As that great building bishop, Roger of Salisbury (1099-1139), is said to have environed the castle with a new wall,[645] it would seem likely that he was the first to transform the castle from wood to stone. But in Henry II.’s reign, we find an entry in the Pipe Rolls for materials for enclosing the great bailey. An order for the destruction of the castle had been issued by Stephen,[646] but it is doubtful whether it was carried out. The sums spent by Henry II. on the castle do not amount to more than £266, 12s. 5d., but the work recently excavated which appears to be of his date is very extensive indeed.
The mention of a small wooden tower in Richard I.’s reign shows that some parts of the defences were still of wood at that date.[647] Timber and rods for hoarding the castle, that is, for the wooden machicolations placed at the tops of towers and walls, were ordered at the end of John’s reign.[648]
It is not known when the castle was abandoned, but the list of castellans ceases in the reign of Henry VI., when it was granted to the Stourton family.[649] Though the earls of Salisbury were generally the custodians of Sarum Castle, except in the time of Bishop Roger, it was always considered a royal castle, while the manor belonged to the bishop.[650] It is remarked in the Hundred Rolls of Henry III., that no one holds fiefs for ward in this castle, and that nothing belonged to the castle outside the gate.[651]
The value of the manor of Salisbury appears to have risen very greatly since the Conquest.[652]
Shrewsbury ([Fig. 31]).—The passage in Domesday Book relating to this town has been called by Mr Round one of the most important in the Survey, and it is of special importance for our present purpose. “The English burghers of Shrewsbury say that it is very grievous to them that they have to pay all the geld which they paid in King Edward’s time, although the castle of the earl occupies [the site of] 51 houses, and another 50 are uninhabited.”[653] It is incomprehensible how in the face of such a clear statement as this, that the new castle occupied the site of fifty-one houses, anyone should be found gravely to maintain that the motte at Shrewsbury was an English work; for if the motte stood there before, what was the clearance of houses made for? The only answer could be to enlarge the bailey. But this is exactly what the Norman would not wish to do; he would want only a small area for the small force at his disposal for defence. Shrewsbury was certainly a borough (that is, a fortified town) in Anglo-Saxon times; probably it was one of the towns fortified by Ethelfleda, though it is not mentioned by name in the list of those towns furnished by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[654] Its ancient walls were certainly only of earth and wood, for a writ of 1231 says that the old stockade and the old bretasche of the old ditch of the town of Shrewsbury are to be granted to the burghers for strengthening the new ditch.[655]
The castle of Shrewsbury was built on the neck of the peninsula on which the town stands, and on the line of the town walls. The oval motte, which still remains, stands, as usual, on the line of the castle banks, and slopes steeply down to the Severn on one side. Its nearness to the river made it liable to damage by floods. Thus we find Henry II. spending 5l. on the repair of the motte,[656] and in Edward I.’s reign the abbot’s mill is accused of having caused damage to the extent of 60 marks to the motte. But the men of the hundred exonerate the mill, and from another passage the blame appears to lie on the fall of a great wooden tower.[657] This can hardly have been other than the wooden keep on the motte, and thus we learn the interesting fact that as late as Edward I.’s reign the castle of Shrewsbury had only a wooden keep. The present tower on the motte is the work of Telford.
Shrewsbury.
Skipsea, Yorks.