[1] The route by Overborough, Borough Bridge and Kirkby Thore was the Maiden Way; but it is probable that Agricola's first advance to this district was made along the coast.[2] For full details of the most recent excavations and finds, with plans, see reports on "A Romano-British settlement at Ewe Close, Crosby Ravensworth," by W. G. Collingwood, F.S.A., (1907-8) Transactions, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and ArchÆological Society, N.S., vols. viii. and ix.[3] The exact wording is:--"Near the head of which (the Lowther) is a well which, like Euripus, ebbs and flows several times in a day," a much less remarkable thing. Apparently Mr. Bland's informant has misquoted in conversation. The second edition of Camden's _Britannia_ (1723) comments that this phenomenon is not infrequent in rocky country, and not usually lasting; and that there was then no ebbing fountain to be heard of near Shap.[4] This idea is that of Stukeley; it had, at the time, a very large following, but is now rejected.[5] More probably both are pre-Roman. They are now in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries.[6] Canon Weston gave as a possible meaning of the puzzling word Ravensworth, "Hill of the Standard of the Raven," with the reservation that this failed if the Danes did not reach here. Others think the name is corrupted from Ravensthwaite, Raven's clearing. But far more interesting than the meaning is the pains with which the author traces out the historical steps by which the name, as he understands it, was built up.[7] According to Stubbs, the belief that Theodore was the founder of the parochial system is mistaken; but his legislation aided its development.[8] The authority for this sentence is not clear, as the charter granting Hardendale to Byland Abbey is not forthcoming. Perhaps Mr. Bland has been misinformed by some one who had read the charter of Thomas son of Gospatric granting to Shap Abbey the land on which the abbey stood; here a "great stone" is mentioned, but this is between Raset and the Lowther, quite a different spot. Mr. Bland is certainly not responsible for the confusion.[9] Prof. Boyd Dawkins relates a remarkable instance of this feeling within living memory. About 1859 a Manx farmer offered up a calf as a burnt sacrifice, to appease the spirits of the tumuli, disturbed by archÆological spade-work![10] Straked, levelled off at the top, as opposed to heaped measure.[11] There must be a mistake here, for if this Robert had been a descendant in any degree of John and Frances, he would have succeeded to Thornton Watlass, and lived there. As a matter of fact, the estate went to John's next brother, whose descendants have it still. John Dodsworth was never more than heir apparent; according to the Visitation of Yorkshire in 1665, he was dead, his father was seventy years of age, and he and Frances had had two children, Helen, who died young, and John, then aged sixteen. Hence, when the latter died, his son, if he had one, would be in the direct line of descent. Perhaps Robert was a servant, and had adopted his master's name; as was sometimes done in olden times.[12] It has been remarked that in England anything ancient is attributed to one of four authors—Julius CÆsar, King Arthur, the Druids or the Devil. Julius CÆsar did not reach the north, and Michael Scott fills his place.[13] It seems that the documents from which Mr. Bland gathered these curious particulars, represent the defendants', that is the tenants', side of the question; and it is very hard to tell whether the oppression they allege was real or imaginary. On the other hand, Mr. Lowther undoubtedly had cause for complaint, for on Mr. Bland's showing, the tenants more than once did wilful damage, and refused to comply with the order of the court.

A possible explanation is this: the Vernons were absentee landlords, and left things to take care of themselves; Sir Richard Lowther expected things to be managed properly, and saw that they were; and the change would not be popular, though perfectly just and fair. Something about the story suggests that the trouble was organised by some individual who possessed professional knowledge; perhaps the former steward had been dismissed by Sir Richard, and was taking his revenge in this way.[14] We are inclined to think that this result, which Mr. Bland rates rather low, constituted a decisive success. The court had already shown that the tenants' method of redress was unlawful, had punished them for it, and made them pay compensation for the damage they had done. It might be argued at this point that they had a genuine grievance, and were merely wrong in their choice of remedy; but the decree deprives them of this excuse; for the court would not have permitted Mr. Lowther to have a piece of waste land for this purpose, if by building there he would be infringing the rights of the tenants. Hence his position is justified from the very beginning.[15] The owner of Whitehaven was Sir James, his father's second cousin, son of Sir John, the great maker of the town. Sir William Lowther was his fourth cousin, and left him Marske. Lowther came to him from his second cousin. His eventual heir, Sir William Lowther, was the son of his third cousin; the latter also inherited the title of Viscount Lonsdale under a special and remarkable limitation; this had been conferred on "Sir Jammy" when it was seen that his earldom was going to die out. The new peer was created Earl of Lonsdale in 1807; it was reported in 1828, correctly or otherwise, that he had the offer of a dukedom.[16] A sketch of Shap Stones, made by her in 1775, is reproduced in Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and ArchÆological Society's Transactions, vol. xv., article 4.[17] Few men have been more bitterly attacked than James Lowther has been, both during his life, and after his death. He was masterful and capricious, a combination of qualities which does not make for popularity; he was devoted to electioneering, which earned him enemies; and it is worth noting that his chief detractors have a distinct political bias. They include Horace Walpole; Boswell, whose Parliamentary ambitions he disappointed, and above all, Rev. Alex. Carlyle, who devotes a page of his memoirs to a compilation of the worst epithets and opinions permissible to a Doctor of Divinity. Some of this is quoted in the Dictionary of National Biography article, omitting, however, the fact that the passage begins by showing the writer's sympathy with his great rival, the Duke of Portland.

Sir James was a benefactor to the town of Whitehaven, and it was he who secured the first return to Parliament of the younger Pitt—from Appleby. An amusing tale is told of him that he once fought a duel with a learned serjeant-at-law, who had made free with his character in a case. At the meeting, the learned serjeant is said to have shot his own toe! It is hard to believe that he would have been called "Sir Jammy" till his death, though he had long been a peer, had he really been "more detested than any man living" as Carlyle asserts he was; or the suggestion that he was a tyrant over his dependents and tenants in view of the fact that his funeral, which was, by his direction, strictly private and unannounced, "a large crowd of people from the neighbourhood were assembled, and behaved with the greatest respect, decency and decorum," as the Gentleman's Magazine quaintly puts it.