southwark, and thence ascending to Wallingford, turned the position of Guildford, and placed himself between it and the Thames. Its name even does not occur till late in the reign, and then only in the General Survey. From that survey it appears that it had remained crown property. No castle is there mentioned, but that it contained a residence is more than probable, both because it had been so long a royal demesne, and from what is stated as to the Atheling's reception there.
In Domesday Book, as now, Guildford was in the Hundred of Woking. The chief of the royal tenants was Ranulph Flambard, afterwards so celebrated both for his rapacity and his magnificence. He was rector of Godalming, and, as such, held lands in Guildford, which were afterwards appended to his Canonry at Salisbury, to be eventually resumed by Henry II., and attached, with the castle, to the ​Crown. In 2 H. II. the king gave Godalming hundred and manor to the church of Sarum, in exchange for the castles of Devizes and Rueles, or Erlestoke, then held by the bishop of that see.
The Conqueror granted a large plot of ground, upon which much of the modern town, north of the castle and south of High Street, now stands, to a family of the name of Testard, who held it for several generations by a singular tenure recorded in Blount, and are reputed to have built the two churches of St. Mary and Trinity for the use of their tenants—a fact which would go to show that the town was already standing within convenient reach of these churches, of which one is still mainly Norman, and of large area; and, further, makes it improbable that the castle enceinte ever extended far to the north, as the Conqueror was not likely to have granted away any part of the Saxon area. The historians of Surrey estimate the population of Guildford recorded in Domesday at 700 persons.
The internal evidence of the buildings of the castle makes it most probable that the whole of it, keep, hall, and domestic buildings, with its enceinte wall enclosing above five acres, was constructed by Henry II., very early in the reign; but the castle is not mentioned in his reign, nor in that of Richard I. In the Pipe rolls the town appears from time to time as contributing to tallage and other imposts, and in 1 Richard I. the park is named in connection with the canons of Sarum. It also appears from the Rot. Curiæ Regis, 6 Richard I., that an assize was held there. Henry II., probably when he built the castle, seems to have formed a royal park on the opposite side of the river, north of the Hog's Back, the site of which is still indicated by such names as Guildford Park, Wilderness, Stag Hill, and the Manor Farm, the latter being probably the site of the royal lodge.
Captain James, who is conducting the Ordnance Survey of the district, and has paid great attention to the ancient boundaries, and to whose researches I am anxious to acknowledge my obligations, is of opinion that the area of the park was on the north, west, and east, conterminous with the parish of St. Nicholas, and that on the south it was bounded by the crest of the Hog's Back. This tract is said anciently to have contained four manors, but at this time it ​is composed of three very ancient farms, all within one manor.
King John, whose suspicious nature and feverish activity led him to be always in motion, was at Guildford nineteen times in eleven different years. In 1200 he kept Christmas here and equipped his household in new liveries, which, to the king's great but dissembled distrust, the Archbishop of Canterbury proceeded to surpass in splendour. In 1202 he was not here; but there is a charge for £6. 5s. 8d, for work done upon the king's houses, and £1. 6s. 6d. for the transport of wine, and 4s. for the repair of the gaol in the castle. This is the first mention of the castle, and it is curious that is connected with its use as a prison.
In 1204 John was here 9th October, and 7th, 8th, 9th November, and in this year £10 was paid for the repair of the king's houses, and £40 for the expenses of his chamber. John Fitz-Hugh, sheriff of Surrey and Sussex, 1208, 1210-11-12-13 and 1214, was then made keeper of the park. In 1205, the king was here 9th, 10th, 11th of April; 1st August; and 30th, 31st October. On the 7th February, two tuns of wine, the kings prisage, were sent here, and 15th May, two hundred porkers went from hence to Southampton, a supply of flesh to London, and a net to Southwark.
King John was here 28th, 29th, 30th December, 1206, and in 1207, 27th, 28th December. In this year, 28th August, the sheriff of Hants was to take certain prisoners from Sarum Castle, and deliver them to the constable of Guildford Castle. This is the second mention of the fortress, and also as a gaol. In 1208. John was here 25th, 26th, 27th January; and 5th, 6th, 7th April; and in 1210, on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd January; and 8th March. Also in 1212 on the 12th, 13th, and 14th May.
In 1213, on the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th December, King John was here. 3rd January the custody of the county of Surrey, with the castle of Guildford, was committed to Reginald, son of Reginald de Cornhill, to be held during pleasure, and John Fitz-Hugh was ordered to give it np to him. The Cornhills were a family of farmers-general of the revenues of the counties south of London, and between 1164 and 1215, Gervase, Henry, Ralph, and Reginald de Cornhill, appear as sheriffs of Surrey and Sussex then combined. In this ​year, 1213, also one hundred deer, "damos et damas," were given from Guildford to the Archbishop of Canterbury to replenish his park. In 1214, 24th August, 53s. was allowed for the entertainment of the Papal legate, then on his way to revoke the Interdict. Rochester and Guildford Castles are mentioned together in this year as undergoing some repairs.
In 1215, King John was here for a whole week from the 15th to the 21st of January. He had been beaten at Bovines in the preceding July, and had come to Guildford from London, after receiving the demands of the confederate barons agreed and sworn to at Bury. He was probably at that time actively employed in obtaining support from the clergy, in the hope of evading the great charter, which, nevertheless, he was forced to agree to in the following June. On the 18th November, John Fitz-Hugh, who again was sheriff, was ordered to give up the castle to whosoever Peter, Bishop of Winchester, should name to receive it. It was probably made over to Reginald de Cornhill.
In 1216, John paid his last visit to Guildford, and remained there during the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of April. In the June following, the Dauphin Louis was here on his way from Sandwich. With Guildford, he held Reigate then a castle of the Warrens, and Farnham.
Guildford, both castle and park, are mentioned not unfrequently in the reign of Henry III. In 1222, 10th November, £200 was paid for the royal expenses going thither from London. In 1223, 19th January, King Henry was at Guildford. 18th April, allowance was made for building a house of alms in the king's court there. This was probably an office for the receipt of deodands, fines, forfeitures, escheats of felon's goods, and other monies accruing from incidents of feudal tenures, and, it has been supposed, appropriated to charitable uses. 14th May, works were in progress on the king's houses, and 27th May, Richard Dale had ten marcs for repairs in the park; and again, in October, money was paid for fencing it. In 1224, repairs were done to the king's houses, and half a marc paid for making a door. The fencing of the park was proceeded with. In 10 H. III., William de Coniers was governor for the king, as were in 30, and 53 H. III., Elias Mansel and William d'Aguillon.
In 24 H. III., 4th April. the sheriff of Surrey was ordered ​to repair the glass windows of the king's houses and chapel at Guildford, broken by the storm, and the houses unroofed thereby were to be restored. In 29 H. III., the vill of Guildford is mentioned as vested in the king; the sheriff was to enclose the area by the kitchen which the king had purchased, with a wall conveniently answering to the other wall by which the said court is enclosed; and he is to repair the two piers of the king's hall, which need repair because they are out of the perpendicular. In 30 H. III., 3rd February, the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex is to make "a certain chamber at Guildford, for the use of Edward, the king's son, with proper windows well barred, which is to be 50 ft. long and 26 ft. wide . . . with a privy chamber . . . so that the chamber of the same Edward be above, and the chamber of the king's noble valets underneath, with fitting windows, and a privy chamber, and a chimney in each chamber. And he is to make under the wall towards the east, opposite the east part of the king's hall, a certain pent-house, which, although narrow, shall be competently long, with a chimney and private chamber, for the queen's wardrobe; and to make in the queen's chamber a certain window equal in width to the two windows which are now there, and as much wider as may be, between the two walls, and as high as becomingly may be, with two marble pillars; and to wainscote that window above, and close it with glass windows between the pillars, with panels which may be opened and shut, and large wooden shutters internally to close over the glass windows; and to cause the upper window in the king's hall towards the west, nigh the dais, to be fitted up with white glass lights, so that in one-half of that glass window there be made a certain king sitting on a throne, and in the other half a certain queen likewise sitting on a throne."
In 40 H. III., these decorations and alterations were still continued, for on the 3rd January, the king being at Guildford, orders the sheriff of Sussex to deliver £100 to the wardens of the king's works at Guildford, "to pay off" certain arrears due for the same works, and for wainscoting the king's chapel, the queen's chapel, the king's chamber, and the other chambers newly built there; and for making the great windows in the king's chapel; for barring the windows of the king's new chamber with iron; making the porch to the hall, of stone; for painting in the hall there, opposite the king's ​seat, the story of Dives and Lazarus; making a certain figure with beasts on the same seat; and lengthening the chamber of the king's chaplain there."
Also on the 5th May following, the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex is ordered to whitewash the king's hall at Guildford within and without. On the 17th June, 45 H. III., 1261, the king visited Guildford, and doubtless examined and took pleasure in the various improvements and decorations he had ordered. All this luxury was probably confined to the hall and royal apartments in the middle ward, for an entry on the Hundred rolls at the commencement of the reign, shows that the Sussex county prisoners were kept at Guildford, and no doubt in the keep.
In 50 H. III., Prince Edward was at Guildford engaged in putting down Sir Adam Gordon, a soldier who, having been outlawed after Evesham fight, had turned freebooter, and made the Surrey woodlands very insecure. Edward came up with and attacked him between Farnham and Alton, took him prisoner in single combat, got him a pardon, and presented him to the queen then at Guildford. At the end of Henry's reign, 52 H. III., the "King's Mills" were removed further down the stream, probably to the site now occupied by their modern successors.
Edward I. became possessed, in due course, of Guildford, and in 27 Ed. I., 1299, the park, castle, and farm of the town, were assigned as part of the dower of Margaret, the king's second wife, and on her death, 10 Ed. II., they reverted to the Crown. Edward was here, 20th January, 31 Ed. I., 1303, resting on his way from Odiham to Windsor.
In 35 Ed. I., 1306, Henry de Say, keeper of the prisoners indicted at the Sussex Assizes, and lodged in Guildford Castle, petitioned that an officer might be sent to receive their fines and chattels, according to their offences, and that a stronger prison may be provided, the castle being insecure for so many prisoners. The answer, recorded on the rolls of Parliament, is terse. "Si career sit nimis debilis, facias, Custos, emendari; si nimis strictus, faciat elargari; quia Rex non est avisatus mutare locum prisonarum suarum: vel saltem teneat eos in vinculis fortioribus." "Double iron the prisoners" was at one time a usual and certainly an economical way of securing their safety. It is probable that ​it was under these circumstances of great pressure that the mural oratory in ihc keep was employed as a prison.
In the king's circular to the sheriff, 1 Ed. II., 1307, 15th Dec, which was followed by the edict confiscating the goods of the Templars, the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex was ordered to repair to Guildford. In 15 Ed. 11., Oliver de Burdegala, governor, had a writ of privy seal directing the castle to be victualled and garrisoned.
Guildford, 2 Ed. III.. 1328, was the head-quarters of the sheriff of Surrey, who was ordered to go there to prevent tournaments from being held. On the 8th March, 1329, the king was at Guildford; also 28th Feb. and 26th Dec. 1330; 18th—20th Nov. 1331; 2d Sept. 1334; and 18th—24th April, 1336, so that the castle was in not infrequent use as a royal residence. In this last year the king granted the town in fee farm to the corporation, reserving only the park and castle. On the 23d April, 1337, 11 Ed. III., the king ordered that Robert d'Artoys should have a right to be hospitably received, should he visit the royal castles of Guildford, Wallingford, or Somerton, and he might sport in the park at Guildford.
In the same year, 24th Dec, Edward was himself at Guildford, as he was in 1340, and again 27th—28th Dec 1347, in which year the commonalty of Sussex petitioned that Chichester, in place of Guildford, might be the county gaol. The petition was set aside, and in 41 Ed. III. the sheriff still held his official residence in the castle, which was the prison, as before, for the two counties. 42 Ed. III. 1368, 28th July, the king was here. 43 Ed. III. the custody of the castle and park was given to Helmyng Legatte for life. Edward was again here, 45 Ed. III. 1371, on the 12th of May, probably for the last time.
In 1 Richard II., Sir Simon Burley was constable of the castle, and afterwards Sir Hugh Waterton, on whose death, 10 H. IV., Sir John Stanley had the office also for life, and his appointment was confirmed by Henry V. By that time the custody of the park was evidently an office more coveted than that of the castle
What occurred in the castle during the wars of York and Lancaster is not known, save that it was the scene of no event of importance, and it certainly continued still to play the ignoble part of a common prison, for in 3 H. VII. 1487, ​the old complaint is revived, and the county of Sussex again petitions for a gaol of its own, and under its own sheriff, suggesting Lewes as a proper place. This time the prayer was granted, and probably the Surrey prisoners either then or soon afterwards were bestowed elsewhere, though the two counties continued long after this to be placed under one sheriff. As late as 1620 a Sussex gentleman, Nicholas Eversfield, was sheriff of the two counties, and the jurisdiction does not appear to have been finally divided till 1637.
Finally, in 1611—12, after having been attached to the Crown at least from the days of Alfred, or 700 years, the castle and its enceinte were granted by James I. to Francis Carter of Guildford, who died in 1617, and whose son, John Carter, is described as dwelling in the castle in 1623. His eldest son Francis died in 1668, leaving a daughter only, and it is his brother, the second son, John Carter, whose initials, "J. C. 1699," stand upon a tablet within and above the great gateway in Quarry Street. The castle has since remained in private hands, and is now the property of Lord Grantley.
The above extracts, mainly taken from those given by Mr. Parker in his valuable volumes on Domestic Architecture in the middle ages, will have shown that the fittings and adornments of the castle were chiefly due to Henry III. That prince, who was a great patron of the arts, and especially of architecture and painting, paid great attention to the royal residences. Unfortunately his decorations were for the most part confined to the hall and principal domestic apartments, but few of which, anywhere, have survived. At Guildford the destruction has been peculiarly sweeping, and the only remaining structure, the keep, does not seem to have participated in the royal care. The keeps of Norman castles, inhabited but rarely, and only during a siege, even by those who built them, seem very soon to have been altogether deserted for more convenient lodgings in the lower and more spacious wards. The keep was then used as a store- house or a barrack, or as at Guildford, as a prison, and very little was spent upon its repairs, and nothing upon its decoration. It is, however, in consequence of this neglect, that the Norman keeps, where they have not been pulled down, remain pretty much as they were originally built, or with only such additions as may easily be detected, or such diminutions as may readily be supplied. This is particu​larly the case with the keep of Guildford, the additions to, or alterations in, which, are of the rudest character, and may readily be detected, while of the masonry of the original structure little is wanting save the parapets and angle turrets, and some details connected with the approach and entrance.
Guildford Castle occupied a natural platform of nearly six acres upon the slope of the chalk hill, far below its summit, and from 40 to 80 feet above the river. The platform, inclining gently towards the stream, terminates at about 80 yards from its bank in a low cliff of from 10 to 12 ft. high, in parts replaced by and in parts resting upon a steep natural slope or talus, which dies away 40 ft. lower down, into the meads traversed by the river. The crest of this cliff or talus is occupied by Quarry Street, and forms the west front of the castle. Towards the north, the river is more distant, and the slope of the platform far more gradual. On this side, the High Street and the present town of Guildford intervene between the castle and the river.
The keep stands on the eastern and highest part of the platform, and commands the rest of the castle, as the castle commands the town; and here are what appear to be the remains of the Saxon residence. At the foot of the steep, a mound, wholly artificial, but resting upon an inclined natural base, has been thrown up, composed of chalk, in form conical, truncated, and with a level summit, no doubt originally circular, and still nearly so, and about 90 ft. diameter. The base is about 200 ft. Between the mound and the adjacent steep hill-side is the main, and perhaps a trace of a second and outer, ditch. This inner ditch, about 60 ft. broad and 12 to 20 ft. deep, sweeps round the foot of the mound on the east, north, and south sides, the ends dying out on reaching the platform on the west below. The ditch, always dry, has long been cultivated as a garden, and was no doubt once considerably deeper. Its north limb is partially built upon by the houses in Castle Street, and is, in consequence, nearly obliterated. It is traversed at the north-east quarter by a narrow causeway of earth, which no doubt represents an older causeway of stone, provided with a drawbridge, and forming a direct entrance for foot passengers, and perhaps horses, to the keep. Beyond this ditch, to the east and southeast, in the extra-parochial plot ​called the "Bowling Green," are very slight traces of what may have been a second and outer ditch, a not unlikely precaution to have been taken by the inhabitants of the mound against an attack on this the weakest, because the commanded, side.
The mound on the eastern face, measured from the scarp of the ditch, is about 30 ft. high, but on the western side, where it rises from a lower level, it is about 50 ft., or 92 ft. above the river. The mound and the ditch evidently supported and protected the dwelling of the Saxon lord, and it is probable that upon the platform below, where the Norman king afterwards placed his hall and offices, were lodged the serfs and dependants of the Saxon household. Judging from the close analogy of Leicester, Tamworth, Tutbury, and other earthworks of known date, the earthworks of Guildford may, with great probability, be referred to the earlier part of the tenth century.
The keep, a rectangular structure, covers the eastern slope of the mound, but is placed a little to the south of its central line, so as to allow of a gateway (now gone) at its north-east angle, and a passage up the mound outside the north wall. The east, or lower wall rests on the un- disturbed ground, a little above the level of the scarp of the ditch, and the west, or upper wall upon the edge of the level summit of the mound, nearly the whole of which thus extends undisturbed to the west and north-west of the building. The difference in level of the base of the two faces of the keep is about 15 ft. It is exceedingly rare to find a rectangular keep placed upon an artificial mound. Guildford and Christchurch in Hampshire are the only recorded examples. The latter is built wholly upon it.
The keep stands nearly by the points of the compass, measuring 46 ft. north and south, by 52 ft. cast and west. The wall is perfect to the base of the parapet, a height, on the west front of about 63 ft. The masonry of the lower side contains more ashlar, and is of better quality than the rest, to prevent the structure from slipping. Of the depth of the foundations nothing is known, but the thickness of the wall—at least 11 ft. at the visible base—would serve to distribute the load, and chalk, even when made ground, does not make a bad foundation. There was, no doubt, a risk in placing so heavy a building upon an ​artificial hill even though a couple of centuries old, but the result has justified the means employed, fur there is not a crack nor mark of settlement in the whole edifice. Grose represents some half-buried arches on the south side, not now visible, but which, if they ever existed, which is more than doubtful, might indicate that parts of the building rested on piers, carried down to the solid ground. However, enough of the wall is bared to show that this is not the case. What Grose took for an arch was probably a low course of inclined or half-herring-bone masonry. Others have described an opening on this side, supposed to lead into a sub-basement vault, which there is no reason for supposing to exist. The machicolations cited in evidence as defending this fabulous doorway, are the vents of a garde-robe in the upper story.
The four faces of the keep are generally alike. Each is flanked by two pilasters of 4 ft. 6 in. wide, by 9 ft. projection, so placed as not to cap the angle, but to convert it into a hollow or re-entering one. This hollow was left open, not filled up, as at Scarborough and elsewhere, by a bold bead or engaged column. In the centre of each face is a third and similar pilaster, but 5ft. wide. Probably these rested below upon a plinth common to the whole building; but if so, this is gone. Each pilaster is of equal breadth and projection throughout, having no sets-off. The central pilasters run up to the base of the parapet, now gone. Those at the angles were continued to form the usual square turrets, of which some slight though clear remains still rise above the curtain.
The material employed for the exterior is chiefly Bargate stone, from the bed representing the chalk marle, immediately beneath the chalk. This is worked up as rubble, interspersed irregularly with courses of the same stone, laid herringbone fashion, for which the larger and flatter stones have been selected. The work is very rough. The herringbone courses are laid at all heights and distances; some broken, some mere single inclined stones, and here and there, especially near the top, are occasional courses of flints, some of which look like insertions. The angles, salient and re-entering, of the pilasters, are of the same stone, cut as ashlar, and well jointed; but between these quoins the pilasters are usually of rubble, sometimes herringboned. Above the ​parapets the angle turrets seem to have been of ashlar. There is no string-course, shelf, or set-off upon the face of the wall. The west central pilaster, being pierced by the entrance, is mainly of ashlar, as is the pilaster and adjacent wall, about the north-east angle of the building, where the gate of the ward seems, from traces in the masonry, to have abutted. Here, too, the joints being very wide, are made good with single or double rows of thin ordinary bright red roofing tiles. The base of the east face was repaired about forty years ago, and now has a modern ashlar plinth of about 15 ft. high. The ashlar within reach on the other faces has been pillaged, and the base of the wall generally is very hollow and ragged. The hearting of the walls throughout seems composed of chalk and Bargate stone, very roughly laid and grouted.
The walls are everywhere pierced with putlog holes, about 4 in. square, indications of the method of construction, and probably originally but loosely stopped, to allow the work to dry, and for the convenience of future repairs. There are no large holes above, and no signs of a bretache having been employed. Four double windows on the upper floor and one on the east face of the middle floor, though original, have been fitted up with cut brick mullions and arches, of perhaps two hundred years ago, the work no doubt of the first purchaser. All earlier alterations seem to have been effected in stone.
Having thus disposed of the general exterior of the keep, the next step is to describe its interior details. Allowing for the removed plinth or casing, three of the faces are about 11 ft. thick, and the fourth or east about 14, so that the interior dimensions are 24 ft. north and south, by 27 ft. east and west. The building is composed of a basement, and two upper stories, and the floors and roof were of timber. There is no evidence of any subterranean chamber, and no reason for supposing one.
The basement, on the level of the top of the mound, is about 12 feet high. The walls are pierced in the centre of the north and south faces with a round headed recess 5 ft. wide, and about the same height to the springing. The sides and vaulted roof converge to an exterior loop, and the base is stepped up to it. The work is good plain rubble. The east and west walls were originally solid, and the only ​entrance to this floor must have been by a ladder and trap from the flour above. It was of course a store or cellar, as usual.
At a later date, a doorway, 4 ft. 6 in. broad and 8 ft. to the springing, has been cut through the west wall near the north end. This has a slightly pointed arch. Its masonry is a small weak rubble without any dressings; and this, and the absence of bond with the older work, show it to be an insertion. In the north-east corner the wall has been rudely cut away to some depth, to form a fire-place and an oven. The bricks composing these have been removed, and a recent pier of masonry supports the wall above. The chimney shaft of this and a fire-place in the floor above, have been formed by cutting away the inner face of the wall, which has been rudely restored. No doubt all this is the work of the purchaser, who seems to have lived in the keep, and converted the basement into a kitchen. In the south-west corner is a small platform of stone, said to have carried a wooden stair communicating with the floor above, and of the date of the kitchen. This is probable enough. One of the stones is a late Norman capital, brought from some other part of the castle. The whole interior of this basement is rubble. It contained neither fire-place nor garde-robe. The two loops, its only light, are about 18 in. high, and were probably 4 in. broad, though now increased by weather to 6 in.
The first or state floor was about 30 ft. high, fairly lighted, and contained various mural chambers, in the centre of the west side was the entrance from without, and in each of the other three sides a window. These were of two lights, or rather composed of two tall narrow round-headed windows, coupled under one round head outside, and a similar vaulted recess inside. These recesses commenced about a loot above the floor level, and are 4 ft. 4 in. wide, and to the springing about 12 ft. high. Their sides are parallel, not convergent, and each contained four steps ascending towards the window. There are no mouldings nor decorations, but the quoins are ashlar. The window, arches, imposts and jambs, are plain and good. The central window piers or mullions are gone, but in two cases the small head arches remain. In the third case, that in the east face, the window has been removed and replaced by one in brick, but the recess is untouched.
​The entrance is 3 ft. 4 in. broad, 9 ft. high, and about 14 ft. from the ground. It is lined with good ashlar; but with a barrel-vault, round headed, in rubble. The outer portal occupies the whole breadth of the central pilaster, being about 5 ft. wide. It is very slightly but decidedly pointed. There is no portcullis groove, and but one, an outer, door, well strengthened by bar holes. Below the springing are two small holes, now stopped, for an iron bar, rather low for a centring, and possibly connected with a light drawbridge. The door is in the centre of the west face, as is the opposite window of the east face; but the north window is at the west end of its face, about 3 ft. from the corner, and the south window is placed diagonal to it, at a similar distance from the south-east corner. The three windows were all of one pattern.
Besides these openings, there are, at the same level, three mural chambers and a staircase. The principal chamber occupies the south-west angle, and is in plan a right angle with two limbs, like the capital letter L. That in the west wall is 5 ft. 6 in. broad by 14 ft. long: that in the south wall 4 ft. 10 in. broad by 23 ft. long; but as each is measured over the breadth of the other, the total length of the chamber measured on the outer wall, is 37 ft., and measured along the inner wall only 26 ft. 8 in. The chamber is partly lined with chalk ashlar and partly with rubble, and the vault, barrel and round-headed, is of rubble. The vault springs from a plain Norman abacus. The height to the springing is about 7 ft. The outer wall of this chamber, in length 37 ft., has been lined throughout with an arcade, originally of ten arches, of which six remain quite perfect, and of most of the others there are traces. The arcade is of late Norman work, the piers delicate, the caps very highly carved, the arches round-headed. The whole is recessed in the wall, reaches to the springing of the vault, and rests upon a low plinth or dado. There is a loop in the west wall near the north end of the chamber, and another in its south end in the south wall. There is also a third and longer and lower loop at the other end of the south limb, close to and on the right of the priest as he stood before the altar, the place of which at the east end is marked by a bench or step in the wall. One original door was in the west limb, close to the main entrance. In King's time it was perfect, and was round-headed, 2 ft. 4 in. wide and 7 ft. 7 in. high, but it has ​since been broken away. There is a larger rude opening in the south limb, which may represent the place of another door. That this singular and highly ornate chamber was originally an oratory is evident, both from the care bestowed upon it, from the traces of an altar in the east wall, and from the window next the altar.
In Tudor times the south wall was breached and a clumsy flat-topped window of three lights inserted, for which much of the arcade has been cut away, and a rude wall with a door in it has been built across the south limb, probably to convert the oratory into two sleeping places. Upon the chalk ashlar of this chamber have been carved a considerable number of rude representations, apparently the work of one period. Some are simply incised, others carved in relief. There is one very evident Crucifixion with a soldier piercing our Lord's side, the disciples attending, and something like a veiled female figure about to faint. There is also a St. Christopher; a bishop recumbent beneath a crown, and other figures, both ecclesiastic and military. They are evidently the work of persons confined in this apartment, and as they are rude, illiterate, and without any trace of heraldic emblems, they are probably the work of common gaol prisoners, and are likely enough to be of the beginning of the 13th century, when the prison was over- crowded, and every available space sure to have been employed. There was of course a larger chapel in the lower ward, not to mention the parish church of St. Mary, hard by. These carvings have been engraved, but not with the necessary correctness. It speaks little for the public spirit of Guildford that they are not photographed.
On the other or north side of the main entrance, also in the west wall, is a second mural chamber, entered by a narrow, round-headed, original door, 2 ft. 4 in. broad by 7 ft. 7 in. high, quite plain, of ashlar. This chamber has a rude, round-headed barrel vault, and is 9 ft. 2 in. long by 5 ft. 1 in. broad. There is one loop in the west wall. The walls are rubble, but the internal jamb of the door, being of chalk ashlar, bears some carvings in the style of those described above.
The third chamber is in the north wall, at its east end. Its door and much of its inner wall and floor have been removed to allow of the insertion of a fireplace and chimney ​shaft, but enough remains to show that the chamber was 14 ft. long by 3 ft. 2 in. broad, and had a loop in the north wall. The eastern third of this chamber is uninjured. A depression in the floor, quite at the east end, looks as though it had been a garde-robe for the state floor, and this idea is strengthened by the quoining and ashlar-work about the angles at that end. Brayley prolongs this chamber at a right angle into the east wall. This is a pure fiction. The quoining of the end shows that there was nothing further, and the groove in the wall is only meant to support the ends of the boards upon which the vault was turned. The fireplace, close west of this chamber, of which the flue remains, is an insertion. The position of the mural chamber, and of the window, shows however that there may have been an original fireplace here.
There remains to be mentioned the well-stair, which occupies the north-west angle of the keep, commencing at the first-floor level, and ascending to the roof. This stair does not communicate directly with the main chamber, but opens by a small, round-headed door in the jamb of the adjacent north window, where three steps in a short, narrow passage lead up into the base of the well-stair. The stairs are gone, but the cylinder of the well-stair, 8 ft. diameter, remains. As high as the second floor it is lined with excellent chalk ashlar, and lighted by two loops on the west side. A door and passage, similar to that below, ascends by four steps into a recess, not a window, in the north wall of the upper floor. This side door is pointed, but this seems the effect of modern cobbling. It should further be mentioned that the four hollow angles of the first or state floor are quoined with chalk ashlar. The floor rested on no set-off, the walls being of the thickness of the basement.
The second, or upper floor, was about 15 ft. high. There is a set-off at the floor level, reducing the east and west walls by about 2 ft. In this floor are four windows in broad recesses. These on the west and east and south faces are central. The fourth window is towards the east end of the north wall, the centre of that side being occupied by a fireplace much modernised, but which the displacement of the window shows to be original. In the south wall, close to the south-cast angle, a door leads into a small mural garde-robe, with two vents corbelled out over the exterior wall, and ​a loop above them. With this exception there are no mural chambers on this floor, which is singular, seeing that the wall is quite thick enough to carry them. There is however in the west wall, near its north end, one jamb of a walled-up door, which may have been meant to communicate with the stair, or with a mural chamber. It seems never to have been completed. The four angles of this room are quoined in chalk ashlar, as in the room below, and the window recesses had, and one still has, round-headed arches. This floor is very inaccessible, but was visited when these remarks upon it were recorded. The walls are evidently, in the main, original, though much pulled about by the Carter family when they lived here. The recesses also are original, but the windows themselves are cut brick insertions of two lights, arched.
It will be observed that the eastern wall, though very thick, is pierced by no galleries, and, with the exception of two windows, is absolutely solid from base to summit. Probably the object was by placing this mass of firm masonry on the solid ground to give support to the other three sides, and thus prevent them from sliding down the slope of the mound, as was the case with some much lighter and later buildings in a similar position at Cardiff.
It has been stated that the keep stands upon the south- eastern slope of the mound, consequently there is to the west, and in front of its entrance, nearly the whole table summit. This was enclosed by a circular wall, like a shell-keep, about 25 ft. high, which, springing from the south-eastern angle of the keep, seems to have been carried round the mound, commencing at about half its height, until it reached the north-east angle of the keep, at which junction there seems to have been a gateway. Of this circular wall about one-half, either actual or in foundations, remains. The fragment of wall, about 5 ft. thick and 20 ft. high, is evidently of the date of the keep, the same thin red tiles being used in its chalk masonry. Also in this wall is an original garde-robe, apparently of three stages: one at the ward level, one halfway up, and one on the battlements; the three seem to have united in a common shaft, the vent of which is seen outside the base of the wall.
The space thus enclosed by the keep and the circular curtain was the inner ward. How the main door of the ​keep was reached does not appear. There was not the usual barbican tower, as at Norwich or Rochester; the circumscribing wall, and the lofty position of the keep, rendered this unnecessary. A row of small holes at the door level may have belonged to a sort of timber landing, to be reached by a flight of steps of the same material. There is said to have been a well in this ward, about 6 ft. from the west wall of the keep, south of the door.
There remain two wards to be described. The line of the enceinte of the castle seems to have been much as follows: Commencing at the angle of Castle Street and Quarry Street, where the site of the present King's Head inn was probably marked by a tower, the west front took the line of Quarry Street, past the great gateway, to the tower containing a postern, which still marks the south-west angle of the enclosure. Thence the wall passed east till it reached the boundary of the extra-parochial ground, whence, in the line of that boundary, it probably took the curve of the counterscarp of the main ditch, in the direction of the Bowling-green Cottages. There, on the platform at the end of the causeway, was no doubt a barbican covering the direct approach to the keep. Thence the wall seems to have been continued along the line of the ditch, shown by the curve of Castle Street, until it again reached Quarry Street, thus enclosing what corresponds tolerably well to the area of the castle at the sale of 1612, which is described as 5A. 3R. 10P., or nearly six acres. Of this area the part north of the great gateway was shut off by a curtain, parts of which remain, and which seems to have run up the mound to the enceinte of the inner ward. In this, the middle ward, stood the hall and principal buildings, as is clear from the considerable, though fragmentary Norman walls still to be seen, two of which, forming two sides of a large chamber, are very perfect, and one is pierced by a very perfect Norman window recess and loop.
What stood in the area south of the gateway, into which the postern led, is not known. It long contained the gardens of the governor of the gaol, when the castle was employed for that ignoble use, and in it is the celebrated well, connected with the caverns.
The great gate in Quarry Street, though large, is at present a mere opening, perhaps of the age of Henry III., in an ​older, and probably Norman curtain. Whether it was connected with a gatehouse is uncertain, but there is, as already stated, an indication in the masonry that such was the case. Also the portcullis groove is large, and so heavy a grate could not have been worked without a chamber above, carrying a winch. Outside the gate are two buttresses, which have a late Norman aspect. One is nearly perfect, the other has been replaced in brick, but probably upon the old base. The south-west angle of the Quarry Street front is marked by the not inconsiderable remains of the postern tower, adjacent wall, and a large buttress, all pretty clearly late Norman. Towards the north and cast the walls are entirely removed, but in these quarters the line of the ditch affords a clue to the original boundary. The enceinte, thus laid down, measures about 535 yards; its greatest north and south diameter, 170 yards; and east and west, 140 yards. The Quarry Street front is straight and 138 yards long, with the gate nearly in the middle. From the postern tower to the end of the keep causeway is 213 yards, and thence to the King's Head angle, 184 yards.
Captain James has detected traces of a line of wall parallel to and about 30 yards south of the High Street, which may not improbably have been the boundary of an enclosed area appended to the castle, as may the extra-parochial lands on the east and south-east, but the actually defended area of the castle seems to have been as above described.
It may further be observed that Quarry Street, which runs along the foot of the west wall of the castle, and lay between it and the river, seems to have been defended on that side by the low cliff and talus already mentioned, supported probably by the retaining wall, of which traces, and the jamb of a gate, remain; while there is a tradition of a gate crossing the street near the postern of the castle, which probably guarded the approach to the town from the south, the only quarter from which a hostile approach would be apprehended.
Not only are the remains of the domestic buildings of a late Norman character, but among the repairs of the hall, in the reign of Henry III., two of the piers are mentioned as out of the perpendicular, a tolerably conclusive evidence that the hall resembled Oakham and Leicester, and was of Norman date. Altogether, it is sufficiently evident that the ​whole area of the castle was enclosed by its original founder, and is not later than the middle of the twelfth century, the detached fragments of walls and buildings being in substance of the same date with the keep. The castle is in St. Mary's parish, bordered on the north-east by Trinity, and on the east by the extra-parochial plot, the origin of which is not known. Probably the enceinte took in the whole of the residence of the royal Saxon owners.
Those who have supposed that the enceinte of the castle extended to the present High Street, have regarded the two well-known crypts remaining there as proofs of this extent. One of these, on the south side, the writer has not been able to visit; but the other, exactly opposite the former, and about 160 yards from the keep, he has examined, and it is said that the two are of the same age and dimensions, and very nearly alike.
The north crypt, beneath the Angel Hotel, is a rectangular chamber, 31 ft. north and south, by 19 ft. east and west, and divided into two aisles and six bays, by two central piers. The piers are plain cylinders, 18 in. diameter, and 5 ft. 6 in. high. The bases are now concealed; the piers are with- out caps, and quite plain. The roof is vaulted, and 10 ft. 3 in. from the floor to the cornice, groined and ribbed. The arches are drop, and pointed, the ribs chamfered, and springing from carved corbels in the wall. At the south end of each aisle is a window recess, converging and rising to a loop at the street level. The entrance is by a narrow drop-arched door, opening from a rising passage, vaulted, with hanging ribs. This opens into a small chamber, north of, and 4 or 5 ft. above the vault, whence another narrow door probably led up to the ground level. The date of the crypt seems to be of the thirteenth century, and it is quite clear that it never was prolonged southwards towards the other crypt, and was always and only lighted, as now, from the street level. In all probability this was the cellar of some considerable hostel, situate, as now, in the High Street, which, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as now, w as probably the main thoroughfare of the town.
In the immediate neighbourhood of the castle, and, indeed, running under the southern edge of its enceinte, are the celebrated caverns, which have recently been explored, ​and, for the first time, correctly planned by Capt. James, whose excellent account of them, published in this Journal, is well known. These caverns are excavated in the chalk, which forms a cliff south of the town, and from the base of which they are entered. The chalk here dips northerly, at about ten degrees, and the hardest bed, and the most suitable for building purposes, lies at the base of the cliff, and is about 6 or 7 ft. thick. This bed has been largely quarried by open "patching" in the broken ground south of the cliff, which, indeed, is apparently artificial, and produced by these excavations, and it is only when the bed became too deep for that mode of working, that the quarrymen had recourse to mining operations. These later works are, in general plan, composed of a gallery parallel to, and a few feet within the face of the cliff, from which, at a right angle, eight parallel stalls are carried north-eastwards. The extreme points of the excavation are a little over 55 yards north-west and south-cast, by 32 yards north-east and south-west, but the area actually excavated is only about 1,150 yards, and the cubical contents about 2,330 yards. The plan alone would show that they were opened for quarries. But besides this, although much solid chalk has been removed, the excavation is nearly choked up with the immense quantity of "small" produced by unskilful working, and through which narrow paths are left to get at the face of the work. It is evident that this is not debris brought in, nor caused by the fall of the roof, which is remarkably sound. It is simply broken chalk, which has been thrown back as the miners proceeded, and remains undisturbed. The character and presence of this rubbish not only shows that the excavation was a quarry, but that it never was used for anything else, neither as a granary, nor a cellar, nor for human habitation, for nowhere has it been cleared away, so as to set any part of the cavities free for such purposes.
A.—The Mound and Keep.B.—The Ditch.C.—Remains of the Domestic Buildings.D.—Great Gate.E.—Postern Tower.F.—Bowling Green.G.—Proable Upper Postern.
As to the age of these quarries, it is not easy to form a sound opinion. They have been supposed to be British, and various uses have been found for them, quite at variance with the appearances they present. The only argument for such an origin has been overlooked. The town is in Woking hundred, and Woking, like Wokey in Mendip, may be a corruption of the British "Ogof" (fovea), a cave. But Woking was never the name of the town, and the material evidence of the caverns does not favour this theory. They are certainly not British: the plan of the workings excludes this view. No doubt they might be Roman, but there are no traces of Roman buildings in the neighbourhood, and chalk, even hard chalk, is too plentiful all along the ridge to be carried hence to any great distance. The most probable supposition seems to me to be that they were opened by the builders of the Norman Castle, who used chalk largely for their inner, and, indeed, for much of their more exposed, work. The quarries have no communication with any part of the castle. Where they infringe upon its borders they are far too deep to have been employed against it during a mediæval siege.