But, though it cannot be positively ascertained that this spot was the Roman Banovallum; yet, as the name most evidently points out a fortification on the river Bane, there appears little reason to question it; both from its contiguity to the colony of Lindum, with which place it had communication by means of a military road; as also from its situation; particularly as no other remains of the Romans have been discovered on that river, nor yet any near to it, except some coins at the village of Ludford, where the Bane has its source; and traces of an encampment at Tattershall, more than a mile distant from its banks. [5a]
In what circumstances this station was involved from the final subjugation of the Britons by Agricola, under whose paternal government the province felt some portion of enjoyment in cultivating the arts of peace, is not known: but, from the evidence of antiquities, it is perceptible that it continued a place of importance down to the period when the Romans in the decline of their empire had withdrawn from Britain; though probably, in the security of a long abstraction from war, its military strength was somewhat disregarded. No sooner however had the necessities and the mistaken policy of the enervated inhabitants, again left to themselves, called to their assistance the warlike Saxons, against the eruptions of the northern barbarians, than we find this place agitated, in common with the rest of the country, by all the calamities which were connected with the desperate contests which ensued: the Britons having to struggle for liberty, against the eagerness for dominion on the part of the victorious Saxons. These people, according to the practice which prevailed amongst them of changing the names of Roman stations, gave to this place the appellation of Hyrncastre or Hornecastre, from its situation in an angle formed by the junction of the two rivers, which denotes a fortification in a corner, of which the present name Horncastle is evidently a corruption.
The Roman fortress was at that time either destroyed, or in a very dilapidated state: for Horsa, the Saxon general and brother of Hengist is stated to have enstrengthened the fortress of Horncastle. This fortification however did not continue long; for Horsa being defeated in an engagement with the Britons, under the command of Raengeires, at the neighbouring village of Tetford, Vortimer king of the Britons caused it to be beaten down and rendered defenceless. [5b]
THE MANOR.
By the record called Domesday, compiled towards the latter end of the reign of William the Conqueror, it appears that the manor of Horncastle, previous to the close of the Saxon Government, belonged to Editha the queen of Edward the Confessor; but at the time of making that survey, it formed, together with the soke, part of the possessions of the king. [6a]
When the manor was separated from the crown does not appear; but in the reign of Stephen it was the demesne of Alice or Adelias de Cundi, who resided at her castle here, which leaves it to be concluded that she held it by inheritance from her father. [6b] As she took part against the king in his contention with the Empress Maud, he seized her lands, but restored them again on condition that she should demolish her castle, the means which had served to render her political alliance formidable to his interest. [6c] What may have been the extent and nature of the structure possessed as the mansion of Adelias is not now discoverable, no traces being to be found; but its strength most probably consisted in a restoration of the walls of the Roman fortress, which encircling some convenient and less durable edifice, gave to the place of her residence the security of a castle.
The restitution by Stephen of these lands to Adelias de Cundi, seems to have been only for life, as her heir did not succeed thereto; for this manor came again to the crown, and was afterwards given by Henry the second to Gerbald le Escald, a Fleming, who held it for one knight’s fee, and who was succeeded by his grandson or nephew and heir Gerrard de Rhodes. [6d] Gerrard was succeeded by his son and heir Ralph de Rhodes, who, in the reign of Henry the third, sold the manor to Walter Mauclerke, the third Bishop of Carlisle, who also held the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer. This sale being made in the spirit of these times when the feodal system prevailed, the bishop and his successors were to hold the estate by the performance of suit and service to Ralph de Rhodes and his heirs. In the fourteenth year of the same reign, the transfer to Walter Mauclerke was confirmed by the king, who in the same year also granted to him three several charters, conferring those immunities upon the manor and soke, which served to raise the town of Horncastle from the dependence of a village, to become in some degree the mart of the surrounding country.
The first of these charters gave to the bishop free warren over the manor and the soke: the second the liberty of holding an annual fair at this place, which was to commence two days before the eve of the feast of St. Barnabas, and to continue eight days: the third had for its objects the empowering of the bishop to try felons, and to hold a court leet; also the exemption of the inhabitants of the manor and the soke from toll, and several other payments and services, beside protecting them from arrest by the officers of the king and the sheriff. [7a] An additional charter was granted in the following year enabling the bishop to hold a weekly market here every Wednesday; and also another annual fair to commence on the eve of the feast of St. Lawrence, and to continue seven days. [7b] The custom of holding a fair on the anniversary of this festival appears to have prevailed at an earlier period, it being alluded to in the charter granting the former fair.
In the same reign, Gerrard, the son and heir of Ralph de Rhodes, appears to have preferred his claim to this manor, which had been sold by his father; perhaps in consequence of some omission in the performance of those services by which the estate was to be held. [7c] His claim does not appear to have been successful; for in the seventeenth year of the same king, the bishop fined to hold the manor in fee, but not to alienate without licence. [7d]
Walter Mauclerke resigned the see of Carlisle in 1246, and as the manor devolved to his ecclesiastical successors, it may be inferred that it had been purchased to increase the revenues of the bishoprick, and not to be appropriated as his private property. The privileges of such essential interest to the estate, which had already been conferred by the preceding charters, were in part strengthened by fresh acknowledgments to the Bishops of Carlisle, in the reigns of the two succeeding kings; Edward the first confirming the grant of free warren, and Edward the second that which exempts the inhabitants of the manor and soke from certain payments and services. [8a]