"From a case

rection according to the same principle. 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

William de Middleton is once more specifically named; and in No. ccccxxiv., which is dated in the latter part of 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 COKERHAM. 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

until 1303 present themselves in an entry made in the Register of Archbishop Corbridge, testifying that John, Abbot of Furness, made his profession of fidelity and canonical submission to the Archbishop on Nov. 1st in that year. He is named in No. 5 of the Duchy deeds, dated in 1315; yet again in No. cccvII., dated in 1323; and lastly in No. 82 of the Duchy deeds, as well as in Nos. ccxxv. and ccxcvi., all dated in 1336. No further special mention of his name as Abbot appears to have been met with, but there is reason to believe that he continued to exercise the Abbatial functions until the year 1347; as will be seen under the next heading.

25. ALEXANDER DE WALTON. This Abbot, in December of 1347, makes his profession of canonical obedience, and receives the Archiepiscopal benediction at Ripon from William de la Zouch. He is mentioned by name in Nos. LVIII. and CLXXVII., both dating in 1349-50; again in No. ccxxvI., dated in 1352; and for the last time in No. CCCCXXXII., which carries us on to 1362; and as his successor, Johannes de Cokan', did not profess obedience, or receive the Archbishop's benediction, until September 19th, 1367, it may be assumed that his presidency over the Convent continued nearly up to that date. Thus the Furness Annalist's statement, p. 274, that "Alexander Walton seems to have presided over his Convent for upwards of twenty years" is almost verified, although in quoting the "Zouch Register" there is an error-the Register in question, both at the place cited, and in the foot-note, being Archbishop Thoresby's, and not that of La Zouch.

26. JOHANNES DE COKAN', OR COKAYN. "Sept. 19, 1367. In capella Manerii de Thorp, Frater Johannes, Abbas electus Monasterii de Fournes, fecit obedientiam et recepit munus benedictionis. M'ro Johanne de Irford, Cancellario, M'ro Nich. de Burton, Registratore Domini, etc." He is mentioned, but without any precise date annexed, in No. cccxxxIII., as "Dominus Johannes de Cokayn, successor ejusdem Alexandri (Abbatis)," where the spelling of the name is to be noted, inasmuch as it has sometimes been wrongly written as if coincident with the name Cokerham or Cockerham. No other specific mention of him seems to have been met with, and nothing else remains but to say with Beck-" At what time and by what means Abbot Cockan vacated his chair is at present unknown his sway apparently was both short in duration and disturbed by domestic commotions."

27. JOHANNES DE BOLTON. Of this Abbot Beck writes: "The precise period of his election has not transpired," and he assumes, but on what grounds it is not quite apparent, that he is the Abbot who was desired, in the first year of King Richard II.-the King being then a boy of less than twelve years old-to make intercession "for the success of an expedition against the enemies of the realm beyond the sea, of which expedition the Duke of Lancaster was the commander." In truth there seems to be almost nothing available for the purpose of even surmising at, or about, what time he became Abbot. The first dated reference to him as regnant Abbot is in the year 1389, when in a document belonging to the Duchy collection