More information : Dispute between the Abbot of Cleeve and the Sherriff of Devon over the wreck of the RAPHAEL of Bristol, "cast away in Bude Bay when homeward bound from Danzig". (1)(2)
(Information from Y Sheppard H.81/652) (1)(2)
Indexed as the RAPHAEL in source (2), RAPHAELL in source (1).
David, abbot of Clyve, versus Philip Bemond, sheriff of Devon, and other commissioners, concerning the wreck at Poghwell and Treglaston of the ship RAPHAEL of Bristol.
'Note: The date of this document is given by the name of the sheriff, Philip Beaumond, Esq., who was sheriff of Devon from Nov. 5, 1467, to Nov. 5, 1468.' (3)
As transcribed in this source the original text reproduces scribal abbreviations which cannot be reproduced here. There are also a number of lacunae on the grounds of illegibility of the original text, represented by . . . .
The document is therefore slightly summarised at the beginning, then the sequence of events transcribed and translated into modern English by the compiler for readability, but where appropriate, salient points of the original may be quoted.
David, Abbot of "Clyve" addressed a letter to Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Chancellor of England, in this time period, basing a claim on the grant of "wrekk de meere in all his demene londes and tentes [tenements] in Poghwell and Trelasten in the Countie of Cornewell" granted to John, Abbot of Cleeve in 1421, and "his successors for evmore [evermore]".
'And now late certain goods and chattels coming by way of wreck within the said lands and tenements of the said Abbot in Poughill aforesaid were seized by certain servants and tenants of the said present Abbot ["seid nowe Abbot"] and to his use. Whereupon one John May of Bristol merchant, late possessor of a ship called the RAPHAELL of Bristol, charged with divers goods and merchandise at Gdansk in Prussia ["Dansk in Pruce"] to sail into this realm of England unto Bristol aforesaid, which was perished upon the high sea, made suit and petition unto your good Lordship to have a Commission directed to the Lord Fitzwarren and other to enquire whether the said ship, goods and merchandise were wreck or not, alleging ["surmitting"] in the said petition that certain merchants and mariners of the said ship had landed* in divers ports in the said realm of England and that the said ship had perished* and was imperilled** at Bude Bay ["Bedebay"] in the County of Cornwall where it was perished upon the high sea, out of the jurisdiction of every county.
The said Commission was granted upon the same petition, and thereupon it was found before Philip Beaumond esquire, Sheriff of the County of Devonshire, John Orchard and Walter Geyncote, commissioners in the said Commission, that certain persons being in the said ship landed at Sandwich in the shire of Kent, and certain persons landed at Plymouth in the shire of Devonshire, and that afterwards the said ship perished at Bude Bay in the said County of Cornwall and that divers goods of the said ship came to the hands of divers servants and tenants of your said beseecher.
And whether the said ship and goods were wreck or no, they knew not, and more they found not by the which inquiry your said beseecher understand that he was not nor is not excluded to claim the said goods by reason of wreck. And not withstanding this the said Commissioners against all turth and conscience have returned and certified that after the same ship thus perished . . . Richard Herlok and Thomas Donne and other mariners of the said ship being in the same ship at the time of its loss ["tyme of the perisshyng therof"] came to land at Bude Bay aforesaid alive, whereof the contrary is truth, the which your said beseecher at all times shall . . . put?] before your Lordship by the grace of God.
Upon the which return and certifcate at the special suit and petition of the said John May a Commission was awarded and directed to Humfrey, Earl of Devonshire, and others, to direct such persons to make . . . a restitution of all such goods that came to their hands according to the said inquisition found. And if they refuse to commit them to prison, there to abide unto the time that they will make them restitution. And also to inquire into whose hands the residue of the said merchandise came, and thereupon to make like restitution by force of which Commission the same Commissioners intend and propose to compel the said servants and tenants to make restitution of the said goods without due . . . x . . . answer of your said beseecher his said servants and tenants the which your said beseecher understands considering the right and title that he has to the said wreck and the wrong return and certificate made contrary to the . . . was found on the inquest whereof your said Lordship was not apprised***, is against right and conscience.
Please it your good Lordship to consider the promises and how if the said goods should so be taken out of the hands of [the said] tenants and servants whereas your said beseecher understands that he has every right and title to the said goods. It will now lie in his power to receive them again. Therefore that it might please your said Lordship to grant a [? . . . ] to the said Earl of Devonshire and the other Commissioners to bring an end to**** the execution of the said Commission unto the time that they have of your said Lordship other orders and to grant a written sub poena to the said John . . . commanding him by the same to appear before your said Lordship in the Chancery at a certain day by your said Lordship to be constrained***** there to show and allege such matter as he has for his for his interest in the premises and thereupon to do and . . . save as by your said Lordship shall be considered reasonable in that behalf and this for the love of God and in the way of charity.
Johannes de Hoppyng de London, Gentilman
Thomas Caan [canon?] de Clyve in Com Devon, yoman
Endorsed: Fiat responsio coram Rege in Canc. xv Mich. [Let there be a response in front of the King in Chancery on the 15th of the Michaelmas [term]. ](3)
* original "shuld lande", "shulde be perysshed", using the conditional sense, "should have landed", "should have perished", i.e. according to the report or allegations. This conditional sense is not now used in report in English, but remains current in French journalism, where the conditional is used for printed news reports.
** original "aventrid". The word "aventure" in OED is a peril or risk, and this seems a likely translation by comparison with other medieval wreck records, where "imperilled" is often used. but the letter "u" is not present. Whether this is by contraction or misspelling is not clear. A different word may be meant. "Ventre" is "stomach, belly, womb" according to the OED, and it could be that the ship's "belly" was broken into, i.e. her hull breached, which is consistent with the wreckage washing ashore.
*** original "ascertynyd", "ascertained", in the contemporary sense of "told, informed" [OED]
**** original "surcease", i.e. "cease, bring to an end" [OED]
****** original "lemyttid", "limited", in the sense "appointed, constrained" [OED]
[Poghwell appears to be consistently named throughout the document, but Trelasten is named again as Treglasten.]
It appears clear from the above account that the vessel "perished on the high sea", that is, came to grief offshore. This appears to be confirmed by the fact that it was "out of the jurisdiction of every county", suggesting it was lost at least three miles offshore. Wreckage and goods then appear to have come ashore near Bude. Poghwell appears to be consistently named throughout the document, and is clearly identifiable as the modern Poughill near Bude, suggesting that if servants and tenants there picked the goods up, suggesting Bude or its environs as the locale where the wreckage came ashore.
Trelasten, also mentioned as Treglasten in the original text, refers to a manor donated to Cleeve in 1234, some 12 miles south of Bude, and thus has no particular bearing on identifying the place of loss. However, its relationship to Cleeve meant that servants of the Abbot would have had an interest in the wreck, and it was not uncommon for wreckage to attract people for miles around, either in their own interests or those of their overlords.
John May of Bristol was the owner of the ship and a merchant involved in the freighting of the ship. This double interest suggests that he may have been on board, but this need not necessarily have been the case, as he is not named as one of the people who came alive to land. Clearly, though, he was alive, and wished to assert his rights in the matter, doubly so, as he was both owner and chief merchant.
Richard Herlok and Thomas Donne and other mariners came to land alive, which was disputed by the Abbot, in making his case. Presumably, given the distance offshore, they came to land by boat. This was the crux of the matter, since under medieval law, regardless of the condition of the ship, if anyone came to shore alive the vessel was technically not a wreck. (It did not have to be a person: a dog or a cat would do.) With the survival of any person the claims of owners and merchants could be upheld, rather than those of landowners upon whose lands the wreckage came ashore. However, citing the survivors by name seems to attest to the plausibility of their survival, even under the circumstances of the ship breaking up offshore, and the Abbot was technically on shaky ground in making this case. (4)
Owner: of ship, and of some or all of the cargo, John May of Bristol (3)
Date of Loss Qualifier: Approximate date of loss |