Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu/347

 CAERNARVON CASTLE. 247 as a sea mark, and the most dignified portion of the structure. Operations were continued under the Chamberlainship of Huoh de Leominster at the different Castles of Caernarvon, Criccaeth, Conway, and Harlech simultaneously, from the 27th to the 29th years of Edward L, at an expense con- jointly of 5896/, Is. 9f(/. ;* there occurs also a sum of 44/. 4^. lO^d. for the expense of a new barrier {Novi Gerioli) round the Castle of Caernarvon. Other charges aj)pear on the Pipe Roll of the 29th of Edward I., such as payment of 4c?. a day for the maintenance of hostages at Conway, a subject to be reverted to, and for victualling the aforesaid castles during the 23rd, 24tli, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and the first portion of the 29th years of this reign, amounting to 878/. 9s. 7^d., and in wages of soldiers 6895/. 5s. ll^d., making, with all other expenses of building, &c., a sum to~tal of 13,763/. 14.^. 3d. Nor need we be surprised at so large an amount, for it will include the expenses incidental to Madoc's recent insur- rection, as well as of employing a large number of men at Caernarvon in the months of June and July. In the latter month, as we have previously seen, more than 400 persons were at work, 160 of whom were masons. Besides this, there are the charo-es incidental to a writ entered on the Clause Roll, 26 Edward I., in which the Treasurer of Dublin is ordered to provide 400 quarters of corn in Ireland, and to send them to Hugh de Leominstre, Chamberlain of Caer- narvon, to furnish the royal Castles of Beaumaris, Kaer- narvon, Crukyn, and Hardelagh, the corn to be equally divided among the four. And again, during the 25th of Edward I., 100/. was allowed for the support of the Qua3% and 400/. for the w^orks of the Castle.^ Mention has just been made, for the first time, of the Castle of Beaumaris ; and it is remarkable that, whilst the four other North Welsh castles are constantly mentioned con- jointly, this, which is only second in point of magnitude and strength to the one under inmiediate consideration, is never alluded to until the present moment. There arc two ways of explaining this omission. One, that it is reasonal)le to suppose it was a later erection, and consequent!}^ would not be returned on the official documents ; the other, that the
 * Magti. Rot. Pip., 2.0 E.hvard T. ■' Lilierate Roll, 2.1 K.lvar<l I.