A HISTORY OF CORNWALL statutory, technical and non-technical, for the administration of which a royal officer, the warden, was responsible. The head of the stannary sys- tem was, accordingly, the king, or, after 1337, the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall. Beneath him stood the warden, then the vice- warden, and lastly, the lower stannary courts with their stewards and juries of miners. The warden, however, as far back as we find records, invariably delegated his judicial and magisterial powers to his lieutenant and to the stewards, and interfered in legal questions only in appeals from the vice-warden's verdicts. 1 The latter's powers were, first of all, magisterial, for the prevention, by summary process, of offences against stannary laws, and for their summary punishment, if perpetrated. 2 Next, as judge of the vice-warden's court, he had original jurisdic- tion in matters of equity. The origin of this power will always remain obscure, as it is im- possible to find warrant for it in any reasonable interpretation of the charters of 1201 and 1305, which contain no legal phrase not to be found in common-law writs. 3 On the other hand, the early petitions addressed to the Prince of Wales 4 are rarely made to the warden, but to the prince's proper officer whoever he might be ; neither were they restricted to the subject of mining. 8 Gradually, without doubt, from these petitions and the orders from the prince's council arose an equitable jurisdiction. Similar petitions to great lords and their councils ripened into courts of chancery, notably the case of the courts of the president and council of Wales, 6 and probably only the interposition of parliament prevented the growth of many courts of local equity. 7 The prince's council survived those of other subjects, 8 and in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall, long usage, the fact that many of the petitions related to the stannaries, and the union of the warden- ship with the other high offices of the duchy 9 for centuries, co-operated to narrow the prince's jurisdiction to the same subjects as those embraced by the tinners' charters. As no records were kept of the proceedings of the vice-warden's court till 1752, one cannot 1 The warden was the general representative of the stannaries as against the government of England, mustered the tinners in times of war, and acted as their spokesman with regard to stannary affairs. 2 Convoc. Cornw. 22 Jas. I, c. 6, 12, 13. 3 Smirke, Vice v. Thomas, App. 102. 4 White Book of Cornwall, 23 Nov. 34 Edw. Ill, cited by E. Smirke, Vice v. Thomas, App. 26. 5 White Book of Cornwall, i, c. 15. e Coke, Institutes (ed. 1661), bk. iv, p. 242-245. ' Stat. 15 Ric. II, c. 12 ; 1 6 Ric. II, c. 2. 8 It was recognized by parliament (Par/. R. ii, 371). 9 Close, 8 Edw. II, m. 7. 10 Convoc. Cornw. 27 Geo. II, c. 16. The case of Boscawen v. Chaplin, in the reign of Henry VIII, seems to have been dealt with as a special case, as it appears to have been tried before the ' underwarden say how early it had actual practice in equity. Carew, in 1602, wrote of the warden that 'he supplieth the place, both of a judge for law, and of a chancellor for conscience, and so taketh hearing of causes either in forma juris or dejure et equo. He substituted some gentleman in the shire, of good calling and discretion, to be his vice-warden.' u In a dissertation a few years later, we find words to the same effect, 12 and the vice- warden's power in equity was, in i6o8, 13 declared by Coke to be founded on prescription. The express recognition of these powers in later years, and their unopposed exercise, leave no doubt as to their validity in theory and in practice. 14 The vice-warden's appellate jurisdiction dates certainly back to 1 5 io, 15 and probably earlier. In that year we see that the course of appeals in the stannary courts lay from steward to vice-warden, from vice-warden to warden, and from warden to the prince's council, and in 1565 this measure was confirmed in the case of Trewynnard against Roskarrock, 16 as well as affirmed repeatedly in stannary records of later years. More recently, however, arose a practice, quite unwarranted, of using the vice-warden's court as one of original common-law jurisdiction. This seems to have been exercised chiefly in cases of debts due to merchants and tradesmen for the supply of materials or goods requisite for the working of the mines, and to tinners for their labour. The delays in the stewards' courts had proved vexa- tious beyond measure, 17 and the fact that, nor- mally, the case was certain to come eventually before the vice-warden now caused it to be carried to him direct. This practice seems also to have been due to the system of adventuring, which in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was at its height in Cornwall. The creditors who supplied the mines were made to look for payment to the purser of the company, 18 and as he received all moneys arising from the produce of the mines they could usually reach him by petition to the vice-warden, 19 while the purser, in turn, had and chief steward,' the ' understeward,' and a jury of twenty-four, half tinners and half merchants. Cf. also Acts of P. C. 1593, 266, 342. 11 Carew, Surv. of Cornw. (ed. 1811), p. 58. " Harrison, Report on the Laws and jurisdiction of the Stannaries, App. I. 13 Close, 6 Jas. I, pt. v. 14 Convoc. Cornw. 22 Jas. I, c. 21 ; 12 Chas. I, c. 18 ; 27 Geo. II, c. 9, 1 1 ; Add. MS. 6682, fol. 507. 16 Add. MS. 6713, fol. 190, 191. 16 Coke, Institutes (ed. 1661), bk. iv, p. 233. The same plaintiff had also met similar defeat in 1562 on presenting his bill of complaint in the Court of the Queen's Bench. 17 Harrison, Report on the Laws and 'Jurisdiction of the Stannaries, App. M. 18 Convoc. Cornw. 2 Jas. II, c. 6. 19 Ibid. 27 Geo. II, c. ii. 532
