ANTIQUITIES. An Account of Caerphilly Castle. CAERPHI AERPHILLY Castle was once the largest in Great-Britain, next to Windsor, and it is without exception the most extensive ruin. Its magnitude and strength have caused the probability of its origin to be much controverted; and it is perhaps too much the custom to question the authenticity of those documents or traditions, which do not exactly tally with our own conjectures or pre-concerted hypotheses. The memorials which I have been able to collect, from the Welsh archæology, extracted for me by Mr. Edward Williams, and from other sources, received as the most authentic in that country, furnishing the following broken and interrupted particulars of this place from very early times. Cenydd, the son of Gildas, the celebrated author of the epistle, De Excidio Britanniæ, founded a church and monastery in the eastern, and another in the western part of Glamorgan. This anecdote is found in a very ancient manuscript account of the British saints, in the Welsh language: but no place is assigned to the first of these. To the second our attention will be drawn hereafter. But Caradoc Lhancarvan, in a copy differing from that which Powel translated, supplies the deficiency, by inform ing us, that in the year 831, the Saxons of Mercia came unexpect edly in the night, and burned the monastery dedicated to St. Cenydd, standing where Caerphilly castle is now; though there was at that time a sworn truce between the Britons of Glamorgan and the Mercian, Saxons. In the year 1094, the earls of Arundel and of Glocester, Arnold de Harcourt, and Neale le Vicount, came with an army against the Welsh of Glamorgan, in aid of Robert Fitzhaman. The armies met, and in the battle of Gellygare, which is five miles north of Caerphilly, the natives slew every one of those Norman leaders, and accomplished an exemplary vengeance on their ene mies, taking from them very rich and copious spoils. Some of the Normans escaped into their castles; but few of them were so fortunate; for Ednerth ap Cadwgan, with his sons, Gruffyth and Ivor, followed them very closely, and slew great numbers numbers in their retreat. Others of the defeated army fled from their pursuers into England; while such of the Normans as had been able to secure themselves in their castles, granted, as they termed it, but more properly restored to the Welsh, their ancient laws and immunities, with their lands in free tenure. The continuator of Caradoc Lhancarvan informs us, that in the year 1217, Rees Vechan, prince of South Wales, took this castle, but it is not mentioned from whom: the garri, son, however, to impede his operations, from the success of which they dreaded summary punishment, burnt the town. Hence there appears to he some truth in the tradition at Caerphilly, that the town was for, merly much larger than it is now; but that in early times it had been burnt, during a siege of the castle. They will shew in the fields and other vicinities of the town, many ancient foundations, with various vestiges of buildings; and so lately as the year 1802, in digging foundations for a new fulling-mill and other works, destined for the purpose of a woollen manufactory, in addition to those which are already established there, some very strong old foundations were discovered, with several pieces of oak timber, some of them partly burnt, a great number of old nails, and other remains, that confirmed the traditional relation. These discoveries were made nearly a quarter of a mile out of the present small town. It is mentioned in the annals of the same year, that Lhewelin ap Jorwerth, prince of North Wales; Gwenwynwyn, prince of Powise, son of Owen Cy-veiliog, and Rees Vechan, prince of South Wales, confederated to destroy the castles of the Normans and English, in Wales, and among others, they took the castle, which is the subject of the present remarks. But whe ther we are to understand, that these two accounts refer to the same event, and that the reduction of this castle was allotted to Rees Vechan, in the arrangement of their concerted operations; or that he lost it again, and that the allies immediately combined their forces to recover it, is neither easy nor important to ascertain. In the year 1218, Lhewelin ap Jorwerth is represented as having taken this castle once more from Reynald de Bruse, lord of Brecknock, and having then consigned it to the custody of Rees, prince of South Wales. Rees soon afterwards rased it to the ground. In 1219, John de Bruse," son of William de Bruse, married Margaret, daughter of Lhewelin ap Jorwerth, prince of North Wales. In 1221, John de Bruse rebuilt and fortified this castle, with the permission and by the advice of his father-in-law, prince Lhewelin ap Jorwerth. In the year 1270, Lhewelin ap Gruffyth ap Jorwerth, the last prince of North Wales, took the castle of Caerphilly. This is the first time it is called by the name of Caerphilly in the Welsh history. It was, in earlier times, denominated from the founder of the monastery on the site of which, after its demolition, the castle was rebuilt. This is also the last time it is mentioned at all in the continuation of Caradoc, from which these particulars are taken. But there is a more correct and ampler continuation of Caradoc extant, which is not at present put to the press. It is strongly suspected, that there are some considerable errors, or at least deficiencies in all the copies hitherto pubKished. It is not distinctly ascertained, into what hands Caerphilly castle passed, after the period of Lhewelin's capture. There may probably be some notices dispersed in genea logical manuscripts; but it is difficult to collect those short anecdotes, faintly and imperfectly recorded here and there, in a mass of confused materials. In the time of Edward I. it was undoubtedly in the possession of Gilbert de Clare, lord, or prince, as he is sometimes termed, of Glamorgan, who purchased it, but from whom I know not. On his marriage with Joan of Acres, he settled this castle, and the lands belonging to it, on her and her heirs for ever: but the estates belonging to the lordship of Glamorgan, with those belonging to his earldoms of Glocester and Hereford, he settled on her only for life. After his death she married, unknown to the king, Ralph de Mortimer, and settled Caerphilly castle, with the estates belonging to it, on him and his heirs for ever. After her death, Gilbert, son of the last earl de Clare, who was only five years old at the time of his father's decease, succeeded to the lordship or principality of Glamorgan. Mortimer, however, remained possessed of Caerphilly. This young lord, Gilbert de Clare, was slain at the battle of Bannockburn, in the year 1314, leaving no issue. His lordships, of course, descended to his three sisters, co-heiresses. One of them,named Eleanor, was married to Hugh Spencer, the younger; another, Margaret, to Piers Gavas tone; and the third, Elizabeth, to John de Bugh. Hugh Spencer, the younger, came to possess the lordship of Glamor. gan by this marriage, and by purchase or compromise from the other and co-heiresses. Among other acts of depredation, he seized on Caerphilly castle, which is said to have been built in a stronger manner than hitherto, by Ralph de Mortimer. He likewise usurped the lands belonging to it, and added considerably to the strength and magnitude of the castle. He and his father were the favou rites of Edward II. and being countenanced by him in all their licentious proceedings, both the father and son acted so directly in viola tion of all laws and justice, as to excite the indignation and resentment of the English barons, as well as the hatred of the nation in general. Their Welsh subjects, who made up the petty sovereignty of Glamorgan, were not backward in expressing their detestation: and Roger Mor timer, who was heir at law to Caer philly castle and its estates, drew up a regular statement of his case, accompanied it with a petition, complaining of the unjust seizure, by which his property was converted to the use of young Hugh Spencer. He presented this memorial to the barons, at a meeting held by them, for the purpose of taking into consideration the iniquitous conduct of Hugh Spencer. The barons agreed to furnish him with an army of ten thousand men: they placed him at the head of it, and encouraged him to enter Glamorgan, and take pos session of his estates. But the Spen. cers had so strongly fortified and garrisoned the castle; and had sup plied it with such an immense store of provisions, that they held out for a long time. The queen, siding with the barons, found means to raise & powerful army. King Edward, her husband, on the other hand, was enabled to get into Caerphilly castle. But after a long siege, the castle was taken, in consequence of a breac ons having been effected by means which it requires some faith to credit on the testimony of local traditions = and manuscripts. According to such accounts, a battering-ram was worked by one thousand men, and suspended to a frame, composed of twenty large oaks. The breach was made in the depth of a dark night, and king Edward escaped in the habit of a Welsh peasant. The more effectually to disguise himself, he assisted with great cagerness to pile wood on the tremendously large fires that lighted the besiegers in battering the castle. Local authorities assert, probably with some degree of poetical amplification, that one hundred teams were employed to supply wood for those vast fires. The Welsh are said to have assisted the besiegers from all quarters, at a proper opportunity. Edward made his escape from every danger, and through the dark and stormy night, went on till he came to the parish of Llangonoyd, twenty miles westward, where he hired himself as a cowherd or shepherd, at a farm, still known by so singular a circumstance. After having been there for some time, but how long is not precisely ascertained; the farmer, finding him but an awkard and ignorant fellow, dismissed him. Such is the colouring of one account: but another story, in manuscript, relates, that the farmer knew who he was, and befriended him as long as he could. From Llangonoyd he went to Neath Abbey, whence he issued a proclamation, ordering his subjects to take the queen, with other particulars, which are to be found in Rymer's Fœdera. The Spencers were taken in their castle, where prodigious quantities of salt and fresh provisi Of live cattle, were found. there were lodged within the castle walls, two thousand fat oxen, twelve thousand cows, twenty-five thou sand calves, thirty thousand fat sheep, six hundred draught horses, and a sufficient number of carts for them; two thousand fat hogs, two hundred tons of French wine, forty tons of cyder and wine, the produce of their own estates, with wheat enough to make bread for two thou sand men for four years. In one of the towers, every apartment was crammed full of salt. Under this tower was a furnace for smelting iron, hot masses of which had been thrown by engines on the besiegers, who, when they had got possession of the castle, let out the fused iron from the furnace, and threw water upon it. This occa sioned a most dreadful explosion, that rent the tower in two, and destroyed the salt. What stands of the tower at present, is that which overhangs its base. The subsequent fate of the two Hugh Spencers, father and son, is too well known to need a record on this occasion. Hugh Spencer, the grandson, however, with his faithful garrison, found means to destroy, very unexpectedly, a considerable number of the besiegers, and leading his men to the breach, was able to prevent others from entering. Presuming on this success, young Spencer succeeded in destroying his enemies within, and procuring tolerable terms, by which he was permitted to remain in possession of his castle and his estates, together with the lordship of Glamorgan. His son, Thomas Spencer, succeeded him. The next in the catalogue was a second Thomas Spencer; the last, and if possible, the worst, of this tyrannical tyrannical and unprincipled family. He, after the accession of king Henry IV. was on his way home, in consequence of the conspiracy being betrayed, and the rebels routed at Cirencester. He was met there by a great number of the Welsh, who had been deprived of their properties by him and his ancestors. These Welshmen took him out of his bed, at Bristol, and being joined by the populace, beheaded him. He left no male issue, and only one daugh. ter, Isabella, his heiress, who married Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, and in her right, lord of Glamorgan. There remained in Glamorganshire, of illegitimate issue, several families bearing the surname of Spencer. The Spencers, lords of Glamorgan, were immensely wealthy; and hence we may easily account for the magnitude of Caerphilly castle. This castle having been thus rough ly handled by the queen and barons, in the years 1326 and 1327, there are some reasons for supposing, that it was never afterwards inhabited by the lords of Glamorgan. For we find that in the year 1400, the famous Owen Glandwr had obtained A celebrated possession of it. Welsh bard addresses a fine ode to Glandwr, expressing himself after the following manner, making allowance for the difference of idi oms. "Bring together a faithful host "from the territories of the Dau"phin: pursue thy course to Ross and Pembroke, and to the region of Breiddin. Then, a protector "like Constantine, bring forth thine armies from gigantic Caerphilly, a fortress great in its ruins." It is very probable that it remain ed in a state of ruin, ever since the siege of the barons. Still however, it must have been a place of considerable strength, or it would not have been occupied by Glandwr, after whose time there is but little mention of it to be met with, for more than a whole century. It seems to have been a place where its rapacious lords, the Spencers, amassed every thing they could get, by plundering their vassals or tenants, and the inhabitants in general. From this circumstance arose the Welsh proverb, "It is gone to Caerphilly,” signifying, that a thing is irrecoverably lost, and used on occasions, when an Englishman of no very nice selection would say, "It is gone to "the devil." A distinguished bard of the fourteenth century, David ap Gwilym, has, in a satyrical poem of his, the following passage, the sense and style of which may in some measure be preserved in English, uncouth as they appear in our phraseology. |