Upnor Castle, Kent

PLATE I *.. T •" «%*>* ;T•^ «ws> •T- ?;.>r::**<^;. „ UPNOR CASTLE, KENT. Gatehouse from outside. (Crown Copyright Reserved) PLATE II WfpQ * i i . :i f-f. T*:1': * *m fir 3 **'. *i UPNOR CASTLE, KENT. Gatehouse from within. (Crown Copyright Reserved) [ face p. 1 rfftawtajjpiH dfanitaM UPNOR CASTLE, KENT HISTORY By B. H. St. J. O'NEEL, F.S.A., and S. EVANS COASTAL defence has been a necessity in this country from very early days especially in those parts which are adjacent to the Continent of Europe. The coasts of Kent and Sussex, which face France, were equipped with special defences by Henry VIII, c. 1540, by means of a series of castles of entirely new design. There were five similar castles or blockhouses on the Thames around Gravesend and Tilbury, but none seems to have been built on the Medway, where Rochester Castle still commanded the crossing by the bridge. It was not until the dockyard came to be built downstream from this castle that there seemed any need for additional defences on the Medway. From 1547 onwards Jillyngham Water became increasingly important as an anchorage for the expanding English Navy, in addition to that at Deptford and Woolwich. Storehouses were being rented at Gillingham and Rochester in 1547, 1548 and 1550. In 1559 war was expected to break out with France. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that in 1560 orders were given for the erection of a fortification at Upnor. This site is on the opposite side of the water to the dockyard, but its position is a good one both for observation and command of the river. It is first heard of in 1560, when a certain Richard Watts of Rochester was appointed by Queen Elizabeth to be Paymaster, Purveyor and Clerk of the Works for the erection of a Bulwark at Upnor in the parish of Frindsbury " for the savegard of our Navy "} In the following year the Queen is found ordering the work to be completed,2 and in June, 1562, it was recommended that stone should be taken from Rochester Castle for use in the work at Upnor,3 but there is no evidence from the types of masonry that this was actually done. By December, 1562, the work had not been completed, although it is 1 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1647-80, p. 172. 2 Ibid., p. 202. 3 Ibid., p. 204. 1 l UPNOR CASTLE, KENT known that Watts was still Paymaster in August of that year.1 It took four years to complete at a cost of £3,621 13s. Id.2 • I t seems fairly clear that the building of that time comprised, not only the castle proper, i.e. the main building with the courtyard, curtain, gatehouse and two towers, but also the battery or bastion which projects eastwards into the river. The latter has embrasures for cannon which have only an external splay. In this respect they are an advance upon those in the gatehouse and towers of the castle which have an internal as well as an external splay, although the latter is longer and wider than the former. During the preparations for the war with Spain, which included the exploit of the Spanish Armada, Upnor Castle was well maintained. As early as 1585 precautions were taken.3 In the following year there is the first mention of " the charge of a great chain of iron, to cross the river over against Upnor Castle with timber work on both sides, of the river ".* In 1588 the maintenance of the chain cost 80 pounds a year.5 This chain was a device, like a boom, often used in the Middle Ages to bar access up a river by hostile craft. In 1596 there was renewed fear of invasion of this country by the Spaniards. Five ships were posted near the chain.6 Lord Admiral Howard reported to Cecil that Upnor Castle should either be well garrisoned, or be pulled down to deny it to an enemy who might land and surprise it. He suggested 50 trained men to guard it ;7 a month later its garrison was 80 men who each received 8d. a day.8 From this year, when the garrison was fully maintained, dates the earliest of several initials and dates scratched on the castle walls, viz., T.M. 1596 on the arch into the north tower. By 1622 the chain across the river must have needed attention ; for it was ordered to spend £35110s. upon making a barricade in its stead or to supplement it.0 Later documents make it clear that this was primarily a boom made of masts,10 but that the chain was still there is shown by a mention of it m 1629.11 In January, 1634-5, the King ordered the repair of the barricade,12 but nothing seems to have been done. For in the following November the officers of the Navy are 1 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1547-80, p. 213. 2 V.C.H. Kent, II, p. 294, quoting Pipe off. Decl. Accts., pp..2204, 3645, Add. MSS., p. 5722, fol. 372. 3 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1581-90, p. 232. 4 Ibid., p. 304. 6 Ibid., p. 656. « Ibid., 1595-7, p. 306. ' Ibid., p. 310. 8 Ibid., p. 314. ' Ibid., 1619-23, p. 335. « Ibid., 1634-6, pp. 492-3. » Ibid., 1628-9, p. 668. ia Ibid., 1634-5, p. 478. 2 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT found writing to the Lords of the Admiralty as follows : " For the barricado at Upnor Castle, lately broken by the great Frost, they recommend for this winter the employment of the two pinnaces called the Moon and the Seven Stars. For the future they advise that four lighters more may be made, which, with the present six and the beforementioned two pinnaces, should bear up an iron chain across that place, which will not be so subject to break as the late barricado made of masts and be far less expense. To renew the former barricado will cost £2,305 besides £624 12s. 9d. per annum to maintain it. The suggested chain weighing 28 tons of iron at £45 per ton wrought will cost £1,260 and 11 anchors to moor the ships and lighters, six tons at £40 per ton, &240."1 Still nothing was done. On 20th May, 1636, the chain or barricado was described as " broken and out of order these two years ".2 The officers of the Navy wrote again on the subject to the Lords of the Admiralty on 19th October, 1637, about " a new chain in place of the barricado at Upnor Castle which His Majesty ordered some years past ".3 Presumably the Lords of the Admiralty were then moved to order the work, since no more is heard of it. The garrison of the castle at this time under a captain, who received £30 a year, sometimes included a lieutenant,* but always a master gunner at 16d. a day, seven gunners at 12d. a day each and 20 foot soldiers at 8d. each a day.5 At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642, Upnor Castle, with the two forts or sconces commanding the river and Chatham Dock, were surrendered to Parliament, who garrisoned them.6 Nothing further is heard until the sudden rising in 1648 known as the insurrection in Kent. Major Brown was the governor of the castle. It is recorded that a Mr. John Roberts seized Major Brown and took the castle for the King. But the insurrection was soon suppressed, and by 30th June of the same year Lord Fairfax, the Parliamentarian general, had reviewed it and recommended the repair of the platforms and other defects. This was estimated to cost £101 12s.7 It seems that Major Brown was back at his post as governor or captain ; for the proceedings of the Council of State for December, 1649, refer first to work of repair which he is to do8 and later to work which he had aheady done.9 Altogether the work must have been very 1 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1634-5, pp. 492-3. 2 Ibid., 1636-7, p. 442. 3 Ibid., 1637 ? i Ibid., 1636-7, p. 275. 6 Ibid., 1639-40, p. 527. 0 Ibid., 1641-3, p. 374. ' Ibid., 1648-9, p. 147. 8 Ibid., 1649-60, p. 429. 0 Ibid., p. 431. 3 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT considerable, because on 18th November, 1650, a warrant was issued to pay Major Brown £673 2s. 4d. for moneys disbursed in the repair of Upnor Castle.1 The nature of the work done at this time is indicated by the happenings of three years later. On 28th February, 1653, Thos. Harrison, Governor of Upnor Castle, petitioned the Admiralty Committee " for repair of the gatehouse, which took fire, and five soldiers' rooms were burned, and for covering in of the north tower, built by Major Brown, but left uncovered, so that it will soon be destroyed, there being timber in Chatham Dockyard unfit for shipping, but fit for repairs." The Navy Commissioners were ordered to have the Gatehouse and Tower surveyed and certify the charge and the necessity of repair.2 After making sure that the castle would continue to be of use to the Navy,3 the Council of State ordered the work to be done with the timber in the dockyard already specified.4 The estimate for carpenters', bricklayers' and plumbers' work was £230.5 The marks of the burning of 1653 may be seen on the inside of the west wall on the first floor of the gatehouse where the stones are calcined. The presence of bricklayers to the exclusion of masons in this estimate, coupled with the amount of money spent by Major Brown, suggest that it was he who made the additions in brick to the gatehouse and the north tower. The colour of the brick and the projecting bands in the brickwork support this dating. The work to the tower had the effect of closing it in and making in it habitable rooms, whereas formerly it was httle better than a platform, such as were mentioned in 1648. Clearly Major Brown did not finish the work he intended, since the north tower had not been covered in, but to him must be attributed the curious heightening of the gatehouse, with gunports more widely splayed than those of 1561. No doubt he added to it, in order to gain command of the rising land to the west. Fairfax had suggested an outwork in this direction, in order to make the castle " very defensible,"6 but there is no sign that this was ever made. In 1661, after the Restoration, Upnor Castle is found amongst the permanent fortifications of the earliest establishment of the British Standing Army. The garrison was still much the same, viz. a captain, lieutenant, master gunner, six other gunners and twenty others, but the pay was higher for the last named.7 In 1667 occurred the disaster when the Dutch Navy sailed up the 1 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1660, p. 600. " Ibid., 1662-3, p. 191. 3 Ibid., p. 314. * Ibid., p. 381. s Ibid., p. 642. « Ibid., 1648-9, p. 128. ' Journ. Army Hist. Research, IX, p. 239. 4 UPNOR CASTLE ROCHESTER KENT SCALE 10 S O OF FEET "' SI tver to 20 30 40 SO s y u n i u i i u i i i i i i i i n n i i i i i i i i i l l l l i H u 5 *i fc ? =^ 3Z a: U? MM I... c/Kec/u/a SCALE OF 1 O 1 2 3 4 5 METRES r.y FIG. 1. [face p. i UPNOR CASTLE, KENT Medway spreading destruction. The account of this as given in the Victoria History of Kent is as follows :x " On 10th June, Ruyter decided to strike at Chatham, and as a prehminary attacked the uncompleted fort at Sheerness. Some beginning had been made there in accordance with articles of 6th March, 1667, for work to the value of £1,360 between Sir Richard de Gomme, the military engineer in charge, and two contractors. Of what happened we have an account by Edward Gregory, then Clerk of the Cheque at Chatham, years afterwards Sir Edward Gregory, a member of the Navy Board and Commissioner, at Chatham, who is several times mentioned in the article on the Royal Dockyards. Sir Edward Spragge, a capable seaman, was in command of the ships and of the Medway ; he sent on the 9th for the only regiment of regulars in the neighbourhood, which marched towards Sheerness, but the movement was countermanded and only one company came. Spragge also sent for 100 seamen from Chatham, but the small craft carrying them went ashore coming down the river and only 44 appeared at Sheerness. On the 10th, just before the attack, a company of trained bands came in ; the fort itself had 16 guns, but only 7 were serviceable. The Dutch opened fire about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and as soon as one man had been killed and many wounded the garrison ran away, except Gregory and 6 others who remained to be taken prisoners. The strength of the Dutch landing party—800 men—may well have brought home to the tiny garrison the excellence of discretion; it was under the command of Colonel Dolman, said to have been an English soldier of the Commonwealth army, who also led the assault on Landguard in July. A council of war was held to discuss whether Sheerness could be held permanently; it was decided to be impracticable, therefore the enemy destroyed the fort and took away such naval stores as were to be found. The Dutch estimate that their value was nearly £40,000 must be pure imagination. " Ruyter had upwards of 70 fighting ships, besides fire ships, transports and nearly 3,000 troops; when Albemarle arrived at Chatham on 11th June he found no order, system, discipline, or leadership. Of the dockyard men he could not find a dozen for service, the rest being occupied in removing their belongings ; to do this they were using the river guard boats which should have been employed in towing into safety the big ships lying near Upnor chain. According to the duke, and the articles of impeachment against Commissioner Peter Pett afterwards framed upon his report, the Commissioner himself had set the shameful example of using some of these boats to transfer his own property. Pett denies this, and on the whole it would seem that he was a commonplace man, fitted for routiner and peace 1 V.C.H., Kent, II, pp. 326-8. ^ 5 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT duties, who was made to suffer for the defaults of his superiors. Albemarle found the chain which must have been a light one since it only weighed between 14 and 15 tons, in position between Hoo Ness and Gillingham ; this was much lower down than the situation of the Elizabethan chain and outside any protection from Upnor, but the alteration had become necessary in consequence of the greatly increased number of ships within it. Albemarle's first preoccupation was to throw up two batteries, one at each end of the chain, but, of course, they were only weak ones. Two ships were sunk outside the chain, then others were called for ; Albemarle knew nothing of local fairways and soundings, and appears to have been unable to obtain accurate information, so that he resolved to hold another vessel ready to sink inside the chain. This order, which would have enabled him effectually to have blocked the channel if it had been obeyed, was not properly executed. " While Albemarle was using his respite of 36 hours between the 10th and 12th in the arrangement of these hurried measures of defence the Dutch were slowly sounding their passage up the Medway. About 10 a.m. of the 12th the leading ships bore down on the chain. It is uncertain whether it broke, was forced under water by weight of the ships, or was cast loose by some Dutch seamen sent ashore but it checked the advance only for a moment. The Royal Charles, a first rate (the Naseby of the Commonwealth), was carried off, other ships were burned and Albemarle sank three more first rates to save them. There is little doubt that, had the attack been pushed home with more vigour this day, the Dockyard and every ship in ordinary might have been destroyed. The Dutch anchored when the tide turned and did not resume operations until the next day. In the interval Albemarle planted guns in suitable positions, and threw up an eight gun battery at the side of Upnor. When the enemy came finally again, on the 13th, they were exposed to heavy artillery and musketry fire from Upnor and the earth works thrown up ; their fire ships, however, succeeded in burning the Loyal London, Old James and Royal Oak sunk the previous day, but whose upper works were not under water. With this success the Dutch were content and retired to Queenborough, where they remained at anchor for some days, a detachment landing in Sheppey on the 19th to collect sheep and other necessaries. By the end of the month, when the Dutch were far away there were 60 or 70 guns mounted in the old and new dockyards at Chatham ; on 24th July a belated royal warrant ordered that Upnor was ' henceforth ' to be kept up as a ' fort' and place of strength. " Ruyter separated his fleet into three divisions of which one, under himself, remained in the embouchure of the Thames ; and reconnaissance up the river showed little to tempt him to run the risk of a passage, 6 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT for Gravesend and Tilbury were being strongly armed, and ships were sunk in the fairway of Gallions Reach and at Blackwall Point, these situations having been selected by the elder brethren of the Trinity House. In obedience later to expressed instructions from the States General, a squadron entered the Thames, but by that time there were 80 guns and several companies of foot at Gravesend and Tilbury. The Dutch went up to the Hope on 13th July to attack some Enghsh frigates and fire ships lying there ; after an indecisive action the English came up under the protection of the guns of Gravesend and Tilbury. There was more fighting on the 14th and 16th but on the 18th the enemy retired to the Nore. They maintained a blockade of the river, and on 23rd and 24th July came again to the Hope ; there Avas some fighting in which both sides used up their fire ships without much result. One consequence of these events was that in October the Trinity House assistants were ordered to prepare a chart of the Medway." In'May, 1668, it was decided that Upnor Castle should be converted into a Magazine, but the earliest record of explosives that has so far been traced is a letter dated 3rd March, 1745, asking for 1,000 barrels to be moved from the upper room of the Magazine. On 21st July, 1745, 6,806 barrels of gunpowder were stored at Upnor. It was at about this time or perhaps a httle earlier that the South tower was closed in on the north side and made habitable or at least useful. Certainly by Hasted's time it had been the governor's house, but it was described as unfit for his reception and never used for the purpose.1 There is, unfortunately, a long gap in the history of the Castle from this point until 1891. It is feared that local records have been destroyed, given away or taken as souvenirs. Some may yet be found either in the papers still in the castle or in the Pubhc Record Office. Until 1891, although the Admiralty made the financial provision, the War Office made arrangements for the provision, storage, upkeep and supply of Armament Stores to the Navy. In 1891 the Armament Supply Department was formed (it was known as the Ordnance Store Department until its title was changed in 1919) and Upnor Castle and Depot were transferred from the War Office to the Admiralty. The history of the Castle from 1891 is uneventful. It was used for various storage purposes and the Gun Platform and the Castle Yard were used as Proof Yards. Its use for these purposes was discontinued in stages begun by Mr. G. E. Woodward in 1921. Mr. A. W. F. Burton (1922-31) began using the Castle as a museum and in 1945 Admiralty approval was given for the Castle to be used as a Departmental Museum. The Castle was damaged by two bombs that fell in the garden of the S.A.S.O.'s official residence in June, 1941. These bombs demolished a 1 Hasted, History of Kent, 1783,1, p. 548. 7 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT bungalow opposite the Gate House. The Royal Marine Police Fireman lived in this bungalow, but the four occupants at the time escaped with relatively minor injuries. The blast from these bombs disturbed the plaster on the archway in the South Tower, disclosing two dates and two initials cut in the stone, referred to in the description of the castle. A drawing of a ship on the second floor of the gatehouse was also disclosed. Mr. Charles Mitchell of the Warburg Institute and Mr. Michael Robinson of the National Maritime Museum have commented on this drawing as follows : " There is a quite clear spritsail topmast which could not appear in big ships after 1720. The curved shape of the head would pass for anything after 1660. There is one obscurity. The figurehead has the appearance of the fiddle head type which means a date about 1800. In the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century there would have been a hon figurehead, but this is a crude drawing and what looks like a fiddle head is very probably shorthand for a hon figurehead. There is one other explanation, namely, that this is a consciously archaic but inaccurate drawing of an older ship drawn by a man who lived in the days of the fiddle head, but that is a remote and unlikely possibility. The spritsail topmast would have passed from the memory of most practical seamen by 1800. We incline to date the drawing about 1700." There are traces of other drawings and wall decorations under the whitewash elsewhere in the castle, but so far it has not been possible to uncover them. During 1948 a pit, on the north side of the gatehouse outside the curtain wall, in which there had been a boiler house for heating the depot, was filled in and a latrine on the south side of the gatehouse was removed. At some time the main doorway in the Main Block had been filled in with stone and chalk, possibly in order to support a beam overhead as the end in the wall had decayed. During the 1914 war a new doorway was cut slightly to the north and in doing this what appeared to be the remains of a stoup were removed. At the same time an opening was made over the original doorway into the first floor. A stone that looked as if it might have had a coat-of-arms was removed and a part of a four-light window was blocked up. These openings on the ground floor and the first floor were made for fire fighting purposes. In 1949 the original doorway was unblocked and a date (1677) was discovered cut in the plaster. The plaster, unfortunately, fell before it could be preserved, but the date had been photographed and a copy of the photograph has been hung just inside the door. In 1949 the windows on the first floor of the Main Blook of the castle, which had been bricked up some time, were also unblooked. 8 PLATE III /.vs. f s\ • '•-•• 2 1 / i ; X t .«^ • i *«: '^fen ••' •'"••... I ', " * - '* - "*! • tiM I'PXOR CASTLE, KEXT. Graffiti in South Tower. (Crown Copyright Reserved) [face p. 8 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT. Gunport in North Tower : interior. {Crown Copyright Reserved) E - UPNOR CASTLE, KENT. Gunport in North Tower ; exterior. (Crown Copyright Reserved) PLATE VI • • H i ftk-m.-. »•»• - i . St «5 1J o O i EH - - c p UPNOR CASTLE, KENT In the same year a flag staff was erected on the north side of the gatehouse where it is shown in all the old prints. Prior to the 1939 war the flagstaff had been for some years on the South Tower. The following work was carried out in 1950 : The sally port in the north curtain waU of the castle which had been bricked-up was unblocked and a tunnel filled with relatively modern rubbish was discovered. Quill friction tubes were found 3 ft. 6 in. below the surface in what had obviously been at one time the top spit. These tubes were introduced in 1865. Some are displayed in one of the show cases in the hall of the Upnor office and were possibly thrown away when the Castle Yard was used for proof purposes. A rather unsightly ramp leading to the relatively recent doorway made at the other end of the north wall was removed and replaced by steps. Wrought iron gates were fitted to this doorway and to the sally port. The ground to the north of the castle was cleared of undergrowth, and in removing a diseased elm a smaU solid round shot, now in the Upnor office hall, was found 9 ft. below the surface. A small brick building of relatively recent construction on the south side of the Main Block of the castle, and a building which obscured the entrance to the Den were removed at the suggestion of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments. A new doorway was provided for the Den. The following work was done in 1951 : Balustrades were fitted to the openings in the east face of the gatehouse. These openings had been enclosed by weather boarding until this was damaged beyond repair in the air raid of June, 1941. The walls of the barrack buildings in the courtyard were uncovered. The fireplace in the Guard Room on the ground floor of the North Tower of the gatehouse was unblocked and electric lighting was extended to the North and South Towers. DESCRIPTION The castle was built solely for the purpose of coastal defence at a time when the naval dockyard on the opposite side of the river was becoming more and more important. The castle had of necessity to be defended to landward in case an enemy landed elsewhere and attacked it from this side, but its main purpose lay towards the river. For this purpose it had high towers at the water's edge, from which watch could be kept downstream, and also a battery or bastion with ten embrasures for cannon, six facing downstream and four upstream. To landward there is a curtain wall and gatehouse, adequately flanked by means of gunports for cannon, but otherwise of no great pretensions. The buildings of 1560-3 are externally all of stone, although red brick of normal Elizabethan size and colour is freely used internally. The stone is Kentish ragstone, roughly squared and usually quite well 9 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT coursed, 6 to 10 in. high to a course. In the joints there are small pieces of stone set diagonally, called galletting, which is an especial feature of sixteenth-century work, although occurring also at other times. Almost all the stone walling of the castle is original work of 1561-2, but there have been a few alterations, e.g. the round windows in the east front are eighteenth-century insertions ; beside them earlier jambs may be seen in. several cases. Much of the river front of the northern and southern towers up to the string course has been repaired in ashlar, which contrasts with the normal squared rubble of the castle. The bastion or battery which, projects from the eastern or water side of the castle is apparently not bonded into the main fabric. Nevertheless it seems to be contemporary with it, since no less than four doorways with four-centred heads, which appear to be original, give access to the battery from the main building. AU external brickwork now visible in the main buildings is due to later additions. That which appears in the upper part of the gatehouse is of the middle of the seventeenth century. So also is the southern wall of the north tower ; this is the work of Major Brown, already mentioned. The northern waU of the south tower is somewhat later still, as are the top courses of the main building, which carry the roof timbers. The castle consists of an oblong courtyard defended by a thick stone curtain, beyond which is a wide but irregular ditch on all sides except the east, where flows the river. There is a gatehouse in the centre of the west wall, tall towers at the north-east and south-east corners of the courtyard and against much of the eastern wall a long oblong building, which formed the main accommodation of the garrison. The curtain was originally blank, but in its northern length there are now two openings. That to the east is of the late eighteenth century or even later. The other is of earlier date and may even be Elizabethan, but it is clearly not original, since the passage to it has been cut through the curtain. In the courtyard at this point there are the remains of a brick building, which seems to have been a store or barrack. Its walls are of red brick of the late sixteenth or seventeenth century. Another such building is in the other part of the courtyard. Both were probably once L shaped (not shown on the plan). The gatehouse consists of an oblong tower projecting in front of the curtain and within the courtyard two turrets with rounded angles corbelled out near the summit to square corners. The southern turret contains a stair; the other once contained a guard chamber at the ground floor, and other rooms above. The wing walls projecting over the moat in front of the gatehouse are not original parts of the fabric, but the double oak door is a fine example of Elizabethan date. Within the door there is a space or room, from which gunports flank the adjacent 10 UPNOR CASTLE, KENT curtain. Like others in the castle and like the most developed of the gunports of Henry VIII's coastal defences of c. 1540, they have somewhat more splay externally than internally. The fireplace here is a later addition, as is that on the floor above. It is indeed doubtful whether there was ever any back or east wall to the gatehouse ; it was intended merely as a fighting platform. The heightening of the gatehouse in brick with widely splayed gunports at second floor level is part of the work of Major Brown in 1649. The marks of the fire of 1653 have already been mentioned. The Main Building is entered by a round-headed door, recently unblocked ; above it is the space for a coat-of-arms or plaque. This building has been so altered internally with comparatively new roof and floors, that it is impossible to decide what was its original arrangement. It now has five three-light mullioned windows in its west wall on the first floor (one partly blocked) as well as evidence of four twolight windows at ground level. As already mentioned, there are vestiges of similar windows now blocked in favour of round ones in the east wall. Presumably in this building were the main quarters of the garrison on two floors, with stores below accessible from the bastion which projects into the water. This bastion is now reached by means of a winding stair from the main building. The stair is not original, but must represent an earlier stair in much the same position. The bastion has aheady been described, but it should be added that it seems to retain its Elizabethan rounded parapet, and is a notable example of its kind. The towers at the north-eastern and south-eastern corners of the courtyard each contain an original gunport to flank the adjacent curtain and a guardrobe or latrine at the end of a short passage beside the stairs in the turret, which projects into the river. Each tower has been enlarged southwards and northwards respectively in red brick and the original arrangement is by no means certain. But there is evidence in the southern tower that it was entered from the north, under a wide arch without doors, in other words that it was a platform for defence rather than accommodation for living. Embrasures near the top of the masonry of this tower, now blocked or converted to windows, show that there was a platform for guns at a higher level as well as on the ground, but of its precise nature nothing is now known. It is on the eastern jamb of the ground floor arch into this tower that there occur the two early graffiti T.M. 1596 and T.S. 1650. Another graffito, I.C. 1677, formerly existed on the plaster rendering of the southern jamb of the doorway into the main building from the courtyard. (The plan is here reproduced by permission of the Ministry of Works and the photographs by permission of the' Admiralty and of the Ministry of Works.) 11