ROCHESTER. 
sends two members to parliament, and has done so ever since 
the 23d year of Edward I. The right of election is vested 
in the freemen, who are about 630 in number. Many of 
the representatives have been naval officers, distinguished for 
brilliant achievements in the cause of their country. 
The buildings of a public description that chiefly de¬ 
mand attention, are the castle, the cathedral, the churches, 
the town-hall, and the bridge, each of which is entitled 
to separate notice. 
The present castle of Rochester was one of those founded 
by William the Conqueror, to keep in awe his newly ac¬ 
quired subjects; but there seems every reason to believe that 
a prior one existed on the same scite, as frequent mention is 
made of the “ Castrum RofFense” in the Saxon annals. The 
Conqueror, indeed, is said, by some historians, to have only 
repaired the former structure. Whatever it might be, how¬ 
ever, he committed to Odo, bishop of Baieux, the execu¬ 
tion of the new work, and the custody of the fortress; but 
that prelate proving unworthy of his trust, he was afterwards 
seized, and sent as a prisoner to the castle of Rouen, in Nor¬ 
mandy, where he continued till the accession of William 
Rufus, who restored him to his dignities and possessions ; a 
favour which he shortly after ungratefully repaid, by raising 
an insurrection in favour of the king’s brother, Robert, duke 
of Normandy. Rufus, upon this, laid siege to Rochester 
castle, and having forced the garrison to surrender, banished 
the bishop from his dominions. During this siege the build¬ 
ings sustained considerable injury, which the king enjoined 
bishop Gundulph and the prior of Rochester to repair, per¬ 
haps on account of their having shewn some attachment to 
the rebellious cause. Gundulph accordingly not only reno¬ 
vated the walls, but laid the foundation of the great square 
tower, which yet perpetuates his name, and entitles him to 
rank among the most eminent architects of Anglo-Norman 
times. About twenty years after, this prelate’s death, the 
custody of Rochester castle was granted to William Corboyl, 
then archbishop of Canterbury, and to his successors; but 
this grant was resumed by Henry II. on his quarrel with the 
celebrated Thomas a Becket. In the reign of king John, 
this fortress was seized and garrisoned by the rebellious barons, 
and having been besieged by the king, was taken, after a 
resistance of three months. Lewis, the dauphin of France, 
who came over to the assistance of the nobles, however, re¬ 
duced it again into subjection to the barons, by whom it 
was held till the accession of Henry III. when it was surren¬ 
dered to the crown, and granted for life to Hubert de Burgh, 
earl of Kent, and justiciary of England, who was command¬ 
ed to repair the buildings. The king’s favour afterwards 
declining, Hubert was dispossessed; and Stephen de Segrave 
John de Cobham, Nicholas de Moels, William deSay, and 
Robert Waleran, were, in succession, appointed governors of 
the castles of Rochester and Canterbury. About the year 
1264, after the king had occasioned much discontent among 
his barons, by his refusal to comply with the statutes of Ox¬ 
ford, he greatly strengthened the fortifications of this castle, 
and furnished k with every thing necessary to sustain a siege. 
Roger de Leybourne, who was constituted chief constable, 
had under him John, earl of Warren and Surrey, and other 
noblemen. Shortly afterwards, Simon de Montfort, chief 
of the associated barons, marched hither to besiege the castle, 
on which occasion several severe contests happened in this 
vicinity. Montfort succeeded in getting possession of the 
city, but failed in his attacks upon the castle, the siege of 
which he was eventually compelled to abandon. After this 
event, little more occurs in the history of this castle, than 
the names of those to whom its custody has been entrusted. 
Edward IV. was the last monarch who paid any attention to 
the state of its buildings, he having “ repaired the walls, 
both of the castle and city, about the eleventh year of his 
reign.” Since then they have been alike neglected, and 
have gradually fallen to their present state of decay. Several 
estates in this county hold of Rochester castle by the ancient 
tenure of castle-guard. On St. Andrew’s day, old style, a 
banner is hung out at the house of the receiver of rents; and 
every tenant who does not then discharge his arrears, is liable 
155 
to have his rent doubled, on the return of every tide of the 
Medway, till the whole is discharged. 
Rochester castle stands at the south-western angle of the 
City, on an eminence rising abruptly from the river Medway, 
which preserves it from attack on the west, whilst its south, 
east, and north sides are defended by a broad and deep ditch. 
The outward walls, which formed an irregular parallelogram, 
300 feet in length, were strengthened by several square and 
round towers; but these, as well as the walls themselves, are 
now verging to a state of ruin. The most perfect are on the 
east side, and at the south-east angle; that at the angle was 
semicircular, and rose boldly from the ditch, which is now 
almost filled up. The principal entrance was on the north¬ 
east, and was defended by a tow’er-gateway, with outworks 
at the sides. The keep, or great tower, already mentioned, 
as founded by bishop Gundulph, occupies the south-east por¬ 
tion of the castle area. It is of a quadrangular form, 70 feet 
square at the base, and is so planned, that its angles corres¬ 
pond with the four cardinal points of the compass. The 
walls on the outside are built inclining inwards from the 
base, and in general measure twelve or thirteen feet thick. 
Near the centre, on each side, is a pilaster buttress, ascending 
from the base to the roof; and at the angles are projecting 
towers, three of them square, and the fourth semi-circular, 
which rise twelve feet above the roof. The entrance to this 
part of the castle was most difficult and intricate, and dis¬ 
played much architectural ingenuity. “ The first ascent was 
by a flight of twelve'steps, leading to an arched gate and 
covered way; beneath which a flight of seven steps led for¬ 
ward to a draw-bridge, that connected with the arched gate¬ 
way of the entrance tower; this opened into a vestibule, be¬ 
tween which and the keep there were no other avenues of 
communication than by a third arched passage in the thick¬ 
ness of the wall. This latter, being the immediate inlet to 
the body of the keep, was defended by a massive gate and 
portcullis, the hinges and grooves of 'which yet remain; and 
in the roof are openings for the purpose of showering down 
destruction on the assailants.” 
The interior of the keep is divided into two nearly equal 
parts by a strong wall, with arched door-ways of communi¬ 
cation on each floor. In the centre of this wall is a circular 
hole for a well of considerable depth, neatly wrought, and 
open from the bottom to the very top of the keep. This 
tower consisted of three floors, independent of the basement 
story ; but these floors were removed when the castle was 
dismantled in the reign of James I. The lowest apartments 
were two dark and gloomy rooms, in which the garrison 
stores were probably deposited. At the north-east angle is a 
circular winding staircase, which ascends to the summit; 
and ne.ar it is a small arched doorway, leading to a narrow 
vaulted apartment underneath the little tower, supposed to 
have been a dungeon for criminals. The first floor appears 
to have been allotted for the accommodation of servants and 
inferior attendants; the second floor contained the state 
apartments; and the third was designed for a chapel, and for 
bed-rooms for the family. The roof of the keep is now 
entirely destroyed ; but it most probably consisted of a plat¬ 
form on a level with the top of the wall within the parapet; 
the latter was about five feet high, and had embrasures about 
two feet wide. The four towers at the angles were raised 
another story, and had also small platforms, with parapets and 
embrasures. These, as well as the first-mentioned platform, 
commanded a very extensive view over the whole city, the 
river Medway, and the adjacent country; so that no enemy 
could approach within the distance of several miles without 
being discovered. 
The see of Rochester, though one of the smallest in 
England, derives considerable consequence from its an¬ 
tiquity. It was established, and a church built, as early 
as the year 600, by Ethelbert, king of Kent; who, at 
the same time, attached to the chruch a priory for se¬ 
cular canons, and dedicated it to the honour of St. Andrew. 
The first prelate of this see was Justus, a man of eminent 
learning and integrity, who had been sent from Rome to as¬ 
sist in the conversion of the Saxons to Christianity. He was 
installed 
