GRAVE-SLAB OF ABBOT BARWICK IN SELBY ABBEY CHURCH, 1526.1 THE effigy is incised on a limestone slab, and represents a mitred abbot fully vested. The figure is represented as lying under a segmental foliated canopy, with the head and shoulders on a pillow, and the feet on the ground, in which are tufts of grass. The pillow is protected by a cover laced on at the two ends, and has a knot and tassel at each corner. The abbot is represented with his hands placed palm to palm in front of him, and the crosier, with the crook turned outward, rests under his right arm, with the spike on the ground. The mitre is of medium height, and both it and the vestments are much earlier in style than the date of the monument. The chasuble has what is called the Y orphrey, and the same ornament appears on the shoes. Over the top of the chasuble appears the apparel of the amice, while below it are seen the lower portions of the dalmatic and tunicle with their slits and fringed edges. Lower still the albe appears, but without apparels. On the left wrist is an embroidered fanon (maniple). The stole is entirely concealed. The hands are without gloves or ring, and the crosier has no veil attached to it. One of the many mistaken notions that have prevailed about the crosier is that a bishop carries his crosier with the crook turned outward to denote jurisdiction in his diocese, while an abbot carries his turned inward because his jurisdiction is limited to his abbey. The fact is that both bishops and abbots are represented with them either outward or inward. It is simply for want of room when they are turned inward, as on the oval seals both of bishops and of abbots. The inscription begins in elegiacs, and, with the contractions extended, is as follows: Fato lugifero Jacet hic tellure Johannes Dompnus Barwicus, opere valde bonus. At the corners are the symbols of the Four Evangelists, the Man of An engraving of this slab was published by William Fowler, of Winterton, in December, 1820. 1 From a rubbing by Mr. Mill Stephenson, F.S.Ą. J. T. F. TREASON IN 1685. THE feelings of resentment against James II, which led many in the West of England to support the Duke of Monmouth in his rebellion, were not without sympathisers in North Yorkshire. In the summer of 1685, about the time the Duke was landing in England, John Dale, a yeoman from Holme, near Helmsley, was presented for seditious words, "I will fight for the Duke of Monmouth so long as any blood remains in me." A little later a man at Fylingdales was presented for repeating the common report that Charles II had been poisoned by his brother, the Duke of York, "The Duke did barber the late King, and the Duke's wife did then drink to him a good health to the Barber... It was thought that the King did not live long after it."2 Unfortunately after the July Sessions of 1685 there are no entries in the Quarter Sessions Books till January, 1687-8, so that it is impossible to cite more cases of disaffection from these volumes. This lacuna is to a certain extent filled up by original presentments and depositions before Justices of the Peace, only a few of which have been noted by the editor of the North Riding Records. Amongst these unprinted depositions are the two given below. The first deposition was made before Constable Bradshaw, of Nunthorpe, near Stokesley, a Roman Catholic. Here the charge, made by the informer, is one "tending towards treason." Nellist, the accused party, is said to have been disaffected to the king and government. The case seems a weak one, based on no other evidence than that of Mercer, the informer. Common informers, or as they were generally called, qui tams, from the opening words of the information, "qui, tam pro domino rege, quam pro se ipso, sequitur," as they sought to recover half the penalties due to the Crown in cases of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature, were usually persons of tainted character, whose evidence required strong corroboration. At a later period they earned their livelihood by feigning illness near a public-house, and persuading the unsuspecting publican to supply them with spirits during prohibited hours, whereupon they at once. informed against their benefactors, and divided the money accruing from the fine. Readers of Oliver Twist will remember what Dickens, at the close of the story, tells of the means by which Noah Claypole and his wife gained their livelihood. "His plan is to walk out once a week attended by Charlotte in respectable attire. The lady faints away at the doors of charitable publicans, and the gentleman being. accommodated with three-pennyworth of brandy to restore her, lays an information next day, and pockets half the penalty. Sometimes Mr. Claypole faints himself, but the result is the same." Although this seems to be the latest mention of the common informer in literature, he still exists, though shorn of most of his powers of mischief. A legal friend writes:-"There are several statutes under which the whole or part of the penalty goes to the informer, as for example the old Highway Act (1835), as I daresay you know, though that part of the business is so exclusively clerk's work that most Justices know nothing at all about it. Under the Inland Revenue Act, 1890, the Commissioners have power to reward informers, but perhaps Noah Claypole would not have much chance. The best case I ever had of an action for a penalty was by a wretch who took advantage of his own wrong, and sued under the statute of 31 Elizabeth, c. 6, for a penalty in respect of a simoniacal transaction which he had himself promoted! My client was innocent but for the maxim, ‘Ignorantia legis non excusat' (good law and vile Latin), and I sought in vain for a way out. I laid a case before a distinguished civilian when the action was threatened, and his opinion virtually was, 'You're a bad lot, and you must pay, and serve you right.' However, when I was grubbing myself in the Statute Book to see if I could find a hole to creep through, and had just given it up, my eye fell on another Statute immediately preceding (31 Eliz., c. 5), and I found it provided a twelve months' limitation. I kept my own counsel, and as good luck would have it, the writ was not actually issued until a few days too late. Then I instructed Chitty to plead (it was under the old practice), and he advised that our defence was conclusive, and so thought the plaintiff, who was very glad to abandon his action." It is worthy of note that the names Nellist, Proddam and Laverick are still existing in the Danby district. The other case is an instance of oppression by the dominant Royalists, a party of whom came to Hutton Conyers, near Ripon, and accused the informart, John Storaker, and the other inhabitants of the place, of being traitors and favourers of the Duke of Monmouth. Beyond putting them in a fright and threatening them, the Royalists seem to have done nothing. The complainant in this case is probably the same person as the John Storzaker who acted as Deputy Sheriff at the North Riding Quarter Sessions from 1689 to 1700.1 1 North Riding Records, vii, 94-174. I. North Riding Com. Ebor. The informacion of John Mercer, within the parish of Westerdale, yeoman, taken vpon oath before Constable Bradshaw of Nunthorpe esq., one of His Majesties Justices of ye Peace of ye said Rideing, ye 2d day of September, Anno Domini 1685. The said Informant vpon his oath saith yt vpon Sunday last1 Edward Nellist and Samuell Proddam, both of ye parrishe of Danby, was drinking in ye house of Ann Laverick who sells ale, and did perswade ye said Informant into theire company, and ye said Samuell Proddam did drink ye Kinges health vnto him, and said, Whether shall it bee to ye King in heaven or on earth? To wch ye said Edward Nellist did reply, Yt there was noe King now in England. And ye Informant said they had a King in England, and did hope hee was in good health. And ye said Edward Nellist demanded how hee could prove it. And ye Informant telling him yt his expression was tending towardes treason, hee therevpon struck at the Informantes face, and made him bleed. And this Informant further saith yt ye said Edward Nellist is reputed to be a person disaffected both to the King aud Government, and further saith not. Capta die et anno supradictis II. John Mercer. The informacion of John Storaker taken vpon oath in ye open Sessions, holden att Thirske, ye 6th of October, anno Domini, 1685. Who saith y', vpon ye 26th day of September last past, Richard Briggs, William Flower, and two other men and a boy, came to Hutton Conyers in the evening and threatned to burne the towne, putting the inhabitants in a greate fright, calling them traitors, Presbiterion rogues, Oliver and Mulmoth dogges, and that they would have them all hangued for speaking treason, and particularly charged this Informant, and called him traytor, curseing and swearing that they would have him hangued for saying that he hoped to see the Duke of Monmoth King of England betwixt [then] and Christenmas next; and further said that within a week their company would be downe, and that then they would acquaint them what rogues we were, and that then I and ye rest of us should be all hangued wth out examining or questioning us about it. And further saith that they threatned all the inhabitants there with dangerous expressions. And further saith not. Jo: Stooraker, |