| Worcester | 873-899 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Chester | 908 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Bremesburh | 911 | Unidentified. |
| Scærgate | 913 | Unidentified. |
| Bridgenorth | 913 | No motte, but a Norman stone keep. |
| Tamworth | 914 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Stafford, N. of Sowe | 914 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Eddisbury | 915 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Warwick | 915 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Cyricbyrig (Monk’s Kirby) | 916 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Weardbyrig | 916 | Unidentified. |
| Runcorn | 916 | No motte; a mediæval castle (?). |
| Hertford, N. of Lea | 913 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Hertford, S. of Lea | 913 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Witham | 914 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Buckingham, S. of Ouse | 915 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Buckingham, N. of Ouse | 915 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Bedford, S. of Ouse | 916 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Maldon | 917 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Towcester | 918 | A motte. |
| Wigingamere | 918 | Unidentified. |
| Huntingdon | 918 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Colchester | 918 | No motte; an early Norman keep. |
| Cledemuthan | 918 | Unidentified. |
| Stamford, S. of Welland | 919 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Nottingham, N. of Trent | 919 | A motte and a Norman castle. |
| Thelwall | 920 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Manchester | 920 | No castle on the ancient site. |
| Nottingham, S. of Trent | 921 | No motte and no Norman castle. |
| Bakewell (near to) | 921 | A motte and bailey. |
Out of this list of the burhs of Ethelfleda and Edward, thirteen are mentioned as boroughs in Domesday Book;[61] and as we ought to subtract five from the list as unidentified, and also to reckon as one the boroughs built on two sides of the river, the whole number should be reduced to twenty-two. So that more than half the boroughs built by the children of Alfred continued to maintain their existence during the succeeding centuries, and in fact until the present day. But the others, for some reason or other, did not take root. Professor Maitland remarked that many of the boroughs of Edward’s day became rotten boroughs before they were ripe;[62] and it is a proof of the difficulty of the task which the royal brethren undertook that, with the exception of Chester, none of the boroughs which they built in the north-western districts survived till Domesday. In all their boroughs, except Bakewell, the purpose of defending the great Roman roads and the main waterways is very apparent.
Our list is very far from being a complete list of all the Anglo-Saxon boroughs existing in Edward’s day. In the document known as the “Burghal Hidage” we have another quite different list of thirty-two boroughs,[63] which, according to Professor Maitland, “sets forth certain arrangements made early in the 10th century for the defence of Wessex against the Danish inroads.”[64] Five at least on the list are Roman chesters; twenty are mentioned as boroughs in Domesday Book. There are two among them which are of special interest, because there is reason to believe that the earthen ramparts which still surround them are of Saxon origin: Wallingford and Wareham. Both these fortifications are after the Roman pattern, the earthen banks forming a square with rounded corners.[65] See [Fig. 3].
To complete our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon fortification, we ought to examine the places mentioned in Anglo-Saxon charters as royal seats, where possibly defensive works of some kind may have existed. Unfortunately we are unable to learn that there are any such works, except at one place, Bensington in Oxfordshire, where about a hundred years ago “a bank and trench, which seem to have been of a square form,” were to be seen.[66]
Wallingford, Berks.
Wareham, Dorset.