In speaking concerning baronies, we should hold distinctly in remembrance that the same word is sometimes used to express two different circumstances of possession; viz. the land-barony and the titular barony. In addition to what is said above, concerning the former, it may be added from Madox, that " a Landhonor, or barony, is so called because it was annexed and united to land. It was bounded by a determinate extent of ground, like as a manor, liberty, or ferme, was bounded.

This

"There were in England certain honors which were often called by Norman, or other foreign names; that is to say, sometimes by the English, and sometimes by the foreign name. happened when the same person was lord of an honor in Normandy, or some other foreign country, and also of an honor in England." Mr. Madox mentions, as an instance of this prac tice, that "the Earl of Britanny was lord of the honor of Britanny, in France, and also of the honor of Richmond, in England; whence, the bonor of Richmond was sometimes called by the foreign name, the honor of Britanny, or the Honor of the Earl of Britanny." The recollection of this practice will often be found useful by the reader of the "Beauties of England."

The Titular baronies of this country are well described in the following paragraph, which, likewise, presents some conjectures concerning their origin and ancient characteristics: "The original and antiquity of baronies have occasioned great inquiries among our English antiquaries. The most probable opinion seems to be, that they were the same with our present lords of manors; to which the name of court baron [which is the lord's court, and incident to every manor] gives some countenance.*

paramount over all these manors; and bis seignory is frequently termed an honour, not a manor; especially if it hath belonged to an ancient feudal baron, or hath been at any time in the hands of the crown."

* « Lords of manors, who had granted to others, by subinfeudation, part of that estate which they held of the king, would necessarily be barons; but it does not follow, conversely, that a baron was of necessity a lord of a

manor

It may be collected from King John's magna charta, that originally all lords of manors, or barons, that held of the king in capite, had seats in the great council, or parliament: till, about the reign of that prince, the conflux of them became so large and troublesome, that the king was obliged to divide them, and summon only the greater barons in person; leaving the small ones to be summoned by the sheriff, and [as it is said] to sit by representation in another house; which gave rise to the separation of the two houses of Parliament. By degrees, the title came to be confined to the greater barons, or lords of Parliament only; and there were no other barons among the peerage but such as were summoned by writ, in respect of the tenure of their lands or baronies, till Richard the Second first made it a mere title of honour, by conferring it on divers persons by his letters patent."*

The spiritual lords, consisting of two archbishops and twentyfour bishops, are considered as holding certain ancient baronies under the king. William the Conqueror changed the spiritual tenure of frank-almoign, or free alms, under which mitred ecclesiastics held their lands during the Anglo-Saxon dynasty, into the feudal tenure by barony. "This subjected their estates to all civil charges and assessments, from which they were before exempt. But, in right of succession to those baronies, which were unalienable from their respective dignities, the bishops, and abbots, were allowed their seats in the House of Lords."+

In explanation of a term which often occurs when speaking of landed property subsequent to the Norman conquest, the reader may be reminded that, on the introduction of the feudal law in

its

manor; for the king's tenant, who retained all the estate granted him, and alienated no part of it, would certainly be as complete a baron as a lord of a manor." Note to Blackstone's Comment, edit, 14th, by Edward Chrissian, Esq.

• Blackstone's Comment. Vol. I. p. 399.

+ Ibid, p. 156,

its full extent of rigour, the whole of the lands in this kingdom were divided into what were called knight's fees. This division obviously originated in the institution of tenure by knight's ser vice. In constituting such a tenure, a certain portion of land was necessary, which was termed a knight's fee. But the best writers differ as to whether the requisite fee of a knight was necessarily determinate in quantity, or otherwise. The measure of a knight's fee is said by Blackstone to have been estimated, in the third year of the reign of Edward the First, "at twelve plough lands; and its value [though it varied with the times] in the reigns of Edward the First and Edward the Second, was stated at 201. per annum.’ ""*

On the contrary, Mr. Selden contends "that a knight's fee did not consist of land of a fixed extent, or value; but was as much as the king was pleased to grant upon the condition of having the service of one knight;" and this opinion is considered as the more probable by Mr. Christian, in a note on the above passage in the "Commentaries."

The service due from a person holding a whole fee by knight's service, consisted in attending his lord to the wars for forty days in every year, if called upon. In consequence of the subdivisions of property, we find frequent mention of the half, or frac tional proportion of a knight's fee. In these cases the service due was divided between the participators in the land; the person holding half a knight's fee performing twenty days service.—The number of knight's fees into which England was divided, is usually believed to have been about sixty thousand.†

ON THE MILITARY ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANGLO-NORMANS.—Although many fortified buildings of stone had been Y 4 raised

• Blackstone's Comment. Vol. II. p. 62, and the authorities there quoted. + Vide Selden's Titles of Honour, &c.-For many remarks on the proba. ble number of knight's fees in England, the reader is referred to Mador's Baronia Anglica, Book I. Chap. 2.

raised by Alfred and his successors, the inadequacy of these to the defence of the country was obvious at the accession of William the First; and by that warlike and politic king, the erection of additional castellated structures was constituted one of the first cares of his new government. The prodigious power vested in a conqueror's hands rendered his plan easy of execution. He not only built, by publie aid, strong castles in the principal towns within the royal demesnes,* but stimulated the nobles whose possessions were derived from his pleasure, to construct similar fortresses on their respective estates; for the great object of his policy was necessarily directed to an effect of immediate operation, the security of the Anglo-Norman government against the discontents of his native English subjects. The evils arising from such a phalanx of strong holds, vested in barons who might not always be obedient to the crown, were to be felt at a future day.

In this spirit of political intention he was imitated by his immediate successors; amongst whom William Rufus is said by ancient writers to have exceeded even his father in a fondness for erecting castles of defence.

As the feudal system acquired strength, the number of castles increased; and when the exigencies of the crown no longer demanded an augmentation of strong holds for the defence of the state, ambition amongst the barons acted as a sufficient inducement. Disputes concerning a succession to the crown' likewise favoured this increase of defensible retreats. Whilst the dignity of the throne was tarnished by party-conflict, and the interests of the people lay quite neglected, numerous castles were raised by the partizans of each contending faction.-The troubled reign of Stephen

• Royal castles, from the earliest period at which such fortresses are recognised, were erected and preserved in repair at the public expense. It will be recollected that this duty formed one of the three obligations imposed upon all lands in the Anglo-Saxon times, usually termed the trinoda necessitas.

Stephen is the era most conspicuous for the erection of such fortresses, although less architectural skill is displayed in his buildings than in those of many other ages.

In the present section, our attention will be confined to such castles as strictly evince a style introduced by the Normans; and will, therefore, be limited to structures erected shortly after the conquest. For more complex modes of military architecture were speedily adopted, which may be noticed with greater propriety in future pages.

While discussing this part of our subject, it appears desirable to adopt, in some measure, the arrangement of an antiquarian writer whose works are of great utility in such investigations, if the authenticated portion be carefully separated from that which partakes of fancy, or hypothesis. Mr. King, in the "Sequel to his Observations on Ancient Castles,"* divides the determinate military architecture of the Anglo-Normans into two classes; that which they practised in such structures as were raised by William the First, for the purpose of immediate defence; and the more artificial mode which was afterwards introduced, and is supposed to have been carried to its greatest perfection, by Bishop Gundulph.

Concerning the first Anglo-Norman style, it is observed by the same antiquary, "that the Normans, magnificent as they were, seem, at first, to have entered this country with ideas of fortification quite different from, and inferior to, those of the Saxons; though they afterwards adopted the latter, and even greatly improved upon them.

"Their first castles, and their first style of architecture, are almost every where to be distinguished. Descended from the Danes, they still retained Danish ideas, and considered the high mount as the most essential part of a fortress. The high insulated hill, as the basis of a round tower, is characteristic of all the first Norman castles."+

In

Archæol. Vol, VI,

† Archæol. Vol. VI. p. 257,