HUNTINGDON CASTLE.
IT has generally been supposed that the town of Godmanchester, upon the right bank of the Ouse, represents the Roman station of Durolipons. It is traversed by the Ermine Street, which here receives the Via Devana from Cambridge, and another Roman road from the station at Salenæ, or Sandy. The Roman town, however, seems, as was often the case, to have been destroyed in the centuries of war that followed on the departure of the Roman armies, and its memory is chiefly preserved in the termination of “Chester” suffixed to its later name. The northern invaders did not much care to build upon or employ Roman foundations, and in this case they passed over from the low and watery side of the old station and established themselves on the higher position of the Hunters, or Hunting-down, on the opposite, or left and northern, bank of the river. By whom, or precisely when, the capital of the future county was founded is not known. The first mention of it, or rather of Huntingdon Port, in history, is in A.D. 657, when it occurs in the foundation limits of Medehampstede (Peterborough). As a military post it is named in A.D. 918, when, according to the Saxon Chronicle, the Danish army from Huntingdon and East Anglia threw up a work at Tempsford, and for it deserted another at Huntingdon. That work must necessarily be the earthworks now remaining, which may either have been thrown up by the Danes or by earlier Saxons. Later in the year, King Eadweard with his West Saxons brought the Danes of Northampton and Welland to obedience, “reduced the burgh at Huntingdon, and repaired and renovated it, where it was before in a state of ruin.... And all the folk that were left there of the peasantry submitted to King Eadweard, and sought his peace and his protection.”
Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who wrote towards the close of the eleventh century, mentions the three burhs (tria castra) of Buckingham, Bedford, and Huntingdon. The castle is mentioned several times in Domesday. It was within the borough of Huntingdon. The Bishop of Lincoln had a residence (mansio) in the place of the castle (in loco castri). In the place of the castle were twenty residences (mansiones). “Besides these were and are LX. ‘mansiones’ waste ... and on account of these are VIII. ‘mansiones’ waste.” William the Conqueror was at Huntingdon 1068, when he ordered a castle to be built, evidently on the site of the old fortress restored by Edward the Elder in 918. The names in Domesday show how complete had been the removal of the larger English landowners. The new castle was probably built by, and in the hands of, Eustace, one of the most rapacious of the Norman sheriffs; but the earldom was given to Judith, the king’s niece, and descended to and through Maud, her daughter, by Earl Waltheof. Maud married, first, Simon de St. Liz, in her right Earl of Huntingdon. The earldom, on his death, was held by David, afterwards King of Scots, Maud’s second husband, and, with the castle, was long a subject of contention between the two families, until David, the third son of Henry, son of Maud and David, laid siege to and took the castle, on which Simon de St. Liz, the son of Maud, retook it. The result was that Henry II. had the castle demolished, nor does it appear ever to have been rebuilt. The town occurs from time to time in the public records, and the honour remained attached to the earldom. The king also had a prison there; but there is never any allusion to a castle. In 1205 King John granted to Robert Rufus the demesne and mill at Huntingdon, and in 1218 and 1219 the sheriff had order to give seizin, under certain limitations, to Alexander, King of Scotland, as custos of the honour. The junior branch of the house of Hastings took the title of Huntingdon, to commemorate the descent of the elder line from the Scottish earls.
It is difficult to suppose that Henry would, within a century of its construction, demolish a first-class castle, commanding a shire town, and posted upon the edge of a very strong and inaccessible tract of country. The usual course with an important structure was to attach it to the Crown. And yet, whatever stood there was certainly then demolished, and Huntingdon Castle is not again heard of. Was there really a castle built there, or was it, as was often the case, a mere strengthened form of the older English work in timber? It is difficult, after this lapse of time, to say, though an excavation judiciously conducted would no doubt set the question at rest.
There does not appear to be any plan of Huntingdon Castle, that is, of the earthworks known as Castle Hill, which still are seen; and as they are extensive and partly included within a private garden, a mere handsketch is scarcely practicable. The position is a fine one. The Ouse, here deep, broad, and sluggish, in its way from Bedford and Eaton to the Fens, recedes from the higher land to the northward, and makes, between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, a bold curve to the south; thus enclosing a grand circle of meadow about half a mile in diameter, and now used as the racecourse. Along the northern edge of this breadth of sward flows the Alconbury brook, a considerable watercourse, which skirts the foot of the high land, and joins the Ouse opposite the Castle Hill, and just above the bridge by which the Ermine Street is carried across the river. Here, upon the edge of the high land, and protected from the south by the river and the brook, and the low and formerly impassable levels beyond them, are the ancient earthworks, which, though partially levelled, and reduced both in height and depth, and traversed by a road and a railway, are still very considerable, and form a remarkable feature in the view of the town from the south. In general outline the work is rather a circle than a square, and about 180 yards in clear diameter. The outer ditch, which is included in this measurement, encircles two-thirds of the whole, communicating at each end with the brook, which thus completes the investment. Upon the western margin of the area thus enclosed, and projecting boldly into it, is a large mound, the flat top of which, now crowned by a neglected mill, is 100 feet diameter, and about 30 feet high above the inner platform, and 40 feet or more above the country outside. This mound, which was the citadel of the work, had its proper surrounding ditch, which at the outer face was identified with the main ditch, but elsewhere cut off the mound from the general area of the fortress. This remainder, which, by the indentation of the mound and ditch cutting out a huge cantle, was converted into a sort of crescent, was defended along its outer edge by broad and high banks of earth, perhaps 20 feet above the contained area, and 30 feet or 40 feet above the circumscribing ditch. The railway passes east and west, close south of the mound, and cuts off a part of the work; the road passes north of the mound; and north of this a close fence shuts off from the visitors a part of the earthwork.
The entrance was on the east, or town side. Towards the west, outside the ditch, is a natural elevated platform, which, at 100 yards distance, terminates in a steep slope, and which may have been a part of the defences, or perhaps a safe penfold for cattle. There was a mill mentioned in Domesday, upon the river below the castle. There is now no trace of masonry above ground, but the earthworks look as though they had been built upon.
The two town churches are handsome. One seems, except perhaps the tower, wholly Perpendicular; the other contains some Norman or early English work, with much of Decorated work, and some of Tudor date. Near the George Hotel are two large round-headed arches springing from three fine Norman piers. The building to which they belong has been rebuilt, or nearly so, in brick. There is said to have been a hospital here.
Although the evidence is, on the whole, in favour of the English origin of these earthworks, and of those at Eaton-Socon, the mound at Eaton does not form so important a feature as usual in the burhs of the tenth century, although it is nevertheless present. But both these works present a feature which is, independently of the mound, very common in works of their class, and very uncommon in those of admitted British or Roman origin. Not only is there a mound, but the level of the area contained within the inner ditches is generally higher than the land immediately around. This is remarkably so at Builth and Kilpeck, among many other places, and was apparently intended to give the domestic buildings greater safety and an advantage when actually attacked. This distinction does not seem to have been pointed out, and it is possible that upon it may turn the identification of many of the earthworks, the date of which is now unknown.