in and were admitted. It was important to them to know that their estates would be liable to be forfeited to the Lord of the Manor, provided they did not come in and claim to be admitted after three proclamations, the first of which has been made to-day. The second would be made in six months, and the third in twelve months hence, after which the estate, in neglect of the proper person being admitted, would be forfeited. Now, if the object of the steward in holding the court here was for the convenience of the copyholders, and to give them notice of the proclamation thus made, we were much indebted to him in coming here to hold this court. But, as certain rumours were prevalent, it might be as well if the steward would state to the copyholders now assembled the object he had in view.

The Deputy-Steward, in reply, said that one of his great objects in holding the court in this town was for the convenience of the copyholders in this district; another to maintain the rights of the lord, which would afterwards be seen.

The following copyhold tenants of the manor were then sworn as

The Deputy-Steward addressed the jury, instructing them that it was their duty to present to the lord all encroachments on his wastes. A portion of their duty was to present all nuisances committed by the tenants, but this appeared to be unnecessary since the passing of the Health of Towns Act. It was their duty also to present all persons who had felled timber on the copyhold lands which belonged to the lord, but this in a town like theirs was unnecessary where there was no timber. Another important duty they had to perform was to present all persons who had worked away any minerals, stones, or clay under the copyhold grounds, as it was a forfeiture of their estate to make clay into bricks for sale. These were the principal subjects for their inquiry. The Deputy-Steward called upon the Greeve to say if he had any presentments to make.

The Greeve handed in a list of parties he wished to present. The first gentleman presented was Christopher Bramwell, Esq., for working clay out of his copyhold estate at Hendon House.

The Deputy-Steward said that this was a clear forfeiture of his estate, in working clay without the license of the lord; and, if the jury so presented, the lord had nothing to do but at once take possession of his property.

Mr. A. J. Moore (who was the only professional gentleman, except Mr. John Hutchinson, in court), rose and said, that it depended altogether upon the custom of the manor, whether the lord or the copyholder was entitled to the clay. The lord, no doubt, was entitled to the minerals, generally speaking; but he was in this fix, even with them, that he could not work them without the consent of the copyholder, for he would be a trespasser if he

entered upon the copyholder's land to dig or search for them. With reference to the clay, he contended that, by the custom of the manor (and everything depended upon the custom), the copyholder, and not the lord, was entitled to the clay in the manor. He never heard of an instance where a copyholder of Houghton Manor applied to the lord to work the clay. If so, it was strong evidence that the lord had no right to it. But he thought that the jury should not proceed with the case until they had evidence of the fact, and that Mr. Bramwell should have notice to defend his right.

The Steward, on looking at his law-book, said that the right to the clay depended certainly upon the custom of the manor, but that the tenant must show that there was such a custom.

Mr. Moore said he had written a note to Mr. Bramwell, requesting his immediate attendance, and that of his solicitor; and in about ten minutes Mr. Bramwell, with Mr. J. J. Wright, his solicitor, arrived.

Mr. Bramwell expressed his great surprise at the proceedings. He never heard of such a claim being set up before. He could prove that for fifty years the clay had been worked without any license from the lord, and that to forfeit his estate without notice and evidence would be monstrous.*

The Steward: You can have a license from the lord, upon payment of so much a thousand for the bricks.

Mr. J. J. Wright contended that the clay belonged to Mr. Bramwell, and not to the lord, and that this was a

In this statement Mr. Bramwell was not correct. Clay was first dug and bricks made, upon the Hendon House copyhold, by Mr. John Ray, Mr Bramwell's tenant, in the year 1836, and not before.

most unprecedented proceeding. By the custom of the manor the clay was the property of the copyholder, and no instance had ever been heard of here where the contrary had been asserted. They should have had notice of this inquiry, that they might have been prepared with evidence and authorities upon the point.

The steward, in addressing the jury, said that the clay belonged to the lord, and that they, or some of them, on their own knowledge, would know that Mr Bramwell had worked the clay: if so, it was their duty to present the same to the lord.

The jury retired, and in about twenty minutes returned into court, with a verdict that Mr. Bramwell had worked the clay out of his copyhold ground, but that the jury had no evidence that the same was contrary to the custom.

The next presentment was against the Earl of Durham, for conveying his copyhold ground by deed instead of

surrender.

Mr. A. J. Moore said, although he had no instructions from the Earl of Durham, who was perfectly ignorant of these proceedings, yet he would undertake to appear for him, for he knew well that his lordship had not in a single instance conveyed any of his property in Bishopwearmouth in a manner that was illegal, or that should

in

any way operate as a forfeiture of his copyhold. He would require, nay, challenge the proof, by any legal evidence, that any one of his conveyances operated as a forfeiture. The whole of the conveyances were only of the equitable estate, the legal tenant never having granted by deed. The conveyances were therefore perfectly legal, as well as all the other conveyances of copyhold property in this town. He never saw a single conveyance

which was illegal. In other parts of the county the legal tenant had joined in granting by deed, which would operate as a forfeiture, but it had never been done here, to his knowledge.

No evidence being forthcoming against his lordship, the presentment was dismissed.

The Greeve also presented the Rev. Ralph Tatham, D.D., General Beckwith, Mr. Johnson Oates, and one or two other copyholders, for breaches of the custom of the manor, by conveying their land by deed instead of surrender, and by their committing waste within their copyhold lands, by working limestone, digging clay, &c.; but the above cases were the only ones of which any special notice was taken, and the whole of these presentments were also dismissed.

The Deputy-Steward then thanked the jurors for their attendance for the lord of the manor, and the court closed.

Part of the copyhold waste ground in Sunderland granted to Ralph Bowes, Esq., in 1601, is now in the possession of the following parties, viz.:—

Ettrick's Quay on the west, in the hands of Messrs, Robert Fenwick and Company, common brewers.

Bowes's Quay (or Ridley's Quay), the property of the North Eastern Railway Company.

The Partnership (or Hardcastle's) Quay, to Mr. Thomas Oswald, of Lewisham, Kent.

Hodgkin's Quay (or Thornhill's Wharf), in the hands of Messrs. Thomas Wood and David Jonassohn; and

The Commissioners of the river Wear occupy the ground as originally granted to them, extending from the Nab End eastward, including a considerable part of the Potato Garth on the north side of the river.