178 
PROCEEDINGS COTTESVVOLD CLUB 
1917 
No. 5 is a singularly useful representation ; and though taken from 
the north side, and slightly on north-east, it is the only one showing the nearly 
perfect Norman arch of the east front of the Gatehouse ; i.e., towards 
Gloucester town. It also shows some Normein crenellated details untouched. 
The picturcsqucness of the Bridge thus seems to have attracted the atten- 
tion of several artists within quite short period, and the various changes 
shown in these drawings indicate constant repairs. It is not surprising 
that the patience of the busier citizens became at length exhausted, and 
that application was made to Parliament for autlnority to remove the 
Gatehouse and rebuild the Bridge. An Act was granted in 1806, and the 
Gatehouse was removed in 1808. 
In Speed’s plan (1610) of Gloucester, the walls on the northern side of 
the City are shown in very clear detail. These Norman fortifications we 
know were frequently repaired. Sir Thomas Bradeston, long Constable of 
the Castle, temp. Edward III. (as the Close Rolls shew), was responsible for 
drastic restoration of the walls. Thus portions of the walls were of long- 
post-Norman date, and it is clear from examination of the length still in 
situ under the Technical Schools in Brunswick Road that no wall-work of 
Roman times remains visible. What there is belongs to the mediaeval 
period ; the particular characteristics of the prevailing style — jointing and 
size of stones — are conclusive. Norman workmen limited the size of 
their stones to the carrying capacity of three men, and the familiar tile- 
bonded (8-13 ft. thick) courses raised by the Romans had little in common 
with the practice of Norman masons. The Romans extended to Britain a 
regular little-varied style of building town-walls, which may be recognized 
at Porchester, in London-wall, and at Caerwent. 
Domesday Survey informs us that Gloucester Castle was built by Fitz 
Osbern for the Conqueror, and it is later described as “ Turris cum Castello : ” 
i.e., keep and fortified enclosure. It had a square keep (built 1108—13 ^ 
finished, or enlarged, (c.) 1132), like Rochester, not built on a mound. The 
right to have a keep-tower, or turris, belonged only to the Crown. The 
presence of Gloucester Castle obviated the need for continuing the defen- 
sive wall on the western side of the City, and the Westgate Bridge Gate- 
house was built by Henry II. as a riverine additional defence from the 
incursions of the Welsh. The triangular form of the mound that formerly 
rose hard-by the Castle, and called the Barbican, as shown in Hall and 
Pinnell’s map (1780), which was identified with the term old-castle, may well 
have been the then surviving S.W. angle ( Pnfh/m) of the Romano-British 
fortification. In it were found many late Roman coins when removed in 
1818. The site fits perfectly with such a supposition. It is quite possible 
that Glevum may have remained without actual Roman walls. If this was 
the case there is the more reason for the building of the Abbey of S. Peter’s 
without trouble across an angle of the earthworks. No trace of a west wall 
occurred in the deep excavation along Berkeley Street for the extension 
of the Shire Hall buildings ; but rather distinct remains of a staked 
rampart : the carbonized stumps remaining in their holes. 
