THE JURISDICTION OF THE LORD WARDEN From Original Records. BY A. H. A. HAMILTON. (Read at Ashburton, July, 1876.) IN the reign of Queen Elizabeth a conflict of jurisdiction arose between the deputy-lieutenants and justices of Devon on one side, and the officers of the Stannaries on the other. Among the county records is a copy of a letter from the Queen, "Given under our signet at Nonesuch, the 27th day of June, in the 31st year of our reign," mentioning that the "privileges, liberties, and immunities" of the tinners and duchy tenants of Devon and Cornwall had been of late infringed "by some that had intermeddled with the government of the tinners," and had "by foreign authority charged and rated them for divers payments without consent of their warden." The letter proceeds to confirm in the fullest manner the ancient customs and privileges of the Stannaries, and commands "that no sheriff, commissioner, or other officer whatsoever, do from henceforth muster, rate, or charge any of our tinners or duchy tenants, or otherwise offer any grief, molestation, or disturbance to the jurisdiction of the Duchy or Stannaries; neither do convent, precept, or compel any bailiff or officer of the Stannaries, or any of the tinners or duchy tenants, to answer for any abuses arising or growing within the said Stannaries, determinable there." I should quote this letter at length, but I find that it has been already printed in Westcote's View of Devonshire, p. 87. I have found among the county records some other matters bearing upon this conflict of jurisdiction, which I propose to bring before the Association. The first is a letter from Sir Walter Raleigh, who then held the office of Lord Warden of the Stannaries: “To my very loving friends the Justices of Peace of the "After my very hearty commendations. Complaint hath been made unto me by Peter Burges, Richard Lanxford, William Stockman, and Anthony Sleeman, tinners within the County of Devon and Constables of Hundreds and several parishes there, that they have been summoned to appear before Mr. Serjeant Glanvyle, and refusing to contribute towards the reparation of a private bridge (induced thereunto for the maintenance of the charter and customs of the Stannaries), were compelled to enter into recognizance for their appearance at the last Sessions holden in Devon, and do yet stand bound for answering their refusal therein at your next Sessions, contrary to their said Charter and Her Majesty's late letters. Forasmuch as the said bridge was in former time accustomed to be repaired by the borough of Okehampton at the charges of the inhabitants, and for that tinners are not usually constrained to yield to any taxations and impositions for repairing of bridges out of their own Hundreds and Parishes, being continually charged with expense bestowed upon the ruins of their own, and not holpen with any contribution from other Hundreds, I have thought good to signify unto you that in mine opinion they ought to be forborne in any of these courses, and do therefore pray you to discharge them of their recognizances for further answering this cause, and to desist from demanding any rate or tax, which is over-burdensome to poor men in regard of their daily travel and disbursements employed about the mines. If you do persist in the contrary, I shall be urged to have the cause heard before the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council, and then, if it shall appear that they ought to contribute, I will by my authority cause them to yield to any reasonable charge that shall be thought indifferent. And so I commit you to God. From Durham House. The 15th of February, 1592. Your loving friend, W. RALEIGH. "I will myself give order that the tinners shall contribute unto the bridge if upon examination I find cause to urge them thereunto, but not by any foreign authority." The postscript seems to me rather characteristic of some of the less admirable qualities ascribed to the great Sir Walter by his biographer, Mr. St. John, "insatiable in the pursuit of power, and not over-scrupulous in the use of it." I suspect there was a sharp correspondence between him and the justices of Devon, which might be of considerable interest, if we could recover the whole of it. In the records of 1595, three years afterwards, I find the following epistle : A Letter written by the Justices unto Sir Walter Raleigh. "Sir, We have received your letter, by the which we perceive that you are informed that some of us have gone about to intermeddle in your jurisdiction of the Stannaries. We find by due examination that you are misinformed by some unadvised and undiscreet persons, who, we think, rather desire to set some discord between you and us than to uphold your liberties, which we noway go about to infringe. We have bound Robert Lake and George Martyn to their good behaviour till the next sessions, for divers misdemeanours committed by them, noway concerning you or your office. And where you write that Voysy and Wright have delivered slanderous and scoffing speeches touching your late occasion at sea, we have examined the said parties, and as many others as could best inform us, and find no such matter; for if we had, you should assure yourself we would have dealt in it according to the quality of the offence. These with our very hearty commendations." We may be quite sure that the privileges and immunities of the Stannaries led to many frauds and abuses, as such things usually do. The last order of Sessions, entered during the reign of Elizabeth, relates to this subject. I may mention that I have modernized the spelling in this and the preceding documents. The term foreigners was habitually employed to signify all who were not "tynners." Order for contribution to the Queen's service by foreigners and tinners. "Upon a general complaint made unto this Court that divers of the principal inhabitants of sundry parishes within this county have of late time very fraudulently interested themselves in some tin work, under colour thereof to be protected and discharged against the general and necessary charges for the service of her Majesty, wherewith they have in former times been indifferently rated and taxed, together with the rest of the inhabitants of the said parishes. It is therefore thought fit by this Court, and so ordered, that such as are newly crept in to be tinners, at any time within six years last past, of purpose to exempt themselves from any charge of her Majesty's service, or have at any time contributed with the foreigners within six years last past, and which have not been ancient tinners, or to whom any tin work is not descended or acquired by marriage, shall from henceforth pay to all services of her Majesty with foreigners, as before their so making themselves tinners they have and were accustomed to do and pay, so as the foreigners of the said parishes, or the greater number of them, shall or have not wilfully refused to contribute in equal charge with such as are accounted tinners within the said parishes; and also that as well the parishioners of Lamerton, as others now. in this Court in question for the same, shall pay all such charges as formerly have been imposed upon them. And this order is conceived to agree with the pleasure of the Lord Warden in this behalf formerly signified unto this court, and not with any intent to make wilful breach of the privileges rightfully belonging to the court of Stannary, or to the authority of the Lord Warden in that behalf." The last sentence shows the fear that the justices entertained of the illustrious Sir Walter. His power, I need not say, soon came to an end under the new sovereign. In 1604 he was superseded by the Earl of Pembroke in the office of Lord Warden of the Stannaries. THE CHOIR-SCREEN OF EXETER CATHEDRAL: ITS RELATION TO CHRISTIAN ART, AND THE PROBABLE USE TO WHICH IT WAS FIRST PUT. BY REV. J. ERSKINE RISK, M.A. (Read at Ashburton, July, 1876.) THIS beautiful screen, which now supports the organ, is of an elegant design. Three different opinions have been entertained as to the time of its construction. It has been attributed, first, to the reign of Edward III., and if so, to the episcopate of Grandisson (1328-69); second, to the episcopate of Brantynghame (1370-94); but, thirdly, recent examinations of the Fabrics Roll seem clearly to assign the construction to Bishop Stapeldon (1308-26). The work however must have been tampered with in successive episcopates. The lower part, forming an arcade, consists of three ogee arches in front, and at the end are two other arches springing from clustered shafts of Purbeck marble. The spandrils, or lateral spaces on upper and outer sides of the arch, are beautifully carved in rich foliage; but the general effect of the centre compartments has been much impaired by the introduction in James I.'s time of a rose and thistle. There are thirteen small arches above the spandrils filled with paintings on stone, representing Old and New Testament subjects; but there seems to be some difference of opinion as to their date. One authority pronounces them to be of the same date and questionable taste as the rose and thistle, and I should not be surprised to find this opinion correct; while another authority (Britton) declares them to be curious from their antiquity, as dating from the fourteenth century, and so coeval with the screen itself, and "also as ranking among the See MURRAY's Cathedrals-Exeter-p. 164 (Bishop Brantynghame), and Murray's "Exeter Guide" in his Devon and Cornwall, p. 20, where he says the work is Stapeldon's, "though no doubt much tampered with at different times." |