BoAr:
http://boar.org.uk/abiwxo3Marrat’sCastle.htm Latest edit 5 Dec 2007
Web page & commentary© 2007
R.J.PENHEY
The Bourne Archive
William Marrat’s essay on
from The History of
This document is one of
several dealing with Bourne
Castle.
It was transcribed
from a copy lent by the Willoughby Memorial Library, to the trustees of which I offer my thanks.
It is
presented here as an historical document so the credibility of what it says
should be assessed. The reliability of old essays on history is usually best on
points to do with the writer’s own time. Marrat was
assembling a much larger, commercial work so it is likely that this material is
based on someone else’s research. Similarities between this and Moore’s slightly earlier publication can certainly be detected. In later works, one or other of these is
usually given as a reference for the quotation of Peak’s description.
The name of the founder of
The building is entirely destroyed, but the earth-works, and
foundation walls on the west side, are nearly entire. The area within the outer
moat contains about 8 acres 2; within the
inner, about one acre, 3 not like a keep, but flat and covered by a rampart within the
ditch. 4 Between the moat and ditch on the
north and west sides, the works are very irregular, consisting of raised banks
of about 20 yards [18m] in length, and 10 in breadth, with a
ditch between every one of these, pointing to the grand moat.†
5
There is a house and barn, near the place where the Castle
stood, which were built out of the old materials. Among the records of this
parish, it is said, that, “Oct. 11. 1645. The Garrison of
Bourne Castle began,” whence it appears that the Castle was not entirely
demolished until the time of the Common-wealth.
The inhabitants have a tradition that it was destroyed by the forces under Cromwell, for adhering
to Charles I 6;
but however this may be, it has certainly never been made mention of as
existing subsequent to that period, nor are there any records relative to the
time of its demolition.
The only decription [sic] of this Castle is in Peak’s M. S. account of the
towns in Kesteven 7; where he
says.—“The castelle of Brun ys a verrye ancyent portlic [sic] castelle scytewate neare Peterspoole,
it contaynes thre principal wardes. 8 On the north side ys ye porter’s
lodge wch ys now reuinoose, and in decaye by reasone ye floores of ye upper
house ys decayed and very necessarie to be repaired. 9
The dungeon ys sett of a little moat made with men’s handes, and for the moste
part as yt were square. 10
It is a fare and prattie 11
buildinge, with IV square toures, Rounde about ye same dungeon upon the roofe
of ye said toures, ys tryme walkes and a fare prospect of the fenes. And in ye
said dungeon ys ye
Nothing of the castle now remains—the outer and inner moat
are, however, still visible, and there is a house and barn near the place where
the Castle stood, and which were built out of the old materials.
[Marrat’s footnotes]* Ingulphus, in his history of
Croyland, after mentioning several benefactors to Croyland abbey, says, that
Leofric lord of the Castle of Brunne Kinsman to Ranul or Radin the great Count
of Hereford, gave many possesins to this abbey, and assisted the monks with is
council [sic].
† Altogether they look like a piece of ground drained
and are said to have supported Cromwell’s artilery against the town. 14
Commentary.
1. ↑ Since 1816, it has become clear that the
Ingulph document is unreliable. It seems to have been forged in the thirteenth
or fourteenth century, at some time before 1415 and long enough after the
building of the castle for its origins to have been forgotten — unless the 1062
date is accurate. In reality, the evidence indicates the establishment of the
castle as part of the scheme in which the Abbey was founded. There is no
reliable evidence that either was on its present site before about 1140. A more
exact date hinges on the abbey charter of 1138 but clearly, the work took more
than the one year to complete (RJP3).
3. 0.405 ha
4. The
one acre and the visibility of the ’rampart’ make it clear that in the early
nineteenth century, the material of the walls of the inner bailey had not yet
been pushed into the moat. Since that happened, the inner bailey has looked
much larger than one acre in extent. The curtain wall was made of pisé faced with limestone
(RJP2) (RJP1).
It appears that once the facing had been robbed, the pisé core weathered and
looked to Marrat’s informant like an earth bank. This was subsequently used to
partially fill the surrounding moat. The combined area of the inner bailey,
plus the site of the wall, plus the in-filled part of the moat makes the
present appearance of the inner bailey larger than Cope-Faulkner’s observations
make clear that it originally had been (RJP3).
5. The
use of the expression ‘grand moat’ confirms that the ‘ditch’ is the moat around
the east and middle baileys while the ‘moat’ is that round the inner bailey. Cope-Faulkner’s
observations (report 2002: RJP’s interpretation)
show that the latter was very wide; probably 34m; certainly more than 30
metres. Again, this supports the hypothesis that the size of this moat was
visible in the early nineteenth century, as it is not today. It follows that
the apparent ‘rampart’ formed by the remains of the core of the curtain wall
was then visible, as Marrat says. This great width is not shown in Fowler’s
plan of 1861 but more informatively, it is not shown in the Exeter and Bourne Abbots estate maps of the
1820s. If we assume that Marrat is taking his information from
6. ↑ The circumstances of the time and the
design of the earthworks make it clear that the defence being prepared for was
that of the town against the king. (Events of the time are listed in September
and October 1645 of the chronology.)
It was doubtless sensible to put another gloss on events after the Monarchy was
restored in 1660 (RJP3).
7. Peak
seems to have written a manuscript to which early nineteenth century writers
had access. Its date is vague but seems
to be somewhere about 1500. We might think he could have been Samuel Pecke though, if the
two were the same, his English style was very old-fashioned for the
mid-seventeenth century. Also, the quoted description makes the castle seem
better preserved than is likely in the 1640s, by which time it had passed
through the hands of both Henrys, VII and VIII, neither of whom
is likely to have left the lead
on the roof if the building was not useful to him. Further; it had been in
Cecil family ownership for 120 or more years. Even as early as 1520, William
Cecil’s mother was accomodated in a house on the other side of the road when he
was born. Besides, Leland’s description
of a century before Samuel Pecke’s heyday, makes it clear that in the 1530s,
there was much less of the castle left than Peak saw.
8. ↑ These were the East Bailey, now the car
park and
9. ↑ This is the main gatehouse, situated
across the East Bailey moat from where the projected lines of
10. This is a French usage of the word. A donjon is a castle keep rather than
a subterranean prison.
12. This seems to be a park which became that
of the Red Hall. Though it contained ridge and furrow, that is consistent with its development in the late
thirteenth century, on the demilitarization of the castle.
13. Like
14.
↑ The works are
consistent with their having been a response to a threat from the Belvoir direction. The
11th October 1645 timing follows the fall of Leicester to the king and came
during a period when he was trying to work out what to do next in view of Naseby and the
retaking of
However, his activity was mainly in
the east
Archive contents Printable version