In 1617 James I. visited Lancashire, and in consequence of a petition presented to him at Hoghton, complaining of the restrictions imposed upon Sunday amusements, he issued in 1618 the famousBook of Sports. Another of James’s works, theDaemonologie, isclosely connected with the gross superstitions concerning witches which were specially prevalent in Lancashire. The great centre of this witchcraft was Pendle Forest, in the parish of Whalley, and in 1612 twelve persons from Pendle and eight from Samlesbury were tried for witchcraft, nine of whom were hanged. In 1633 another batch of seventeen witches from Pendle were tried and all sentenced to be executed, but the king pardoned them. This was the last important case of witchcraft in Lancashire.
In 1617 James I. visited Lancashire, and in consequence of a petition presented to him at Hoghton, complaining of the restrictions imposed upon Sunday amusements, he issued in 1618 the famousBook of Sports. Another of James’s works, theDaemonologie, isclosely connected with the gross superstitions concerning witches which were specially prevalent in Lancashire. The great centre of this witchcraft was Pendle Forest, in the parish of Whalley, and in 1612 twelve persons from Pendle and eight from Samlesbury were tried for witchcraft, nine of whom were hanged. In 1633 another batch of seventeen witches from Pendle were tried and all sentenced to be executed, but the king pardoned them. This was the last important case of witchcraft in Lancashire.
In the assessment of ship money in 1636 the county was put down for £1000, towards which Wigan was to raise £50, Preston £40, Lancaster £30, and Liverpool £25, and these figures compared with the assessments of £140 on Hull and £200 on Leeds show the comparative unimportance of the Lancashire boroughs. On the eve of the Great Rebellion in 1641 parliament resolved to take command of the militia, and Lord Strange, Lord Derby’s eldest son, was removed from the lord lieutenancy. On the whole, the county was Royalist, and the moving spirit among the Royalists was Lord Strange, who became Lord Derby in 1642. Manchester was the headquarters of the Parliamentarians, and was besieged by Lord Derby in September 1642 for seven days, but not taken. Lord Derby himself took up his headquarters at Warrington and garrisoned Wigan. At the opening of 1643 Sir Thomas Fairfax made Manchester his headquarters. Early in February the Parliamentarians from Manchester successfully assaulted Preston, which was strongly Royalist; thence the Parliamentarians marched to Hoghton Tower, which they took, and within a few days captured Lancaster. On the Royalist side Lord Derby made an unsuccessful attack on Bolton from Wigan. In March a large Spanish ship, laden with ammunition for the use of parliament, was driven by a storm on Rossall Point and seized by the Royalists; Lord Derby ordered the ship to be burned, but the parliament forces from Preston succeeded in carrying off some of the guns to Lancaster castle. In March Lord Derby captured the town of Lancaster but not the castle, and marching to Preston regained it for the king, but was repulsed in an attack on Bolton. In April Wigan, one of the chief Royalist strongholds in the county, was taken by the parliament forces, who also again captured Lancaster, and the guns from the Spanish ship were moved for use against Warrington, which was obliged to surrender in May after a week’s siege. Lord Derby also failed in an attempt on Liverpool, and the tide of war had clearly turned against the Royalists in Lancashire. In June Lord Derby went to the Isle of Man, which was threatened by the king’s enemies. Soon after, the Parliamentarians captured Hornby castle, and only two strongholds, Thurland castle and Lathom house, remained in Royalist hands. In the summer, after a seven weeks’ siege by Colonel Alexander Rigby, Thurland castle surrendered and was demolished. In February 1644 the Parliamentarians, under Colonel Rigby, Colonel Ashton and Colonel Moore, besieged Lathom house, the one refuge left to the Royalists, which was bravely defended by Lord Derby’s heroic wife, Charlotte de la Trémoille. The siege lasted nearly four months and was raised on the approach of Prince Rupert, who marched to Bolton and was joined on his arrival outside the town by Lord Derby. Bolton was carried by storm; Rupert ordered that no quarter should be given, and it is usually said at least 1500 of the garrison were slain. Prince Rupert advanced without delay to Liverpool, which was defended by Colonel Moore, and took it after a siege of three weeks. After the battle of Marston Moor Prince Rupert again appeared in Lancashire and small engagements took place at Ormskirk, Upholland and Preston; in November Liverpool surrendered to the Parliamentarians. Lathom house was again the only strong place in Lancashire left to the Royalists, and in December 1645 after a five months’ siege it was compelled to surrender through lack of provisions, and was almost entirely destroyed. For the moment the war in Lancashire was over. In 1648, however, the Royalist forces under the duke of Hamilton and Sir Marmaduke Langdale marched through Lancaster to Preston, hoping to reach Manchester; but near Preston were defeated by Cromwell in person. The remnant retreated through Wigan towards Warrington, and after being again defeated at Winwick surrendered at Warrington. In 1651 Charles II. advanced through Lancaster, Preston and Chorley on his southward march, and Lord Derby after gathering forces was on his way to meet him when he was defeated at Wigan. In 1658, after Cromwell’s death, a Royalist rebellion was raised in which Lancashire took a prominent part, but it was quickly suppressed. During the Rebellion of 1715 Manchester was the chief centre of Roman Catholic and High Church Toryism. On the 7th of November the Scottish army entered Lancaster, where the Pretender was proclaimed king, and advanced to Preston, at which place a considerable body of Roman Catholics joined it. The rebels remained at Preston a few days, apparently unaware of the advance of the government troops, until General Wills from Manchester and General Carpenter from Lancaster surrounded the town, and on the 13th of November the town and the rebel garrison surrendered. Several of the rebels were hanged at Preston, Wigan, Lancaster and other places. In 1745 Prince Charles Edward passed through the county and was joined by about 200 adherents, called the Manchester regiment and placed under the command of Colonel Townley, who was afterwards executed.
The first industry established in Lancashire was that of wool, and with the founding of Furness abbey in 1127 wool farming on a large scale began here, but the bulk of the wool grown was exported, not worked up in England. In 1282, however, there was a mill for fulling or bleaching wool in Manchester, and by the middle of the 16th century there was quite a flourishing trade in worsted goods. In an act of 1552 Manchester “rugs and frizes” are specially mentioned, and in 1566 another act regulated the fees of the aulnager who was to have his deputies at Manchester, Rochdale, Bolton, Blackburn and Bury; the duty of the aulnagers was to prevent “cottons, frizes and rugs” from being sold unsealed, but it must be noted that by cottons is not meant what we now understand by the word, but woollen goods. The 17th century saw the birth of the class of clothiers, who purchased the wool in large quantities or kept their own sheep, and delivered it to weavers who worked it up into cloth in their houses and returned it to the employers. The earliest mention of the manufacture of real cotton goods is in 1641, when Manchester made fustians, vermilions and dimities, but the industry did not develop to any extent until after the invention of the fly shuttle by John Kay in 1733, of the spinning jenny by James Hargreaves of Blackburn in 1765, of the water frame throstle by Richard Arkwright of Bolton in 1769, and of the mule by Samuel Crompton of Hall-in-the-Wood near Bolton in 1779. So rapid was the development of the cotton manufacture that in 1787 there were over forty cotton mills in Lancashire, all worked by water power. In 1789, however, steam was applied to the industry in Manchester, and in 1790 in Bolton a cotton mill was worked by steam. The increase in the import of raw cotton from 3,870,000 ℔ in 1769 to 1,083,600,000 in 1860 shows the growth of the industry. The rapid growth was accompanied with intermittent periods of depression, which in 1819 in particular led to the formation of various political societies and to the Blanketeers’ Meeting and the Peterloo Massacre. During the American Civil War the five years’ cotton famine caused untold misery in the county, but public and private relief mitigated the evils, and one good result was the introduction of machinery capable of dealing with the shorter staple of Indian cotton, thus rendering the trade less dependent for its supplies on America.
During the 18th century the only town where maritime trade increased was Liverpool, where in the last decade about 4500 ships arrived annually of a tonnage about one-fifth that of the London shipping. The prosperity of Liverpool was closely bound up with the slave trade, and about one-fourth of its ships were employed in this business. With the increase of trade the means of communication improved. In 1758 the duke of Bridgewater began the Bridgewater canal from Worsley to Salford and across the Irwell to Manchester, and before the end of the century the county was intersected by canals. In 1830 the first railway in England was opened between Manchester and Liverpool, and other railways rapidly followed.
The first recorded instance of parliamentary representation in Lancashire was in 1295, when two knights were returned for the county and two burgesses each for the boroughs of Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Liverpool. The sheriff added to this return “There is no city in the county of Lancaster.” The boroughs were, however, excused one after another from parliamentary representation, which was felt as a burden owing to the compulsory payment of the members’ wages. Lancaster ceased to send members in 1331 after making nineteen returns, but renewed its privileges in 1529; from 1529 to 1547 there are no parliamentary returns, but from 1547 to 1867 Lancaster continued to return two members. Preston similarly was excused after 1331, after making eleven returns, but in 1529 and from 1547 onwards returned two members. Liverpool and Wigan sent members in 1295 and 1307, but not again till 1547. To the writ issued in 1362 the sheriff in his return says: “There is not any City or Borough in this County from which citizens or burgesses ought or are accustomed to come as this Writ requires.” In 1559 Clitheroe and Newton-le-Willows first sent two members. Thus in all Lancashire returned fourteen members, and, with a brief exception during the Commonwealth, this continued to be the parliamentary representation till 1832. By the Reform Act of 1832 Lancashire was assigned four members, two for the northern and two for the southern division. Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Liverpool continued to send two members, Clitheroe returned one and Newton was disfranchised. The following new boroughs were created: Manchester, Bolton, Blackburn, Oldham, returning two members each; Ashton-under-Lyne, Bury, Rochdale, Salford and Warrington, one each. In 1861 a third member was given to South Lancashire and in 1867 the county was divided into four constituencies, to each of which four members were assigned; since 1885 the county returns twenty-three members. The boroughs returned from 1867 to 1885 twenty-five members, and since 1885 thirty-four.Antiquities.—The Cistercian abbey of Furness (q.v.) is one of the finest and most extensive ecclesiastical ruins in England. Whalley abbey, first founded at Stanlawe in Cheshire in 1178, and removed in 1296, belonged to the same order. There was a priory of Black Canons at Burscough, founded in the time of Richard I., one at Conishead dating from Henry II.’s reign, and one at Lancaster. A convent of Augustinian friars was founded at Cartmel in 1188, and one at Warrington about 1280. There are some remains of the Benedictine priory of Upholland, changed from a college of secular priests in 1318; and the same order had a priory at Lancaster founded in 1094, a cell at Lytham, of the reign of Richard I., and a priory at Penwortham, founded shortly after the time of the Conqueror. The Premonstratensians had Cockersand abbey, changed in 1190 from a hospital founded in the reign of Henry II., of which the chapter-house remains. At Kersal, near Manchester, there was a cell of Cluniac monks founded in the reign of John, while at Lancaster there were convents of Dominicans and Franciscans, and at Preston a priory of Grey Friars built by Edmund, earl of Lancaster, son of Henry III.Besides the churches mentioned under the several towns, the more interesting are those of Aldingham, Norman doorway; Aughton; Cartmel priory church (see Furness); Hawkshead; Heysham, Norman with traces of earlier date; Hoole; Huyton; Kirkby, rebuilt, with very ancient font; Kirkby Ireleth, late Perpendicular, with Norman doorway; Leyland; Melling (in Lonsdale), Perpendicular, with stained-glass windows; Middleton, rebuilt in 1524, but containing part of the Norman church and several monuments; Ormskirk, Perpendicular with traces of Norman, having two towers, one of which is detached and surmounted by a spire; Overton, with Norman doorway; Radcliffe, Norman; Sefton, Perpendicular, with fine brass and recumbent figures of the Molyneux family, also a screen exquisitely carved; Stidd, near Ribchester, Norman arch and old monuments; Tunstall, late Perpendicular; Upholland priory church, Early English, with low massy tower; Urswick, Norman, with embattled tower and several old monuments; Walton-on-the-hill, anciently the parish church of Liverpool; Walton-le-Dale; Warton, with old font; Whalley abbey church, Decorated and Perpendicular, with Runic stone monuments.The principal old castles are those of Lancaster; Dalton, a small rude tower occupying the site of an older building; two towers of Gleaston castle, built by the lords of Aldingham in the 14th century; the ruins of Greenhalgh castle, built by the first earl of Derby, and demolished after a siege by order of parliament in 1649; the ruins of Fouldrey in Piel Island near the entrance to Barrow harbour, erected in the reign of Edward III., now most dilapidated. There are many old timber houses and mansions of interest, as well as numerous modern seats.SeeVictoria History of Lancashire(1906-1907); E. Baines,The History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster(1888); H. Fishwick,A History of Lancashire(1894); W. D. Pink and A. B. Beavan,The Parliamentary Representation of Lancashire(1889).
The first recorded instance of parliamentary representation in Lancashire was in 1295, when two knights were returned for the county and two burgesses each for the boroughs of Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Liverpool. The sheriff added to this return “There is no city in the county of Lancaster.” The boroughs were, however, excused one after another from parliamentary representation, which was felt as a burden owing to the compulsory payment of the members’ wages. Lancaster ceased to send members in 1331 after making nineteen returns, but renewed its privileges in 1529; from 1529 to 1547 there are no parliamentary returns, but from 1547 to 1867 Lancaster continued to return two members. Preston similarly was excused after 1331, after making eleven returns, but in 1529 and from 1547 onwards returned two members. Liverpool and Wigan sent members in 1295 and 1307, but not again till 1547. To the writ issued in 1362 the sheriff in his return says: “There is not any City or Borough in this County from which citizens or burgesses ought or are accustomed to come as this Writ requires.” In 1559 Clitheroe and Newton-le-Willows first sent two members. Thus in all Lancashire returned fourteen members, and, with a brief exception during the Commonwealth, this continued to be the parliamentary representation till 1832. By the Reform Act of 1832 Lancashire was assigned four members, two for the northern and two for the southern division. Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Liverpool continued to send two members, Clitheroe returned one and Newton was disfranchised. The following new boroughs were created: Manchester, Bolton, Blackburn, Oldham, returning two members each; Ashton-under-Lyne, Bury, Rochdale, Salford and Warrington, one each. In 1861 a third member was given to South Lancashire and in 1867 the county was divided into four constituencies, to each of which four members were assigned; since 1885 the county returns twenty-three members. The boroughs returned from 1867 to 1885 twenty-five members, and since 1885 thirty-four.
Antiquities.—The Cistercian abbey of Furness (q.v.) is one of the finest and most extensive ecclesiastical ruins in England. Whalley abbey, first founded at Stanlawe in Cheshire in 1178, and removed in 1296, belonged to the same order. There was a priory of Black Canons at Burscough, founded in the time of Richard I., one at Conishead dating from Henry II.’s reign, and one at Lancaster. A convent of Augustinian friars was founded at Cartmel in 1188, and one at Warrington about 1280. There are some remains of the Benedictine priory of Upholland, changed from a college of secular priests in 1318; and the same order had a priory at Lancaster founded in 1094, a cell at Lytham, of the reign of Richard I., and a priory at Penwortham, founded shortly after the time of the Conqueror. The Premonstratensians had Cockersand abbey, changed in 1190 from a hospital founded in the reign of Henry II., of which the chapter-house remains. At Kersal, near Manchester, there was a cell of Cluniac monks founded in the reign of John, while at Lancaster there were convents of Dominicans and Franciscans, and at Preston a priory of Grey Friars built by Edmund, earl of Lancaster, son of Henry III.
Besides the churches mentioned under the several towns, the more interesting are those of Aldingham, Norman doorway; Aughton; Cartmel priory church (see Furness); Hawkshead; Heysham, Norman with traces of earlier date; Hoole; Huyton; Kirkby, rebuilt, with very ancient font; Kirkby Ireleth, late Perpendicular, with Norman doorway; Leyland; Melling (in Lonsdale), Perpendicular, with stained-glass windows; Middleton, rebuilt in 1524, but containing part of the Norman church and several monuments; Ormskirk, Perpendicular with traces of Norman, having two towers, one of which is detached and surmounted by a spire; Overton, with Norman doorway; Radcliffe, Norman; Sefton, Perpendicular, with fine brass and recumbent figures of the Molyneux family, also a screen exquisitely carved; Stidd, near Ribchester, Norman arch and old monuments; Tunstall, late Perpendicular; Upholland priory church, Early English, with low massy tower; Urswick, Norman, with embattled tower and several old monuments; Walton-on-the-hill, anciently the parish church of Liverpool; Walton-le-Dale; Warton, with old font; Whalley abbey church, Decorated and Perpendicular, with Runic stone monuments.
The principal old castles are those of Lancaster; Dalton, a small rude tower occupying the site of an older building; two towers of Gleaston castle, built by the lords of Aldingham in the 14th century; the ruins of Greenhalgh castle, built by the first earl of Derby, and demolished after a siege by order of parliament in 1649; the ruins of Fouldrey in Piel Island near the entrance to Barrow harbour, erected in the reign of Edward III., now most dilapidated. There are many old timber houses and mansions of interest, as well as numerous modern seats.
SeeVictoria History of Lancashire(1906-1907); E. Baines,The History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster(1888); H. Fishwick,A History of Lancashire(1894); W. D. Pink and A. B. Beavan,The Parliamentary Representation of Lancashire(1889).
LANCASTER, HOUSE OF.The name House of Lancaster is commonly used to designate the line of English kings immediately descended from John of Gaunt, the fourth son of Edward III. But the history of the family and of the title goes back to the reign of Henry III., who created his second son, Edmund, earl of Lancaster in 1267. This Edmund received in his own day the surname of Crouchback, not, as was afterwards supposed, from a personal deformity, but from having worn a cross upon his back in token of a crusading vow. He is not a person of much importance in history except in relation to a strange theory raised in a later age about his birth, which we shall notice presently. His son Thomas, who inherited the title, took the lead among the nobles of Edward II.’s time in opposition to Piers Gaveston and the Despensers, and was beheaded for treason at Pontefract. At the commencement of the following reign his attainder was reversed and his brother Henry restored to the earldom; and Henry being appointed guardian to the young king Edward III., assisted him to throw off the yoke of Mortimer. On this Henry’s death in 1345 he was succeeded by a son of the same name, sometimes known as Henry Tort-Col or Wryneck, a very valiant commander in the French wars, whom the king advanced to the dignity of a duke. Only one duke had been created in England before, and that was fourteen years previously, when the king’s son Edward, the Black Prince, was made duke of Cornwall. This Henry Wryneck died in 1361 without heir male. His second daughter, Blanche, became the wife of John of Gaunt, who thus succeeded to the duke’s inheritance in her right; and on the 13th of November 1362, when King Edward attained the age of fifty, John was created duke of Lancaster, his elder brother, Lionel, being at the same time created duke of Clarence. It was from these two dukes that the rival houses of Lancaster and York derived their respective claims to the crown. As Clarence was King Edward’s third son, while John of Gaunt was his fourth, in ordinary course on the failure of the elder line the issue of Clarence should have taken precedence of that of Lancaster in the succession. But the rights of Clarence were conveyed in the first instance to an only daughter, and the ambition and policy of the house of Lancaster, profiting by advantageous circumstances, enabled them not only to gain possession of the throne but to maintain themselves in it for three generations before they were dispossessed by the representatives of the elder brother.
As for John of Gaunt himself, it can hardly be said that this sort of politic wisdom is very conspicuous in him. His ambition was generally more manifest than his discretion; but fortune favoured his ambition, even as to himself, somewhat beyond expectation, and still more in his posterity. Before the death of his father he had become the greatest subject in England, his three elder brothers having all died before him. He had even added to his other dignities the title of king of Castile, having married, after his first wife’s death, the daughter of Peter the Cruel. The title, however, was an empty one, the throne of Castile being actually in the possession of Henry of Trastamara, whom the English had vainly endeavoured to set aside. His military and naval enterprises were for the most part disastrous failures, and in England he was exceedingly unpopular. Nevertheless, during the later years of his father’s reign the weakness of the king and the declining health of the Black Prince threw the government very much into his hands. He even aimed, or was suspected of aiming, at the succession to the crown; but in this hope he was disappointed by the action of the Good Parliament a year before Edward’s death, in which it was settled that Richard the son of the Black Prince should be king after his grandfather. Nevertheless the suspicion with which he was regarded was not altogether quieted when Richard came to the throne, a boy in the eleventh year of his age. The duke himself complained in parliament of the way he was spoken of out of doors, and at the outbreak of Wat Tyler’s insurrection the peasants stopped pilgrims on the road to Canterbury and made them swear never to accept a king of the name of John. On gaining possession of London they burnt his magnificent palace of the Savoy. Richard found a convenient way to get rid of John of Gaunt by sending him to Castile to make good his barren title, and on this expedition he was away three years. He succeeded so far as to make a treaty with his rival, King John, son of Henry of Trastamara, for the succession, by virtueof which his daughter Catherine became the wife of Henry III. of Castile some years later. After his return the king seems to have regarded him with greater favour, created him duke of Aquitaine, and employed him in repeated embassies to France, which at length resulted in a treaty of peace, and Richard’s marriage to the French king’s daughter.
Another marked incident of his public life was the support which he gave on one occasion to the Reformer Wycliffe. How far this was due to religious and how far to political considerations may be a question; but not only John of Gaunt but his immediate descendants, the three kings of the house of Lancaster, all took deep interest in the religious movements of the times. A reaction against Lollardy, however, had already begun in the days of Henry IV., and both he and his son felt obliged to discountenance opinions which were believed to be politically and theologically dangerous.
Accusations had been made against John of Gaunt more than once during the earlier part of Richard II.’s reign of entertaining designs to supplant his nephew on the throne. But these Richard never seems to have wholly credited, and during his three years’ absence his younger brother, Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, showed himself a far more dangerous intriguer. Five confederate lords with Gloucester at their head took up arms against the king’s favourite ministers, and the Wonderful Parliament put to death without remorse almost every agent of his former administration who had not fled the country. Gloucester even contemplated the dethronement of the king, but found that in this matter he could not rely on the support of his associates, one of whom was Henry, earl of Derby, the duke of Lancaster’s son. Richard soon afterwards, by declaring himself of age, shook off his uncle’s control, and within ten years the acts of the Wonderful Parliament were reversed by a parliament no less arbitrary. Gloucester and his allies were then brought to account; but the earl of Derby and Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham, were taken into favour as having opposed the more violent proceedings of their associates. As if to show his entire confidence in both these noblemen, the king created the former duke of Hereford and the latter duke of Norfolk. But within three months from this time the one duke accused the other of treason, and the truth of the charge, after much consideration, was referred to trial by battle according to the laws of chivalry. But when the combat was about to commence it was interrupted by the king, who, to preserve the peace of the kingdom, decreed by his own mere authority that the duke of Hereford should be banished for ten years—a term immediately afterwards reduced to five—and the duke of Norfolk for life.
This arbitrary sentence was obeyed in the first instance by both parties, and Norfolk never returned. But Henry, duke of Hereford, whose milder sentence was doubtless owing to the fact that he was the popular favourite, came back within a year, having been furnished with a very fair pretext for doing so by a new act of injustice on the part of Richard. His father, John of Gaunt, had died in the interval, and the king, troubled with a rebellion in Ireland, and sorely in want of money, had seized the duchy of Lancaster as forfeited property. Henry at once sailed for England, and landing in Yorkshire while King Richard was in Ireland, gave out that he came only to recover his inheritance. He at once received the support of the northern lords, and as he marched southwards the whole kingdom was soon practically at his command. Richard, by the time he had recrossed the channel to Wales, discovered that his cause was lost. He was conveyed from Chester to London, and forced to execute a deed by which he resigned his crown. This was recited in parliament, and he was formally deposed. The duke of Lancaster then claimed the kingdom as due to himself by virtue of his descent from Henry III.
The claim which he put forward involved, to all appearance, a strange falsification of history, for it seemed to rest upon the supposition that Edmund of Lancaster, and not Edward I., was the eldest son of Henry III. A story had gone about, even in the days of John of Gaunt, who, if we may trust the rhymer John Hardyng (Chronicle, pp. 290, 291), had got it inserted in chronicles deposited in various monasteries, that this Edmund, surnamed Crouchback, was really hump-backed, and that he was set aside in favour of his younger brother Edward on account of his deformity. No chronicle, however, is known to exist which actually states that Edmund Crouchback was thus set aside; and in point of fact he had no deformity at all, while Edward was six years his senior. Hardyng’s testimony is, moreover, suspicious as reflecting the prejudices of the Percys after they had turned against Henry IV., for Hardyng himself expressly says that the earl of Northumberland was the source of his information (see note, p. 353 of hisChronicle). But a statement in the continuation of the chronicle called theEulogium(vol. iii. pp. 369, 370) corroborates Hardyng to some extent; for we are told that John of Gaunt had once desired in parliament that his son should be recognized on this flimsy plea as heir to the crown; and when Roger Mortimer, earl of March, denied the story and insisted on his own claim as descended from Lionel, duke of Clarence, Richard imposed silence on both parties. However this may be, it is certain that this story, though not directly asserted to be true, was indirectly pointed at by Henry when he put forward his claim, and no one was then bold enough to challenge it.
This was partly due, no doubt, to the fact that the true lineal heir after Richard was then a child, Edmund, who had just succeeded his father as earl of March. Another circumstance was unfavourable to the house of Mortimer—that it derived its title through a woman. No case precisely similar had as yet arisen, and, notwithstanding the precedent of Henry II., it might be doubted whether succession through a female was favoured by the constitution. If not, Henry could say with truth that he was the direct heir of his grandfather, Edward III. If, on the other hand, succession through females was valid, he could trace his descent through his mother from Henry III. by a very illustrious line of ancestors. And, in the words by which he formally made his claim, he ventured to say no more than that he was descended from the king last mentioned “by right line of the blood.” In what particular way that “right line” was to be traced he did not venture to indicate.
A brief epitome of the reigns of the three successive kings belonging to the house of Lancaster (Henry IV., V. and VI.) will be found elsewhere. With the death of Henry VI. the direct male line of John of Gaunt became extinct. But by his daughters he became the ancestor of more than one line of foreign kings, while his descendants by his third wife, Catherine Swynford, conveyed the crown of England to the house of Tudor. It is true that his children by this lady were born before he married her; but they were made legitimate by act of parliament, and, though Henry IV. in confirming the privilege thus granted to them endeavoured to debar them from the succession to the crown, it is now ascertained that there was no such reservation in the original act, and the title claimed by Henry VII. was probably better than he himself supposed.
We show on the following page a pedigree of the royal and illustrious houses that traced their descent from John of Gaunt.
(J. Ga.)
LANCASTER, HENRY,Earl of(c.1281-1345), was the second son of Edmund, earl of Lancaster (d. 1296), and consequently a grandson of Henry III. During his early days he took part in campaigns in Flanders, Scotland and Wales, but was quite overshadowed by his elder brother Thomas (see below). In 1324, two years after Thomas had lost his life for opposing the king, Henry was made earl of Leicester by his cousin, Edward II., but he was not able to secure the titles and estates of Lancaster to which he was heir, and be showed openly that his sympathies were with his dead brother. When Queen Isabella took up arms against her husband in 1326 she was joined at once by the earl, who took a leading part in the proceedings against the king and his favourites, the Despensers, being Edward’s gaoler at Kenilworth castle. Edward III. being now on the throne, Leicester secured the earldom of Lancaster and his brother’s lands, becoming also steward of England; he knighted the young king and was the foremost member of the royal council, but he was soon at variance with Isabella and her paramour, Roger Mortimer, and was practically deprived of his power. In 1328 his attempt to overthrow Mortimer failed, and he quietly made his peace with the king; a second essay against Mortimer was more successful. About this time Lancaster became blind; he retired from public life and died on the 22nd of September, 1345.
His son and successor,Henry, 1st duke of Lancaster (c.1300-1361), was a soldier of unusual distinction. Probably from his birthplace in Monmouthshire he was called Henry of Grosmont. He fought in the naval fight off Sluys and in the one off Winchelsea in 1350; he led armies into Scotland, Gascony and Normandy, his exploits in Gascony in 1345 and 1346 being especially successful; he served frequently under Edward III. himself; and he may be fairly described as one of the most brilliant and capable of the English warriors during the earlier part of the Hundred Years’ War. During a brief respite from the king’s service he led a force into Prussia and he was often employed on diplomatic business. In 1354 he was at Avignon negotiating with Pope Innocent VI., who wished to make peace between England and France, and one of his last acts was to assist in arranging the details of the treaty of Brétigny in 1360. In 1337 he was made earl of Derby; in 1345 he succeeded to his father’s earldoms of Lancaster and Leicester; in 1349 he was created earl of Lincoln, and in 1351 he was made duke of Lancaster. He was steward of England and one of the original knights of the order of the garter. He died at Leicester on the 13th of March 1361. He left no sons; one of his daughters, Maud (d. 1362), married William V., count of Holland, a son of the emperor Louis the Bavarian, and the other, Blanche (d. 1369), married Edward III.’s son, John of Gaunt, who obtained his father-in-law’s titles and estates.
LANCASTER, SIR JAMES(fl. 1591-1618), English navigator and statesman, one of the foremost pioneers of the British Indian trade and empire. In early life he fought and traded in Portugal. On the 10th of April 1591 he started from Plymouth, with Raymond and Foxcroft, on his first great voyage to the East Indies; this fleet of three ships is the earliest of English oversea Indian expeditions. Reaching Table Bay (1st of August 1591), and losing one ship off Cape Corrientes on the 12th of September, the squadron rested and refitted at Zanzibar (February 1592), rounded Cape Comorin in May following, and was off the Malay Peninsula in June. Crossing later to Ceylon, the crews insisted on returning home; the voyage back was disastrous; only twenty-five officers and men reappeared in England in 1594. Lancaster himself reached Rye on the 24th of May 1594; in the same year he led a military expedition against Pernambuco, without much success; but his Indian voyage, like Ralph Fitch’s overland explorations and trading, was an important factor in the foundation of the East India Company. In 1600 he was given command of the company’s first fleet (which sailed from Torbay towards the end of April 1601); he was also accredited as Queen Elizabeth’s special envoy to various Eastern potentates. Going by the Cape of Good Hope (1st of November 1601) Lancaster visited the Nicobars (from the 9th of April 1602), Achin and other parts of Sumatra (from the 5th of June 1602), and Bantam in Java; an alliance was concluded with Achin, a factory established at Bantam and a commercial mission despatched to the Moluccas. The return voyage (20th of February to 11th of September 1603) was speedy and prosperous, and Lancaster (whose success both in trade and in diplomacy had been brilliant) was rewarded with knighthood (October 1603). He continued to be one of the chief directors of the East India Company till his death in May 1618; most of the voyages of the early Stuart time both to India and in search of the North-West passage were undertaken under his advice and direction; Lancaster Sound, on the north-west of Baffin’s Bay (in 74° 20′ N.), was named by William Baffin after Sir James (July 1616).
See Hakluyt,Principal Navigations, vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 102-110, vol. iii. pp. 708-715 (1599); Purchas,Pilgrims, vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 147-164; alsoThe Voyages of Sir James Lancaster ... to the East Indies ..., ed. Sir Clements Markham, Hakluyt Soc. (1877),Calendars of State Papers, East Indies. The original journals of Lancaster’s voyage of 1601-1603 have disappeared, and here we have only Purchas to go on.
See Hakluyt,Principal Navigations, vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 102-110, vol. iii. pp. 708-715 (1599); Purchas,Pilgrims, vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 147-164; alsoThe Voyages of Sir James Lancaster ... to the East Indies ..., ed. Sir Clements Markham, Hakluyt Soc. (1877),Calendars of State Papers, East Indies. The original journals of Lancaster’s voyage of 1601-1603 have disappeared, and here we have only Purchas to go on.
LANCASTER, JOHN OF GAUNT,Duke of(1340-1399), fourth son of Edward III. and Queen Philippa, was born in March 1340 at Ghent, whence his name. On the 29th of September 1342 he was made earl of Richmond; as a child he was present at the sea fight with the Spaniards in August 1350, but his first military service was in 1355, when he was knighted. On the 19th of May 1359 he married his cousin Blanche, daughter and ultimately sole heiress of Henry, duke of Lancaster. In her right he became earl of Lancaster in 1361, and next year was created duke. His marriage made him the greatest lord in England, but for some time he took no prominent part in public affairs. In 1366 he joined his eldest brother, Edward the Black Prince, in Aquitaine, and in the year after led a strong contingent to share in the campaign in support of Pedro the Cruel of Castile. With this began the connexion with Spain, which was to have so great an influence on his after-life. John fought in the van at Najera on the 3rd of April 1367, when the English victory restored Pedro to his throne. He returned home at the end of the year. Pedro proved false to his English allies, and was finally overthrown and killed by his rival, Henry of Trastamara, in 1369. The disastrous Spanish enterprise led directly to renewed war between France and England. In August 1369 John had command of an army which invaded northern France without success. In the following year he went again to Aquitaine, and was present with the Black Prince at the sack of Limoges. Edward’s health was broken down, and he soon after went home, leaving John as his lieutenant. For a year John maintained the war at his own cost, but whilst in Aquitaine a greater prospect was opened to him. The duchess Blanche had died in the autumn of 1369 and now John married Constance (d. 1394), the elder daughter of Pedro the Cruel, and in her right assumed the title of king of Castile and Leon. For sixteen years the pursuit of his kingdom was the chief object of John’s ambition. No doubt he hoped to achieve his end, when he commanded the great army which invaded France in 1373. But the French would not give battle, and though John marched from Calais right through Champagne, Burgundy and Auvergne, it was with disastrous results; only a shattered remnant of the host reached Bordeaux.
The Spanish scheme had to wait, and when John got back to England he was soon absorbed in domestic politics. The king was prematurely old, the Black Prince’s health was broken. John, in spite of the unpopularity of his ill-success, was forced into the foremost place. As head of the court party he had to bear the brunt of the attack on the administration made by the Good Parliament in 1376. It was not perhaps altogether just, and John was embittered by reflections on his loyalty. As soon as the parliament was dissolved he had its proceedings reversed, and next year secured a more subservient assembly. There came, however, a new development. The duke’s politics were opposed by the chief ecclesiastics, and in resisting them he had made use of Wycliffe. With Wycliffe’s religious opinions he had no sympathy. Nevertheless when the bishops arraigned the reformer for heresy John would not abandon him. The conflict over the trial led to a violent quarrel with the Londoners, and a riot in the city during which John was in danger of his life from the angry citizens. The situation was entirely altered by the death of Edward III. on the 21st of June. Though his enemies had accused him of aiming at the throne, John was without any taint of disloyalty. In his nephew’s interests he accepted a compromise, disclaimed before parliament the truth of the malicious rumours against him, and was reconciled formally with his opponents. Though he took his proper place in the ceremonies at Richard’s coronation, he showed a tactful moderation by withdrawing for a time from any share in the government. However, in the summer of 1378, he commanded in an attack on St Malo, which through no fault of his failed. To add to this misfortune, during his absence some of his supportersviolated the sanctuary at Westminster. He vindicated himself somewhat bitterly in a parliament at Gloucester, but still avoiding a prominent part in the government, accepted the command on the Scottish border. He was there engaged when his palace of the Savoy in London was burnt during the peasants’ revolt in June 1381. Wild reports that even the government had declared him a traitor made him seek refuge in Scotland. Richard had, however, denounced the calumnies, and at once recalled his uncle.
John’s self-restraint had strengthened his position, and he began again to think of his Spanish scheme. He urged its undertaking in parliament in 1382, but nearer troubles were more urgent, and John himself was wanted on the Scottish border. There he sought to arrange peace, but against his will was forced into an unfortunate campaign in 1384. His ill-success renewed his unpopularity, and the court favourites of Richard II. intrigued against him. They were probably responsible for the allegation, made by a Carmelite, called Latemar, that John was conspiring against his nephew. Though Richard at first believed it, the matter was disposed of by the friar’s death. However, the court party soon after concocted a fresh plot for the duke’s destruction; John boldly denounced his traducers, and the quarrel was appeased by the intervention of the king’s mother. The intrigue still continued, and broke out again during the Scottish campaign in 1385. John was not the man to be forced into treason to his family, but the impossibility of the position at home made his foreign ambitions more feasible.
The victory of John of Portugal over the king of Castile at Aljubarrota, won with English help, offered an opportunity. In July 1386 John left England with a strong force to win his Spanish throne. He landed at Corunna, and during the autumn conquered Galicia. Juan, who had succeeded his father Henry as king of Castile, offered a compromise by marriage. John of Gaunt refused, hoping for greater success with the help of the king of Portugal, who now married the duke’s eldest daughter Philippa. In the spring the allies invaded Castile. They could achieve no success, and sickness ruined the English army. The conquests of the previous year were lost, and when Juan renewed his offers, John of Gaunt agreed to surrender his claims to his daughter by Constance of Castile, who was to marry Juan’s heir. After some delay the peace was concluded at Bayonne in 1388. The next eighteen months were spent by John as lieutenant of Aquitaine, and it was not till November 1389 that he returned to England. By his absence he had avoided implication in the troubles at home. Richard, still insecure of his own position, welcomed his uncle, and early in the following year marked his favour by creating him duke of Aquitaine. John on his part was glad to support the king’s government; during four years he exercised his influence in favour of pacification at home, and abroad was chiefly responsible for the conclusion of a truce with France. Then in 1395 he went to take up the government of his duchy; thanks chiefly to his lavish expenditure his administration was not unsuccessful, but the Gascons had from the first objected to government except by the crown, and secured his recall within less than a year. Almost immediately after his return John married as his third wife Catherine Swynford; Constance of Castile had died in 1394. Catherine had been his mistress for many years, and his children by her, who bore the name of Beaufort, were now legitimated. In this and in other matters Richard found it politic to conciliate him. But though John presided at the trial of the earl of Arundel in September 1397, he took no active part in affairs. The exile of his son Henry in 1398 was a blow from which he did not recover. He died on the 3rd of February 1399, and was buried at St Paul’s near the high altar.
John was neither a great soldier nor a statesman, but he was a chivalrous knight and loyal to what he believed were the interests of his family. In spite of opportunities and provocations he never lent himself to treason. He deserves credit for his protection of Wycliffe, though he had no sympathy with his religious or political opinions. He was also the patron of Chaucer, whoseBoke of the Duchessewas a lament for Blanche of Lancaster.The chief original sources for John’s life are Froissart, the maliciously hostileChronicon Angliae(1328-1388), and the eulogisticChronicleof Henry Knighton (both the latter in the Rolls Series). But fuller information is to be found in the excellent biography by S. Armytage-Smith, published in 1904. For his descendants see the table underLancaster, House of.
John was neither a great soldier nor a statesman, but he was a chivalrous knight and loyal to what he believed were the interests of his family. In spite of opportunities and provocations he never lent himself to treason. He deserves credit for his protection of Wycliffe, though he had no sympathy with his religious or political opinions. He was also the patron of Chaucer, whoseBoke of the Duchessewas a lament for Blanche of Lancaster.
The chief original sources for John’s life are Froissart, the maliciously hostileChronicon Angliae(1328-1388), and the eulogisticChronicleof Henry Knighton (both the latter in the Rolls Series). But fuller information is to be found in the excellent biography by S. Armytage-Smith, published in 1904. For his descendants see the table underLancaster, House of.
(C. L. K.)
LANCASTER, JOSEPH(1778-1838), English educationist, was born in Southwark in 1778, the son of a Chelsea pensioner. He had few opportunities of regular instruction, but he very early showed unusual seriousness and desire for learning. At sixteen he looked forward to the dissenting ministry; but soon after his religious views altered, and he attached himself to the Society of Friends, with which he remained associated for many years, until long afterwards he was disowned by that body. At the age of twenty he began to gather a few poor children under his father’s roof, and to give them the rudiments of instruction, without a fee, except in cases in which the parent was willing to pay a trifle. Soon a thousand children were assembled in the Borough Road; and, the attention of the duke of Bedford, Mr Whitbread, and others having been directed to his efforts, he was provided with means for building a schoolroom and supplying needful materials. The main features of his plan were the employment of older scholars as monitors, and an elaborate system of mechanical drill, by means of which these young teachers were made to impart the rudiments of reading, writing and arithmetic to large numbers at the same time. The material appliances for teaching were very scanty—a few leaves torn out of spelling-books and pasted on boards, some slates and a desk spread with sand, on which the children wrote with their fingers. The order and cheerfulness of the school and the military precision of the children’s movements began to attract much public observation at a time when the education of the poor was almost entirely neglected. Lancaster inspired his young monitors with fondness for their work and with pride in the institution of which they formed a part. As these youths became more trustworthy, he found himself at leisure to accept invitations to expound what he called “his system” by lectures in various towns. In this way many new schools were established, and placed under the care of young men whom he had trained. In a memorable interview with George III., Lancaster was encouraged by the expression of the king’s wish that every poor child in his dominions should be taught to read the Bible. Royal patronage brought in its train resources, fame and public responsibility, which proved to be beyond Lancaster’s own powers to sustain or control. He was vain, reckless and improvident. In 1808 a few noblemen and gentlemen paid his debts, became his trustees and founded the society at first called the Royal Lancasterian Institution, but afterwards more widely known as the British and Foreign School Society. The trustees soon found that Lancaster was impatient of control, and that his wild impulses and heedless extravagance made it impossible to work with him. He quarrelled with the committee, set up a private school at Tooting, became bankrupt, and in 1818 emigrated to America. There he met at first a warm reception, gave several courses of lectures which were well attended, and wrote to friends at home letters full of enthusiasm. But his fame was short-lived. The miseries of debt and disappointment were aggravated by sickness, and he settled for a time in the warmer climate of Carácas. He afterwards visited St Thomas and Santa Cruz, and at length returned to New York, the corporation of which city made him a public grant of 500 dollars in pity for the misfortunes which had by this time reduced him to lamentable poverty. He afterwards visited Canada, where he gave lectures at Montreal, and was encouraged to open a school which enjoyed an ephemeral success, but was soon abandoned. A small annuity provided by his friends in England was his only means of support. He formed a plan for returning home and giving a new impetus to his “system,” by which he declared it would be possible “to teach ten thousand children in different schools, not knowing their letters, all to read fluently in three weeks to three months.” But these visions were never realized. He was run over by a carriage in the streets of New York on the 24th of October 1838, and died in a few hours.
As one of the two rival inventors of what was called the “monitorial” or “mutual” method of instruction, Lancaster’s name was prominent for many years in educational controversy. Dr Andrew Bell (q.v.) had in 1797 published an account of his experiments in teaching; and Lancaster in his first pamphlet, published in 1803, frankly acknowledges his debt to Bell for some useful hints. The two worked independently, but Lancaster was the first to apply the system of monitorial teaching on a large scale. As an economical experiment his school at the Borough Road was a signal success. He had one thousand scholars under discipline, and taught them to read, write and work simple sums at a yearly cost of less than 5s. a head. His tractImprovements in Educationdescribed the gradation of ranks, the system of signals and orders, the functions of the monitors, the method of counting and of spelling and the curious devices he adopted for punishing offenders. Bell’s educational aims were humbler, as he feared to “elevate above their station those who were doomed to the drudgery of daily labour,” and therefore did not desire to teach even writing and ciphering to the lower classes. The main difference between them was that the system of the one was adopted by ecclesiastics and Conservatives,—the “National Society for the Education of the Poor in the principles of the Established Church” having been founded in 1811 for its propagation; while Lancaster’s method was patronized by theEdinburgh Review, by Whig statesmen, by a few liberal Churchmen and by Nonconformists generally. It was the design of Lancaster and his friends to make national education Christian, but not sectarian,—to cause the Scriptures to be read, explained and reverenced in the schools, without seeking by catechisms or otherwise to attract the children to any particular church or sect. This principle was at first vehemently denounced as deistic and mischievous, and as especially hostile to the Established Church. To do them justice, it must be owned that the rival claims and merits of Bell and Lancaster were urged with more passion and unfairness by their friends than by themselves. Yet neither is entitled to hold a very high place among the world’s teachers. Bell was cold, shrewd and self-seeking. Lancaster had more enthusiasm, a genuine and abounding love for children, and some ingenuity in devising plans both for teaching and governing. But he was shiftless, wayward and unmethodical, and incapable of sustained and high-principled personal effort. His writings were not numerous. They consist mainly of short pamphlets descriptive of the successes he attained at the Borough Road. His last publication,An Epitome of the Chief Events and Transactions of my Own Life, appeared in America in 1833, and is characterized, even more strongly than his former writings, by looseness and incoherency of style, by egotism and by a curious incapacity for judging fairly the motives either of his friends or his foes. We have since come to believe that intelligent teaching requires skill and previous training, and that even the humblest rudiments are not to be well taught by those who have only just acquired them for themselves, or to be attained by mere mechanical drill. But in the early stages of national education the monitorial method served a valuable purpose. It brought large numbers of hitherto neglected children under discipline, and gave them elementary instruction at a very cheap rate. Moreover, the little monitors were often found to make up in brightness, tractability and energy for their lack of experience, and to teach the arts of reading, writing and computing with surprising success. And one cardinal principle of Bell and Lancaster is of prime importance. They regarded a school, not merely as a place to which individual pupils should come for guidance from teachers, but as an organized community whose members have much to learn from each other. They sought to place their scholars from the first in helpful mutual relations, and to make them feel the need of common efforts towards the attainment of common ends.
As one of the two rival inventors of what was called the “monitorial” or “mutual” method of instruction, Lancaster’s name was prominent for many years in educational controversy. Dr Andrew Bell (q.v.) had in 1797 published an account of his experiments in teaching; and Lancaster in his first pamphlet, published in 1803, frankly acknowledges his debt to Bell for some useful hints. The two worked independently, but Lancaster was the first to apply the system of monitorial teaching on a large scale. As an economical experiment his school at the Borough Road was a signal success. He had one thousand scholars under discipline, and taught them to read, write and work simple sums at a yearly cost of less than 5s. a head. His tractImprovements in Educationdescribed the gradation of ranks, the system of signals and orders, the functions of the monitors, the method of counting and of spelling and the curious devices he adopted for punishing offenders. Bell’s educational aims were humbler, as he feared to “elevate above their station those who were doomed to the drudgery of daily labour,” and therefore did not desire to teach even writing and ciphering to the lower classes. The main difference between them was that the system of the one was adopted by ecclesiastics and Conservatives,—the “National Society for the Education of the Poor in the principles of the Established Church” having been founded in 1811 for its propagation; while Lancaster’s method was patronized by theEdinburgh Review, by Whig statesmen, by a few liberal Churchmen and by Nonconformists generally. It was the design of Lancaster and his friends to make national education Christian, but not sectarian,—to cause the Scriptures to be read, explained and reverenced in the schools, without seeking by catechisms or otherwise to attract the children to any particular church or sect. This principle was at first vehemently denounced as deistic and mischievous, and as especially hostile to the Established Church. To do them justice, it must be owned that the rival claims and merits of Bell and Lancaster were urged with more passion and unfairness by their friends than by themselves. Yet neither is entitled to hold a very high place among the world’s teachers. Bell was cold, shrewd and self-seeking. Lancaster had more enthusiasm, a genuine and abounding love for children, and some ingenuity in devising plans both for teaching and governing. But he was shiftless, wayward and unmethodical, and incapable of sustained and high-principled personal effort. His writings were not numerous. They consist mainly of short pamphlets descriptive of the successes he attained at the Borough Road. His last publication,An Epitome of the Chief Events and Transactions of my Own Life, appeared in America in 1833, and is characterized, even more strongly than his former writings, by looseness and incoherency of style, by egotism and by a curious incapacity for judging fairly the motives either of his friends or his foes. We have since come to believe that intelligent teaching requires skill and previous training, and that even the humblest rudiments are not to be well taught by those who have only just acquired them for themselves, or to be attained by mere mechanical drill. But in the early stages of national education the monitorial method served a valuable purpose. It brought large numbers of hitherto neglected children under discipline, and gave them elementary instruction at a very cheap rate. Moreover, the little monitors were often found to make up in brightness, tractability and energy for their lack of experience, and to teach the arts of reading, writing and computing with surprising success. And one cardinal principle of Bell and Lancaster is of prime importance. They regarded a school, not merely as a place to which individual pupils should come for guidance from teachers, but as an organized community whose members have much to learn from each other. They sought to place their scholars from the first in helpful mutual relations, and to make them feel the need of common efforts towards the attainment of common ends.