It is difficult, indeed impossible, to define completely the exact boundaries of these manors. This is largely owing to the fact that they were all, except the Rectory, in the hands of one lord and administered by one set of officials at a court common to several manors, possibly the court of the Liberty. It was, under these circumstances, unnecessary for the boundaries to be very clearly defined when it did not much matter in which manor a tenant lived; he had to do suit at the same court and pay his rent to the same lord whether he were this or that side of a certain line, so that it was natural for the bounds to be neglected and possible for tracts of land to be reckoned in one manor which should have gone with another. It was so when the occasional formal Surveys or Extents were made. A large area of country was in the hands of the Duchy of Lancaster, the officers of the Duchy came down to make their survey, they empanelled a jury and got through their work as quickly as possible, and it is evident from the short time they devoted to each manor that they did not examine closely into its composition. There were no rival interests involved, and there was, in their view, no need to waste time over small topographical details.

This did not matter so long as the common ownership lasted, but when the manors came to change hands it mattered very much, and disputes were caused which would not have arisen had there been more careful delimitation in earlier days. An instance of this is found in the dispute about the mining of coal at a place called Cattlehead in Brown Moor in 1582. The question was whether the spot was in the manor of Shippen which belonged to Richard Gascoigne or in the manor of Barwick with Scholes, at that time appurtenant to the Duchy, and there was some difficulty in proving where the line between these manors actually ran. Another instance is the dispute about the boundary between Scholes and Seacroft in the 18th century, as to which of these manors the western part of Winmoor belonged.

The best guide we have to the boundaries of Barwick and Scholes is found in the circuits' of these two manors in the surveys of 1610 and 1611. But even here many of the landmarks, prominent and well known in those days, ditches, gates, hedges, and 'great stones,' have long since disappeared, and the field names referred to are mostly forgotten. We have therefore to be content with only a tolerably accurate idea of the way in which this parish was divided.

Barwick comprises nearly all the eastern portion of the parish, the manorial and parochial boundaries being almost conterminous on that side, except that the former runs out to embrace Hillam, in the parish of Aberford, where were the corn mills of the manor. Where the parish boundary, coming from the north and skirting

Becca, touches the Cock Beck, it turns westward towards Barwick, but the manor boundary turns eastward along the beck till it comes to a meadow anciently called 'Vicar's Ing' beyond Becca Mill. This was formerly known as Hillam Mill; it was founded by a charter of John de Lascy early in the 13th century, and was so called until quite recent times, when the name that had been in use for six and a half centuries somehow became altered and was even dropped out of the Ordnance Survey. Thence the boundary turns back south westerly to the Cock Beck where it meets the parish again near Ass Bridge. By this means a small portion of Aberford, containing the mills and the road to them, was included in the manor of Barwick. From Ass Bridge the boundary follows the course of the Cock Beck southward and westward until near Lasingcroft in the manor of Scholes, whence, leaving Barnbow on the east and Scholes on the west, it runs northward to Kiddal. The old boundary between Barwick and Kiddal cannot now be traced.

The manor of Scholes lies west of that of Barwick; it is bounded on the north and south by the limits of the parish, on the west by the narrow neck of land connecting it with Roundhay and by that portion of Winmoor which is, or was, disputed with Seacroft. Lasingcroft falls within this manor and was at one time its most important member.

Roundhay comprises the township of that name and some small portion of land outside it, but the actual extent is not now certain. It occupies a part of the parish curiously almost isolated from the rest.

Seacroft is supposed to have been a sub-manor of Roundhay, but this has been a matter of dispute. It claimed that part of Winmoor which lies to the west of the Cock Beck, and if that claim be justified it should be reckoned as being partly in this parish.

Shippen was a small manor lying in the south east corner between the Cock Beck and the southern bound of the parish; early notices show it to have been held with Parlington.

Of the Rectory manor we know nothing more than that in the 14th century it had tenants and a court to which they were summoned to do suit. What was its original territory, or whether it had any at the time referred to, we cannot tell. It is quite possible for a manor which originally had land annexed to it to have lost this land and yet still to remain a manor, becoming as it was called a manor or seignory in gross. Of our rectory manor it can only be said that at one time it existed.

The manor of Kiddal had an apparently small area, which cannot now be defined, to the north of Barwick and Scholes around the existing Kiddal Hall, but there is no record whatever of its separate jurisdiction.

In all these seven manors only one court is now held, that for Barwick and Scholes of its powers and customs we shall speak by and bye.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

The Duchy of Lancaster, by the end of the fourteenth century, had reached, with its possessions and prerogative rights, an extraordinary magnitude and power. This greatness came about through a series of royal grants and marriage inheritances. Edmund, second son of Henry III. was created Earl of Lancaster, 30 June, 1267, and received by grant the Honour of Lancaster which extended into the counties of Lancaster, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincoln, Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, York, Rutland and Stafford. His son Thomas succeeded him, he married Alice, daughter and heiress of Henry de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln, and through a charter of 21 Edward I. added to the earldom the great Lascy estates. The heritage grew in time to such proportions that it included lands in almost every county in England and Wales.

These estates came ultimately to John of Gaunt, first Duke of Lancaster, and then to his son Henry, afterwards King Henry IV. It must be noticed that when the estates became associated with the throne they were held as a separate inheritance, distinct from the lands and possessions of the Crown. The object of thus distinguishing between the Duchy and the Crown lands was this. The Duchy was already legally the property of Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, when he wrested the crown from Richard II. and assumed the title of Henry IV. But while his claim on the Duchy was unassailable, his claim on the crown was not. The rightful successor on the death of Richard II. was the heir of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, second son of Edward III., Henry's father, John of Gaunt, being but fourth son. If therefore Henry had suffered the Duchy lands to be united to the Crown, and he had found himself in the quite possible case of being driven from the throne he would have lost everything. In the first year of his reign he therefore procured an Act of Parliament ordaining that the Duchy and all his other hereditary estates should remain to him and to his heirs for ever, and be administered as if he had never attained the throne.1

Within their possessions the Earls, and afterwards the Dukes, of Lancaster, by right of their County Palatine and by royal grants, enjoyed very high prerogatives. They appointed all judges and justices of the peace, all writs and indictments ran in their names as in other counties in the king's name, all offences were said to be done against their peace, and not, as elsewhere, against the king's peace. They might pardon treasons, murders and felonies. Most of these privileges have disappeared, but the legal officers remain, the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Attorney General and Coroner. The Judicature Act of 1871 has left only the Chancery Court of the Duchy, and the Chancellorship is used but as an easy political post for a member of the Cabinet.

A great portion of the landed property has been sold, as in this parish, though the revenue of the Duchy still amounts to over £100,000 per annum.

1. Blackstone, vol. i. §4.

The descent of the Duchy lands will be understood by the following

CHAPTER VIII.

THE MANOR OF BARWICK.

Before the Conquest the manor of Barwick was owned by Edwin, Earl of Mercia, son of Aelfgar and grandson of Leofric. He submitted himself to the Conqueror, was confirmed in his earldom and left in the enjoyment of his possessions, until, in 1071, he rebelled against the Crown and was slain. It was then, no doubt, that this manor was granted, with others, to de Lascy.

Ilbert de Lascy was one of the companions of the Conqueror and is believed to have derived his name from Lassi, a village in the Department of Calvados in Normandy, a few miles from Falaise, William's own birthplace.1 The name of his father is not known. Walter de Lascy, who received a grant in Wales, was his half brother. In the rewarding of his followers the Conqueror, in 1067, bestowed upon him a large grant of the confiscated lands, and on the death of Earl Edwin added to them the Earl's possessions in this neighbourhood. In Yorkshire alone Ilbert held over two hundred manors in the Wapentakes of Skyrack, Staincross, Agbrigg and Morley. It is probable that on succeeding to Edwin's estates he utilized the ancient earthworks which he found at Barwick and here created a stronghold, the head of his great fee. But before long he built a castle at a more convenient spot on the river Aire and named it Pontfret either from the remains of a broken Roman bridge, or from some place similarly so-called in Normandy. He was dead in 1087.

His grandson Henry, founder of Kirkstall Abbey, married Albreda daughter of Eustace de Vescy, and sister of William de Vescy, Rector of Barwick.2 Their only son Robert died sine prole in 1193 and with him terminated the original line of this family.3 Henry de Lascy had a sister Albreda married to Robert de Lisours, they had an only daughter, Albreda, who married first Richard Fitz Eustace, Baron of Halton and Constable of Chester, and secondly William Fitz William of Sprotborough. Upon the death of Robert her cousin she succeeded

1. Y.A.J. vol. iv. p. 138.

2. See p. 54.

3.

There is no record of the arms borne by the earlier de Lascys, and heraldic bearings were unknown in the days of the Conqueror and his immediate successors. The seal of Roger de Lascy, the Constable, has on the reverse a sort of interlaced device, which has been called the Lascy knot,' and may have been suggested by the word 'lacis' meaning net-work. (Y.A.J. vol. iv. p. 138. Ormerod's Hist. of Cheshire, i. 511.) There is in the Gascoigne collection a deed dated 1251 with the privy seal of Edmund de Lascy. 'Eadmund de Lascy grants to John de Longvilers all the land of Farneley which he bought of Walter de Wridellesford, with the service of Eudo and his heirs. Witnesses: Sir Roger de Quency, Earl of Winchester; Peter de Percy; Robert de Stapelton; Ralph de Horbiry; John de Hoderode; Robert de Cestria; Robert de Coiniers; John de Stainton. At Rowell, Feast of S. Matthew the Apostle, 35 Hen. III. (Sept. 21,

1251).

Seal-Quarterly, over all a bend and label of five points. "SECRETV' EADMUNDI DE LACI ** dark brown wax, circular, fifteen-sixteenths of an inch).