To realise fully the important position Furness Abbey held, both in things spiritual and temporal, it must be remembered that the abbot of this monastery possessed not only the power of jurisdiction over the monks, but governed also the wild and rugged region of Lancashire which is divided by an arm of the Irish Sea from the rest of the country and known as Furness. Many viceregal privileges were vested in his high office, and to some extent even the military were under his orders. He held a court of criminal jurisdiction in Dalton Castle, where also he had a gaol; issued summonses by his own bailiffs; while the Sheriff with his officers was prohibited from entering the territory of the abbey under any pretext whatever. The diversity of his offices and responsibilities entailed a keeping of a numerous retinue of servants and armoured followers, a certain number of his vassals being at the service of the Crown according to the feudal system. As in the case of other monasteries, and as time went on, numerous benefactors arose. Many of the wealthy bestowed lands and further privileges on the monks--not a few in consideration of the favour of obtaining a last resting-place in the abbey. They-- “Loved the church so well and gave so largely to’t They thought it should have canopied their bones Till doomsday--but all things have their end.” The evidence in a petition made in the Duchy Court in 25 Elizabeth (1582) by the tenants of Walney disclosed a curious system of barter carried on between the abbots and their tenants. In return for certain “domestical” provisions, such as calves, sheep, wheat, barley, etc., the tenants received from the abbey, “great relief, sustentation and commodities for themselves and their children.” All the tenants had weekly one ten-gallon barrel of ale, also a weekly allowance of coarse wheat bread, iron for their husbandry, gear and timber for the repair of their houses. In addition to these grants, all men who owned a plough could send two men to dine at the monastery once a week--from Martinmas to Pentecost. The children of tenants who had found the required provision were educated free, and allowed every day a dinner or a supper, so that as far back as the 6th or 7th centuries, the responsibility for feeding and educating children was considered to go hand in hand. The question at issue between the tenants and Attorney-General in the petition referred to was that while he claimed the “domestical” provisions, he refused the recompenses, alleging that these were merely bounties given by the abbots out of their benevolence and for the good of the neighbourhood. The result of the petition was in favour of the tenants.