the Lune to the bleak and exposed situation of this Castle, and had accordingly built a castle at Halton, where they resided. Lancaster, at the compiling of the Domesday Book, appears to have been a berewic (i. e. a manor within a manor) of Halton.

It is curious to remark how many villages existing at the time of the Conquest have preserved not only their name but their precise local situation to the present day. Thus we find in Domesday Book the following villages in the neighbourhood of Lancaster enumerated :-Halton, Lancaster itself, Aldcliffe, Thurnham, Cockerham, Overton, Middleton, Heysham, Oxcliffe, Poulton, Bare, Torrisholme, Slyne, Skerton; "all which hamlets (says Domesday) belong to Halton.

The principal founder of the greatness of Lancaster was Roger de Poitou, a Norman Baron, to whom William the Conquerer parcelled out a munificent slice of his newly acquired English dominions. Roger of Poitou, it is said, had all the lands betwixt the Ribble and the Mersey, the hundreds of Amounderness, Furness, and Lonsdale, with jura regalia. The number of his manors was near four hundred. He appears to have selected Lancaster for his residence partly from its advantages as a sea-port, partly from its being the key and guard of his domains against the fierce North, and partly from the extensive military remains of the Roman fortifications, of the massive walls and foundations of which he extensively availed himself. The Great Norman keep (large square tower) now rose, constructed of masonry hardly less solid than the Roman.

The round towers of Agricola and Adrian were repaired, and within the Lungess tower, thus surrounded and protected, the powerful Norman held his baronial residence. Roger of Poitou ranked among the Capitales Barones holding immediately from the Crown, whilst several lesser barons held from him, as he from the King, and were placed in the most vulnerable places within his barony to defend it. Amongst the list of barons of the honor of Lancaster under Roger de Poitou who did him suit and service, were Roger de Montbegon, baron of Hornby; William Marshall, baron of Cartmel; Michael Fleming, baron of Gleaston; William de Lancaster, and Robert de Furness, barons of Ulverstone; Wil. de Lancaster, baron of Nether Wyersdale. So many retainers, serfs, villeins, bordars, and workmen, as were now assembled in the Castle, drew together a great number of inhabitants beneath its walls, and, these requiring the offices and consolations of religion, the Baron was moved to erect a church on the ruins of the former Saxon or Danish edifice, and exactly on the site of the present edifice, and some monks were invited over from Normandy to take up their abode here.

The formidable power and extensive possessions of the great baron of Lancashire tempted him to rebel against the authority of his sovereign and benefactor. He was restored to his possessions by the Conqueror's son, William Rufus, but was finally banished from the kingdom in the second year of King Henry the First.

We have been thus particular in pursuing the fortress

of the great Norman founder of Lancaster, because his career was a type of that of the more turbulent and ambitious of his successors. The feudal system, under which every great baron was a petty monarch within his own territories, while it rendered the Sovereign of England little more than the chief among the barons, and effectually prevented the government from lapsing into an absolute monarchy, was yet not without many evils and disadvantages. There was seldom a time when two or three of these military chieftains were not either plotting or engaged in actual rebellion against their Sovereign, by which his throne was shaken to its centre and the peace of the kingdom endangered. The broad lands and extensive feudal sway of the barons of Lancaster-their remoteness from the seat of Government, and consequent freedom of action and sense of uncontrolled power-offered peculiar temptations to rebellion, which they were frequently unable to withstand. When the barons rose against King John (who had himself been lord of the honor of Lancaster) and gained Magna Charta, the then baron of Lancaster was amongst them, and for this lost the custody of the honor and castle. Another took part with Simon de Montfort in 1266, and was deprived of his estates by Henry III.

Thomas the second Earl of Lancaster [the barony became an earldom in tempo Henry III.] was the chief of the nobles who conspired against Piers Gaveston and the Despensers. Being defeated in arms against his sovereign the earl was beheaded, without the formality of a trial, at Pontefract.

The most brilliant period in the history of the castle and town of Lancaster commences with the earldom. Thomas, the second earl, married the daughter of the Earl of Lincoln, and became possessed of all the vast estates of that house, scarcely less extensive than his own. He thus became the most powerful subject in England, possessing in his own right and that of his wife no less than six earldoms, with immense feudal influence. This Earl was known as "the good old Earl of Lancaster" and his death was much lamented by the people. He lived in little less than royal state in his castle at Lancaster. From his household book for the year 1313, which has been preserved, we find that the domestic expenditure, taking into account the difference in the price of provisions, was little short of one hundred thousand pounds per annum. The charges and provisions made for the pantry, buttery, and kitchen, were on a scale worthy of one of the most munificent and hospitable men of his age. One of the items in his household book informs us that one hundred and eighty-four tuns of red wine or claret were laid in his cellars in the above year. The number of this earl's horses usually amounted to fifteen hundred. He provided scarlet cloths for his own personal use and that of his family, russet for his bishops, blue for his knights and esquires, and other colours for his clerks, officers, archers, and minstrels. For the winter liveries of barons, knights, and clerks, three hundred and ninety-five furs of budge were provided; for the esquires one hundred and twenty-three furs of lamb. For summer wear the barons and knights

had saffron-coloured cloths and green silks, and red cloths for the clerks. The other arrangements were on the same scale of gaiety and splendour. The last Earl of Lancaster was Henry, Earl of Lancaster, Derby, and Leicester. He distinguished himself in the wars with France, and was the hero of the siege of Poitiers. This great military commander had of his own retinue eight hundred men at arms, and two thousand archers, with thirty banners, and kept such hospitality that he spent £100 per day. He expended £17,000 in those wars with France in which the battles of Cressy and Poitiers were fought. The order of the Garter was instituted by his monarch Edward III. in 1349. The King was the first knight-companion, prince Edward the second, and the Earl of Lancaster the next. At length, in consideration of his bravery and his dignities, the King created him Duke of Lancaster. He was the host of John, King of France, and entertained the monarch in princely style at his stately palace in the Savoy at London, when brought to this country a captive by Edward the Black Prince. The first Duke of Lancaster was also styled "the good Duke of Lancaster.

The honor of Lancaster had now risen to a duchy, and at length the noble house of Lancaster, as we shall see, attained the consummation of its dignity by giving a sovereign to the throne of England.

John o'Gaunt (from Ghent in Flanders, where he was born) was the son in law of the first Duke of Lancaster. He was the fourth son of Edward III., and was created, by