The trading hinterland of the township that was to become Kingston upon Hull reached the furthest corners of Yorkshire.  The Humber Estuary formed a conduit for vessels ranging from the rivers Trent in Nottinghamshire to the Ouse and Aire in the north and west of the county.  At the same time, Hull was vulnerable to raiders, and defensive measures were quickly adopted.  Initially, these were a curtain wall and ditch around the township, which was located on the western side of the confluence of the river Hull and the Humber estuary.  The Hull itself formed a natural barrier; enough to dissuade any would be attacker. 

Access via the Hull however was prevented by a heavy chain, which was rigged across the river at its mouth into the Humber.  This chain was, at the Hull end, defended and operated by the Chain Tower, as can be seen in the copy of the Cotton Mss. Augustus I. Vol. I. Fol. 80 said to date from the 14^th century. 

This was a mere hundred years after the early trading township was acquired by king Edward I, and renamed Kingston (King’s Town) upon Hull.  To the east was a timber abutment to which the other end of the chain was permanently attached, any tightening or slacking of which for the passage of shipping, was done from the Chain Tower.  The land east of the River Hull was the parish of Drypool, in Holderness (it still retains the same name).  Clearly shown on the Cotton  plan, the parish church of  Saint Peter (and Paul?) continued to appear in plans of the eastern fortifications until the 2^nd half of the 19^th century.  Seen here in a unique photograph of 1863, viewed from the Old Harbour looking east, the tower of St. Peter’s can be faintly seen over the redevelopments of the citadel site.  (Photo courtesy of the Chris Ketchell Collection)  

This was the rebuilt church dated to 1822/3, which survived until it was destroyed by bombing in the air raids of 1941 during World War Two.  The original church was 11^th or 12^th century, and from the late 17^th century it was used as a chapel by the garrison housed within the citadel.  The churchyard had served as burial ground for recusants who died while imprisoned in the blockhouses during the religious upheavals of the 16^th and early 17^th centuries. The inclusion of this church site is relevant to the history of the citadel, there is evidence even that the church yard was until the late 17^th century, surrounded by an embattled wall for defence, adding in a minor way to the fortifications on the Holderness side of the river Hull.

Fortifications for the defence of Hull were granted license in 1322, in which year were begun the wall and ditch system which circumvallated the north, west and southern sides of the town, and which were to survive until the late 18^th century.  A charter from Henry VI dated 1440 saw the town of Hull become a county of its self with liberties extending to and including Hessle, Ferriby, Swanland, Westella and Anlaby, Drypool however remained a parish within Holderness.  After the cessation of the Wars of the Roses in 1487 (Battle of Stoke rather than Bosworth 1485) the Tudor dynasty became relatively safely established as monarchs.  In the reign of Henry VIII, after the well-known political and matrimonial turmoil of the divorce of England from Rome, which led to the Dissolution of the Monasteries early in the 1530’s, there came a reaction from northern Catholics known as the Pilgrimage of Grace.  A rebellion rather than a pilgrimage, this insurrection soon gathered momentum.  One of the major hot spots of recruitment was the vast area of Holderness to the east of Kingston upon Hull and between the 15^th and 20^th of October 1536, the rebels laid siege to the town.   Reinforced from York, the rebels forced the town to surrender.  After the rebellion had been quashed and the leaders executed, Hull, as a town, was granted a Royal pardon.  Catholic supporters of the rebels on the Continent, France and the Holy Roman Empire in particular began to formulate plans for the invasion of England to bring the country back within the folds of Rome.  A landing in predominantly sympathetic Holderness was a possibility, as were the vulnerable southern coasts.  The medieval fortifications were no longer seen capable of withstanding the then modern artillery.  King Henry “sent out divers of his nobles and councellors (sic) to view and search all the ports and dangers on the coasts where any meet or convenient landing place might be supposed….. And in all such doubtful places His Highness caused divers and many bulwarks and fortifications to e made.”  Hull was, in 1539, chosen as one of the 28 locations where fortifications were to be either established or reinforced.  In 1542, the town burgesses (or Bench), mainly composed of wealthy merchants, were informed that Hull was to have a “notable fortress”.  The news was initially seen by the town elders as a threat from Henry, but a promise that theirs and the towns liberties would not be affected was enough to stop most doubts.  The delay of 3 years was caused by the intense fort building program undertaken on the South coast, the forts of Walmer, Portland, Camber, Sandgate, Pendennis, Hurst, Deal, St. Mawes, and Calshot being seen as a greater priority.   During the hiatus, in 1541, Henry visited Hull, and lodged at the King’s Manor House.  The king reviewed personally the defences of the town, and concluded that Hull was “……too weakly fortified.”   The Bench was informed of the king’s decision which included “……a bulwark to be made at the Watergate as the king shall devise.  The little round tower on Holderness side to be enlarged to bear the chain and beat the haven….. The brick gate at north end (of High Street) to be mured (walled) up and made platform to beat the flank of the town of the one side and the flank of the haven at the other side according to the king’s device…”   In addition, the sluices that controlled drainage around the town were to be “viewed and new made, that they may serve to drown about the town as the case shall require.”   Michael Stanhope was appointed as the king’s lieutenant, and originally housed in the old manor house of the De la Pole’s, which by this time, was called the King’s Manor.  So large were the rooms there that Stanhope, it is reported, had not sufficient furniture to fill even one room of the building, so he removed himself to a dwelling close to the South-End battery at the southern end of High Street.  £18,000 was earmarked for the building costs of the new fortifications at Drypool.  John Rogers was employed as the designer of the Drypool fortifications, and he departed from the conventional, which had been adopted for the south coast forts.  He was extremely well qualified for the task, having been master mason at Calais in 1541 and involved in the fortification of Guines, the likeness of which to those at Hull, was, it is said, ‘striking’.  The plan was for two blockhouses (small, but heavily gunned fortresses) a central castle or larger blockhouse, all linked together with a heavy curtain wall and ditch.  The ultimate design became unique in English military architecture, neither a true Henrician fortress as those on the south coast, nor true artillery fort of the European design.  The design called for tri-lobed blockhouses, each ‘lobe’ was a bastion, capable of supporting any of the others, while also capable of defending the section of curtain wall nearest to it.  Each blockhouse mounted guns on the roof, the first floor and the ground floor from casemates within the bastion.

Built of brick facing in English bond, with large stone quoins and mouldings, the core was filled with mortared rubble, which according to legend came from the recently demolished Meaux Abbey that had stood a few miles north of the new fortifications.  This has been confirmed by archaeology, which has led to many new conclusions about the Citadel.  The walls were slightly narrowed as they rose from the very substantial foundations in order to effect some deflection of any incoming shot, and at a thickness of some 15 feet (4.57m) formed a very strong defensive structure.  From a single surviving estimate dated 1542, there were 60 bricklayers working on the south blockhouse as quickly as the foundations were dug; 10 plumbers; 20 masons; 20 carpenters; 30 lime burners; 30 brick-makers; 60 wood-fellers felling timber to make scaffolding; and 300 labourers.  There were also masons and plumbers stripping stone and lead from Meaux Abbey, while other masons were employed reshaping stone for re-use at Drypool (LPF & D Henry VIII 1542, 34)    

The Castle, which had a slightly different design to the blockhouses was basically a rectangle orientated NW/SE with bastions on the northwest and southeast sides.  It was built stronger than the blockhouses with walls up to 19 feet thick in a position roughly halfway between the blockhouses.

The ground floor of the Castle had an integral gallery which allowed for hand-gun ports which were able to provide for close quarters defence, sweeping over the brick paved glacis and the surrounding moat.  The main armament was housed in the two bastions and on the roof.  Singular access to the castle was on the south side and measured 5ft 6inches (1.68m) wide, which allowed for wagons and guns to be installed.

The final account for the construction came to some £23,000, the work being completed in 1543.  The contents of the south blockhouse were listed in 1547 on the death of Henry VIII, his son Edward VI taking a considerable interest in the defences of his realm.  It seems apparent that the south blockhouse held the most and the heaviest guns in order to defend against ship borne attacks. For a full inventory of the munitions kept within the fortifications at this time CLICK HERE Discovered in 1997’s excavation, buried outside the south blockhouse, was one of possibly the first guns installed here.

   It is the largest early breech-loading gun to be excavated from an English land site.  Described in reports as a ‘port piece’ (it could similarly be designated as a ‘culverin’ or less likely, a ‘veuglaire’)* this gun has the following dimensions which are but approximate due to corrosion:  Barrel 174cm in length – 30 to 35cm in diameter – with a bore of 17 to 19cm [6¼ inches to 7½ inches, equating to the dimensions of a Demi Canon or an E Canon, according to those indicated within Holinshed**]; the breech block has a length of 67cm – a diameter of 22cm and a bore of 14cm.  The barrel was made up of iron staves banded together with iron hoops, and is still fitted with its original four lifting rings.  Due to some discrepancy of the measurements between the gun barrel and the breech, it has been proposed that the two did not comprise a whole, but came from different weapons; this has yet to be determined.  The gun is here displayed upon a wooden carriage of elm, similar and based upon those found on the Mary Rose.  There could be some room for manoeuvre on this interpretation also, the shown wheeled carriage may have been a more simplistic sled, but which ever was the case, there was no archaeological evidence for either.  Archaeology suggests that the gun was left derelict on the chalk yard surface since around 1680, after which it became buried as debris built up from ongoing modifications through until the 19^th century.  From a less academic standpoint, it seems unlikely that both sections of the gun would become so tidily buried alongside each other if this had indeed been such a random process.

This was a period of transition for gun design and manufacture, many history books will say without equivocation that in England, the process of casting whole guns of iron, in one single piece first occurred in 1543, however, according to W.L. Ruffell (December 1992) “In England cast iron guns were first produced in 1508-09, not in 1543 as claimed by some historians who base their assertions on an uncorroborated statement by Holinshead, a 16^th century chronicler who 'enjoyed a great reputation'. Cast iron evidence confirms 1508-09.”

*          The nomenclature used for guns in the early post-medieval period was fluid, and complicates the identification of pieces which appear in documentary sources (Smith 1988, 5-6).  The size and good condition of the Hull gun, however, permitted a generic identification as a port piece to be offered.  This term recurs in a series of inventories which list guns at Hull.  The first such list of ordnance at royal fortifications in 1547, compiled at the death of Henry VIII.  Guns at Hull “in the south blockhouse” included “Port pieces of yrone wt vi chambers: iii.”  Two other port pieces were at the north blockhouse, making a total of five (Kenyon 1982, 205-6) Trial Excavations at Sammy’s Point, Kingston upon Hull, March 1997.  **        Holinshed, provides one set of definitions for each category of gun, it is as good a guide as any:

“Robinet, whose weight is two hundred pounds and it hath one inch and a quarter within the mouth;
Falconet, weigheth five hundred pounds and his ……. is two inches within the mouth;
Falcon hath eight hundred pounds and two inches and a halfe within the mouth;
Minion poiseth eleven hundred pounds, and hath three inches and a quarter within the mouth;
Sacre hath fifteen hundred pounds and is three inches and a halfe within the mouth;
Demie Culverin weigheth three thousand pounds and hath four inches and a halfe within the mouth;
Culverin hath foure thousand pounds and five inches and a halfe within the mouth;
Demie Canon six thousand pounds and six inches and a half within the mouth;
Canon seven thousand pounds, and eight inches within the mouth; 
E Canon, eight thousand pounds and seven inches within the mouth;
Basilisk 9000 pounds, eight inches and three quarters within the mouth.” 

Michael Stanhope had been appointed the King’s Lieutenant for Hull, its new fortifications, and the guns furnishing thereto.  Stanhope reported “The house I have purchased at south End here is ready for me, where most of the King’s Ordnance lies before the door, bent upon the haven.”    He was referring to the so-called South-end battery, which on the shown portion of the speed plan is almost out of view at the bottom left across the river Hull from the new fortress.  Shown here as excavated in 2003, looking south.

It also befell Stanhope and his officers to be responsible for the locking of the town gates each and every evening, and for their unlocking every dawn.  This was seen by the Mayor and the Bench, as a severe infringement of the town’s liberties, and the matter was sent to the king, who having appointed Stanhope supported his case, and instructed the town to follow his orders.  He also sent a re-assuring letter, which stated the he (the king) “did not intend to interfere with their liberties but that it was for their benefit, and desires them lovingly and obediently to advance the purpose.”  The motives of the king are transparent, he intended that there should be no repetition of the disloyalty that was shown during the Pilgrimage of Grace, and meant to let the ‘town’ know about it.  In 1553, Hull was granted a royal charter effectively handing over the whole of the castle, blockhouses, and other fortifications into the responsibility of the town, with special emphasis that the town in this case was independent of the county of York.  It stated “That they (the town) shall safely keep and maintain all such munitions, ordnance, and implements as they shall receive of His Highness……”  This very unusual situation did not fall to similar towns such as Berwick, Portsmouth, or Plymouth, and it involved a strange combination of defence and finance.  In order for the town to be able to pay for the upkeep of its fortifications, arrangements were made to retain control over customs and excise duties, a privilege that continued until the later 18^th century.  This arrangement eventually led to the first enclosed dock being built in Hull (1778), called originally – The Dock – subsequently The Old Dock – and finally Queens Dock –, which today can still be traced as the modern Queens Gardens in the city centre.   Repairs to the forts however proved very expensive, the longer they were left, the more the cost rose (a familiar situation for householders today) until by 1577, it was reported that the eastern ditch had silted up, the castle and blockhouses’ timbers were too weak to be capable of supporting guns – of ANY size.  Queen Elizabeth instructed that 300 trees be made available from west Yorkshire capable of providing timbers` 16 inches square and 24 feet long.   As a consequence, the South Jetty was constructed to combat the effects of the tides and waves from eroding the south blockhouse, in effect, a breakwater.  These works over a period of seven years cost the town’s people £624 6s 10d against which the town was able to set the rents of the manor of Myton amounting to £350, leaving a deficit of £440 6s 10d.  Still dissatisfied, the town’s representatives were summoned to London to account for their neglect of the fortifications.  During this time, it was first recorded in 1577 that prisoners were being held within the castle and blockhouses.  These were prisoners of faith, Roman Catholics recusants were viewed as subversives, and a threat to the safety of the realm.  One such was recorded thus: Thomas Barnby of Barnby Hall, Yorks., esq., and William Barnby of Skipton, Yorks., are bound to the Queen, in £100, to ensure that his wife Beatrix, only remaining prisoner at Kingston upon Hull Castle, will conform to the Church of England, should she be set free. [Dated 1 May 1587] [Deeds and papers of the Barnby Family of Barnby Hall - ref. SpSt/70-96  Recusancy bonds and licences to travel  FILE - Bond - ref.  SpSt/77/1]   Such prisoners were lodged on the ground floors, which it has been demonstrated, were prone to flooding (until 1612).  Flooding has remained a problem in the immediate area and across the Hull in properties within the old town.   According to De la Pryme, “some have been kept three or four years in low houses without fire, where the houses have been overflowed with water at high tides, so that as they walked, the earth was so raw and moist that their shoes would cleave to the ground.  Neither had any place for ease (lavatories) but by their bedsides, and when the keeper came, morn and even(ing), to carry it in their hands and throw it into the haven.”  Conditions within those places must have been squalid in the extreme.  Those who succumbed to the conditions were buried in the churchyard of St. Peter’s, Drypool.  Twelve such recusants were imprisoned there in 1581 and 1585, and sixteen in 1596.  This was the time of the Spanish Armada, and the town, it’s people, ships, and fortifications were on ‘high alert’, this was the reason used for the incarceration of those prisoners of faith, that they were, or could have been, spies or saboteurs.  Today such treatment might be called – internment. 

The change of monarch in 1603 brought king James 1 (VI of Scotland) to the throne, together with a change of dynasty; the Stewarts had replaced the Tudors.  Arguments between Crown and town over maintenance costs for the castle and blockhouses continued however.  The town claiming that the £50 p.a. allowance from the Crown was nowhere near enough to fund such endeavours, while the Crown contested that customs revenues should also be added to the allowance, a sum which should provide enough to cover costs.  This dispute was destined to continue until the eventual closure of the entire site in the mid-1800’s.   It should be clarified here that the wealthy merchants of Hull, were indeed very wealthy, and were very influential; nothing could be seen that would interfere with their profits.  It was they who dictated the town’s policy towards the Crown and any other who might threaten their rights and privileges.  In 1627, a new fort was added to the defences of the port and town of Hull located where the earlier guns had been placed on the town side of the river, and still called the South-end Battery, it, together with the south blockhouse was able to provide a field of fire enough to protect the haven from all but the most fool-hardy of attackers.  Even though, by Continental standards, these fortifications were out of date and almost redundant, but Hull had one other weapon in its defensive arsenal – the tides.  The Humber tides have some of the highest ranges in the United Kingdom; consequently it was possible to flood all surrounding areas.  This was a huge natural benefit which was to prove its value in less than 50 years. 

Small modifications and repairs continued to be made to the eastern fortifications, during this period.  King Charles I in 1638 was having problems with Scotland, which eventually led to open revolt, and an army was mustered to march north to quell the insurrection.  An important feature of these preparations was the stockpiling of ordnance, arms and munitions that were stored at the castle in Hull.  These were for issue to the militia who were intended to march on York, the main base for the campaign.  From this point onwards, the reader is referred to the article about the sieges of Hull within this website. CLICK HERE

The appearance of Hull, and its fortifications can easily be seen from the Hollar plan of c1640, which clearly shows the castle and blockhouses together with their curtain wall and ditch.

Some recent additions to the defences of the town are not included, which indicates that the plan was originally made some years before, but it is enough to provide ambiance.   Subsequent to the sieges of Hull during the Civil War, and during the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell, landed in Ireland to subdue Royalist and Catholic supporters.  Hull was one of only four English towns where were left invested with garrisons.  A report from 1657 bemoans the familiar complaints of a garrisoned town  “soldiers spend their days eating, drinking, whoring, sleeping and standing watch at night, but only to gaze about and call to one another ‘who goes there?’ …….. they also made off with wives and daughters and leave not a few great bellies and bastards on the inhabitants’ and the country’s charge.”  Repairs were made to one of the blockhouses (probably the north blockhouse which had been damaged by an accidental internal explosion during the 2^nd siege.  Additional work to the cost of £600 was done to the boom spanning the Haven mouth that date from 1654.  Once again, prisoners were held within the forts, this time of a political nature rather than a religious.  Three years later, a survey recommended that the eastern fortifications at Hull required £5,000’s worth of repairs, but another three years and Charles II had been restored to the Throne of England, an event that was to bring huge changes to so many aspects of society.  The £5,000 would be spent.