HELMSLEY CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.
HELMSLEY, the Elmeslae of Domesday and the Hamlake of genealogists, is the name of an extensive tract of wild moorland which lies on the southern slope of the Cleveland Hills, in the north-east corner of the North Riding of Yorkshire. The hills rise to 1,400 feet above the sea, but Helmsley Moor hardly reaches 1,100 feet, and the town of Helmsley, placed where the uplands pass into the plain, scarcely stands at 200 feet.
The real river of Helmsley, descending from the moors, is the Seph; but after its union with the Rye, the stream and the dale bear the name of the latter water, made famous by the Abbey of Rievaulx, about four miles below which, sweeping round the well-wooded promontory of Duncombe, the stream, returning somewhat upon its former course, forms the southern boundary of the castle and the town.
The castle is barely included in Duncombe Park, part of its eastern outwork being traversed by the border. Its position, if not specially striking, is yet strong, and favourable to the works which rendered it in former days almost impregnable. The low platform upon which it stands is mainly of rock, and the labour employed has been rather that of removing than of making ground, the ditches being wholly artificial.
Besides the Rye, which, where it flows about a furlong south of the castle, has low and swampy banks, the Etton beck, close upon the east, between the town and the castle, descends on its way to the Rye, at a level which allowed of its waters being employed to flood the ditches of the fortress.
The plan of the castle is rectangular, and its earthworks are upon a scale not usual with castles of pure Norman origin, and which, notwithstanding their form, raises a surmise that they may be of much earlier date.
The main ward of the castle is about 200 feet square, level, and contained within a deep and broad ditch, completely surrounding it. A moderate bank of earth crowns the edge of the slope, partly, no doubt, original, but in part composed of the ruins of the curtain.
Beyond the ditch, and forming its counterscarp, is a ridge or bank of earth a few feet lower than the level of the ward, and therefore commanded by it. This ridge, interrupted at the southern angle, so as to communicate with the excavations beyond, is expanded upon the north-west front and again still more considerably upon the opposite or south-east front, so as to form a lesser and a greater barbican, covering the two entrances to the place.
Again, beyond the ridge is a second ditch, also encircling the whole place, and passing, therefore, in front of the barbicans. This, in its turn, is succeeded by a second or outer bank, also interrupted, and in three places, at the north, south, and east angles. This also is of variable breadth: somewhere, a mere ridge; in other places, as before the two fronts, expanded into broad platforms, covering the entrances and the approaches to them. Supposing these ditches to contain either water or mud, the interruption in the banks would very much increase the difficulties of those besieging the place, by breaking the communications, and preventing them from attacking the barbicans by the flanks. There are traces, outside this second bank, of a third ditch, which, however, seems to have been confined to such points as were supposed especially to need further protection.
It is evident that an earthwork such as that described, covering above ten acres of ground, and with ditches 60 feet to 70 feet broad, and deep in proportion, would, in resolute hands, and properly palisaded, be a most formidable stronghold. That such was the nature of the defences contemplated seems certain, since the banks would not support masonry; and although the edge of the inner ditch was of firm ground, the bank or crest thrown up upon it was not, and had masonry been contemplated, would have been superfluous.
When the Norman engineer undertook to fortify the place, he seems to have confined himself to the construction of a curtain of 10 feet thick round the inner area, placing it on the firm ground, and employing the earth-bank as a ramp against the wall; to this he added a gatehouse at each end, and a work of some strength as a barbican beyond the inner ditch; then a second gatehouse, placed upon the barbican; and finally a second or outer bridge. On the west side of the inner area, where the rock was firm, a low cliff of 20 feet to 25 feet was substituted for the slope of the ditch.
Besides the enceinte or curtain-wall, the four drawbridges, and probably four gatehouses, there seem to have been four drum-towers—one capping each angle of the place. It is true that these are no longer to be seen; but a circular heap of rubbish at each angle seems to represent such towers which, indeed, were the usual and necessary constituents of such a work, though whether these towers were of the Norman period may be doubted: probably they were later.
In addition to these works, and reared up high above them all, was the rectangular keep, placed near the centre of the east or town side, and upon and forming a part of the enceinte. Opposite to the keep, and also forming a part of the enceinte, but on the west side, and built therefore upon the edge of the cliff, were the domestic buildings, some parts of which remain mixed up with later works. It may be also seen that a cross curtain between the keep and the domestic buildings divided the ward into a northern and a southern court, and it would seem that a fragment now standing, and which has much the air of having been part of a chapel, was connected, as at Knaresborough, with this wall.
The keep appears to have been a square of 53 feet, and although about 9 feet of it are buried in earth and rubbish, it still rises to about 90 feet. Rather more than the outer or eastern half has been blown up, and has fallen into the ditch, and what remains has suffered much from alterations and additions. It is built in rubble of a very ordinary description, but with quoins and dressings of ashlar. The plinth, if one there be, is of course concealed. The walls are plain, 9 feet thick, having neither string nor set-off, and but one low pilaster buttress, which rises to the first floor only, and is placed upon the west end of the north wall, to give strength to an interior stair. At the two remaining angles are nooks, but not intended to carry shafts or beading.
The original tower was composed of a basement and first floor, about 70 feet high, or, as now seen, 60 feet. There remains within, against the west wall, a not very high-pitched weather-table, which shows, as at Porchester and Richmond, where the roof abutted against the wall as a gable. The wall was carried all round, high enough to conceal the roof. The west angle contains a well-staircase, which rose from the basement to the first floor. The door into the basement is buried, but the line of the steps in the wall points downwards. A breach has been effected in the west wall exposing the staircase, and seems to occupy the place of a loop.
In the west wall of the basement are two acutely-pointed recesses, terminating in square-headed loops; and in the south wall is a doorway, of 5 feet 6 inches opening, also under an acute arch. It is possible that this basement was vaulted, though it is more probable that the covering was of timber.
The first floor was originally lighted by three windows, in early pointed recesses, of different sizes and heights, and above the central recess, which was placed lower, to give place for it, are a round-headed recess and a window, placed in the angle of the gable. The three lower windows have been replaced by three lancets, and the recesses reduced in height and proportion to suit. The later arch is handsomely ribbed. It is uncertain how the first and main floor was covered over. In the north wall are seen the springing-stones of three ribs, evidently part of a vault; but near them is a short table, with four corbels, possibly connected in some way with the stair-entrance. Also there are fragments of two ribs in the west wall, so that the arrangements of the vaulting are obscure. The ribs mentioned are plainly chamfered, and may be early English, or later. An addition of about 30 feet has been made to the original keep, giving it an upper or second floor. In the west wall of this addition is a pointed window in a segmental recess, resting on the old masonry. In the north wall is another pointed window and a fireplace. There is a loop towards the south; but this part of the wall, both inside and out, is obscured by ivy. In the wall of this floor, cutting the line of the windows, is a corbel-table, the corbels cut somewhat into the shape of heater shields. This must have supported the roof, but have interfered seriously with the windows. How this story was reached does not appear; probably by a well-stair in the wall, now destroyed, a point which could, no doubt, be ascertained by uncovering the fragments in the ditch. The upper wall seems as thick as that below; and it is curious that there are no traces visible of mural galleries or chambers.
The battlements remain perfect, so far, at least, as are the walls they crown. The embrasures are of moderate size, and the merlons broad, and the running moulding is carried round the whole. At each angle is a square turret, rising about 10 feet above the curtains. These turrets rest upon a light bracket outside, and each of the outer faces is flanked by two light, slender buttresses, in tabernacle work, resting below upon brackets, and, no doubt, once ending above in delicate finials. In each face is a single embrasure. Of course, all these are additions.
The question of the entrance to this keep is obscure. There remain three doors, any one of which would serve. That on the ground floor to the south; a small round-headed door at the first floor level to the north; and a third door, in the same wall, a little lower down, leading into the well-stair. There are, however, indications that none of these was the real entrance. Against the south wall are traces of attached masonry, probably of a forebuilding, containing and covering the entrance, which in that case would have been in the south wall near the east end, a part now destroyed. The staircase seems to have commenced against the south-west end of this wall, and to have passed over the present door, which probably, as at Rochester, opened into a cell below the staircase of the forebuilding. This conclusion is strengthened by the presence of seven holes in the keep-wall at the rampart level, evidently to carry a brattice commanding the staircase below. Also, high up in the same wall, there projects a mass of ashlar, which may very well have been part of a machicolation, overhanging the door at the stair-head: arrangements similar to these are not uncommon in keeps of this pattern. Of the other doors the small round-headed one may very well have opened upon the ramparts as at Clitheroe; and that which is let into the well-stair, now closed and converted into a loop, looks rather of a Decorated character, and may be an insertion, and may have led into some annexed building now destroyed. At the period when this tower was built there was no longer that extreme caution in allowing no more than one entrance to the keep.
It would seem that the original keep was late Transition or pointed Norman, and therefore might well have been built, as supposed, by Robert de Ros, surnamed Fursan, who held the lordship from 1184 to 1226, and probably completed the work before 1200. Then came the alteration in the first floor in a most decided early English style, and therefore probably by Robert de Ros, Fursan’s grandson, who married the heiress of Belvoir, and flourished between 1257 and 1285. Then followed the addition of the upper story, and of the battlements and turrets, all rather late Decorated. This might well be the work of William de Ros, who held Helmsley from 1317 to 1342, to whom, in 1337, was granted the tower built by Edward II. in London, near Baynard’s Castle, and which seems to have stood on the bank of Fleet-ditch, where some ancient foundations were recently laid open in the formation of the new street. This he was to hold as appendant to his Castle of Helmsley.
The domestic buildings standing opposite to the keep are composed of two blocks. One a square mass of great height, and with walls of considerable thickness, has traces of transition Norman or early English work, but has undergone alteration in the Decorated period, and finally in that of the sixteenth century. The other or northern building may be on early foundations, and probably is so, but its fittings are of the sixteenth century, and probably the work of the Earl of Rutland, whose armorial bearings are embossed in plaster on a deep cornice and on the panelled ceiling, all now in the last stage of decay.
The northern gatehouse, and any structure that may have stood upon the smaller barbican, have disappeared utterly from sight, though probably their foundations could be laid open. To the south there is more to be seen. The inner gatehouse indeed is ruined, and nothing is visible above the rubbish save the outline of the western jamb, which shows a portcullis groove and rebate for folding-gates.
The outer gatehouse and its barbican form a very remarkable work. This barbican is, as has been stated, an expansion of the bank which surrounds the inner ditch. It is here above 80 feet broad, and long enough to cover completely the southern front of the place. The gatehouse, like that behind it, is much nearer to the east than to the west end of the work. It is composed of two small round turrets, and two large drum-towers flanking the portal. On either side of these extend the curtains, which terminate in a pair of large drum-towers, which flank and close the outwork.
The gatehouse is tolerably perfect on the ground floor. The upper story is in ruins. The portal, about 32 feet deep, is vaulted throughout at different heights and with arches of different curves. It was defended by a portcullis and a pair of gates. The outer portal is handsome and peculiar. It is of about 10 feet opening, and shoulder-headed, the shoulders being worked brackets. Above is a pointed arch of relief, and the tympanum between the two is composed of stones joggled together with great neatness. Above is a good flat-topped Decorated window of two lights trefoiled. Traces of the chain-holes for the bridge are seen in the spandrels of the portal. The gatehouse is evidently of two periods. All behind the portcullis groove is original, either late Norman or early English. The groove with all before it is late Decorated, probably of the age of the upper story of the keep.
Much as the buildings of this castle have suffered, it is curious that the piers, counter-piers, and bridge-pits of the four bridges should remain quite perfect, and all of excellent ashlar. The inner, or pier from which the bridge dropped, is from 9 feet to 12 feet long, and the pit across which it dropped of 12 feet opening. The counter-pier, upon which the bridge dropped, is much longer, from 40 to 45 feet, and as this long and exposed causeway was but 12 feet broad, any body of enemies approaching by it would be placed at a great disadvantage.
It is difficult to form an opinion upon the age of the earthworks of this castle. Either the Romans or the Normans might have laid out an earthwork on a rectangular plan, but when either people desired to construct a place of excessive strength, they employed masonry rather than earthworks. The Saxons and early English, on the other hand, though much given to employ defences of earth, and often upon an immense scale, are not known ever to have made them rectangular. What was the practice of the Romanised Britons, who, inheriting something of Roman arts and military rules, might also well have derived from their Celtic forefathers a taste for works in earth, is not known. Such a fortification as the present may possibly be in part their work. Of course, it is possible that the whole may have been the work of Robert Fursan, especially as, remarkable as it is, it is not named in Domesday nor any early record.
Helmsley appears, as has been stated, in Domesday as “Elmeslae, in the wapentake of Langeberg.” It is now in that of Ryedale; but that this is the place meant seems certain, from its entry in company with Sprostune, now Sproxton, one of its townships, and Harun, now Harome, a chapelry in the parish. The entries are of a very ordinary description. The tenants are—“In Sprostune Turloge Normand et Sortcolf; in Elmeslae, tres Taini; in Harum Sortcol.” When these holders were swept away and who succeeded to them, is not known; but, according to Dugdale, Helmsley was held in the reign of Henry I. by Walter L’Espec, a very famous baron. He appears as connected with Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, and Carlisle, in the Pipe-roll of 31 Henry I., 1130–1; and having lost his only son by a fall from his horse, he founded the abbeys of Kirkham and Rievaulx in Yorkshire, and Wardon in Bedfordshire. L’Espec was a Norman, and held estates in Normandy, but when or how he came over is not recorded. A certain William Spech is recorded in Domesday as a great tenant in Bedfordshire, and he may be the father of Walter, who had lands there. He died in 1153, and in 1157–8 Walter de Bussei is found moving against Robert de Ros for the partition of this estate. Who this Robert de Ros was is uncertain. Adelina, Walter’s daughter and co-heir, married Peter de Ros, who in her right was of Helmsley, or, as it was always called, Hamlake.
Peter de Ros, whose name was derived from his lordship of Ros, in Holderness, was, by Adelina, father of Everard de Ros, who appears in the Liber Niger as the tenant in capite of several Yorkshire fees, which no doubt included Helmsley, as many of the tenants’ names are local, as Hairun, Spouston, and Stainesgrave. Everard, being under age, was then in the wardship of Ranulph de Glanvill. He died before 1186, and was succeeded by his son Robert, third Lord of Hamlake, surnamed Fursan, one of the Magna Charta barons, and the reputed builder of Helmsley Castle. He died as a Templar, and his effigy is still pointed out in their church in London.
Robert de Ros, his grandson, who probably executed the earliest additions to the work of his grandfather, married Isabel d’Albini, heiress of Belvoir.
From them came William de Ros, seventh lord of Hamlake, who died 1342–3, and probably completed the keep and the outer gatehouse and barbican at Helmsley. With his descendant, Edmund, fifteenth lord, the male line failed, and Helmsley passed with his sister and co-heiress Eleanor, to Sir Robert Manners, or rather to their son, George Manners.
His descendant, Francis Manners, sixth Earl of Rutland, became Lord Ros of Hamlake by patent, which, however, died with him, as he left a daughter only, Katherine, who married George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, whose son dissipated the estate, which, at his death, was sold to the ancestor of the present owner. The barony of Ros, or Roos, of Hamlake, was called out of abeyance, but exists quite separated from the castle or estate.