"If it is possible that such a practice as that which has taken place in the present instance should be allowed to pass without a remedy (and no other remedy has been suggested), trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will be a delusion, a mockery, and a snare."
See Clark and Finnelly's Reports of Cases in the House of Lords, vol. xi. p. 351.
C. H. Cooper.
Cambridge.
Norman of Winster (Vol. viii., p. 126).—I do not know if W. is aware that there was a family of Norman who was possessed of a share of the manor of Beeley, in the parish of Ashford, Derbyshire, which came from the Savilles, the said manor having been purchased by Wm. Saville, Esq., 1687.
A Reader.
Arms of the See of York (Vol. viii., pp. 34. 111. 233.).—Thoroton has a curious note on this subject in his History of Nottinghamshire (South Muskham, in the east window of the chancel), from which it would appear that neither Thoroton himself, nor his after-editor Thoresby, could be aware of the change that had taken place. The note, however, may help to complete the catena of those incumbents of the see of York who (prior to Cardinal Wolsey) bore the same arms as the see of Canterbury:
"There are the arms of the see of Canterbury, impaling Arg. three boars' heads erased and erected sable, Booth, I doubt mistaken for the arms of York, as they are with Archbishop Lee's again in the same window; and in the hall window at Newstede the see of Canterbury impales Savage, who was Archbishop of York also, but not of Canterbury that I know of."—Vol. iii. p. 152., ed. Notts, 1796.
Can any of your antiquarian contributors say why the sees of Canterbury and York bore originally the same arms? Had it any relation to the struggle for precedence carried on for so many years between the two sees?
J. Sansom.