CHAPTER VI.
THE NORMANS AND THE PLANTAGENETS (A.D. 1066–1485).

The stirring events which led up to the battle of Hastings, which took place on October 14, 1066, and the subsequent complete conquest of England by William of Normandy, did not perhaps immediately affect the Northern part of the kingdom so much as they did those counties lying nearer the scene of action.

We have now arrived at a period when we have more definite and reliable evidence as to the actual position of Lancashire.

At the end of the year 1084 the King summoned his Great Council to meet at Gloucester, with the object of devising means whereby a full account could be obtained as to the state of the country, especially as to the land—how much was cultivated, and by whom and on what authority it was held. This is not the place more fully to describe the modus operandi of preparing the Domesday Book, but it may be mentioned that by some singular arrangement Lancashire as a county is not named, the southern portion being included in Cheshire, the hundred of Amounderness in Yorkshire, and the two northern hundreds in Westmorland, Cumberland, and Yorkshire. The value of the information contained in the return is threefold, as it records the state of the country in Edward the Confessor’s time, the way each manor, etc., was dealt with by William on his taking possession, and the rateable value on the taking of the Survey.

Unfortunately, we do not get from it anything like a census of the whole country, but it will be useful for comparison to note that Yorkshire had about 10,000 inhabitants, London some 30,000, and that of the other counties Lincoln and Norfolk had the largest population. The Survey was taken in A.D. 1085.

In West Derby Hundred the following places are named56 as places where there was land under such cultivation or occupation as to render it rateable: Roby, Knowsley, Kirkby, Maghull, Aughton, Huyton, Torbock, Toxteth, Sefton, Kirkdale, Walton–on–the–Hill, Litherland, Ince Blundell, Thornton, Meols, Little Woolton, Smithdown (now Liverpool), Allerton, Speke, Childwall,57 Windle, Much Woolton, Wavertree, Bootle, Formby, Ainsley, Down Hollard, Dalton, Skelmersdale, Raven’s Meols, Orrell, Lathom, Hurleston (in Scarisbrick), Melling, Lydiate, Altcar,58 Barton, Halsall. At this time Lancashire between the Ribble and the Mersey was divided into six hundreds, viz., West Derby, Newton, Walintone (i.e., Warrington), Blackburn, Salford, and Leyland. The places just named, with the addition of Newton and Warrington, are all that were recognised in the Great Survey, and many of these were manors held in the time of Edward by Thanes whose names are not given; others were doubtless in the hands of Saxons, Danes or Anglo–Saxons, who had stuck to their holdings through all changes. Some of the surnames at once suggest this; for example, we find Godiva, the widow of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, returned as having three carucates of land in Melling. Amongst the other tenants in capite are Dot, Uetred, Chetel, Wibert, etc. Edward the Confessor had in West Derby one manor and six berewicks (sub–manors), a forest 3 miles long and 1½ miles wide,59 and an aerie of hawks. The whole of the land between the Ribble and the Mersey had been given to Roger de Poictou as a reward for his services to the Conqueror, but was forfeited to the Crown shortly before this date. All the manors were rateable to the danegeld, but fifteen of them paid nothing to the royal exchequer except that geld. The customary tribute for the manors was two hora or ores of pennies for each carucate of land;60 the owners of the manors had also to assist in making and keeping up the King’s houses, fisheries, hays, and stations in the forest; they were also to find mowers to reap the King’s corn, to attend the hundred court, and do other small services, under certain fixed penalties for omission.

Roger de Poictou had granted land here to eight men, whose holding was twenty–four carucates, and they had forty–six villeins, one radman, and sixty–two bordarii, two serfs, and three maids. Their wood was 4½ miles long. The bordarii at this time formed about thirty per cent. of the entire population; their exact status has never been very clearly defined. They were probably identical with the cotarii, and were a class somewhat above the villeins and servi, and were allowed a bord or cottage, and rendered occasional service to the demesne lord.

In Newton fifteen berewicks were held by as many men, who were described as drenchs or drings, who were a kind of military vassals, holding allotments as minor or sub–manors. The service they gave was known as drengage. The manor had a church (Wigan), and St. Oswald’s (Winwick) had two carucates of land. Some of the manors had curious exemptions from penalties; for example, Orrel, Halsall, and Tarleton were not liable to forfeiture through their owners committing murder or rape. The Warrington manor had been held by King Edward, who had allotted land to thirty–four drenchs. St. Elfin (Warrington) was free from custom except geld. In the whole of this division of the county we have no towns, cities, or castles, and five churches are mentioned in Childwall, Walton–on–the–Hill, Winwick (Newton), Wigan, and St. Elfin (Warrington).

Concerning the hundred of Blackburn, the information given in the Domesday Book is comparatively meagre. This portion of Roger de Poictou’s vast possession had, before he fell into royal disfavour, been given by him to Roger de Busli and Albert Greslet. Edward the Confessor held Blackburn, where there were two hides and two carucates61 of land; there was a wood 1½ miles long, and the usual aerie of hawks. To this “hundred or manor” were attached twenty–eight freemen, who held land for twenty–eight manors, and there was a forest 9 miles long. In the same hundred King Edward held Huncote and Walton–le–Dale. The church of Blackburn and St. Mary’s, Whalley, also held land. The whole manor with the hundred yielded the King a farm rent of £32 2s. Leyland Hundred Edward the Confessor found to consist of Leyland Manor, which contained a hide and two carucates of land, and a wood 3 miles long, 1½ miles broad, with the customary aerie of hawks; to it belonged twelve other manors, with woods 9 miles long and over 4 miles wide. The men of this manor were not bound to work at the King’s manor–house, or to mow for him in August. They only made hay in the wood.62 The whole manor paid to the King a farm rent of £19 18s. 2d. The tenants named are Hirard, Robert, Radulph, Roger, and Walter, and there were four radmen, a priest, fourteen villeins, six bordarii, and two neat–herds. Part of the hundred was waste. Edward also had in this hundred Penwortham (Peneverdant), where for two carucates of land 10d. was paid, and it is briefly recorded that there was a castle there (see p. 47).

In Salford Hundred the manor of Salford belonged to Edward, and in his time it consisted of three hides and twelve carucates of waste land, a forest over 4 miles long and the same breadth; the Confessor also owned at Radcliffe a manor containing one hide of land. To Salford Hundred belonged twenty–one berewicks, which were held as manors by as many Thanes, whose land was put down as eleven and a half hides and ten and a half carucates; the woods were said to be over 12 miles in length. The only thane named is Gamel, who held Rochdale (see p. 47). Two churches are mentioned, St. Mary’s and St. Michael’s, both as holding land in Mamecestre, this being the only mention of this great city of the North. The whole of the hundred paid £37 4s.

Certain land of this hundred had been given by Roger de Poictou to the following knights: Nigel, Warin, another Warin, Goisfrid and Gamel.63 Living on these lands were three thanes, thirty villeins, nine bordarii, one priest, and ten serfs.

In the six hundreds of Derby, Newton, Warrington, Blackburn, Salford, and Leyland there were 180 manors, in which were 79 hides rateable to the danegeld. In King Edward’s time the whole was worth £145 2s. 2d. At the taking of the Survey it was held by William the Conqueror, and he appears to have granted certain lands in fee to nine knights.

Amounderness had also been part of the estate of Roger de Poictou, and had been held by Earl Tosti, who at Preston had six carucates of land rateable to the geld, along with which he had the following vills in the hundred: Ashton, Lea, Salwick, Clifton, Newton–with–Seales, Freckleton, Ribby–with–Wray, Kirkham, Treales, Westby, Little Plumpton, Weeton, Preise, Warton, Lytham, Marton (in Poulton), Layton–with–Warbrick, Staining, Carleton, Bispham, Rossall, Brining, Thornton, Poulton in the Fylde, Singleton, Greenhalgh, Eccleston, Eccleston (Great and Little), Elswick, Inskip, Sowerby, Nateby, St. Michael’s–le–Wyre (Michelscherche), Catterall, Claughton, Newsham, Great Plumpton, Broughton, Whittingham, Barton (in Preston), Goosnargh, Haighton, Wheatley, Chipping, Alston, Fishwick, Grimsargh, Ribchester, Billsborough, Swainsett, Forton, Chrimbles, Garstang, Rawcliffe (Upper, Middle, and Out), Hambleton, Stalmine, Preesall, Mythorp or Mythop.

There were, then, in this hundred sixty–two vills or manors, in sixteen of which the Survey reports there were “but few inhabitants, but how many there are is unknown,” and the rest were waste. There were three churches then in existence; the names of these are not given, but they undoubtedly were Preston, St. Michael’s, and Kirkham. Other churches there probably had been, but they had shared in the general ruin (see Chapter V.).

The names of places thus supplied give some clue to the early history of the district. Out of sixty–two vills, over one–third are “tons”; there are also found the Anglo–Saxon and the Danish equivalent in the “bys” and “hams.” But the most significant fact recorded by the Survey is that out of sixty–two settlements all except sixteen were deserted and the land lying waste; this must be accounted for by the ravages of constant intestine wars and revolutions, which were accentuated by the downfall of Roger de Poictou.

The Lancashire part of Lonsdale is not in the Survey found alone, but is mixed up with portions of Westmorland, Cumberland, and Yorkshire; the same proprietors appear as in Amounderness, Roger de Poictou and the Earl Tosti. The places named are Halton, Aldcliff, Thornham, Millham, Lancaster, Church Lancaster (Chercaloncastre), Hutton, Newton, Overton, Middleton, Heaton, Heysham, Oxcliffe, Poulton–le–Sands, Torrisholme, Skerton, Bare, Slyne, Bolton, Kellet, Stapleton–Terne, Newsome, Carnforth—all these vills belonged to Halton; Whittington, Newton, Arkholme, Gressingham, Cantsfield, Ireby, Barrow Leek—these and several others not in Lancashire belonged to Whittington; Warton, Claughton, Wennington, Tatham, Farleton, and Tunstall,64 Killerwick, Huncoat, Sowerby, Heaton, Dalton, Swarth, Newton, Walton, Leece, Santon, Roose, Hert, Glaston, Stainton, Cliverton, Orgreave,65 Marton (or Martin), Pennington, Kirkby–Ireleth, Burrow, Bardsey, Willingham, Walney, Aldingham (in Furness), Ulverston, Ashton, and Urswick; Melling, Hornby, and Wennington, Cockerham, Ellet, Scotforth, Yealand–Conyers, and Berwick.

It would be interesting to know how much land in the entire county was at this time under some kind of cultivation, but owing to uncertainty as to the exact area included by several of the measurements given in the Survey, and the absence of details, any calculation based upon them would at best be uncertain, and might be misleading. With some of the parishes, however, it is possible to come at something more reliable; in the parish of St. Michael’s–on–Wyre, Domesday gives twenty carucates of land as rateable, the rest being waste; estimating a carucate66 at 100 acres, we have 2,000 acres accounted for out of an area of 18,888 acres; upon the same basis, Kirkham, with 31,000 acres, had a little over 5,000 acres under culture; whilst Garstang, out of 28,881, has only 1,400 acres.67

The amount of land usually held with these vills varied from two or three hides to half a carucate, the general figure being one or two carucates, so that it is quite clear that all over the county the great bulk of the land was waste.

One of the immediate effects of the completion of the Conquest was the introduction into England of Norman feudalism. By this system the whole country (except what was given to the Church) was handed over to tenants in chief or great vassals, who held their lands in fee and in perpetuity direct from the Crown, in return rendering what was known as knight’s service, every estate of £20 a year being considered a knight’s fee, and liable to furnish for the King one mounted soldier; the vassals or under–tenants of these barons, or tenants in capite, were bound by an oath of allegiance not only to the King, but also to the owner of the fee. These sub–tenants would in many cases consist of such of the Saxon settlers as had not been expelled by the Norman ruler; doubtless many of the great Saxon Thanes on losing their land were expelled from or of their own will left the country. A detailed account of the various changes in the ownership of the soil would here be out of place, but it should be noticed that all the land in private holdings shortly after the Conquest passed into fresh hands—that is, as far as regards the tenure in fee direct from the Crown. After the final defection and consequent banishment of Roger de Poictou in 2 Henry I. (1101–2), West Derby Hundred went to the King, and remained in royal hands until Stephen granted it to Henry, Duke of Normandy; Leyland passed to King John (1199–1200); Blackburn had been bestowed by the Conqueror on Ilbert de Lacy, who came over with him from Normandy; Salford passed through several hands to the Earl of Chester; Amounderness went to the Crown, and was by Henry I. or Stephen presented to Theobald Walter, son of Herveus, another Norman chief, but in 17 John (1215–16) it again fell to the Crown, and was granted to Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster; and in Lonsdale we find that in 1126 Stephen, Earl of Bologne (before he became King), made over a large portion of the northern part to the monks of Furness, but the history of the early grantees of this district is not very clear. From these few chief lords were granted out various manors subject to rent, suit, and service, some portions in each district being retained in the King’s possession.

In the case of the transfer of the honour of Lancaster to Edmund Crouchback, it appears that the King had previously granted the custody of the county of Lancaster to Roger de Lancaster, to whom, therefore, letters patent were addressed, promising to indemnify him.68

The close of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century witnessed a considerable increase in the population of the county, and the consequent advance in the importance of its now growing towns. Lancaster in 1199 had become a borough, having granted to it the same liberties as the burgesses of Northampton. Preston, a little before this, had been by royal charter created a free borough, in which the burgesses were empowered to have a free guild merchant, and exemption from tolls, together with many other privileges that King John confirmed in 1199, and granting the additional right to hold a fair of eight days’ duration. Cartmel is reputed to have had its market before the time of Richard I. (A.D. 1189–1199). King John in 1205 granted to Roger de Lacy the right to hold a fair at Clitheroe,69 and also, in 1207, gave to the burgesses in the town of Liverpool all the liberties and customs usually enjoyed by free boroughs on the sea–coast. Henry III. granted further charters to both Preston and Liverpool in 1227.

In or about the year 1230, Randle de Blundeville, Earl of Chester and Lincoln, granted that the town of Salford should be a free borough, and that the burgesses, amongst other privileges, should each have an acre of land to his burgage, the rent for which was to be 3d. at Christmas, and a like sum at Mid–Lent, the Feast of St. John Baptist and the Feast of St. Michael. The barony of Manchester was at this time in the hands of the Greslet family, one of whom, in 1301, gave a somewhat similar grant to Manchester, save that the clause providing the acre of land was omitted. From these two charters several items may be extracted, as showing the position of burgesses in those days, and their relation to the lord of the barony or manor. At Salford, no burgess was to bake bread for sale except at the oven provided by the lord, and a certain proportion of his corn was to be ground at the manorial mill. The burgesses were to have common free pasture in wood or plain, in all pasture belonging to the town of Salford, and not be liable to pay pannage;70 they were also allowed to cut and use timber for building and burning.

A burgess dying was at liberty to leave his burgage and chattels to whomsoever he pleased, reserving to the lord the customary fee of 4d. On the death of a burgess, his heir was to find the lord a sword, or a bow, or a spear.

The burgesses of Manchester were to pay 12d. a year in lieu of all service. In both charters power is given to the burgesses to elect a reeve from amongst themselves. The social difference between the free burgess and the villein is pointedly referred to in a clause which provides that “if any villein shall make claim of anything belonging to a burgess, he ought not to make answer to him unless he shall have the suit from burgesses or other lawful [or law worthy?] men.”

In Lonsdale, the monks of Furness obtained a charter dated July 20, 1246, authorizing the holding of an annual fair at Dalton, where a market had previously been established. Edmund de Lacy, in 25 Henry III. (A.D. 1240–41), obtained a royal charter for a market and fair at Rochdale, and a little later (in 1246) Wigan became a free borough, with right to hold a guild. Warrington,71 Ormskirk, Bolton–le–Moors, and Burnley, had each its established market before the close of the century; whilst on the north of the Ribble we find that Kirkham, which had as early as 54 Henry III. (1269–70) obtained a royal charter for both a fair and a market, was in 1296 made into a free borough with a free guild, the burgesses having the right to elect bailiffs, who were to be presented and sworn: this right subsequently fell into disuse. At Garstang, very early in the next century, the abbots of Cockersand were authorized to hold both a market and fair. Possibly some few other towns may have received similar privileges, and the record thereof been lost; but we have clear evidence that before the end of the reign of Edward I. (A.D. 1307) there were not far short of a score of Lancashire market towns, each of which doubtless formed the centre of a not inconsiderable number of inhabitants, some of whom were free men, whilst others were little better than villeins or serfs, their condition varying somewhat in the different manorial holdings into which the district was divided.

Churches and monasteries had sprung up (see Chap. IX.), and a few castles probably kept watch over the insecure places. The houses, such as they were, timber being plentiful, were built of wood; the occupation of the people was chiefly agricultural, and in the forests were fed large herds of swine, the flesh of which formed a large portion of the food of the inhabitants; but in each of the towns there were small traders and artisans, among whom, in many cases, were formed trade or craft guilds. The power of the great barons appears now to have become somewhat less, and the land through various processes began to be more divided, and we find in the owners of the newly acquired tenures the ancestors of the gentry and yeomen of a later date.

The forests of Lancashire at this date were of immense extent; they may be enumerated as these: Lonsdale, Wyresdale, Quernmore, Amounderness, Bleasdale, Fullwood, Blackburnshire, Pendle, Trawden, Accrington, and Rossendale. The law respecting forests dates back to Saxon times; Canute, whilst he was King, issued a Charter and Constitution of Forests. By this charter verderers were to be appointed in every province in the kingdom, and under these were other officers known as regarders and foresters.

If any freeman offered violence to one of the verderers he lost his freedom and all that he was possessed of, whilst for the same offence a villein had his right hand cut off, and for a second offence either a freeman or a villein was put to death. For chasing or killing any beast of the forest the penalties were at best very severe: the freeman for a first offence got off with a fine, but a bondsman was to lose his skin. Freemen were allowed to keep greyhounds, but unless they were kept at least ten miles from a royal forest their knees were to be cut.

King John, whilst Earl of Morton, held the prerogatives of the Lancashire forests, and he granted a charter (which, when he became King, he confirmed) to the knights and freeholders, whereby they were permitted to hunt and take foxes, hares and rabbits, and all kind of wild beasts except the stag, hind and roebuck, and wild hogs in all parts of his forests, beyond the demesne boundaries.

In the succeeding reign, however, the freemen were again troubled by the arbitrary and harsh treatment of the royal foresters, and in vain appealed to the King for relief. Edward I. to some extent relaxed the rigour of the laws, but still assizes of forests were regularly held at Lancaster, and presentments made for killing and taking deer, and the like offences, but the penalties were not nearly so severe as formerly.

Many cases might be quoted. At the forest assize at Lancaster on the Monday after Easter in 1286, Adam de Carlton, Roger the son of Roger of Midde Routhelyne, and Richard his brother, were charged with having killed three stags in the moss of Pelyn (Pilling in Garstang), which was part of the royal forest of Wyresdale.72 About the same date, Nicholas de Werdhyll having slain a fat buck in the forest of Rochdale,73 the keepers of the Earl of Lincoln’s forest came by night, seized him, and dragged him to Clitheroe Castle, where he was imprisoned until he paid a fine of four marks.74

Sometimes it was not the individual who was the offender, but the whole of the inhabitants. Thus, in 34 Edward III. (1360–61) a sum of 520 marks was levied upon the men and freeholders within the forest of Quernmore and the natives of Lonsdale, being their portion of a fine of £1,000 incurred for their trespass against the assize of the forest.75 No doubt this was a convenient way of raising money.

The number of writs of pardon for trespasses against the forest laws, which are still preserved amongst the duchy records belonging to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, suggest that the offender had to purchase his pardon. The religious men, as they were called, and the clergy often had granted to them the right to hunt in the forests, as well as other privileges. As an example of the latter may be named the grant made in 1271 by Edmund Crouchback to the Prior and monks of St. Mary’s of Lancaster, to the effect that they might for ever take from the forests in Lancaster,76 except in Wyresdale, two cartloads of dead wood for their fuel every day in the year, and have free ingress and egress into the forest with one cart for two horses, or with two carts for four horses, to seek for and carry such wood away. Gradually, as the population increased, and as the personal interest of the Dukes of Lancaster in the forests themselves became less, many of these old forest laws fell gradually into disuse; but as late as 1697 a royal warrant was issued to the foresters and other officers of the forests, parks, and chases of Lancashire, calling upon them to give annually an account of all the King’s deer within the same, and also to report how many were slain, by whom, and by whose authority.

The regulations as to fishing in the rivers of the county were not so comprehensive as the forest laws; but the value of various fisheries was fully recognised, and they became a source of revenue. In 1359 Adam de Skyllicorne had a six years’ lease of the fishing in the Ribble at Penwortham, with the demesne lands, for which he paid six marks a year, and in the succeeding year justices were assigned to inquire into the stoppages of the passages in the same river, by which the Duke’s fishery of Penwortham was destroyed and ships impeded on their way to the port of Preston. Fishing in the sea as a trade also met with encouragement, for in A.D. 1382 a precept was issued to the Sheriff to publish the King’s mandate, prohibiting any person in the duchy who held lands on the coast from preventing fishermen from setting their nets in the sea and catching fish for their livelihood; and in 13 Richard II. (1389–90) an Act was passed appointing a close time for salmon in the Lune, Wyre, Mersey and Ribble.

Notwithstanding that the fishing rights on both sides the Ribble had been leased or sold with the demesne lands, nearly 200 years later the King still claimed all manner of wrecks and fish royal which were cast upon the shore. On this point a suit in the duchy court appeared in 1536, in which the King’s bailiff charged one Christopher Bone with having taken away sturgeon and porpoises which had been washed ashore at Warton, in the parish of Kirkham, whereas they of right belonged to his Majesty.77 It may be noted that at this time the porpoise was considered “a dainty dish to set before the King.”

The Normans did not, as has been frequently stated, introduce that dreadful disease, leprosy, into England, as there were hospitals set apart for leprosy at Ripon, Exeter, and Colchester some time before their advent. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries leprosy was very prevalent in the northern parts of Lancashire; and to meet the requirements a hospital was founded at Preston in the time of Henry III. How the lepers who were not in the hospitals were dealt with we have no evidence to show, but that they were harshly, not to say cruelly, treated, and were in a measure outcasts, may be safely assumed.

Shortly before April 10, A.D. 1220, Henry III. addressed a letter to Hubert de Burgh, instructing him to order the Sheriff and forester of Lancaster to desist from annoying the lepers there;78 and this not proving efficient, a royal writ was issued to the Sheriff (dated April 10) directing that officer to see that they were no longer molested by Roger Garnet and others, and that henceforth they were to have their beasts and herds in the forest without exaction of ox or cow, and also to be allowed to take wood for fuel and timber for building.

From this it appears clear that these lepers lived apart from the rest of the community, in houses or huts erected by themselves, and were not allowed to enter even a church; hence the use of what are known as leper windows, one of which still remains in the north chancel wall of Garstang Church. Leprosy continued with great severity for upwards of a couple of centuries, but towards the time of Henry VIII. it appears to have gradually decreased, and in the days of his immediate successor had almost died out.

The various Crusades of the twelfth century found many followers from Lancashire, and even when the Christians were fast losing their Asiatic possession it was thought worth while to appeal to this county for help, as we find, in June, 1291, the Archbishop of York instructing the Friars there to send three Friars to preach on behalf of the Crusades; one was to address the people at or near Lancaster, another at some place convenient for the Lonsdale inhabitants, and a third at Preston, in such a locality as it was believed the greatest congregation could be got together.79

The history of the wars between England and Scotland is a page of the general history, but it will be necessary here to state that in 1290 there were thirteen claimants to the Scottish crown, and this led to the beginning of the “Border warfare” between the people on the two sides of the Solway Firth, the Cheviots and the Tweed. Edward I., taking advantage of the position, put in a claim to the Scottish throne, and afterwards took possession as suzerain of the disputed feudal holding.

In 1292 Baliol was appointed King of Scotland with the consent of Edward I., to whom, however, homage had to be done, and out of this right of appeal, thus claimed by the King of England, arose that long series of wars between the two kingdoms which began in the early part of the year 1296, when Edward crossed the Tweed with an army of 12,000 men.

These wars were a great tax upon Lancashire, as, besides being subject to constant invasions, and bearing its share of the subsidies, from it were drawn from time to time large numbers of its bravest and best men. In 1297 Lancashire raised 3,000 men, and at the battle of Falkirk, in the vanguard, led by Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, there were 1,000 soldiers from this county. Another 1,000 foot soldiers were raised in 1306, and this constant drain continued for many years. After the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, the victorious Bruce besieged Carlisle, but after a long struggle he was obliged to retire, the commander of the castle, Sir Andrew de Harcla, as a recognition of his gallant services, receiving from the King the custody of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire.80 Within a very few years, on a charge of treason, he was hung, drawn and quartered at Carlisle, one of the pleas raised against him being that he had allowed Bruce to pass into Cumberland and Lancashire, where his army had plundered and marauded in every direction; this was in July, 1322.

In the second half of this century we find several levies made upon Lancashire for soldiers to march against the Scots, but after this the county was not subjected to the frequent invasions with which its inhabitants had been too long familiar. The most serious of these invasions was the one in July, 1322, and of the effects of this and other raids we have an authentic record in the Nonarum Inquisitiones, taken (for North Lancashire) in 15 Edward III. (A.D. 1341). The commission appointed to levy this tax on the corn, wool, lambs, and other tithable commodities and glebe lands, were specially instructed to ascertain the value in 1292 (Pope Nicholas’ Taxation), and the then value, and where there was a material difference between the two, they were to ascertain the reason of such increase or decrease. They reported that at Lancaster much of the land was now sterile and uncultivated through the invasions of the Scots, that Ribchester and Preston had almost been destroyed by them, and that at the following places the value of the tithes was very seriously reduced through the same agency, viz., Cockerham, Halton, Tunstall, Melling, Tatham, Claughton, Walton, Whytington, Dalton, Ulverston, Aldingham, Urswick, Pennington, Cartmel, Kirkham, St. Michael’s–on–Wyre, Lytham, Garstang, Poulton, Ribchester and Chipping; except the two latter, all these are in Amounderness, and north of the Ribble; into none of the other parts of the county do the Scots appear to have penetrated. In some cases the reduction amounted to something like fifty per cent.; in fact, the invaders must have set fire to buildings and laid waste the land all along their line of march.

Clitheroe Castle, though perhaps never a very extensive fortification, is one of the oldest foundations in the county, probably dating back to Saxon times. It stands in a commanding situation on the summit of a rock rising out of the plain, about a mile from Pendle Hill; in Domesday Book it is described as the Castle of Roger (Roger de Lacy). Of the original building nothing is now left but the keep, a square tower of small dimensions. The honour dependent upon this castle extended over a very large area, part only of which is in Lancashire; it included Whalley, Blackburn, Chipping, Ribchester, Tottington (in Salford Hundred), and Rochdale, and consequently the manors of all these places were at one time held of the castle of Clitheroe. Henry de Lacy, second Earl of Lincoln and great–grandson of Roger de Lacy, was born in 1250, and, like his ancestor, he made this castle his Lancashire stronghold and residence, and here each year his tenants and the stewards of the various manors attended his courts to render in their accounts and offer the suit and service required. The town of Clitheroe must, on the occasions when the Earl was at the castle, have put on a festive appearance, as the lord of the honour is said to have assumed an almost regal state. Several of the accounts of the stewards, parkers, and other servants of the Earl have fortunately been preserved, and we are by them enabled to get a glimpse at the social life of the Lancashire people between the years 1295 and 1305.81 We find that, besides the forests of Pendle, Accrington, Rossendale and Trawden, there were parks at Ightenhill and Musbury, well stocked with deer. There were over twenty vaccaries, or breeding farms, all of which added to the Earl’s income. On the estates were iron forges, and iron smelting was practised, and of course coal was dug up from the seams lying near the surface.

The following extracts from these rolls will serve to illustrate the historical value of the details furnished.82 Full allowance must be made by the reader for the difference in value of money between the thirteenth and the nineteenth centuries;83 and it must be remembered that labourers in addition to their wages generally received rations, and were sometimes housed.

From these references to smelting of lead it is quite clear that the operation was being performed here for the first time—probably as an experiment; but where did the ore come from? A reference is made to carrying ore from Baxenden (near Accrington) to Bradford (in Salford), but there is no evidence that lead was ever worked or discovered there, so probably the ore was imported from some lead–mining district.

Sea–coal (carbones maris) is thrice mentioned as being paid for in the Cliviger and Colne district, where it had no doubt been dug up.

The Compotus of the Earl of Lincoln contains many details referring to the various vaccaries in his holding; each of these was looked after by an instaurator, or bailiff, who lived generally at the Grange, whilst his various assistants occupied the humbler “booths.” Accrington vaccary may be accepted as a sample; there were there when the stock was taken on January 26, 1297, 106 cows, 3 bulls, 24 steers, 24 heifers, 31 yearlings, and 46 calves.

In this, as in all the other vaccaries, many cattle died from murrain, and some fell victims to the wolves which infested all the forests.

Toward the end of the year 1349 Lancashire was visited with the pestilence known as the Black Death, which about this time broke out again and again in almost every part of the civilized world. By a fortunate accident a record of the dreadful ravages made by this disease in the Hundred of Amounderness has been preserved.

It appears that the Archdeacon of Richmond (in whose jurisdiction was the whole of Lancashire north of the Ribble) and Adam de Kirkham, Dean of Amounderness, his Proctor, had a dispute relative to the fees for the probate of wills and the administration of the effects of persons dying intestate; the matter was referred to a jury of laymen, whose report furnishes a return of the number of deaths from the plague, and other details which may be accepted as at all events fairly correct, although the district must have been at the time in such a state of panic as to render the collection of statistical facts extremely difficult.

In ten parishes in Amounderness, 13,180 died between September 8, 1349, and January 11, 1349–50, and nine benefices were vacant in consequence. The chapel of the hospital of St. Mary Magdalen at Preston was without a priest for eight weeks, and in that town 3,000 men and women perished; of these, 300 had goods worth £5, and left wills, but 200 others with the like property made no wills. At Poulton–le–Fylde the deaths amounted to 800; at Lancaster 3,000 died, at Garstang 2,000, and at Kirkham 3,000, whilst the other less thickly populated places each lost more or less of its inhabitants.87 How the rest of Lancashire fared under this dreadful visitation is uncertain, but Manchester and a few other places in the south of the county are said to have suffered very heavily.

We have already seen that Edmund Crouchback, the favourite son of the King, had given to him the honour of Lancaster, which was confirmed by Henry III., who granted (in 1267) to him the castle of Kenilworth, the castle and manor of Monmouth, and other territories in various parts of the kingdom. The founder of the house of Lancaster died at Bayonne in May, 1296, and Thomas, his eldest son, succeeded to his vast possessions in Lancashire and elsewhere; and in 1297–98 he passed through the county in company with his royal master on his way to Scotland; in 1310 he married Alice, the sole daughter of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and then got possession of the great estates in the county which had for several generations belonged to the De Lacy family.

In 1316–17 one of the followers of the Earl of Lancaster, in order, it is said, to ingratiate himself with the King, invaded some of the possessions of the Earl, and the result was a pitched battle, which took place near Preston, in which Banastre and his army were completely defeated.

The subsequent quarrel between this celebrated Earl of Lancaster and the King is well known, and need not be repeated here; finding himself unable to meet the royal forces, he retired to his castle at Pontefract, where he was ultimately retained as a prisoner, and near to which town, after suffering great indignities and insults, he was executed as a traitor, March 22, 1321–22. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, was succeeded by Henry his brother, who, on the reversion of the attainder of the latter, had granted to him, in A.D. 1327, the issues and arrearages of the lands, etc., which had belonged to the earldom of Lancaster and Leicester. On the death of Henry, Earl of Lancaster, the title went to his son Henry (called Grismond), who became Earl of Lancaster, Derby, and Lincoln, and was, as a crowning honour, for his distinguished military services, created in 1353 the first Duke of Lancaster, for his life, having his title confirmed by the prelates and peers assembled in Parliament at Westminster. He was empowered to hold a chancery court for Lancaster, and to issue writs there under his own seal, and to enjoy the same liberties and regalities as belonged to a county palatine,88 in as ample manner as the Earl of Chester had within that county. Henry, who for his deeds of piety was styled “the Good Duke of Lancaster,” obtained a license to go to Syracuse to fight against the infidels there; but being taken prisoner in Germany, he only regained his liberty by the payment of a heavy fine. Towards the close of his life he lived in great state in his palace of Savoy, and became a great patron to several religious houses, one of which was Whalley Abbey (see Chapter IX.). He died March 24, 1360–61, leaving two daughters, one of whom (Blanch) was married to John of Gaunt, Earl of Richmond, fourth son of Edward III.; and to her he bequeathed his Lancashire possessions, and on the death of her sister Maud, the widow of the Duke of Bavaria, in A.D. 1362, without issue, she became entitled to the remainder of the vast estates of her late father.

After the death of the Duchess of Bavaria, John of Gaunt was declared by Parliament to be Duke of Lancaster in the right of his wife—to have and to hold the title and honour to him and his lawful heirs male for ever.

John of Gaunt was born at Ghent, in Flanders (hence his surname), in March, 1340. In A.D. 1369 he was sent over to France with a considerable force, but owing to sickness in his camp he returned to England, to find that his wife had during his absence died of the plague, and been buried in great state in Westminster Abbey. In 51 Edward III. (1377), a grant of a chancery in his dukedom and all the rights appertaining to a county palatine was made to him; and he was ordered to send (when required) two knights to Parliament “for the commonality,” two burgesses for every borough in the said county. Previous to this John of Gaunt had taken to himself a second wife—Constance, one of the daughters and heiresses of Peter the Cruel, King of Castile and Leon, whose arms he impaled with his ducal coat; his attempt by force of arms to obtain a right to the kingly title, however, failed. The life of the illustrious Duke of Lancaster is written in the pages of English history: his many military exploits, his bold bearing in opposing the bishops in the Wickliffe case, the many offices which he held under the King, his unpopularity at the time of the insurrection of Wat Tyler, his doings in Scotland and in Spain, are all incidents in the career of one whose name must for ever be remembered in the county where he held such power.

For his duchy he obtained in 13 Richard II. (1390) a right to have an exchequer in the county, with barons and officers appertaining thereunto, and also the right to appoint justices itinerant for the pleas of the forests.

John, named Plantagenet King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Leicester, Lincoln and Derby, Lieutenant of the King in Aquitaine, and High Steward of England,89 died in the year 1399.

Under this Duke, Lancaster Castle was partly rebuilt, and a considerable portion of the gateway tower (which still bears his name) added.

Henry Bolingbroke, who was now Duke of Hereford, was the next heir to the dukedom, but as he was in exile for his supposed treason, the King (Richard II.) seized the possessions of the late John of Gaunt, and shortly afterwards proceeded to Ireland, where he learnt that during his absence Bolingbroke had returned to England, and that the whole kingdom had received him with open arms. The King’s flight to Wales, his surrender, first of his person and then of his throne, followed in rapid succession, and on September 29, 1399, the head of the House of Lancaster became King of England under the title of Henry IV.

It must be remembered that the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster are not identical, as the latter comprises many places which are not in Lancashire, but are scattered over fourteen counties in England and Wales. The Duchy of Lancaster was held by Henry IV. as heir to his father, but his right to the Crown of England was by no means of such an indefeasible character. To remedy this defect, the King obtained several Acts of Parliament, declaring that neither the inheritance of his Duchy of Lancaster nor its liberties should be affected in consequence of his having assumed the royal dignity; also that all ecclesiastical benefices in the county should be conferred by himself or his heirs; that the right of succession to the duchy after his death should belong to his eldest son, Henry, Prince of Wales, and his heirs, or, in default of such heirs, to his second son, Thomas.90 He also established the duchy court of Lancaster, which was held at Westminster.91 The county also held its Star Chamber, the decrees of which were certainly not in accordance with the provisions of Magna Charta. This court, with others of the same character, was abolished in 1640–41 by Act of Parliament. Henry V., who succeeded to the dukedom, confirmed all that his father had done respecting the duchy. Henry VI., being pressed for money, mortgaged the revenues of his duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall for a term of five years, and on their reverting to the Crown in 1460–61, several new officers were appointed—amongst others, a chancellor, a receiver–general, an attorney–general for the duchy, and one for the county palatine.92

In 1461 Edward IV. obtained an Act of Parliament “for incorporating and also for confiscating the Duchy of Lancaster to the Crown of England for ever,” and since then the ruling monarch has held the duchy with all its liberties and privileges. In the time of Philip and Mary, in an Act for enlarging the duchy, it is styled “one of the most Princeliest and Stateliest peeces of our Sovereigne Ladie, the Queenes, auncyent inheritance.”

From the time of the creation of the palatinate, all justices of assize, of gaol–delivery, and of the peace, have been made under the seal of the county palatine, as are also the sheriffs for the county; an almost complete list of the latter from A.D. 1156 to the present time has been preserved.93

One of the privileges of a county palatine was that none of its inhabitants could be summoned out of their own county except for certain offences. This exemption, it appears, was not always observed, and its non–observance led to several serious riots, and resulted in the passing of an Act of Parliament in A.D. 1449, which declared that anyone making a distress where he had no “fee, seigniory or cause” in the Duchy of Lancaster should be treated as a felon. Another Act passed in 1453 directed that, if a person was outlawed in Lancashire, only his goods and lands in that county were to be forfeited; this law was, however, repealed two years afterwards.

The population of Lancashire shortly before the Black Death in 1349 was no doubt very much greater than it was for many years subsequently, notwithstanding the very heavy levies made upon it for the various wars in which the three Edwards were engaged. For the war in Wales, in 1282, the Sheriff of Lancashire was instructed to call upon every person owning land or rents worth £30 a year to provide a horse and armour and to join the royal forces; whilst William le Boteler, of Warrington, was ordered to meet the King at Worcester, and with the assistance of others he was to raise in Lancashire 1,000 strong and able men to serve in the Welsh war. Amongst the accounts of this campaign we find an entry referring to this: “To Master William le Boteler for the wages of one constable, two hundred and six archers, with ten captains of twenties, from Saturday, January 16 [1283], to Wednesday, the 27th of the same month, for twelve days, £22 4s.”94

The Crusaders also had many followers from this county, whilst for the wars with France and Scotland writ followed writ in quick succession, all calling for men and arms. And again in the fifteenth century the drain continued to be heavy, and culminated with the War of the Roses, which began in 1455. None of the battles between the Houses of York and Lancaster were fought within this county, but during the struggle Lancashire must have sent some of her bravest sons to perish in that ignoble strife between the roses red and white.

It should also be noted that in 1422 a second visitation of the plague appeared in the north of Lancashire, which, though not so widespread as it was in 1349, appears to have been quite as deadly, for on June 24, 1422, a precept was sent to the Sheriff to make proclamation in all the market towns and elsewhere within the county, that the sessions fixed to be held at Lancaster on Tuesday, the morrow of St. Lawrence, would be adjourned to Preston, because the King had heard both by vulgar report and the credible testimony of honest men, that in certain parts of Lancashire, and especially in the town of Lancaster, there was raging so great a mortality that a large portion of the people there, from the corrupt and pestiferous air, infected with divers infirmities and deadly diseases, were dying rapidly, and the survivors quitting the place from dread of death, so that in many cases the land remained untilled, and the most grievous desolation reigned where late was plenty.95

The Parliamentary representation of Lancashire began in the thirteenth century. Previous to this the King had three times a year called together his Council, consisting of the barons, the heads of the Church, and the military chief tenants of the Crown; but in 1213 King John directed the sheriffs of counties to send four men of each shire to confer with him on national affairs.96 In 1254 the number was reduced to two for each county; in 1261 Henry III. summoned three, which was shortly afterwards again reduced to two. In 1265 Simon de Montford, Earl of Leicester, in the King’s name summoned to Westminster two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each town. The exact character of these meetings is unknown, as is the method of the selections of the knights of the shire; but in 1290 they were formally summoned to Parliament, and in 1294 became a necessary part of the national council chamber.

From the earliest returns extant, we find that Lancashire only sent two knights to Parliament. The first Lancashire returns extant are for the Parliament of 1259, when the county was represented by Mathew de Redman (who a year before had been the Member for Cumberland) and John de Evyas, the lord of the manor of Samlesbury, in the parish of Blackburn. For 1296 there are no returns, but in the following year the knights of the shire were Henry de Kighley (probably one of the ancestors of the Kighley of Inskip, in St. Michael’s–on–Wyre) and Henry de Boteler, eldest son of William de Boteler, Baron of Warrington. From this time to the present a fairly complete list has been preserved.97 To the Parliament of 1295 were also summoned two burgesses from the boroughs of Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Liverpool; and the Sheriff in making his returns volunteered the statement that there was no city in the county. The first recorded members for these four enfranchised boroughs were, respectively, for Lancaster, William le Despencer and William le Chaunter; Preston, William FitzPaul and Adam Russell; Wigan, William le Teinterer and Henry le Bocher; Liverpool, Adam FitzRichards and Robert Pynklowe. The sending of representatives to Westminster was at this time not always looked upon as a coveted honour, but rather as a binding obligation to be got rid of at the first opportunity. True, the members were paid for the whole time they were absent from home, a knight getting four shillings a day, and a burgess two shillings; but this amount and the long journey to and from London, with the danger and difficulties to be encountered on the way, did not offer a strong inducement for a burgess or a knight to leave his own home for sometimes a considerable period. The fact that these early members were selected from a class comprising the dispencer, the dyer, the butcher and the “chaunter,” shows that the title of “M.P.” was rather at a discount than a premium in this county, at all events. Lancaster and Preston sent members until 1331, and did not again do so until 21 Henry VIII. (1529). Liverpool and Wigan ceased to return to Parliament after 1307, and the privilege was not renewed until 1547; in the interval the Sheriff’s returns were to the effect that there “was no city or burgh from which any citizen or burgess can be sent by reason of their low condition and poverty.” From this practical disenfranchisement it may be inferred that after the visitation of the plague (see p. 74) the towns of Lancashire were slow to recover their former position, and that such trade as there had been in the early part of the fourteenth century had not returned.

It has been frequently stated that soon after the Act passed by Edward III. (in 1337), by which Flemish weavers and others were invited to settle in England, a large number of them came to Lancashire and established their trades in Bolton, Rochdale and other towns. This statement is not borne out by facts; the trade of these districts did not at, or soon after, this time rapidly develop, neither is there any marked influx of foreign names, such as would naturally have followed such an invasion,98 and which are very noticeable in some of the more southern parts of the country. In Lancashire were found now, as in “The Vision of William concerning Piers Plowman,” in 1362: