the ten years requisite for the alleged period of Ralph de Fletham's rule. Remembering the difficulty already experienced in reconciling the statements made in No. IV. touching the first Abbot, Ewanus,-the one to the effect that he could not have reigned quite three years, and the other that he was reckoned among the Abbots who had ruled above ten years, and thereafter died Abbots-and now coming to a similar difficulty in which a second Abbot is involved, the only conclusion seems to be that the Coucher list of Abbots—and, that is to say, the document numbered Iv. in the present volumes-is a document of very doubtful historical value. It is, in point of fact, characterised by the presence of attendant difficulties of more than one kind, yet all with the tendency to weaken our faith in its authenticity and historical value. For instance, we meet with the extraordinary circumstance that, out of a (probably) total number of thirty-six Abbots, holding office in succession during a period of 410 years, the first eighteen all lived and died only not within the limits of the first one hundred years-for the latest date we have at present for the eighteenth, Robert de Denton, is 1235, and the Convent was founded in 1227.

18. ROBERTUS DE DENTON. Beck is no doubt right in assuming that this, the eighteenth Abbot, would be elected as soon as possible after the cession of Nicholas de Meaux, consequent on his elevation to the See of Man, that is to say, in the year 1203; but nothing is recorded, either of his doings, or of the leading events of the first few years of his presidency. At p. 177 the writer just

named says "According to the Chronicle of Melros, Abbot Robert received the Episcopal benediction from Ralph, eighth Abbot of that house, and Bishop of Down in Ireland, in the Monastery of Melros, on the 13th December, 1211." As to this statement, the matter of surprise is that so long a time should have, under any circumstances, been allowed to intervene between the election and the bestowal of a Bishop's benediction. In an undated charter among those belonging to the Duchy, and numbered 72, and which is marked with the approximate date 1211-22 by the compiler, Abbot Robert grants to Thomas le Fleming that no mines of iron shall be opened in the court-yard of the said Thomas's house, nor in his portion of the land between his house and that of William Fitz-Robert de Boyville, without the consent of the said Thomas and his heirs. In No. CLXXIX. we have Abbot Robert a party to a fine with Alexander de Kirkby in the year 1227. No. 233 of the Duchy charters is an obligation to pay to Robert, Abbot of Furness, a certain rent of 4s., and the date assigned is that of 1231. Beck, p. 195, states that "in this same year the Archbishop granted a lease in perpetuity of his half of Millum church to the Abbey," and gives the document conveying it in full. But in reality the date is a year earlier than that so assigned to it, as the Nones of February, 1231, fall within the term of the preceding year. "Robertus dictus Abbas" is, however, specially named in the said deed. It may be remarked here that several dates given by the same authority require cor

tried at Lancaster in May, 1235," says the same author, (p. 200), "in which the Abbot and Hamo Fitz-Roger de Orgrave were the contesting parties, we ascertain that Robert Denton's presidency over his Convent extended down to this period, allowing him the extended reign of 32 years, if I have correctly dated his accession."

19. LAURENTIUS DE ACCLOM.

20. WILLELMUS DE MYDILTON. It will be observed that, while Beck devotes to the nineteenth Abbot, Laurentius de Acclom, only the brief personal notice, "Of him nothing can be reported save that he is a recorded Abbot," he also fails to make a separate section for his successor, William de Mydilton or Middleton; or indeed, to give any intimation leading to any recognition of the fact that one Abbot had passed away, and another come to the vacant dignity. It is true, no mention is made in the Coucher, any more than in the Duchy charters, or indeed elsewhere, so far as the Annalist's researches extended, of Abbot Laurence. But it is evident from No. CLXII. that William de Middleton was Abbot in 1251, though how long he had been so there is no evidence to show. On page 216 Beck gives copy of a deed, dated Martinmas, 1253, in which Dominus Willelmus (de Middleton) is specifically named. At p. 82 of the present copy of the Coucher will be found the heading of an important agreement between the Convent and William Fitz-Michael de Furness (great-grandson of Michael le Fleming), dated in 1257, in which Abbot

of

William de Middleton is once more specifically named; and in No. CCCCXXIV., which is dated in the latter part 1260, he is mentioned again, and as still Abbot. How much longer he ruled is altogether uncertain, but it is to be noticed that his name occurs among those of the Abbots who presided ten years and upwards.

21. HUGO LE BRON, or BRUN. The accession of Hugh le Brun is naturally, or necessarily, involved in the same obscurity or uncertainty as the vacation of the Abbatial office by his predecessor. There is a period of ten years between the last dated naming of William de Midelton and the first like mention of Abbot Hugh le Brun. It is true Beck places the date 1276 in the margin (p. 223) opposite the first line of his notice of this dignitary; but it is by no means to be understood as the date of his accession for, in No. cxxx., dated in 1270, he is mentioned by name as a party to an agreement touching certain matters connected with a previous grant of mining privileges. He will be found, in several places in the present volumes, named in deeds dated in 1272. In No. 151 of the Duchy charters his name occupies the first place among those of the witnesses to a certain quitclaim, and the date assigned to the deed in question is 1276-82; and lastly, in No. cCXXII., dated in 1282, his name occurs yet once again. How long after this he continued to rule the Convent we have no means of ascertaining; but as his successor, Willelmus de Cokerham, is mentioned (p. 80, and in No. ccxcII.) as a party to the settlement of a dispute which was arranged in

1290, it is evident that Hugh le Brun's demise had occurred in the interval between 1282 and 1290.

22. WILLELMUS DE COKERHAṀ. The name of this personage occurs, as has been seen, in 1290, and it is met with again in No. cxc. in such wise as to show that he was still alive in 1293; but there is no further specific mention of him, so far as I have been able to ascertain. Beck, however, noting (as it would seem) only documents making mention of the Abbot of Furness, without special notice of his personal name, speaks of Abbot William de Cokerham as summoned to Parliament in both 1293 and the year following; and then, in language sufficiently quaint, says — “and here," that is in 1296, "we close up the eyes of William Cockerham, who yielded to fate about this period." It may have been so, but there is nothing in the way of apparent authority for this statement. It is certain, however, that his successor had become Abbot by or before the following year.

23. HUGO SKYLLAR. In reference to the last preceding sentence, the present Abbot is mentioned by name in No. CCXCIV., which is dated in 1297. And yet again, from a document given in extenso by Beck, and bearing date on the morrow of the Circumcision in 1299-or 1300, according to our present mode of reckoning-on what seems to be very insufficient evidence, he is assumed to be still Abbot in that year; and on other and better grounds, to have remained as yet undeposed in 1303. 24. JOHANNES DE COKERHAM. The "better grounds"

for assuming that Hugo Skyllar remained undeposed