Witham, Essex.
Fig. 4.
Warwick Castle has a motte which has been confidently attributed to Ethelfleda, only because Dugdale copied the assertion of Thomas Rous, a very imaginative writer of the 15th century, that she was its builder. The borough which Ethelfleda fortified probably occupied a smaller area than the mediæval walls built in Edward I.’s reign; and it is probable that it did not include the site of the castle, as Domesday states that only four houses were destroyed when the castle was built.[84] The borough was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road from Bath to Lincoln, the Foss Way, which passes near it. Domesday Book, after mentioning that the king’s barons have 112 houses in the borough, and the abbot of Coventry 36, goes on to say that these houses belong to the lands which the barons hold outside the city, and are rated there.[85] This is one of the passages from which the late Professor Maitland concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda and Edward were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the magnates in the country were bound to keep houses in the towns.[86]
Cyricbyrig.—About this place we adopt the conjecture of Dugdale, who identified it with Monk’s Kirby in Warwickshire, not far from the borders of Leicestershire, and therefore on the edge of Ethelfleda’s dominions. It lies close to the Foss Way, and about three miles from Watling Street; like Eddisbury, it is near the junction of two Roman roads. There are remains of banks and ditches below the church. Dugdale says “there are certain apparent tokens that the Romans had some station here; for by digging the ground near the church, there have been discovered foundations of old walls and Roman bricks.”[87] Possibly Ethelfleda restored a Roman castrum here. At any rate, it seems a much more likely site than Chirbury in Shropshire, which is commonly proposed, but which does not lie on any Roman road, and is not on Ethelfleda’s line of advance; nor are there any earthworks there.
Weardbyrig has not been identified. Wednesbury was stated by Camden to be the place,[88] and but for the impossibility of the etymology, the situation would suit well enough. Weardbyrig must have been an important place, for it had a mint.[89] Warburton, on the Mersey, has been gravely suggested, but is impossible, as it takes its name from St Werburgh.
Runcorn has not a vestige to show of Ethelfleda’s borough; but local historians have preserved some rather vague accounts of a promontory fort which once existed at the point where the London and North-Western Railway bridge enters the river. A rocky headland formerly projected here into the Mersey, narrowing its course to 400 yards at high water; a ditch with a circular curve cut off this headland from the shore. This ditch, from 12 to 16 feet wide, with an inner bank 6 or 7 feet high, could still be traced in the early part of the 19th century. Eighteen feet of the headland were cut off when the Duke of Bridgewater made his canal in 1773, and the ditch was obliterated when the railway bridge was built. From the measurements which have been preserved, the area of this fort must have been very small, not exceeding 3 acres at the outside;[90] and it is unlikely that it represented Ethelfleda’s borough, as the church, which was of pre-Conquest foundation, stood outside its bounds, and we should certainly have expected to find it within. As the Norman earls of Chester established a ferry at Runcorn in the 12th century, and as a castle at Runcorn is spoken of in a mediæval document,[91] it seems not impossible that there may have been a Norman castle on this site, as we constantly find such small fortifications placed to defend a ferry or ford. It is probable that Ethelfleda’s borough was destroyed at an early period by the Northmen, for Runcorn was not a borough at Domesday, but was then a mere dependency of the Honour of Halton.
The Burhs of Edward the Elder.
Hertford.—Two burhs were built by Edward at Hertford in 913, one on the north and the other on the south side of the river Lea. Therefore if a burh were the same thing as a motte, there ought to be two mottes at Hertford, one on each side of the river; whereas there is only one, and that forms part of the works of the Norman castle. Mr Clark, with his usual confidence, says that the northern mound has “long been laid low”;[92] but there is not the slightest proof that it ever existed except in his imagination. Hertford was a borough at the time of Domesday. No earthworks remain.
Witham ([Fig. 4]).—There are some remains of a burh here which are very remarkable, as they show an inner enclosure within the outer one. They have been carefully surveyed by Mr F. C. J. Spurrell, who has published a plan of them.[93] Each enclosure formed roughly a square with much-rounded corners. The ditch round the outer work was 30 feet wide; the inner work was not ditched. The area enclosed by the outer bank was 26¼ acres, an enclosure much too large for a castle; the area of the inner enclosure was 9½ acres. As far as is at present known, Witham is the only instance we have of an Anglo-Saxon earthwork which has a double enclosure.[94] Witham is not mentioned as a borough in Domesday Book, but the fact that it had a mint in the days of Hardicanute shows that it maintained its borough rights for more than a hundred years. The name Chipping Hill points to a market within the borough.
Buckingham is another case where a burh was built on both sides of the river, and as at Hertford, there was only one motte, site of the castle of the Norman Giffards, now almost obliterated. The river Ouse here makes a long narrow loop to the south-west, within which stands the town, and, without doubt, this would be the site of Edward’s borough. No trace is left of the second borough on the other side of the river. Buckingham is one of the boroughs of Domesday.