The Tower of London, (Vol. 2 of 2)Gower, Ronald Sutherland, Lord
History
The Tower of London, (Vol. 2 of 2)
Gower, Ronald Sutherland, Lord
Tower of London (London, England)
purpose, it is supposed that it was used for supervising the prisoners.
In a jamb of the recess immediately over the northern portcullis
several inscriptions were brought to light, but of these only the
letters R. D. were legible, which, seeing the acquaintance that both
Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, or Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
had with the Tower, has not unnaturally led to the conclusion that the
initials belong to one or other of these royal favourites.
The Bloody Tower is of the Norman Transitional period, but the groining
as well as the gates on the south side—those on the north side have
been removed—are Tudor. The massive bottom rails of these gates were
destroyed to allow of an injudicious raising of the road surface many
years ago. It is said that the road was raised from two to three feet,
probably to overcome some difficulty of draining, but whatever the
reason, the fine gates suffered both in effect and materially. On the
west front of the Tower there is an early English doorway which has
been “Tudorised,” its outer arch being modern Norman Transitional.
The original freestone used in the building of the Bloody Tower was
procured from the neighbourhood of Red Hill, and in the old records is
called “Rygate” stone. It is known at the present time as Gatton, but
the quarries are no longer worked. The fine old arches over the main
entrance are still in this “Rygate” stone, an interesting survival,
since the whole of the external stone dressings in this material on the
Tower were superseded by Caen stone from Normandy in the reign of Henry
VIII. This was a deplorable error of judgment, for notwithstanding the
enormous amount of Caen stone used throughout the Tower in this reign,
scarcely a trace of it now remains. The modern restorations to the
interior have been carried out in the “pinny bed of Chilmark,” a stone
closely resembling the Rygate or Gatton stone, but much more durable,
whilst Kelton stone from the neighbourhood of Rutland has been employed
for the battlements and other external dressings. All the main walling
was carried out in Kentish Rag stone, which was procured from the
contractor who built the new guard buildings for the War Department. In
the records of Henry VIII.’s time, this Kentish Rag is called the “hard
stone of Kent.” The stone used in those days was undoubtedly superior
to that used by Salvin over fifty years ago, as is shown by the
comparison between the restored Beauchamp Tower and the White Tower.
Soft stones, such as Caen or Bath, absorb a great deal of moisture, and
their injudicious use consequently hastens the decay of any building
in which they are used. Much of the mischief in the Bloody Tower was
doubtless caused by the decay of the Caen stone, and also the neglect
in pointing the joints. It is generally thought amongst those most
concerned, that the restoration of the Bloody Tower is the most careful
and complete of any of the works of preservation carried out in the old
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account