CITY OF DURHAM 



& the form of the windows, we are led to believe 

 that the present shell was the work of Bishop Hatfield, 

 & repaired & kept standing by his successors. 

 The tower was only lined round the outward wall 

 with apartments, so as to leave an inner area or wall 

 from top to bottom, by which the engines of war, 

 & necessaries in time of danger & attack, were 

 drawn up and distributed to the several parts of the 

 building ; those apartments have been approached 

 by five different staircases or turnpikes in the angles, 

 the remains of which are yet visible, so that the parapet 

 could be mounted, the galleries lined with armed men, 

 and the apartments guarded in a very short time, & 

 equally as quick the garrison could descend, & 

 be ready for a sally. At the present the mount is 

 formed into terraces, as well for ornament as recreation. 

 The uppermost terrace is lo ft. wide, and laid with 

 gravel. 



The building appears to have served its 

 purpose up to the time of Bishop Fox (1494- 

 1501), who 'Began to repair the Great Tower 

 and build a Hall, a Kitchen & some other 

 apartments therein, but before this plan was 

 far advanced he was translated, & no further 

 progress was made in that work.' Bishop Fox's 

 alterations indicate that it was recognised that 

 its military value had diminished. The improve- 

 ment in artillery, and the impossibility of pro- 

 tecting the base of the outer walls by earthworks, 

 rendered the whole castle useless from a military 

 point of view, at a much earlier date than a 

 similar structure buUt in a comparatively flat 

 country. There is little record of its subsequent 

 history, and it appears to have been allowed to 

 fall gradually into decay ; several bishops are 

 recorded to have made small repairs, but its 

 maintenance was considered a hardship, and 

 Bishop Morton (1632-59) obtained a decree 

 discharging him from future dilapidations. 

 Some of the later bishops, however, considered 

 it an ornament to the city and made some 

 repairs. Bishop Cosin (1660-72) is stated to 

 have put the castle into repair and doubtless 

 did something to the keep. Bishop Crewe 

 (1674-1721) is supposed to have restored the 

 keep ; at any rate, his arms were placed on the 

 east side with the following inscription under :** 



HAEC DIU RUITURI CASTELLI LATERA Cu' 

 VETUSTATE TANDEM UTRINQ. EXESA NEC NON 

 COLLAPSA DE NOVO NUPERRIME EXTRtTXIT 

 AC CITO CITIUS FIRMIORA EREXIT NATH. d'nUS 

 CREWE, DUNELM. Ep'uS ET BARO DE STANE 

 COM. NORTHAM. ANNIS CONSECR. 45, TRANSL. 

 40, SALUTIS 1 714. 



On the death of Bishop Chandler a dispute 

 arose as to dilapidations on the keep, and it was 

 then pleaded that the building had not been 

 used since Bishop Fox's time, some 250 years 

 before. Bishop Egerton in 1773 had the keep 

 surveyed, with a view to repairs. Evidently it 



*- Hutchinson, ii, 368. 



must have been in a very dilapidated condition 

 about this time, as it is recorded that Bishop 

 Thurlow in 1789 had the upper stories pulled 

 down, for fear they should fall, and it doubtless 

 remained in this condition until finally destroyed 

 about 1839. 



Besides the castle 

 FORTIFICATIONS fortifications the city 

 of Durham was pro- 

 tected by an inclosing wall. Indications of 

 earthworks on the east and south sides of the 

 peninsula may represent pre-Conquest earthen 

 defences ; any defences of this date on the north 

 side are now obliterated. It is to Bishop Ranulf 

 Flambard (1099-1128), however, that the in- 

 closure of the city with masonry walls must be 

 attributed.*^ These walls followed the Unes of 

 the banks of the peninsula on all sides, except 

 on the north. Here was an outer moat within 

 which was a wall of great strength which varied 

 from 30 ft. to 50 ft. in height. In places where 

 good foundations could not be obtained for the 

 walls, reheving arches were used to carry them, 

 which were filled up to make the wall solid. 

 The walls were strengthened with square and 

 octagonal flanking towers, and round the sharp 

 southern bend there appear to have been a series 

 of buttress turrets between the greater towers 

 both to give increased strength and a better 

 defence. Some of the lower portions of these 

 towers remain, but most of them have been 

 destroyed. Prior Laurence describes three 

 gates, the King's Gate at the bottom of Bow 

 Lane, the Water Gate or Porte-du-Bayle, at the 

 south end of the Bailey, and the North Gate, 

 which stood at the top of Saddler Street.** 

 What little is known of these gates has already 

 been described. Flambard further inclosed the 

 space called the Palace or Place Green by a 

 wall running from the east end of the Norman 

 cathedral church northward to the keep, thus 

 forming an outer ward. Another wall w-ent 

 from the Kingsgate along Bow Lane and Dun 

 Cow Lane with a gateway spanning the North 

 Bailey. This wall divided the civil from the 

 ecclesiastical part of the hill. The gateway 

 crossing the North Bailey was later aimexed to 

 the church of St. Mary le Bow until it fell 

 in 1637. 



The burgesses of the Borough or those Uving 

 around the Market Place and the streets leading 

 out of it, although subject to Scottish raids, 

 had no protection until after 13 12, when Brus 

 sacked the town. This disaster led to the build- 

 ing of the wall inclosing the Market Place from 



*s This wall has been attributed to Bishop Pudsey, 

 but as it is described in the poem about Durham by 

 Prior Laurence, who died in the year of Pudsey's 

 consecration, he cannot have referred to work of 

 Pudsey's lime. See p. 65 for further information. 



*» Laurence of Durham, Dialogi (Surtees Soc), p. lo. 



91 



